Therefore, you end up with only one of few scenarios.
1. You potentially early deploy with USR, but have no interoperability with
80% of the remote client base that your supporting for 56K. Additionally
you would have no chance of getting this until an official ITU standard is
established (likely at least 2 years away history says). Can you really
only support 20% of the remote users with 56K and get by?
2. You deploy USR exclusively, and tell your users that the _must_ purchase
USR for 56K service (not likely).
3. You support 2 technologies and have seperate dial in pools (just like
the good old days :-(, and perportion each to the number of subscribers).
4. Support Lucent/Rockwell at the central site, and know that 80% of the
remote client side will be supported.
In any event none of these are ideal, but they are the realities of the
business. With USR you are completely proprietary. With Lucent/Rockwell you
cover the majority of the remote customers. USR is betting with its heavy
installed base of ISP central site modems that its proprietary approach
will work and enable the sale of millions of remote side modems. ISP's have
not suceeded by dictating to customers which equipment the should buy!
Livingston's objective is remote interoperability with the widest
deployment of products possible.
Best Regards.
Joe Sasek
>On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, John Powell wrote:
>
>...
>> Also, the analysts seem to think that USR has a 6 month jump on
>> Rockwell/Lucent, and as it is a flash process with USR (as opposed to
>> a hardware swap for Rockwell/Lucent hosts) widescale deployment of x2
>> will be much, much faster. Probably on the order of a full year in
>> many areas.
>
> And those analysts are likely wrong. The local USR SE is demoing a USR
>TC + Netserver PRI for a local ISP on January the 3rd. I was invited. I
>expected to be able to see X2 in operation (esp. since X2 has been
>announced to be in beta during December), but the SE told me that "X2
>would not be available". Since USR's own SEs will not, or can not
>demonstrate X2 on January 3rd, I don't think X2 even close to being ready
>that fast.
>
>> Lastly is the problem of when a standard is agreed upon, many
>> rockwell/Lucent users will have to upgrade their hardware again, with
>> USR it is a flash. Even if they pull off a flash process, that is new
>> to many of them (not USR), and they will be fighting those issues
>> along with catching up on 56K technology.
>
> As far as I know, the Lucent stuff is all software based. The
>Lucent chipset is completely different internally from Rockwell, and will
>implement different protocols. Lucent is doing v.flex and v.flex2, while
>Rockwell is doing K56, which Rockwell will be making compatible with
>v.flex. Regardless of what Rockwell does, Lucent is setting the
>direction.
>
> Rockwell/Ascend already has software upgradeable modems, and has had
>them for over a year. Lucent (as AT&T) has been making software
>upgradable modems much longer than that.
>
> I'm putting my money on v.flex. Lucent has more experience in the
>telecom area than USR. Plus, v.flex is a completely new chipset designed
>for 56k. USR will be running x2 on modems with a much older design (I
>don't belive the TC digital modems have changed at all in the last year).
>
>Tom
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________
Livingston Enterprises 4464 Willow Road
Joe Sasek Pleasanton, CA 94588-8519
V.P of Sales & Marketing http://www.livingston.com/
(510)426-0770 (Voice) (510) 426-8951 (Fax)
___________________________________________________________