That would assume that Microsoft fully documented anything or had any intention of assuring that it was standards compliant.Sounds like something Microsoft would do.
That's like asking why Dodge offers what they call a "Hemi" that isn't a hemi (their V8 is what is known as a "pentroof" like most four-valve configurations of the last many years). It doesn't mean that it doesn't do what they claim it will do, just that it isn't what they represent it to be in literal terms. That's why the old modem and facsimile standards would occasionally skip or change the style of a version (i.e. fax class 2 vs fax class 2.0).
I suppose that the standards bodies should trademark their standards designations so stuff like this doesn't happen.
Verizon is part of the standards body..as well as att..what they do drives the industry because they have the vast majority of the market..there is cellular 5g and fixed 5g..two different services
I think this is why the modem Class thing resonates with me. One chip manufacturer couldn't wait and was pushing chips out the door with an unfinished Class 2 specification and later the ratified specification came out and they called it Class 2.0. While mostly compatible, few software applications supported both standards for quite a long time. It wasn't about fixed vs mobile but two sufficiently different approaches to the same end that they weren't inter-operable.
