Slashdot Mirror
ITU Agrees On V.92 standard
An unnamed correspondent writes: "The ITU has
agreed on the V.92 standard. The 3 enhancements are
faster upstream (max of 48 kbit/s!), reduced connect times,
and internet call waiting. Unfortunately, final approval is
scheduled for November 2000. If you can't get broadband, this may be the next best thing."
I was curious how long it would take for the makers of NAS products to implement v.92--looks like availability is scarce:
//www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/cisco/mkt/ios/rel/1 21/prodlit/1095_pp.htm
Cisco claims support on their AS5400 product line:
http:
I couldn't find anything on Lucent's website (Portmaster 3 & Portmaster 4 products).
I couldn't find anything on 3Com's website (USR Total Control Products).
Anyone work with any of these products and know of any published timelines or press releases on ETAs for working software?
Some apps to make use of your bandwidth:
For Windows, free (banner ad supported): BinaryBoy
For Linux: Binary Grabber, brag, Glitter (GUI), PicMonger (GUI), Usenet Binary Harvester (perl)
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
This sounds like an excuse to sell another round of modems to the unsuspecting end-user. Refinements are nice, but I suspect the new modems will cost more than what you are getting. Will flash-rom upgradeable modems be able to handle the new protocol, or will new hardware/software be mandatory?
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
Acutally that copper is just fine for almost all current residential internet needs. VDSL runs over the standard copper pair you have now and is about 30 mbit/s.
Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
Didn't you see that Onion article where the African tribesman used an IBM external modem to crack open a nut?
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Right now, I'm surfing with a Diamond SupraExpress 56isp on a noisy phone line. The highest download speed I ever got was 8k/sec or so. My first experience with the Internet was with my college's T1 line, and I definitely feel the difference.
DSL and cable are available in my area (inner-city Boston), but the prices are steep. I can't afford $80 per month for cable modem (which requires cable service) or $50 for DSL (not including the hub). If I can get comparabvle service using my rinky-dink, $20-per-month ISP, I'll do it.
Put my clarinet beneath your bed 'till I get back in town.
"Broadband" is the wave of the future! POTS is good for fast and easy voice transmission, but admit it: it's dead for Internet.
Hmm, guess what... DSL uses POTS.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Yeah, I live in Batavia, about 20miles out of Cincinati, and recieved a big letter in my E-mail from Fuse(Cinci Bells ISP) Claiming that I can finally get ADSL, Whahoo, nope, it turned out the sent it to me on mistake, Batavia can get ADSL, my road can't, so then they came out and put in new line so I could on my road, guess what, I'm one Telephone pole off, and they refuse to extend the line.
So I'm getting Cable internet from TimeWarner perty soon now.
And about v.92? Don't even worry about it, just try to get broadband to everyone.
Only thing is, the distance from the dialup server is irrelevant. The only distance that matters is between your phone jack and the switch, or the loop concentrator if that's how your line is connected. From there on your line is digitized, and the quality doesn't degrade (not before latency becomes relevant anyway). There are obviously many other parameters. For example, if robbed bit signalling is used anywhere between you and the dialup server, your speed suffers. And if you are server from a loop concentrator, there are two possible configurations, one of which is very good for modem and the other is very bad. If it's configured in universal mode, your line is digitized, carried to the switch, converted back to analog, and then back to digital in the switch. This is a Very Bad Thing (tm). On the other hand, if it's in integrated mode, your line is digitized and carried to the switch, and it's not converted back to analog there. This is good for modems, especially if you're really close to the concentrator, but on the other hand AFAIK current concentrators can't handle xDSL, at least yet, so if you're server by one you're out of luck for the time being. But I digress, my main point is that it's only important how long your line is analog, and if there are any extra analog to digital conversions.
Quite true ... it will also probably be quite useful for laptop users.
Fixed point wireless.
Heh. The tech support people who had to explain to dopey customers what performing a flash upgrade ment, have my sympathy.
I really just wish we could throw modems into a giant sea of circuit boards and serial ports and leap forward to global sattelite connections. Ho hum, a few more years...?
---
seumas.com
Here in the UK Broadband is still just a dream. BT are now infamous here for using every excuse in the book to delay rollout of ADSL while the now limited number of Cable companies are giving out no information on availability of cable modems.
:(
BT claim ISPs haven't given them enough testers. ISPs are fuming since they have been oversubscribed several times for trials which BT have been organising. One ISP has made an official complaint over the tactics while other publically lambast BT over their handling of it.
Even the tabloids are questioning BT's board members' competency.
No date is given for my city's exchange upgrade for ADSL let alone street roll-out. Oh, and you need a BT phone line too, I only have cable phone lines
Rediculous.
Matt
where the fuck is BlueTooth? That's what the world really needs - a high speed connection whereever you are.
;)
Oh, and probrably a tan (or a brain tumour) from the all those microwaves flooding the planet
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
FreeBSD does not have a threaded TCP/IP stack. NT does, and Linux 2.3/2.4 does also.
