david, at 19:22 on May 23 1996, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

db>> and start implementing the company's first V.32bis/V.42bis
modems, but for 
db>> whatever reason leave before the job's done.

BG> Sacked for incompetence, more likely.  :)

db> Judging from the programming style of the guy I know who used to work at 
db> NetComm, I have no doubt some probably *were* sacked for incompetence - 

Ah, that probably explains their M5s and M7s then...

db> I also have no doubt that *somewhere* in NetComm, there's something who 
db> both knows what they're doing and is trying really hard to fix all the 
db> problems introduced by the previous programmers.

I doubt he'll last too long though, as I know all about pissing into the
wind, which is why I left Chandlers.  Twice.

db> What if all the top programmers left USR, and management hired drop-kicks 
db> from, oh, I dunno .. MBE, say.  Would you *still* want a USR modem?

Yep, but I'd be keeping the one I already have.  After all, USR themselves
promised me that the Courier would be the last modem I'll ever need.  :)

BG> That's why we had the old CCITT recommendations, although I must admit
BG> that the use of BTLZ over MNP4 (instead of MNP5) was indeed stated as
BG> being optional, although the fact that EVERY other modem in the WORLD
BG> just happened to do it the right way seemed to be irrelevant as far as
BG> NetComm was concerned.

db> Of course - there was a period of time there that NetComm was *very* bloody 
db> arrogant (I complained over the 'phone to the MD at one stage, about the 
db> Series 3 fiasco). 

Even worse, they finally acknowledged that they had a problem, yet still
had the nerve to charge around $400 for the board replacement which fixed
it (turned it into a Series 4, in fact).

db> They're nowhere near "perfect" (as much as an Australian
commercial entity 
db> could be) at the moment, but in my dealings with them they're certainly 
db> better than they used to be.

Polish their marble staircase more frequently, do they?

db> Yikes!  Going through some old archives I found the letter (dated August 
db> 31, 1992) that I sent to NetComm that started the above conversation with 
db> NetComm's MD (Chris Howells) - here's a quote from said letter:

db> "I hope that you're not implying that NetComm modems do not correctly
db> implement V42bis.  The current implementation is 100 percent compliant
db> with the specs.  It's just not compatible with anything else."

ROFL!  And he was being a bit economical with the truth anyway, as it was
NOT 100% compliant with the then CCITT specs at all, as they employed an
OPTION, and NOT the industry-accepted practice.

BG> but it's just a pity that you could only do this between two identical
BG> series 3 NetComms.

db> Actually, if the CCITT specs said that MNP4 over BTLZ was an option and all 
db> the other modems *didn't* support it, you *could* argue that *they* were 
db> "broken" for not negotiating the appropriate session when
LAP-M wasn't 
db> available.

Doesn't matter, common usage should have made it the accepted practice. 
Just like baud and bps (ask Paul).  :)

db> In any case, yes NetComm were very bloody arrogant at that time.

At $80 for an M5 EPROM reburn, yeah, I'd call that pretty damn arrogant.

BG> And Paul saw fit to buy a modem from these morons?  Bloody hell.

db> Hey, there are at least three others out here using NetComm modems, and 
db> we're not experiencing anywhere near as many problems!  :-)

Funny, the ONLY problem with my Courier is that it doesn't like Paul's
NetComm (nor even his Viper, for that matter).  It works fine with
everybody else's NetComm, so what's different at Wollstonecraft, I wonder?

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- MsgedSQ/2 3.30