Richard Town wrote the following to Craig Ford, and I quote (in part):
   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 
  CF> on the market, and they did so _before_ the recommendation was 
  CF> officially ratified. Where do you dream this stuff up at?
 RT> So, modems that follow the ratified V32bis work amongst themselves
 RT> but have a difficulty with those that followed their own
 RT> pre-ratification methods.  No dreaming necessary for working that
 RT> one out.
Unadulterated bovine fecal matter! Please detail _any_ change that occured
to V.32bis between the time it was voted out of SG1 and the time it was 
adopted by the general assembly. 
Your claim was that USR was late into the arena, that claim is pattently 
false.
  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".
 RT> This is extended V42 which USR has never even recognised as
 RT> existing, let alone negotiated with.  But, since you feel the need
 RT> 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.
 RT> Try sticking to the subject in hand, before slithering off into
 RT> pastures already well trodden.  
Your claim was:
 "...refuse to recognise extended V42 commands..."
Where do you see a change of subject? It is direct rebuttal of your claim.
 RT> USR has never supported Miracom protocols beyond 4 for error 
 RT> correction simply because of being too mean!  And since MNP10/ACE 
 RT> kicked HST_CELLULAR out of sight, they dropped cellular support 
 RT> altogether rather than provide at least something.  Huh?
Who is changing subjects?
Regards....
Craig
aka: cford@ix.netcom.com
   : craig.ford@2001.conchbbs.com
--- timEd/2 1.10+
---------------