Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!mit-mc.arpa!KFL
From: KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA ("Keith F. Lynch")
Newsgroups: mod.telecom
Subject: Vadic 3400 protocol
Message-ID: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].687623.851021.KFL>
Date: Mon, 21-Oct-85 21:19:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: <[MIT-MC.ARPA].687623.851021.KFL>
Posted: Mon Oct 21 21:19:21 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Oct-85 13:19:33 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 17
Approved: telecom@ucb-vax.arpa


    Date: Tuesday, 15 October 1985  14:20-MDT
    From: "William P. Malloy" <decvax!ittatc!ittral!malloy@Ucb-Vax.ARPA>

    Does anyone out there have Racal Vadic VA 4224 modems installed ...

    p.s. Interesting point.  These suckers talk (2400/1200/300) but the
    protocols supported are (V.22/212/103).  Note: Vadic 3400 protocol is
    not supported!

  A few years ago, Vadic 3400 and Bell 212 were equally popular.  For a
while it looked like Vadic 3400 was pulling ahead.  But now, it seems to
be one with the dinosaurs.
  This is unfortunate, since Vadic 3400 was a better protocol.  Does anyone
know why Bell 212 came out ahead?  Restrictive licensing by Vadic, perhaps?

								...Keith