Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36

To: Paul Monaghan <paulm@ican.net>
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36
From: Kevin Smith <kevin@ascend.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 15:57:00 -0800
Cc: ascend-users@bungi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971203184437.4168C-100000@blackwidow.spider.org>
References: <3.0.1.32.19971203122138.00bc0450@mktg_srv.ascend.com>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

At 06:45 PM 12/3/97 -0500, Paul Monaghan wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Kevin Smith wrote:
>
>> Yeah, both Lucent and Rockwell put in a patch to workaround this USR bug.
>> 
>> Good to see it is doing the trick!
>
>Is there a reason that USR isn't fixing this?  Why should Rockwell/Lucent
>have to come up with a fix for a USR problem?  I must admitt that I'm glad
>it's there, but I still think it should have been done on USR's side of
>things.

It is somewhat, but I think part of the problem is that some of their modems
are not upgradeable - and some of them they are trying to "force" customers
to upgrade to X2 modems. They do have fixes for some of their modems, it 
seems to be only the Couriers, and X2 models though...

Kevin

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

References:

Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36

From: Kevin Smith <kevin@ascend.com>

Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36

From: Paul Monaghan <paulm@ican.net>

Prev by Date: (ASCEND) Good news??
Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36
Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36
Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread