Richard Town wrote the following to Craig Ford, and I quote (in part):
 -=> 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?
 RT> USR might like to try using the correct names, for a start.
 RT> Apparently in Skokie, V32bis is still termed V32.  Mebe it's the
 RT> local dialect?
It is reflective of the type of modulation technology used, thus V.32, 
V.32bis, and V.32terbo are identified as V.32 type links.
   CF> Unadulterated bovine fecal matter! Please detail _any_ change that
   CF> occured to V.32bis between the time it was voted out of SG14 and the
   CF> time it was adopted by the general assembly.
 RT> Why?  V32bis is now settled.
Because you claimed that there were interop problems between those vendors 
that released products before official adoption and those which _were_ 
actually late into the game. Your first claim was that USR was a late entry 
int the V.32bis market. You are flat wrong on both points.
 RT> Which is at least some saving grace for those trying to call UK 
 RT> x2-upgraded Couriers when V34 can't be negotiated 
 RT> done it in UK code at x2 denying any "foreign" V34 calls at all.
 RT> UK BABT-approved UK users are now having to use:
 RT> CRINTL72.ZIP [01] 3Com/USR FlashRom update for European Couriers   
 RT>                (inc UK) Includes USR x2/56k
 RT> leaving a big question over approvals status for those concerned
 RT> with such matters
I haven't had the time to personally investigate this one, but do note that 
it is again _only_ Rockwell clients that have a problem.
   RT> Try sticking to the subject in hand, before slithering off into
   RT> pastures already well trodden.  
 CF> Your claim was: "...refuse to recognise extended V42 commands..."
 CF> Where do you see a change of subject? It is direct rebuttal of your
 CF> claim.
 RT> My claim is that USR deliberately and by design attempts to limit
 RT> full capablities to others only of its own marque
You mean those that _fully_ implement the protocols? Lets put this mess 
finally to rest.
Remember this?
 RT>Let's put it this way:
   >
   > Symbol  Expected data   Preemphasis carrier
   > rate    rate
   > 2400    1001            0011        0
   > 2743    1010            0011        0
   > 2800    1010            0011        0
   > 3000    1011            0100        0
   > 3200    1100            0100        0
   > 3429    1100            0100        0
   >Now, you were saying?
The Rockwell is indicating a projected data rate of 28800, when it really 
wants to run at 33600. Why is it projecting the _same_ data rate for *both* 
3200 and 3429, when it really prefers 3429? One would assume that if a modem 
wanted to run at 3429, it would indicate that preference by assigning more 
weight to that symbol rate. If it thought it could do 33600, it shouldn't be 
saying "28800"! *THAT* is what -EVERY- other implementor of V.34 had to 
institue a work around for! Rockwell did this this after _months_ of foot 
dragging and posturing about getting it right. The truth was their planms of 
circumvneting ITU-T with V.FC didn't pan out, and they were caught in the 
midst of re-tooling.
  CF> Who is changing subjects?
 RT> See previous
You tried to change subjects when authortitative and independantly verifiable 
data directly refuting your claims was presented Richard.
As I stated, try again, but get some facts first.
Regards....
Craig
aka: cford@ix.netcom.com
   : craig.ford@2001.conchbbs.com
--- timEd/2 1.10+
---------------