-=> Quoting Craig Ford to Richard Town <=-
 RT> The point is that USR was late into the V32bis arena, preferring to
 RT> try and force their proprietary HST at 14k4 instead.
 CF> Forval, Digicom, USR were the first vendors to have V.32bis modems on
 CF> the market, and they did so _before_ the recommendation was officially
 CF> ratified. Where do you dream this stuff up at?
So, modems that follow the ratified V32bis work amongst themselves but
have a difficulty with those that followed their own pre-ratification
methods.  No dreaming necessary for working that one out.
 
 RT> They tried it on with V.FC, but that was a V42bis glitch if memory 
 RT> serves, after being late there too preferring to hold on to their 
 RT> proprietary 21k6 and then go to V34 directly.  They, as I've 
 RT> proved, did do it at V34+/V34Plus, and have definately definately 
 RT> done it in UK code at x2 denying any "foreign" V34 calls at all.
 RT> Add to this the decision to stay out of 56k Open Forum, go to fax
 RT> Class2.0 before ratification
 >: > Yes, there is a bug in the Rockwell implementation of V.42.  At
 >: > startup, when V.42 is required to send an "EC", the Rockwell V.42
 >: > implementation sends an "EM".
This is extended V42 which USR has never even recognised as existing,
let alone negotiated with.  But, since you feel the need to change the
subject...
 >: :So, we do that because we have extended services. Extended services can
 >: :be disabled with AT-K0."
 CF> Try again Richard, but get some _facts_ first.
Try sticking to the subject in hand, before slithering off into pastures
already well trodden.  FYI Extended V42 requests should _not_ have been
switched on as default.  That was corrected with the next ROM update
ver1.309.  USR has never supported Miracom protocols beyond 4 for error
correction simply because of being too mean!  And since MNP10/ACE kicked
HST_CELLULAR out of sight, they dropped cellular support altogether rather
than provide at least something.  Huh?
rgdZ
Richard
--- FMail/386 1.02
---------------