On (09 Feb 96) Ian Smith wrote to Paul Wankadia...



 IS> That's a somewhat distorted representation of the facts, Paul.  The



Oh?



 IS> ITU-T was always going to assign a V-series number, probably 34, to what

 IS> had a working name of 'V.fast' during its development cycle.  When it



So, they were GOING to call it V.34, just that they "code-named"
it V.fast?



 IS> started, late 1990 as I recall, designers were looking at 19200 bps as

 IS> being the next big step.



Then AT&T bagged 19200 with its V.32terbo...



 IS> Halfway through, Rockwell saw a chance to sell tons of chips, and in one

 IS> of the most brilliant bits of marketing obfuscation ever seen, called

 IS> its (aka Hayes') outtake of the work to that date "V.Fast
Class".  The



Ahhh...  So the ITU-T then had to call its work V.34 anyway...



 IS> confusion that naming caused (including the implied homologation given

 IS> by 'borrowing' the ITU-T's 'V.' moniker), even amongst those who should

 IS> have known better, has lasted to this day - as well evidenced by the

 IS> sort of statement you've made above :)



Erm...  I don't quite get it...  What I WAS saying (I think :) was that if

the ITU-T is going to make a V.34bis, it should hurry before someone else

comes in and names its standard V.34bis and causes more confusion (sorry, I'm

a 14-year-old kid - I don't usually remember what I say <:(



BTW can I take what you said above as a compliment or an insult? :)



 IS> I gathered from something Arthur said recently that the extra speeds

 IS> might be incorporated in a revised V.34 (presumably because they employ

 IS> a refinement of the existing technology?), rather than 'V.34bis'.  Did I

 IS> hear June somewhere?



June?  Who's that?  Anyway, a revised V.34 would cause problemos no end...  I

certainly wouldn't like to be the ITU-T in that case... :)  A V.34bis would

be better...  Altho 28.8k -> 33.6k is not much of a speed increase...  Then

again, 300 -> 1200 must have seemed like heaven to a few people back in the

days of the olde modems :)



 IS> I find it interesting that raw American industry competitiveness up

 IS> against the slow wheels of international homologation processes seems to

 IS> have produced a very good bit of (largely software) engineering, in the



Whatever :)



 IS> end.  V.32bis took a lot longer than this to approach any sort of

 IS> stability and reliability between brands.  I'm still not sure whether



Did it?  I'm not too good on computing history... :)  Altho I do have an olde

C-64 and this PC I'm using is a 386SX/25...  I have a 2400 somwhere in my

room...  We have a computing museum in our house! :)



 IS> V.34 was able to be completed without the use of any patented

 IS> technologies requiring royalty payments to anyone, should one decide to

 IS> build a V.34 modem in one's garage :)  .. Arthur?



Yeah - V.34 was the ITU-T standard, so you couldn't really charge people for

using it in their modems, could you...  Unlike a proprietary standard...  BTW

Arthur who?  I know there's a Guru of Light and Knowledge called Arthur in

this echo, but I forget his last name... <:(



Chow.



Junyer Hakker.



... "This is Mururoa tagl#{at}$#%$%NO CARRIER"



--- PPoint 1.92