Carey Bloodworth wrote the following to Craig Ford, and I quote (in part):
 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
 CF>not, the modems would not interoperate at those rates.
 CB> Again, I never said that at 16.8 or 19.2k that it wasn't
 CB> compatible.  Or that USR didn't implement the v.32terbo protocol.
 CB> USR advertised their 21k v.32terbo as v.32terbo.  As if they
 CB> invented v.32terbo itself, and it was the same one.  It wasn't.
V.32terbo as implemented by USR _is_ *EXACTLY* the same as every other 
implementation, if it were  not, the modems would not interoperate. Nowhere 
is it implied that USR invented the protocol (in fact AT&T doesn't have much 
to go on becaue V.32terbo is itself is a fairly trivial extension of 
32bis).
    CB> That USR's extended version was incompatible with anyone elses
    CB> v.32terbo.
  CF>-Nobody- else extended V.32terbo, so who was there to be 
  CF>incompatable with?
 CB> Everybody.  Because they still called it v.32terbo.  Because they
 CB> advertised their v.32terbo as 'the' v.32terbo.  As if it was the
 CB> same as everybody elses.
Again, it _is_ the same.
    CF>Again, it -is- exactly the same at the signalling rates implemented
    CF>by other
 CB> But those signaling rates are irrelevant for what I said.
If V.32terbo as implemented buy USR were not the same as implemented by other 
vendors, the modems would not interoperte at 16.8 and 19.2Kbps. If you want 
to look at an extension of V.32bis that operated at those signalling rates 
that _is_ incompatable, take a look at the ZyXEL implementation of 16.8 and 
19.2Kbps signalling rates.
 CB> The two points of the message were 1) AT&T created v.32terbo, not 
 CB> USR.
Thre was never any question about that.
 CB> 2) All USR did was to create an unofficial extension (that nobody 
 CB> else did) that worked at 21k and still call that connection rate
 CB> v.32terbo, even though that rate was _not_ part of the v.32terbo
 CB> that AT&T created. 
The is nothing "official" about V.32terbo. The extension to the protocol was 
duly noted as only being functional between two USR modems. That is why it is 
proprietary. Not everyone implemented asymmetric signalling rates under 
V.32bis either, but it was still V.32bis.
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?".
 CB> AT&T.  Who was not mentioned in that message.  Only USR was. 
AT&T was the answer to the question that was asked.
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.
 CB> Not at USR's 21k connect rate it isn't.....  And that was the
 CB> point. 
Nobody else implemented a proprietary extension, but anybody else who 
implemented V.32terbo could link at the signalling rates stipulated by the 
protocol specification. I fail to see the incompatability that you claim.
Regards....
Craig
aka: cford@ix.netcom.com
   : craig.ford@2001.conchbbs.com
--- timEd/2 1.10+
---------------