Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!gauss.llnl.gov!casey
From: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Telebit T1600 insides & insights...
Message-ID: <89752@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 18 Jan 91 19:21:45 GMT
References: <37576@cup.portal.com> <89600@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1991Jan17.205437.29684@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <89706@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <3735.2796d3b4@hayes.uucp>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 44
Nntp-Posting-Host: gauss.llnl.gov

| From: tnixon@hayes.uucp (Toby Nixon)
| 
| ... 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_. ... This requires much more precise components
| in the analog portion of the modem ...
| 
| 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 just 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 Group XVII approves the standard!

  But I want it now! :-)

  Actually, I thought the big issue wasn't analog components -- high
quality analog components have been available for years -- but the signal
processing requirements for V.32 that held it up.  It just strikes me that
all the requisite components are already available to do V.32bis.

  But, to be honest, the thing that's really bugging me about Telebit
right now is that they keep on giving me the impression that they're
waiting for final approval of V.32bis before they even start!  I had to
squeeze them to even admit that they would make V.32bis available.  I'm
not asking them to commit on a firm delivery date.  I'm just asking them
to tell me that they working on the problem now.  If they don't start
until final approval, they'll be way behind many of the other modem
manufacturers who are developing product now.  This is what happened when
they finally decided to do something about V.32.

  On the other hand, Telebit came out with V.42/V.42bis support fairly
expeditiously.  And what you say with regard to not wanting to enlist
your customers as involuntary BETA testers is definitely true.  It's one
of the best ways to lose your customers.  So I will continue to wait
impatiently, but will attempt to hold back my rhetoric.

| 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).

  I can only hope that the T1600 is over engineered ... :-(

Casey