Frank, at 11:38 on Nov 05 1996, you wrote to David Drummond ...

FF> [...]

DD>> Futher to the above, I have thoughtfully typed in the 
DD>> Australian User's Addendum for you :-)

FF> Why thankyou. Now let me show you why it doesn't apply to my 
FF> Courier :-)

DD>>                         USRobotics
DD>>        The Intelligent Choice in Data Communications

DD>>                   COURIER V.32 terbo Modem

FF> My Courier has written on its front panel "Courier Dual 
FF> Standard V.34 Fax with V.32 bis". You could therefore quite 
FF> successfully argue that my modem is a different model from 
FF> yours, and not subject to these conditions. See below for 
FF> further proof.

Mine says "Courier Dual Standard Fax with V.32bis and V.FC"

FF> [...]

DD>> TELEPHONE PORT
DD>> The User's Manual refers to the use of a second telephone 
DD>> port on the modem. This port is not available on your 
DD>> modem.

FF> Mine is and works fine.

I've never tried mine...

FF> This shows that my Courier is physically different from 
FF> yours, so I would not be subject to these conditions.

Physically? or logically?  I would suggest that if we are running the same
SDL, our modems are the same...

FF> [rest deleted]

FF> Technically, my Courier should have a different Austel 
FF> permit number from yours, (but probably doesn't).

FF> Mine is A94/25F/0328.

Same number, therefore same modem, therefore same silly rules.

David
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq/2 3.10