-=> Quoting David Bowerman to Richard Town <=-
 RT> "Story" is right.
 DB> interoperability testing?  You did notice that it was not a 3Com or
 DB> Lucent representative? 
 DB> Lucent Technologies and 3Com Corporation Agree to Begin 56K
 DB> Modem Compatibility Testing Using New V.pcm Standard
Good for them.  Perhaps they need to?
 DB> on key technical issues referred to as V.pcm. The forthcoming standard,
 DB> comprised of an equitable mix of K56flex and x2 technology,
Hmmm...
"We expect users will see a performance enhancement and a slight
 coverage improvement with V.pcm [over x2]," said Neil Clemmons,
 vice president of marketing for 3Com's personal communications
 group.  Both x2 and K56flex products will be backward-compatible
 with the older proprietary technologies, equipment vendors said.
 All 3Com products that support V.pcm will also support x2.
 Likewise, all K56flex products upgraded to V.pcm--including those
 from Ascend Communications--will support K56flex clients
I'm sure it's possible to draw inferences from quotes to suit one's own
pre-determined stance.  My stance is that V34 has shown itself to be too
loose in possible interpretation to ensure interop.  I fear that this will
be repeated in V.90   As to who's fault one or the other or both is...
well, at this stage with no V.90 complient-claimed product yet on the market,
users have no info to go on.  Unlike V34 which still remains, to be
charitable, a variable
 DB> V.pcm software," said Bob Rango, general manager of modem integrated
 DB> circuits for Lucent's Microelectronics Group. "We expect other vendors
 DB> will join this effort when they have standard-based products to test."
Don't see anything wrong with this.
 DB> January 29, 1998 - - The arrival of an international standard for
 DB> 56-kbps modems was supposed to clear up a lot of marketplace
 DB> confusion. But on Thursday, analysts, modem vendors, and Internet
 DB> service providers indicated that things may get worse before they get
 DB> better.
This would appear to vindicate my position
 DB> Beguwala says that users of older K56flex modems will be able to
 DB> connect at approximately 56 kbps rates to V.pcm remote access
 DB> equipment based on Rockwell chips. And x2 users will be able to
 DB> connect to V.pcm-equipped 3Com ports. But even with V.pcm code on both
 DB> ends, an x2 device connected to a K56flex device will top out at the
 DB> 33.6 kbps of today's V.34 standard.
An x2 device is not a V.90 device.  What is the point here?
But with so many vested interests in both
makes of server, it would appear that there are already commercial pressures
involving themselves to defeat the purpose of an ITU(t) recognised standard.
 DB> Perhaps you should let us in on your sources that deny the above
 DB> quotes from Moiz Beguwala?
When did you last stop beating your wife?
 DB> Or is that another case of the famous
 DB> Richard "Rockwell can do no wrong" Town view of reality?  Quote us a
 DB> few sources contradicting those news stories that I've posted.  Let us
 DB> have a few sources for your apparent belief that 3Com and Lucent will
 DB> not be doing interoperability testing as one story says.  Let us have a
 DB> few sources letting us know that Rockwell is actually committed to
 DB> interoperability testing.  Perhaps a source for a story that Moiz
 DB> Beguwala, vice president of Rockwell personal communications division
 DB> was misquoted --
Don't think I've said any of the above.  Rather I've bemoaned the lack of
interop.  I would've thought you, and Craig, and others would've joined me
in whinging about lack of interop too.  But instead you've chosen to
attempt polarisation of views -- which does no good for future users at all
 DB> But then, I mustn't forget that to you, anything screwed up by
 DB> Rockwell is the fault of other folks for not being able to handle
 DB> Rockwell's screwups.

 
 RT> And still there's nothing about USR's once fabled V34 interop... 
 DB> Harping on USR's not keeping up with Rockwell's screwup of the week
 DB> again?
By deliberately only supporting one camp, and choosing to attack any other
supporters you are as guilty as the "suits" who care damn all about
the product, but only the bottom line.
It's time to come off that fence that you've, perhaps inadvertenly, impaled
yourself on.  Do you, or do you not support interop?  If no, then no response
is necessary.  If yes, then constructive comments as to how this can be
achieved would be welcome.  Especially since, if the postings you've made
are to be believed as becoming reality, the "free_jollies_in_Geneva_all_paid
_for_by_the_taxpayer" brigade have failed.
rgdZ
Richard
--- FMail/386 1.02
---------------