BG> What I am suggesting is that a USR to USR will work better than
BG> a NetComm to USR, on the SAME poor line.  Do you dispute that?

RS> Yes, we dont KNOW its a poor line now that we KNOW the USR stats
RS> are meaningless unless there is a Courier on each end. AND we DO
RS> know that WITH a Courier on each end, your line to Paul isnt too bad.

PE> What makes you think that its not the other way around?  The
PE> stats are accurate when there's a Netcomm online, and stuffed
PE> when there's another USR online?  Or indeed, stuffed for both?

Because we have an independent measure of your line,
the calls by Russ to Bill and you with a USR on BOTH
ends, which shows Bills is significantly worse than yours.
Bill and you calling the bulldog too for that matter.
The USR/USR stats do correlate well with total thruput,
particularly when you include the Russ/Bulldog calls.

And its pretty clear that Courier/M34F sessions are a bit weird quite
apart from the stats, coz while M34F/M34F calls from the begley to you
get the best thruput possible, they drop when you have a Courier on.
Presumably because the fucked stats get the Courier to optimise its
params less than ideally for what the line really can do.

Note I am talking PURELY about successfully handshaked sessions,
the handshake failures are a different issue entirely, tho may be
due to the Courier getting the analysis of the line so wrong that
it doesnt drive the line properly with an M34F on the other end,
and that itself contributes to the handshake failure.
@EOT:

---