CF>V.32terbo as implemented by USR is _exactly_ the same as implemented by
CF>everyone else at the 16.8 and 19.2Kbps signalling rates, if it were not, 
the
CF>modems would not interoperate at those rates.
Again, I never said that at 16.8 or 19.2k that it wasn't compatible.  Or
that USR didn't implement the v.32terbo protocol.
USR advertised their 21k v.32terbo as v.32terbo.  As if they invented
v.32terbo itself, and it was the same one.  It wasn't.
CF> CB> That USR's extended version was incompatible with anyone elses
CF> CB> v.32terbo.
CF>-Nobody- else extended V.32terbo, so who was there to be incompatable 
th?
Everybody.  Because they still called it v.32terbo.  Because they
advertised their v.32terbo as 'the' v.32terbo.  As if it was the same as
everybody elses.
CF>Again, it -is- exactly the same at the signalling rates implemented by 
other
But those signaling rates are irrelevant for what I said.  The two
points of the message were 1) AT&T created v.32terbo, not USR.  2) All
USR did was to create an unofficial extension (that nobody else did)
that worked at 21k and still call that connection rate v.32terbo, even
though that rate was _not_ part of the v.32terbo that AT&T created.
CF> CB> The part of the original message I responded to strongly implied
CF> CB> (possibly explicitly.  I can't remember.  Been too long and the
CF> CB> message was way too long.) that USR created v.32terbo.
CF>The message asked a question, "Who developed V.32terbo?".
AT&T.  Who was not mentioned in that message.  Only USR was.
CF> CB> They didn't.  All they did was create their own incompatabile,
CF> CB> proprietary extension to v.32terbo, but left the name the same,
CF> CB> implying it was still the same old v.32terbo that everybody else
CF> CB> used.
CF>It is the same.
Not at USR's 21k connect rate it isn't.....  And that was the point.
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0162
---------------