Richard Town wrote in a message to David Bowerman:
 DB> Richard, Lucent and 3Com are committed to doing interop testing.  For
 DB> that matter so are ZyXEL.  The only major name missing from the list is
 DB> Rockwell.
 RT> Groan.  Rockwell doesn't make modems.  So it'd be a bit silly for
 RT> them to do interop for modems they don't make, huh?
ROFLMAO!
Lucent is mostly selling chipsets so they shouldn't participate in interop 
testing either?  Instead of Rockwell who write the basic code for the 
firmware doing interop testing, every two-bit chipset stuffer is now going to 
their own interop testing and write all their own V.90 code?  Pull the other 
one, Richard.  It's got bells on it.
 DB> Lucent and 3Com are both setting up their own servers to
 DB> allow any manufacturer to call in to test their client implementations.
 DB> 3Com and Lucent will also be calling other manufacturer's servers with
 DB> their clients.
 RT> Bully for them.  Obviously they're expecting a load of
 RT> incompatibilities with their marques then
"Obviously"?  "A lot"?  My, we're getting free with the loaded verbiage.  
Perhaps they are willing to do this testing since they expect few problems.  
Of course, both USR and Lucent modems will be able to handle their 
proprietary 56K protocol and V.90 without requiring a reflash.  Hmmm.... a 
rerun of Rockwell dropping V.FC support.
 RT> By deliberately only supporting one camp, and choosing to attack
 RT> any other supporters you are as guilty as the "suits" who care damn
 RT> all about the product, but only the bottom line.
 DB> Richard, you spend your time dumping on USR and expect us to 
 DB> mistake you for an "impartial" observer?
 RT> Never mind all that balls;  where's your response to lack of USR
 RT> V34 interop (since x2)?
What lack of interop?  My callers don't seem to have the problems that you 
continuously babble about.
 DB> interoperability though Craig Ford, for one, has posted the relevant
 DB> data on several occasions.  Where are your messages dumping on Rockwell
 DB> for screwing up their handshaking?  Oh, yeah, that's USR's fault.
 RT> I've been effective (as others have) for any Zoom (being the
 RT> manufacturer) screw up.  Leaving Quick Disconnect and
 RT> Auto-Lapm/MNP10 conversion on in factory default wasn't exactly
 RT> firmware of the week.  Mistaking USR's so-called "V8bis" for a fax
 RT> calling tone wasn't Zoom's fault, neither was the 3429 symbol rate
 RT> recognition fiasco.
Really?  It wasn't the Rockwell end that presented the wrong data?  I could 
have sworn that it was the Rockwell end in the data I was shown.  And it's 
the V.8CI tone that Rockwell chipsets confused with a fax tone.  You do know 
that those tones have a rather precise definition?
 DB> I support interop.  I will blame USR if they screw up.
 RT> I've not seen this.  But perhaps they're perfect?
Obviously, you haven't been looking.
 DB> I will blame Lucent if they screwup.
 RT> Not seen this
Again, you haven't been looking.  Though most of my comments to Lucent/AT&T 
were via email.
 DB> I will blame Rockwell if they screw up.
 RT> But I've seen lots of this :)
 DB> Please note a couple of facts:
 DB> 1.  Lucent is committed to V.90 interop testing
 DB> 2.  3Com is committed to V.90 interop testing
 DB> 3.  ZyXEL is committed to V.90 interop testing
 DB> 4.  Rockwell has stated they will not participate in interop testing
 DB>     with other manufacturers.
 RT> See foregoing
 DB> Now which of the above companies is going to produce a chipset that
 DB> will have problems due to a lack of testing?
 RT> Havn't seen statements from TI, NEC, Shyogun, UMC, PCTel, umm....
 RT> Doesn't mean that they're _going_ to have interop problems tho 
TI is working with 3Com -- you did notice whose DSPs are used by USR/3Com?  
Cirrus Logic is doing interop testing on their chipset.  Ditto for virtually 
all the other responses that I've seen.
 RT> But still you've said nothing about USR's current lamentable V34
 RT> interop Reminds me of a certain Spurtster cretin who used to sign
 RT> himself "Modemhaus"  
Perhaps it's simply that I've seen few signs of "lamentable V34 interop" 
around here?
Regards,
       David
--- timEd/2 1.10+
---------------