Re USR X2 technology vs the rest of the world: a while back many expressed concern about US Robotics having a jump on Ascend's 56K analog modems and putting ASND at a possible competitive disadvantage.
Here's a rebuttal from Livingston Enterprises whose PortMasters are a dominant force in Internet terminal servers and routers as well as as creator of RADIUS security software which in one form or another is in widespread use on the Net. (obtained from Ascend's User Forum; post was written by their "Interstitial Relations" maven). He discusses the fact that Lucent's 56K technology and Rockwell's will be made to interoperate, that is, be made compatible so as to work together under a single standard or protocol.
snip begins:
>Lucent is V.flex2
Rockwell is K56Plus
Their interoperable agreement calls the protocol K56flex
And their supporters include Ascend, Livingston, Cisco, 3Com, Multitech, Microcom - basically just about everyone except USR.
USR is definitely in the minority. ;-)
They're trying to force people to buy USR central site servers by
blitzing the end users with X2 modems. Since the only way to support
these X2 users is with a USR server. Some ISPs are starting to fight back - emailing their users telling them NOT to buy an X2 modem, putting up web pages about the differences, telling users what they will be supporting, etc.<
end of snip.
This is certainly significant particularly as it relates to the ISPs who are resisting USR's externally applied pressure to conform to their non-standard standard. What isn't shown here is the fact that Rockwell and Lucent invited USR to participate in the development of the interoperable standard but USR refused, choosing to forge their own path. The fact that Rockwell and Lucent chips populate 70% of the modems out there vs 30% for USR shouldn't be overlooked. I've seen no recent announcements from any retail-user modem maker (nor from U S Robotics for that matter) that they're adopting the USR X2 technology vs Rockwell's.
Will USR eventually join the Rockwell/Lucent camp by making their product interoperable? Maybe they can learn from the Apple example about proprietary products vs open standards, e.g., the IBM PC model.
Dee Jay |
