NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/dcom/modems/17183

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-23 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!hayes!tnixon
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Motorola Codex 326x should be reference for all others
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Nov 92 10:26:14 EDT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA
Lines: 57

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Geoffrey
Welsh) writes:

>    I'm the first to declare the advantages of standards, but those who bought
> PEP years ago got their money's worth and more.  ...
>    No, people who bought PEP were *not* wasting their money as long as they
> were connecting to others who invested in PEP.  The same is true of all
> proprietary schemes, from USRobotic's HST protocol through these hotshot Codex
> devices.

I must agree with Geoff.  I don't think anyone here is more a
proponent of standards than myself.  I _do_ have my disagreements
with Codex, AT&T, and other companies with regard to their
pre-V.fast products, but these disagreements have NOTHING to do with
benefits (or lack thereof) to the end user.  My concerns are more
along the lines of (a) don't mislead people into thinking they're
getting a "real" V.fast modem [there's no such thing, yet], or that
you're sure you'll be able to upgrade them to the real standard at
no cost or some low fixed cost, and (b) don't expect the CCITT to
bend over backward to make sure you CAN do such upgrades [by
crippling the final standard so that you can implement it on your
current platform with just a ROM upgrade].  I do believe that
shipping such pre-V.fast products -- particularly by companies who
are actively involved in the V.fast committee -- distorts the
process, unavoidably and unfortunately involving political and
marketing issues even more than they would otherwise be.

That said, however, one cannot fault these companies for wanting to
fulfill a demand in the marketplace for even higher throughput than
is possible with V.32bis.  There are certainly applications which
benefit from it, and which will pay back MANY TIMES OVER the
difference in cost between a V.32bis-only modem and one of these
pre-V.fast modems long before the standard is done, just from
savings in long distance costs alone.  Many of these are "closed
systems", in which compatibility is not important -- but since all
of these modems also support V.32bis, you have compatibility at the
highest current standard speed when you need it.  If you think of
this class of products as being good quality V.32bis modems with a
proprietary "turbo" mode for use within your own company for closed
applications, then who is hurt by it?  Nobody -- so long as
everybody goes in with their eyes open, and realizes that's what
they're getting.  Personally, I think seeing these advanced
technologies in action in real applications will provide us with
useful information to help us make some important decisions as to
what should be included in the V.fast standard.

[Of course, some people may take my opinion on this with a grain of
salt, since Hayes has been, along with USR, Telebit, Microcom, and
others, a purveyor of modems with proprietary high-speed modulations
for some time, and has not sworn off the practice.]

--
Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 401243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]