IS> stability and reliability between brands.  I'm still not
 IS> sure whether V.34 was able to be completed without the use
 IS> of any patented technologies requiring royalty payments to
 IS> anyone, should one decide to build a V.34 modem in one's
 IS> garage :)  .. Arthur?

 AM> AT&T and Rockwell (and probably others) have stated to the
 AM> ITU-T that they would license their (patented) intellectual
 AM> property that was incorporated in V.34, so I assume that
 AM> their *is* patented technology in V.34.

Hmmm.  The way it's going these days.  So much for 'scientific community'.

 AM> V.8bis and V.34 (1996) should go to the first stage of
 AM> balloting in March 1996, so the formal ballot could be
 AM> passed and the new Recommendations formally approved in
 AM> June/July 1996.

Can you check something - Craig Ford has said that V.34 absolutely requires
V.8, and thus that V.34 modems _must_ implement V.32bis.  Is that so?

 AM> G.IEC (Improved Echo Canceller, following on from G.165)
 AM> will be receiving some attention also this year, especially
 AM> after the work that Telstra and others have done finding
 AM> out how existing echo cancellers interact with the V.34
 AM> handshaking process.

I've found 0011 has been working much better, consistently, since your
notification suggesting of not using 0015 - though I'm beginning to suspect
that I'm getting more busy signals related to this end, not the overseas
no.

 AM> Les Brown and Jack Moran of Motorola ISG (and ITU-T Study
 AM> Group 14 rapporteurs) have taken interest in the
 AM> interaction between V.34 modems and echo cancellers, which
 AM> may see changes made to G.IEC, but not draft V.34 (1996)
 AM> before their approval.

It's going to be a little awkward (as far as nodelist flags and such go) if
there'll be no difference between V.34 and V.34(96).

Cheers, Ian

--- MaltEd 1.0.b5