-=> Quoting Craig Ford to Richard Town <=-
 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?
USR might like to try using the correct names, for a start.
Apparently in Skokie, V32bis is still termed V32.  Mebe it's the
local dialect?
 
 CF> Unadulterated bovine fecal matter! Please detail _any_ change that
 CF> occured to V.32bis between the time it was voted out of SG1 and the
 CF> time it was adopted by the general assembly.
Why?  V32bis is now settled.  Which is at least some saving grace for those
trying to call UK x2-upgraded Couriers when V34 can't be negotiated
 RT> done it in UK code at x2 denying any "foreign" V34 calls at all.
UK BABT-approved UK users are now having to use:
CRINTL72.ZIP [01] 3Com/USR FlashRom update for European Couriers
                  (inc UK) Includes USR x2/56k
leaving a big question over approvals status for those concerned with
such matters
 RT> Try sticking to the subject in hand, before slithering off into
 RT> pastures already well trodden.  
 CF> Your claim was:
 CF> "...refuse to recognise extended V42 commands..."
 CF> Where do you see a change of subject? It is direct rebuttal of your
 CF> claim.
My claim is that USR deliberately and by design attempts to limit full
capablities to others only of its own marque
 CF> Who is changing subjects?
See previous
rgdZ
Richard
--- FMail/386 1.02
---------------