PW> Too right...  BTW do you know if the V.34bis standard is
 PW> going to be ratified
 PW> soon?  Otherwise, it will go the way of V.34 (which the
 PW> ITU-T was going to
 PW> call V.fast, until Rockwell made its V.FC and kicked the ITU-T to V.34 :)

That's a somewhat distorted representation of the facts, Paul.  The ITU-T
was always going to assign a V-series number, probably 34, to what had a
working name of 'V.fast' during its development cycle.  When it started,
late 1990 as I recall, designers were looking at 19200 bps as being the
next big step.

Halfway through, Rockwell saw a chance to sell tons of chips, and in one of
the most brilliant bits of marketing obfuscation ever seen, called its (aka
Hayes') outtake of the work to that date "V.Fast Class".  The
confusion that naming caused (including the implied homologation given by
'borrowing' the ITU-T's 'V.' moniker), even amongst those who should have
known better, has lasted to this day - as well evidenced by the sort of
statement you've made above :)

 PW> What I mean is that someone will prolly make another
 PW> standard that is really
 PW> popular (like V.FC was) and then V.34bis will have to live
 PW> in equality with
 PW> the proprietary standard...

I gathered from something Arthur said recently that the extra speeds might
be incorporated in a revised V.34 (presumably because they employ a
refinement of the existing technology?), rather than 'V.34bis'.  Did I hear
June somewhere?

I find it interesting that raw American industry competitiveness up against
the slow wheels of international homologation processes seems to have
produced a very good bit of (largely software) engineering, in the end. 
V.32bis took a lot longer than this to approach any sort of stability and
reliability between brands.  I'm still not sure whether V.34 was able to be
completed without the use of any patented technologies requiring royalty
payments to anyone, should one decide to build a V.34 modem in one's garage
:)  .. Arthur?

Ian

--- MaltEd 1.0.b5