NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/dcom/modems/17194

Text File | 1992-11-23 | 3.5 KB | 67 lines

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!mothost!merlin.dev.cdx.mot.com!zygon.dev.cdx.mot.com!paris
From: [e-mail] (Gregory M. Paris)
Subject: Re: Motorola Codex 326x should be reference for all others
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: zygon.dev.cdx.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:23:59 GMT
Lines: 54

[e-mail] writes:
>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.

With regard to (a), I'm wondering if you're referring to some specific
thing that Motorola Codex, AT&T or whoever has written or said that
misleads.  Yes, there has been some confusion, as has been seen in this
very newsgroup.  But the confusion has been over this term "v.fast".
What does it mean?  Obviously it's not a CCITT standard, since it
doesn't fit the normal format of V.<number>.  It seems to me that
unless somebody has trademarked the name or CCITT will be using
"v.fast" as the name of the standard, it's perfectly legitimate for
vendors to use the term.

Regarding (b), I seriously doubt that any vendor thinks the CCITT is
going to "bend over backwards".  And your suggestion that some
vendors are trying to "cripple" the standard is fairly inflammatory.
Just where are your facts?

It should be pointed out that the distortion that Toby speaks of can
work the other way too.  Say you're a vendor that has spent time and
money on "v.fast" development.  It's in your interest to get the
standard finalized as soon as possible -- that way you can be selling a
CCITT standard product before your competitors can.  If you're a
vendor that has to play catch-up, then you'd like to see the standard
take as long as possible, so you'll be ready with a product on the
day the standard is finalized.  Isn't that distortion too?

I'm not saying that the above is happening, but I'm sure you can see
that the politics of the situation work both ways.  But given that the
standard is a long way off, what choice do vendors with ready products
have other than to market them with proprietary encoding schemes?

Disclaimer:  I'm an employee of Motorola Codex (though I don't work on
modems), but am not a spokesperson.  The above expressed views are my
own.

--
Greg Paris <[e-mail]>
Motorola Codex, 20 Cabot Blvd C1-30, Mansfield, MA  02048-1193