Rod Speed wrote in a message to John Logothetis:

RS> There is no valid difference of opinion. V.Fast is the informal name
RS> for the new ITU-T standard which will become V.34 when its formally
RS> ratified.

JL> V.Fast is the "working name" for the proposed V.34 standard.

RS> Which is saying precisely what I said in different words.

Sure Rod, anything you say Rod. Playing with semantics as usual.

RS> V.FC, V.Fast Class, is Rockwells own standard which attempts to get
RS> pretty close to what V.34 will be. As best as they can guess.

It's not a guess on Rockwells part. The design of V.FC is closely modelled
on early drafts of the V.34 feature set.

JL> Yeah, but the question still remains: - Will V.34 be backward
JL> compatible with V.FC or will V.FC become a redundant proprietary
JL> protocol?. I suspect the latter.

RS> Depends on what you mean. I think its unlikely that the full
RS> technical detail of V.FC will actually be included in the
RS> full formally ratified V.34. But thats not to say that a
RS> particular set of modems which claim to implement V.34 wont
RS> also operate with V.FC modems. If you mean the last one,
RS> yes, that is what I think is most likely.

As I said to Geoff, I'm more inclined to think that the first batch of V.34
modems will provide limited V.FC compatability whilst later models will
do-away with V.FC compliance altogether. In that sense, buying a V.FC modem
now is not a good investment if one considers the possible redundancy of
such a protocol in light of V.34 reaching critical mass early in its
acceptance phase.


John.

--- timEd/2-B11