RS> Thats distinctly arguable actually. Just which mandatory
RS> bit of V34 are you claiming they dont comply with ?

PE> You weren't really expecting a wild claim like that to be backed
PE> up with anything more substantial that rabid zealotry were you?

RS> That was meant to be a rather rhetorical question, I know damned well
RS> that there aint no such thing that he can use, and know he cant provide
RS> it and prove that Netcon has broken that mandatory bit of V34.

And you presumably didn't notice that my question was also
rhetorical?

RS> And just where do they actually advertise 100% compliance anyway ?

PE> Well, there is only one V.34 standard,

RS> It, like most of the more recent V standards, do have optional bits.
RS> Split rates is one example. You dont have to have that to be V34.
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^
                                                           
Exactly, to conform to the V.34 standard, of which there is only
one, does not mean that you have to implement things that are 
specified as optional in the spec.  If the spec says that trellis
coding must be in the range of 16 to 64, it does not mean that
the M34F is out of spec for choosing 16, any more than the Courier
is out of spec for choosing 64.

PE> and if they say their modem supports V.34, I expect it to be 100%
PE> compliant, otherwise it should be advertised "similar to V.34".

RS> You are mangling the story there when some bits are optional.
RS> And it cant be 'false advertising' if say they dont do 64 state
RS> trellis, but do say its a V34 modem.

If 64-state trellis is not mandatory, then Netcomm are free to
advertise their modem as V.34.  If they only implement 2-state
trellis coding, and that is not allowed in V.34, you must have
at least 16, then they are doing false advertising.  Bill really
does come up with some whoppers.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---