First off, v.90 is not now and will not be a standard until September or
thereabouts;
second, Rockwell interopability was mentioned specifically in Livingston's
open beta as a problem. It is _beta_ code which I definitely do not want
Livingston to stop distribution of in the future for use by more aggressive
ISPs;
...All this talk of misrepresentation is placing the blame somewhere it
doesn't really belong. Neither Livingston, nor USR, nor _any_ modem
manufacturer is making anyone go v.90.
ISPs who can handle their equipment potentially getting out of control and
can react with appropriate and fast action to rectify issues that might
happen, ISPs who are not your average ISP, will be the first to take
advantage of implementing v.90. We did not lose KFlex functionality, and we
gained v.90 functionality for US Robotics with an upgrade. Which for all
intensive purposes is 56K for every single user who had either standard
previously available, out there. Some of it is KFlex, some is v.90. But
hell, it works, and it works well. If this is not a viewpoint you can see,
than v.90 BETA is not for you.
This is much like some of our users who are very excited about new
technologies, but do not understand even the most rudimentary concepts and
do not pay attention to the status of these technologies. Do we run out and
buy xDSL modems because we read in PC Home magazine or somewhere that xDSL
is the wave of the future? No. We realize Bellsouth, and most other major
telcos who have a vise grip on the market, will prevent xDSL from moving an
inch, and do not invest. My point is - it's a decision. Your decision.
-doug
>Is it only me, or is there something wrong here?
>
>V.90 is supposed to be a standard among several
>hardware shops. If the V.90 modem of Rockwell
>is incompatable with the V.90 terminal server
>of Lucent, THERE IS NO V.90 STANDARD.
>
>This is what a standard means: brand "A"
>(Rockwell modem) connects to any brand supporting
>the same standard (V.90 PM-3). If it does not
>work it is not an issue of who is wrong,
>(Rockwell did not submit to compatability
>testing), it is an issue of either:
>
>1) one party is using the name of the standard
>without supporting the standard, fraud; or
>
>2) neither party bothered to conform to the
>standard, both the Termnal server maker and
>the modem maker have misrepesented their product
>and damaged the purchaser.
>
>Which is it?
>
>The standard is written down I presume
>there is no need for ISP's buying PM-3's
>or customers buying Rockell, 3COM or USR
>V.90 modems to suffer incompatablilities.
>
>Whoever does not meet the standard
>as written down should refund all the
>money collected for a product with
>the V.90 label on it. How could
>someone who does not meet V.90
>keep money paid for a product that
>was guaranteed to be V.90 but
>is not V.90 ?
>
>If it is pre-V.90, call it that
>and let your customers know that you have
>not yet lived up to the "free upgrade
>to V.90" promose made on the outside of
>your box, yet.
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
>'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
>Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>