Subject: RE: (usr-tc) v.92 for quads update

From: "Mark E. Levy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 18:07:29 +0000

> From: Curt Shambeau [mailto:[email-masked]]
> It *would* be nice if 3COM would just answer the question of "WHY"

I think that's a simple answer. They have x number of programmers. Are they
going to have them working on code for new products, or a product that they
haven't sold for years?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark E. Levy, President

FSInet, Inc.                |  System Management Associates, Inc.
800-827-6085 x202           |  847-291-1550 x202
847-753-6832 fax            |  847-291-3866 fax
www.fsi.net                 |  www.sysman-inc.com
[email-masked]                |  [email-masked]
---------------------------------------------------------------------

-
 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: Curt Shambeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 18:17:41 +0000

> going to have them working on code for new products, or a product that they

Perhaps... but it sure would be nice if they would just say it.  I'm more
betting on the fact that the v92 code won't fit in the quad-modem.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Curtis V. Shambeau  |  [email-masked] |  Sr Vice President |
|  CoreComm, LTD, formerly Voyager.net and ExecPC - Wisconsin Office    |
|    "Those who can't laugh at themselves leave the job to others"      |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

---

From: Dayton Internet <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 18:53:41 +0000

What if 3Com was to release the source code and compiler for the quad
cards? Could a group get together and modify the code with assistance of the
V.92 definition and info from current modem manufacturers. Can 3Com tell us it
that is a viable alternative? Will they actually do the basic connection
funtions without the storage frills? 

-- 
 --Rich Adams, President-Dayton Internet Services, Dayton, Ohio--
[email-masked]

-

---

From: Ronald Kushner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:26:23 +0000

> funtions without the storage frills?

Why would 3Com do that? I am sure there are many trade secrets inside
their Quad code that they still use to this day.

I think you're dreaming dude. Even if they give you the source it's a
can of worms, each modem manufacture reads some of the things in the
specs, the "Mays, Coulds, Woulds" in a different way, as would the open
source programmers. It just seems like something that won't happen and
would take considerable time seeing how these people are not modem
engineers.

You'd be better off reverse engineering the TDM bus and starting from
scratch with the modem code. Now that's where you'd need some background
and insight on the hardware and how to bang it to get the results you
want, or again you can reverse engineer the code. Needless to say, the
modem cards do part of the PPP packet, then the HiPerARC or NetServer
does the other part.  It's probably messy. You still have the
interoperability issues with other vendors to resolve.

Maybe it's time to upgrade and move on, or leave your V.90 customers on
the Quads and buy new hardware for V.92 customers. That's the approach
I'm leaning towards unless 3Com makes it in my best interest to upgrade
all my HiPers to V.92. Seems to me they would want ISPs using the latest
stuff, which in theory would drive some new modem sales again.

We're the people who will drive upgrades in the field. Without ISP's on
board, V.92 will be ignored.

-Ron
GLISnet, Inc.
810/786.0454

-