DB>You stated that USR's implementation of v.32terbo was "proprietary and 
unabl
DB>to work with other v.32terbo modems".
I didn't say that the 'official' v.32terbo speeds were not the same and
that USRs wouldn't connect at that speed.  Only that USR's extension was
definetly propreitary and wouldn't connect with other v.32terbo modems.
After all, both modems were labeled as v.32terbo, but if a user tried to
connect the two, you definetly would not be able to connect at 21k, even
though they both were obviously v.32terbo modems and 'should' be able to
connect because they both obviously implemented the same protocol (after
all, it _was_ same name.)
DB>to work with other v.32terbo modems".  As for the rest of your comments, 
cou
DB>you supply a source for for your statement that v.32terbo was public 
domain.
Craig Ford's own comm primer.  As he generally takes pains to make sure
it's accurate....
V.32terbo - 19200bps, with fall back to 16800bps. Designed by AT&T, and is
public domain, so any manufacturer can use this standard and put it into
their modems. USR has further extended this to support a proprietary link
rate of 21600bps.
Note that he also calls USR's 21k 'v.32terbo' "proprietary" extension.
DB>Given that USR's version of v.32terbo would connect with any other
DB>manufacturer's version of v.32terbo as evidenced by the number of people 
who
DB>connected to my system at those speeds, it's hard to see where you found a
DB>basis for your claim that USR's implementation of v.32terbo was unable to 
wo
DB>with other v.32terbo modems.
Not 'v.32terbo' itself.  Yes, that standard protocol worked among
modems.  It's the extension that USR made that wasn't compatabile with
other modems.  Even though it had the same name, it wasn't capable of
connecting at USR's 21k to other modems.
DB> CB> All USR did was to create an incompatible extension with the same
DB> CB> name, and to confuse the protocol naming situation.
DB>What standard?  V.32terbo was an AT&T proprietary protocol which was never 
a
DB>ITU-T standard though AT&T did try to fit the name to the ITU-T naming
DB>convention (V.27ter for example).  USR fully supported the AT&T protocol 
wit
They named it that way because it was an offshoot of v.32.  They
realized that their extensions were different from the standard v.32,
even though v.32terbo could still connect at those rates, and so they
gave it a different name.
DB>an extension that only affected v.32terbo connects between USR Couriers --
DB>that extension was covered under the ASL catch-all.  You could always set
DB>S34.1=1 to disable the 21600 link speed.
Right.  But the points were
1) The part of the message I originally responded to seemed to strongly
imply that USR created v.32terbo.  (As the discussion was USR vs.
Rockwell.)  In USR's own docs, no they don't say they created it.  But
the advertisements back then, the reviews, the ads, etc. generally
phrased things such as if USRs and everybody elses was identical.
I've seen other modem & bbs primers come right out and say that USR
created the v.32terbo standard, too.  Not just the 21k extension, but
v.32terbo itself.
2) USR didn't create v.32terbo.  AT&T did.  AT&T was not mentioned in
that message.
3) The only thing USR did with v.32terbo (beyond implementing the AT&T
version), was to extend it and still call the 21k connect speed
'v.32terbo', which it wasn't.  The 21k connect speed was not mentioned
or covered in the 'official' AT&T spec.  Therefor the 21k connect speed
is _not_ v.32terbo.  It is v.32terbo 'like' etc.
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0162
---------------