🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <LG6YQIAp9LS0EwoU@spacetime.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Lawrence <news@spacetime.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Re:<3447c9ac.0@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>
>On Fri, 17 Oct 1997, Malcolm Muir wrote:
>
>>A direct question was asked. 'How can it be possible for it to be
>>the users problem when Demon change something and it no longer
>>works' (or similar).
>
>True...
>
>>The examples that followed were an example of such a possibility.
>
>True...
>
>Now, try and follow this.  That original question was asked in response
>to the 3400 issue.  The examples that followed showing ranges and
>standards as arrows, or referred to "somethings", and described a range
>which was required by a standard.  Then it described your equipment
>encompassing that range, and a modem operating outside the standard
>range but within the range of your equipment.  Then it described some
>new equipment which still encompassed the standards range but which no
>longer covered the modem.
>
>In each example, the problem of non-coverage arises because the modem is
>not in the standard range and hence is not required to be covered by
>your equipment, although it may have been in the past.
>
>Now this is a fine example of some situation regarding out of spec
>modems but is it relevant to the problem being seen by 3400 users?

As Malcolm said right at the very start of the thread when
he first raised the issue, it may or may not be, he was making
no comment on its applicability with regard to the Motorola
3400. It may or may not be what's happening, but we won't know
until Motorola and Ascend actually reach their decisions.

Have you actually been *reading* this thread?

>>Conspiracy theories than took over.
>
>Honest communication isn't a strong point with Demon.

Nor with some of their customers, it would seem.