Randall, at 08:52 on Aug 19 1996, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

BG> True, Askey are not known for good after-sales service.

RB>> I suggest all you Dynalink owners out there do a bulk return to the steps 
RB>> of Askey Australia, & demand a refund (or a ROM upgrade)..PRONTO

BG> Good advice, particularly as the consumer laws are on their side.

RL> Yeah right, what about the Netcomm Series 3 probs. Why didn't they do
RL> the same??

Probably because the ITU-T recommendations do actually allow for BTLZ on
the V.42 fallback, which is MNP error correction.  It was just a pity that
most other modems didn't follow NetComm's peculiar (but correct)
interpretation.

OTOH, the Dynalinks are advertised as supporting BTLZ (V.42bis), yet are
demonstrably faulty if they do.  Ergo, they are not "fit for
purpose" as specified in Sections 72 and 73 of the Trade Practices
Act.

RL> Put in perspective, 99% of users wouldn't need/use the v42bis anyways.

Dunno, I suspect that your ISP's graphics and text screens would benefit
greatly from on-the-fly compression (assuming of course that their cps
rates have improved dramatically from their recently dismal 0.1Kb/sec).  :(

RL> The modems do all else required of them with aplomb.

Sure, I have no argument with that assertion at all.  :)

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- MsgedSQ/2 3.50