Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!uunet!hayes!tnixon From: tnixon@hayes.uucp Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: Telebit T1600 insides & insights... Message-ID: <3735.2796d3b4@hayes.uucp> Date: 18 Jan 91 10:53:39 GMT References: <37576@cup.portal.com> <89600@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1991Jan17.205437.29684@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <89706@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> Distribution: na Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA Lines: 54 In article <89706@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) writes: > Oh well, I sure wish we could get past guessing what the upgrade > options are going to be and when they're going to be available. I'm > still upset that the best Telebit can promise for V.32bis support is > ``within six months.'' V.32bis has been in DRAFT standard for more than > six months. Very little changes between DRAFT standards and final > approved standards. Is Telebit really waiting for the final vote to go > down (the voting period ends at the end of January) before starting on > their implementation of V.32bis??? If they're going to get buried by > companies like USR which are already announcing V.32bis products. I'm not writing in defense of Telebit in particular, but of modem companies in general. I hope users understand that although V.32bis is backward compatible with V.32 and is similar in many respects, it is an order of magnitude more difficult to make a V.32bis modem work _well_. You're talking about the difference between a 32-point constellation (32 different phase/amplitude states) in V.32, and a 128-point constellation (128 different phase/amplitude states) in V.32bis. This requires much more precise components in the analog portion of the modem -- the internal parts of the modem itself much be less noisy, not to mention the phone line itself. It's a considerable engineering job to make a GOOD V.32bis modem. Sure, it's easy to slap one together on basically the same platform you used for V.32, but that won't be a very good modem (unless you had significantly over-engineered your V.32 modem to start with). What I'm saying is, don't be surprised if companies that are cautious about making sure they "do it right the first time" take a few months or more to ship V.32bis modems. Most companies recognize that the broad market is still just barely beginning to open up to V.32, and there's truly no need to rush V.32bis products to the market just to satisfy the early-adopters. Certainly there is a trade-off between delaying product introduction to make sure you've got it right, versus giving up the business of early-adopters to your competitors -- but isn't that better that frustrating those early-adopters by enrolling them in the "ROM of the Month Club" and effectively using them as involuntary beta-testers? It took six years for V.32 modems to become of sufficiently high quality and low price to be acceptable to the broad market. I jsut can't see why someone would predict a disaster if it takes a particular company a year to do V.32bis. I mean, God Forbid everyone doesn't have V.fast modems ready to ship on the day Study Gropu XVII approves the standard! -- Toby -- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-449-8791 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net