Re: (PM) V.90 bitching

Jon List (jonlist@flanet.com)
Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:50:21 -0400

At 01:12 PM 6/11/98 -0700, you wrote:
>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.

Zoom sells a "Dual Mode" v.90/K56Flex modem, but we all know how cheap most
end users are, and they aren't going to buy a Dual Mode one for an extra
20-30 smackers if thats the case.

And since alot of people get their modem preinstalled from the shop/chain
they bought their system, they're usually stuck to one protocol. I couldn't
see any of these shops driving up their cost by installing a "real" modem.
I've noticed most places use the cheapest OEM stuff they can find most of
the time.

v.90 is going to do nothing but become more and more widespread every day.
The time has come where we now *HAVE* a standard protocol. I don't see
where the argument "we've had two incompatible protocols this long" holds
weight anymore.
But i'm also all for proper testing and implementation of the
v.90/K56flex/v.34 codebase for PM3's, and that codebase being properly
functional with all protocols. The old standby "when it's done" sounds fine
with me. I'll just continue to wait, keeping a daily watchful eye on all
the Lucent/Liv info lines.

I had my first call from a v.90 customer today, asking why he's gotten
31200, 33600 the last few days. I explained the v.34 incompatibilities and
the for now "good of the many outwieghs the good of the few". Thank god he
was understanding. :)

-
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/>