But at least this is further proof that all the 16year old elitist linux cluebie users have finally all switched over to FreeBSD in response to linux's popularity.
Why let silly things like facts get in the way of advocacy?
Gotta correct you here... ISDN is laughably expensive (coming from someone who has 128kbps to BigPong Direct)... but the line charges are capped: AU$275/month for 64kbps and AU$435/month for 128kbps - for a "permanent connection" (i.e. your line is dialled up to the one number, and when it disconnects it redials that)...
Pathetic though. But the satellite lag is non existant... I can get 15ms ping times Melbourne to Canberra out of ISDN, unlike POTS :)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Broadband is great and all, but one demographic of users will still continue to use dial-up for a long time - business travelers. How else are you going to connect your laptop to the Internet from your hotel room when you're on the road? Then again, if hotels would put Ethernet connections in their rooms...
"Broadband" is the wave of the future! POTS is good for fast and easy voice transmission, but admit it: it's dead for Internet.
For you users sitting at home with the luxury of DSL and cable modems, sure. But what about travelling users, laptops, etc. No reason why we can't milk every bit out of the PSTN that we can, bandwidthwise, for those users who don't always have the luxury of "broadband". (even if the technology ain't perfect)
A CO is a Central Office. It is were the wires go when they leave your house and head for the phone company. Most likely there is a CO closer to your home than the office you can "see." They're pretty easy to spot, as they are hardened for weather and civil unrest -- usually housed in a large building, maybe with a bill Bell logo on it(if it's pre-divestiture). Interestingly, just because you can get ISDN doesn't mean you can get DSL. ISDN can be repeated, DSL cannot(there's your useless fact for the day!)
I just read about this same thing earlier, and realized that's why I can never get above 31kbps. A while back, when we first got a net connection, we called up the phone company here (GTE) and asked for two lines. They came out and installed that type of setup with the 64k channel split into two with a battery operated device of some sorts (oh what fun, leave the ip_masq machine connected overnight on accident and we had to go to the neighbors and call the telco up and have them come change the battery). Finally, i got them to come out and replace the device with one that operates off of house power, however, i still only connect at 31kbps. Now that someone pointed out what the problem is, I think GTE will be hearing from me tomorrow about getting an actual, physical second line.
If I had something more interesting for a signature, this is where it would be.
That message was meant for two NOW moderated postings. Sorry =)
What I cannot understand is why they create a standard that offers a symmetrical 56k/56k capability. While the FCC still limits modems to 53k download because of potential bleedthrough on copper lines, it surely would be the next big enhancement.
Having a somewhat faster uplink really is something that makes me yawn on a dialup. What I am curious about is why hardware hasn't been designed to give a CONNECT string for upload and download. When I see CONNECT 48000 it really is false, still limiting my upload to 33.6. Why not something like CONNECT 48000/33600 perhaps, which would display both upload and download connectivity? Back in the days of symmetrical connections (anything = 28800 modems I believe)
it wasn't needed.
- Slash
"I never really liked computers, but then the server went down on me"
Have you ever used ISDN? Many areas (like the one I live in) ISDN is as fast as it gets. (Unless you wanna spend over $1k per month for a T1)Even though not nearly as good as DSL or Cable, it is MUCH faster and MUCH more reliable than analog modem. Expensive? Not really. In our area you can get an ISDN line for $48 per month from Bell Atlantic. Most ISPs don't even charge any extra for ISDN because every connection (even a 14.4 analog modem) uses an entire 64k channel on the ISP end. I run a small ISP in this area, and we charge analog customers and ISDN customers the same price. ISDN customers that want both B channels simply pay for 2 accounts. (at $12 per account per month) . Does it still cost too much....YES! Is it much cheaper than 2 years ago...O YES! Is it worth the extra money for most people....probably not, but for the gamers and downloaders, its the only game in our town. As far as the V.92 standard goes, its a good thing. The pathetic lines in our community will do good to support it well though.
Perhaps I just somehow have a really good line, but I think most people just have bad modems. Mine is an external USR 56k. External costs more, but it will work better than your average internal mystery modem...
F0 07 C7 C8
Such a foul mouth! Tis' to be expected from a country with rotten teeth.
Fear the government that fears your guns. Fear the government that fears your computers. Remove them from my email.
Isn't a v.92 protocol in today's day and age somwwhat pointless?
Maybe the 2.88 floppy will make a revival!
*groan*
---
Connection Closed by foreign host.
[Connection closed by foreign host]
Under win98, net performance is mediocre but I think we can blame that on the win tcp stack. [If John Carmack says it sucks, that's enough evidence for me :]
That being said, I live in a fifty year old house with fifty year old wiring and fifty year old telephone equipment on the poles in the alley.
If you or your friends are getting poor performance, try another ISP [not aol btw]
Also, stay away from winmodems!!! I paid $90 for this generic hardware modem, but its been well worth it over the last year.
FCC power regulations. Possibly there's a reason for the rule, somehow I doubt it. They the gubmint, they know best...
