On Sun 03 Mar at 00:17 Paul Edwards (3:711/934.9) wrote to Arthur Marsh:

BG> I'd love to Paul, but the V.34 document is bloody hard 
BG> to obtain.  Arthur in Aust_Modems would be the best 
BG> prospect, I'd imagine.  Nonetheless, there are still 
BG> certain aspects of the V.34 specs which NetComm (i.e. 
BG> Rockwell) has so far chosen not to employ.

 PE> Arthur, do you know anything about these claims that Netcomm
 PE> doesn't conform to the V.34 spec?  I have serious doubts 
 PE> about that claim myself.  BFN.  Paul.

Lewin Edwards has a copy, but if any company were serious about their
compliance, they'd publish a Protocol Implementation Compliance Statement
(PICS), which would indicate ranges of optional values supported and some
claim to support all the required features of a standard.

Half-duplex V.34 operation comes to mind, as do the 200 bps auxilliary
channels, 64 state Trellis coding...

--- msgedsq 2.1