Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Telebit Announcement of V.32 bis for T-1600
Message-ID: <1991Jun29.224210.16470@rand.org>
Date: 29 Jun 91 22:42:10 GMT
References: <1991Jun25.193827.4724@morrow.stanford.edu> <1991Jun26.202632.21097@telebit.com> <286B5AD0.1C4B@tct.com>
Sender: usenet@rand.org
Organization: The RAND Corporation
Lines: 35
Nntp-Posting-Host: ives

In article <286B5AD0.1C4B@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to mlikier@telebit.com (Marty Likier):
>>.. the recently announced V.32bis upgrade for the T1600 ... entails a
>>return to the factory for a hardware replacement.
>
>What?!
>
>If memory serves, the V.32bis standard was close to completion before
>the T1600 even existed.  How smart was it for Telebit to go ahead with
>a modem that would need a hardware change for V.32bis?  Answer: not at
>all.

In fairness to Telebit, I see that Hayes has had the same experience.
V.32bis appears to be a bit harder to do *right* than was first expected;
it wouldn't surprise me if Telebit--like Toby says about Hayes--decided
they couldn't maintain their standards with just a change in firmware.

>I wish I'd bought USR.

I did.  The T-1600 does significantly better on marginal connections
than my USR Dual Standard, even with the USR running at 9600 instead
of 14400.  (It seems to do a LOT better than the Telebit T-2500 using
V.32; my impression is that Telebit rushed this one to market a bit too
soon just to get on the V.32 bandwagon, and before they made any real
commitment to the standard.)

If the V.32bis version of the T-1600 maintains the same level of
performance as the V.32 version, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it
over USR--if price is no object.

For some folks, that's a pretty big "If", though.  I'm still debating
whether to shell out the $249 for the upgrade.

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org