🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 08:00:53 GMT, Martin Tom Brown <Martin@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thursday, in article
>     <jhf5UAAluNO2EwGj@colskip.demon.co.uk>
>     colskip@colskip.demon.co.uk "Colin Smith" wrote:
>
>> In article <3638a1af.0@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>, Malcolm Muir
>> <malcolm@demon.net> writes
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> >Well the latter is correct, however there are still a number of
>> >suspect V.90 implementations about so the former need not be true.
>> >
>> Would you care to name some, and is Pace among them.
>
>I suspect that at the moment *all* V.90 implementations are a 
>bit dodgy after being rushed out to meet a marketting deadline.
>
>Even so Pace internals are particularly unhappy connecting to
>Ascends (but OK to Colts) and apparently the externals vice-versa.
>(at least according to threads on here)

Our Energis and COLT lines both terminate on the same equipment.
The only difference is that V.90 is not enabled on the COLT
terminating equipemnt. (Both use Ascend equipment)

>It would be nice if someone with the statistical data would name
>and shame the worst offending modems now so that people buying
>for Christmas do not get landed with brand new duff modems.

There is no possibility of any ISP publishing such information, it
would almost certainly result in legal action by the modem suppliers.

-- 
Malcolm S. Muir                                Demon Internet Ltd.
Sunderland                                     322 Regents Park Road
England                                        London N3 2QQ