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 every 
  CF-> other implementation...
 CB> It is the same as far as the AT&T specs go.  Yes.  But USR went
 CB> beyond what AT&T's v.32terbo allowed.
And it is _clearly_ identified as being a *proprietary* extension of the 
protocol.
   CF-> If V.32terbo as implemented buy USR were not the same as
   CF-> implemented by other vendors, the modems would not 
   CF-> interoperte at 16.8 and 19.2Kbps. If you want look at an 
   CF-> extension of V.32bis that operated at those signalling
   CF-> rates that _is_ incompatable, take a look at the ZyXEL 
   CF-> implementation of 16.8 and 19.2Kbps signalling rates.
 CB> Again, you are focusing on the 'official' AT&T 19k v.32terbo. 
 CB> That's never been at question.  This is about USR's 21k
 CB> _extension_. 
Which has been from the outset identified as a proprietay extension.
   CB> Not at USR's 21k connect rate it isn't.....  And that was the
   CB> point.
   CF-> Nobody else implemented a proprietary extension, but anybody else 
   CF-> who implemented V.32terbo could link at the signalling rates 
   CF-> stipulated by the protocol specification. I fail to see the 
   CF-> incompatability that you claim.
 CB> Since you are having comprehension difficulties, one last time I'll
 CB> try to put it into simpler terms....
 CB> AT&T created v.32terbo that could go to a max of 19k.
 CB> USR and many others implemented that 'standard' protocol.
 CB> USR created their own extension that could connect at 21k.
 CB> USR still called that 21k connection "v.32terbo", just like all the
 CB> other 19k v.32terbo implementations everybody else was doing. 
 CB> But, the v.32terbo protocol, as *defined* by AT&T (the 'creators'
 CB> of it), could _only_ go as high as 19k.  No higher.  Under no
 CB> conditions. 
 CB> Therefor, that 21k connection could not be "v.32terbo".  It can be
 CB> called an extension to v.32terbo (such as v.32terbo+, or "USR's 21k
 CB> extension to v.32terbo"), but it can not be called v.32terbo
 CB> because the v.32terbo does not allow connections at that rate.
For the umpteenth time Carey, USR's extension, was _called_ an extension of 
the protocol from the very beginning. There was no incompatability with 
V.32terbo modems that you originally claimed.
Regards....
Craig
aka: cford@ix.netcom.com
   : craig.ford@2001.conchbbs.com
--- timEd/2 1.10+
---------------