Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!grr
From: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: PEP vs. v.32
Message-ID: <19796@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 13 Mar 91 01:04:16 GMT
References: <6993.27DC6082@zswamp.fidonet.org>
Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 27

In article <6993.27DC6082@zswamp.fidonet.org> root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) writes:
> 
>    The other, more serious, error was to put numbers in the message in the 
> first place.  Rather than discuss my assertion (which I have yet to see 
> countered, though I wouldn't mind being corrected on this matter) that Telebit 
> have not increased their modems' raw throughput in years, the net's attention 
> is focused on numerical errors.

It's not a debating salon here, is it?

Anyway, in a sense your assertion is essentially correct.  Since the TB+ pep
enhancements and protocol spoofing, they haven't done scratch as far as
improving the basic technology and shipping it in a new dial-line modem

They've "wasted" their time on the T1000 (competitive pricing), T2500 (V.32),
Cellblazer (chance to corner a market), Netblazer (ditto?)...

 Much as I'd like to see improvements to the basic technology, I think it's
up to the company to decide how to budget their R&D resources between basic
technology and broadening the product base.  In the real world, it isn't
always possible to apply maximum effort on multiple fronts and Telebit is
not the worlds largest modem company.

-- 
George Robbins - now working for,     uucp:   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing:   domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com
Commodore, Engineering Department     phone:  215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)