-=> Quoting Craig Ford to Richard Town <=-
 RT> Don't think I've said any of the above.  Rather I've bemoaned the
 RT> lack of interop.  I would've thought you, and Craig, and others
 RT> would've joined me in whinging about lack of interop too.  But
 RT> instead you've chosen to attempt polarisation of views -- which
 RT> does no good for future users at all 
 CF> Look back as far as you can Richard, you will find that my position
 CF> has _always_ been one which supports maximal interoperability between
 CF> modems from whomever.
Looking back I can only see you bemoaning Rockwell "shortcomings"
 CF> The only things I have called you to task on are
 CF> unsubstantiated claims, or outright falsehoods.
Claims I've made are substantiated.  As was USR's interop between fixing
V34 signalling differences (inability to cope with valid 3429 symbol rate
calls) and X2 (where valuable corrected interop differences
appear to have been discarded)
 CF> As for V.90, consumers could care less about which company has the
 CF> most of their intellectual property inherent in the protocol, all they
 CF> want is something that will work irrespective of whose central site
 CF> equipment is on the server end.
Fully support this.  Time will tell ;-)
rgdZ
Richard
--- FMail/386 1.02
---------------