> On Thu, 11 Jun 1998, Brian Elfert wrote:
>
> > I assume that the reason everyone is screaming about the V.90 delay is
> > because they want to support USR client modems at 56K speeds.
>
> That's part of it. The other part of it is that it is increasingly difficult
> to find K56Flex modems for sale new. Customers buying new modems today
> regardless of brand are finding v.90 on the shelves. The ability to support
> those customers is a Good Thing(tm).
Don't these all also support K56Flex too?
> Further complicating things are existing Rockwell-based client modems that
> can be configured to do only K56Flex or v.90, but not both due to lack of
> sufficient flash memory. If you have a client with one of these modems that
> wants to access your service and also connect to other online services using
> v.90 then it's a big hassle to re-write the flash every time.
How many customers really use multiple services with their modem, and the
other service supports V.90 and not K56Flex?
> > If you have a PM3, then when you bought it, you knew you couldn't support
> > USR client modems at 56K speeds. PM3s and USR client modems have been
> > incompatible at 56K speeds for over a year now. Why the big rush now?
>
> See above. The client side environment is changing toward v.90.
I hardly think it's Lucent's fault that Rockwell V.90 client modems were
available months before V.90 server side from Rockwell or Lucent.
Brian
-
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/>