-=> Quoting Rick Collins to Richard Town <=-
 RC> It is _now_.  It wasn't _then_.  And you don't accept Rockwell's own
 RC> statements to the effect that they were not going to conduct interop
 RC> testing with 3Com/Lucent?
Given that there's not (as of this date) any V90 modems out there who can
say whether there's no interop or not
 
 RT> Any chance discussing the _original_ thread: V34 interop?
 RT> Thought not...
 RC> I thought you got all huffy about "discussing old protocols" or
Courier did offer excellent interop (after a period of 3429 signalling
difficulty).  As my log posts pointed out.  It only stopped when x2 was
introduced
 RC> something.  I thought you were pretty well "straightened out" on the
 RC> V.34 issues.  But if you want to re-open that issue, start by
It's only others of the cabal that have attempted to cloud the original
thread by getting all hot 'n bothered over 56k.  In an attempt to confuse
the casual reader in here
 RC> specifying what changed with V.34 between determination of the standard
 RC> and ratification. 
 RC> If you can't, then let's just consider that topic closed.
I don't have to.  I repeat:  after the 3429 symbol rate issue was fixed
all was fine until x2.  Then there was nowt.
 RC> I'm asking for the specific changes, BTW, since it was your contention
 RC> that USR released an non-compliant version of V.34 because they
 RC> released it before the standard was ratified.
Havn't said that either.  It may be V34 complient, but if V34 doesn't
guarantee interop, then what good is it?  More to the point tho.  If
some modems don't offer interop then that could be a matter of interest for
the trade press
Surely there's no tacit understanding between manufacturer's _not_ to
offer interop is there?  Yours, David's, and Craig's firewall would then
be understandable :)
rgdZ
Richard
--- FMail/386 1.02
---------------