> I *HATE* them. Proprietary bullshit protocols screwing up compatibility
> just because a couple of companies were trying to force their garbage in as
> a standard instead of using the standards system.
Actually, v.FC could be interpreted as some companies rushing to market
before the protocol was ironed out in order to grab market share.
People with v.FC modems still cause us trouble, and all our modems do
support it...or at least their interpretation of it.
> We're compiling a list of the indlividual standards. The plan is V.34
> and the older *real* standards that were subsumed in the evolution.
What about v.34+? It's amazing how many clients ask if we support v.34+.
Never mind the fact that most local phone lines here have a hard enough
time with v.34 speeds. I just upgraded one Digicom quad card to v.34+,
and funny thing, it still can't get connections much higher than 24000.
I've actually seen a few clients connect to the upgraded ports at 28.8,
but most are a notch or a few lower...but those ports now support v.34+.
Was it worth ($7.5 + minute of my time)/port to upgrade?? Will it be
worth $480 and an hour of my time to upgrade the whole rack?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr.
________Finger jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______