Subject: (usr-tc) V.92?

From: R Gamberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 19:58:23 +0000

Does anyone have any info on V.92 support in the TC line?
Have any announcements been made by 3Com?

What's your opinion of V.92? Will you need to support it?

Thanks for any input - here or to me via email -
mailto:[email-masked]

Aloha,
Richard Gamberg
www.808hi.com/56k/ 56k=v.Unreliable

-
 To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "[email-masked]"
 with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

---

From: Stephen Amadei <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 06:29:02 +0000

> Does anyone have any info on V.92 support in the TC line?

A little.  At ISPCON, Source-Tech claimed it would be a free upgrade,
requiring the TCS 4.xxx code.  Quad-HiPer DSPs and HiPer DSPs will use
it... Quad modems are SOL.  That's about the extent.

I was amazed by the equipment 3Com brought to ISPCON.  The TC2000 platform
was incredible... supports like 52,000 lines max over a 6 chassis setup...
too bad it won't do dial up for at least a year yet... Oh, and will cost
as much as the space shuttle.

> Have any announcements been made by 3Com?

Few.  Source-Technologies is sounding off about V.92 on the TCs.
 
> What's your opinion of V.92? Will you need to support it?

Sure, we'll support it... but only if it is an effortless upgrade.  
We're willing to pay the money to upgrade the TCS, and were probably going
to phase out the Quad Modems someday, anyway... but we will do it at our 
convience.  We've had 0 requests.

					----Steve
Stephen Amadei
Dandy.net CTO
Atlantic City, NJ

-

---

From: Charles Sprickman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:37:43 +0000

> it... Quad modems are SOL.  That's about the extent.

That's funny, we just moved into a colo that has a GIANT AOL dialup.  Lots
of the ANS "BigDial" racks stacked to the gills with old chassis full of
quads.  Probably at least 30 racks of *quad only* TC hubs.  Perhaps once
AOL users start pushing for v.92, we'll see some movement on the quad
code.  Or maybe AOL is trying to decide between upgrading to DSPs or just
moving to another platform, and this will help them decide.

Mindspring's setup is amazing.  Probably just as many lines (1 T3 for
every 2 chassis, 6 chassis/rack) but far less space.  They have a
portmaster at the bottom of each rack with a console cable running into
*every* dsp.  Very neat setup.

> as much as the space shuttle.

Cool to look at, but I regularly visit a number of colo centers with lots
of dial equipment...  Remember Lucent's big push on the PM-4 or whatever
that gigantic expensive thing they had was??  I've yet to see one
anywhere, but I see plenty of TCs, even more TNTs, and a smattering of
that beige Nortel junk.  Prediction...?  3Com sells 10 of them and their
stock continues to sputter along on LAN card and switch sales.

Charles

-

---

From: Francis Fong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:57:42 +0000

Anyone know if the 3Com TC will also support V.44 (beside V.92), a better
compression rate (25% more) than V.42 bis?

Rgds,

Francis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Amadei" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) V.92?

-

---

From: Mike Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:11:44 +0000

I'm most interested in v.59, really...  from what little I've heard it
sounds like it'll be a big win for the helpdesk folks.  Anyone got *real*
details on what it entails?  (Probably difficult if it hasn't been ratified.)

Mike Andrews * [email-masked] * [email-masked] * http://www.bit0.com
VP, sysadmin, & network guy, Digital Crescent Inc, Frankfort KY
Internet access for Frankfort, Lexington, Louisville and surrounding counties

www.fark.com: If it's not news, it's Fark.  (Or something like that.)

-

---

From: Francis Fong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:46:17 +0000

Interesting to know so many standard. So what is V.59 for?

V.92 - 40Kbps upstream, Modem on hold (while call waiting) & Fast Connect
(at least faster than V.90)
V.44 - 25% more compression  than V.42bis, i.e. faster data throughput
V.59 - ??

Rgds,

Francis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Andrews" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) V.92?

-

---

From: Stephen Amadei <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:56:51 +0000

> V.59 - ??

It's an SNMP-like protocol that allows the device to be polled for
the performance, last connection info, disconnect reasons.  Kinda like
that.

					----Steve
Stephen Amadei
Dandy.net CTO
Atlantic City, NJ

-

---

From: Ronald Kushner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:58:36 +0000

> stock continues to sputter along on LAN card and switch sales.

I've seen some PM4's in production around Detroit. Dunno what good they would be
since they've been EOL'ed, same with the PM3 now. Any bugs in the code are locked
in, they just threw out a new release last week, announced end of life on the PM3
and shut down production last Friday. So I guess any ISP using a PM3 won't be seeing
V.92.

I wouldn't touch a piece of Lucent gear or any of that goofy junk I get postcards on
with a 10 foot pole. I've had a very good experience with my USR equipment since I
upgraded everything to HiPer.

>From what I've seen of the TC2000 equipment, it looks like it's designed to be a
huge VoIP to PSTN gateway.

-Ron
GLISnet, Inc.
+1 810/939.9885

-

---

From: Wayne Barber <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:26:57 +0000

I have heard, unofficially, that 3Com will support v.92 in the TC 
sometime around February to April of next year. It probably will not 
be supported on the quad modems. I have no idea if there will be a 
charge for the upgrade or if it will be covered by the service 
contracts (it should be, IMHO).

I think customers are going to want this. What they'll want the 
most is the Call Waiting feature that allows them to "save" the 
modem connection while they take a call. It will be interesting to 
see how we ISPs handle this. It's up to the ISP to determine how 
long we wait for them to come back.

The upload speed of 48k is probably not reachable. And even if it 
is, there is some debate about its effect on the download speed. 

Heh, I was about to recommend going to the v.unreliable site for 
more information and then I looked at who I was replying to. :-)

On 16 Nov 2000, at 12:56, R Gamberg wrote:

>  with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information
>  on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the
>  same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.
> 

Wayne Barber
Coastal Telco Services

-

---

From: Paul Farber <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:26:04 +0000

So how are you going to manage the modem being on hold while they BS to
on the line?

I guess you could sell it as a premuim service, but you would need to
break the v.92 and v.90 pools into seperate chassis/huntgroups unless
radius or ANI/DNIS can somehow enable the .v92 for you on the fly.

I don't see this as a good thing.  How can you improve your service (ie
make money off this upgrade) when most people barely understatnd that the
computer uses the telephone to begin with?  

Every ISP uses idle timeouts and has a written interactive use policy to
stop the very thing that v.92 is going to make available.  The only GOOD
thing about the v.92 is that from what I understand the hold feature can
be turned off on our side.

Paul Farber
Farber Technology
[email-masked]
Ph  570-628-5303
Fax 570-628-5545

-

---

From: Mark Thornton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:34:49 +0000

A useful implementation would allow us to specify the maximum hold time
allowed by the V.92 protocol before the call is dropped. Then we could set
it for 5 minutes or something like that, independent of the idle timeout.

What happens to tcpip sessions in progress when the line goes on hold? Is
the TCH going to keep the connection with servers alive so that everything
starts working again when the perp gets off hold, or is the customer going
to call us and be ticked that their favorite game session timed them out?

Mark Thornton
San Marcos Internet, Inc.
512-393-5300

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Farber" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: (usr-tc) V.92?

-