It's the extra upstream!!! The download hardly matters. 32 kbps to 48 kbps. That's a good lot. The download, as you said hardly matters. (The call waiting looks fun though.)
There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
While using windows, I was, according to DUN, able to connect at 44000 bps, sometimes 48000 bps. This was using netzero no less. I know of some people who have told me they can't get better than 31200, but usually they've traced that back to bad/old phone lines.
I would like to agree. Modems were fine when telephone lines were the only signal that could transmit digital data to/from the common household and text-based BBSes were the norm.
But things have changed. Now that the internet has come about and has the capability to serve multimedia data to millions of people at once, 20-some-odd thousand bits per second just isn't going to keep up.
I personally have to question the motives of the telephone companies. They claim (or used to claim) that all the modem traffic was saturating their networks to the point of reducing the quality of service for voice callers. They are ticked that ISPs are using *their* telephone networks for essentially free while charging their $20 a month for internet access. This is the primary reason, I expect, that our telephone networks (here in the US) haven't really seen any additional upgrades or accomidations to increase the quality of service for modem users.
DSL? I think it *could* be the magic ingredient for widespread low-cost internet access if the telco's would only let it. Here in Albuquerque, we've been promised DSL by various companies for the last few years and still there is none available for private consumers. NONE. Rumour has it that our local telephone monopoly, US West, is denying DSL providers access to the lines. If anyone from around here can provide more info or prove me wrong, please do.
Meanwhile, I'm stuck with a maximum of 28.8 despite my V.90 modem, because all the fucking phone lines in this part of town are multiplexed and AD/DA converted a few times before the signal even sees a CO.
When I was using dial-up, I always connected at 44000. I do not know how this speed is derived/calculated, but I could tell you that it translated to about 3.5-4k upstream, and 5-5.5k downstream I got. Now I'm on cable (fast cable too, 100k up/300k down), so I dont' worry about such things anymore.
I don't like Telstra much either, but this isn't a bad service.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I cannot get any ADSL, SDSL, and cable modem services. DSL is too far from a C.O. (I am on a hill). Adelphia does not service cable modem in my area. I can get IDSL, but I don't have 109.95+ U.S. dollars to pay per month for a year contract and 144kb/sec max (it is too slow for me).
:)
Worse is with analog modems, I can only get 26400 to 28800 connections. Once in a while, I can get 31200 but my 56K modems (all types) detect major errors at this speed. 28800 is stable.
Would this V.92 help me at all or will I still be in the same situation? I look forward to receiving replies soon.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
So your machine 40 miles across town has a T1 hooked into a terminal server as its modem? Because you can't get above 33.6K with a 56k modem on each end.
So you're either lying, or stupid.
Which is it?
Unless, of course, you have a real life.
I read this article today and thought it was interesting: here. I am one of those who can't get high-speed connections and get crappy speed analog modem speed (26400-28800 on a 56K). :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
----------------
Programming, is like sex.
I found myself agreeing with your post 100% until I encountered this statement. Surely you meant something different?
Ninety percent of the dial-ups I've used in the last three years have connected at 31200bps or lower, with 56k modems (modems on both ends utilizing either Flex or x2).
As the technical admin for a smallish ISP (96 lines, moving soon to well over 1300 though) I am kind of surprised to hear this. We use Cisco AS5200s and have competitors with total control centres and portmasters. Nobody has a problem offerring 56k and most of our connections are in the 45kbps range, with a few as high as 53k.
We will be moving to Nortel CVX boxen very soon (within 2 months) and that'll replace the old 12-port cards and the AS5200s with a single "cube" which interfaces directly with an SS7 and a DS3 and provides 1344 ports per unit. Throw on CNID (Called Number ID, we can tell what number you dialled) and you have a box which can support any number of ISPs, turning yet another technical business into nothing more than a VAR with a RADIUS server.
Seriously though, even at 7:1 user:line ratios (about as high as you can get before busy signals become the norm) we have not had a single complaint, neither with our connection speeds nor our busys. Hit a 7.2:1 and the busy signal complaints start pouring in. :-)
...jimmy crack corn, and I don't care...
Eeeking another couple bits out of an already over hacked, compressed, digital signal processed bit stream over 1920's technology (copper loops) is still slow 1920's technology. Oh wait...DSL is also the same thing -- a bit stream coated with vaseline, shoe-horned onto a copper pair !
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
I wonder when we will start to see modems that can handle this... the call wating feature looks cool. I always wondered why a modem couldn't listen for it... then alert you. Oh well.
I wonder how much you can actaully pump through a phone line? 56k is pretty darn fast for POTS.
I work in the field and know it all too well.
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net) -GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
Granted, this is a bit of a cheat, but my theory was that if I could connect at a sufficient speed modem-to-modem over analog lines, then my ISP connection should be similary successful, regardless of the compression (connection itself was still at or near 33k).
The ZOOM offered at least a couple methods of compression, but I had never used it before, so I stuck with one and gave it a shot. Effectively, you could enable full compression and transfer at 115k. The same amount of data is being sent and received, of course -- but my main point is that if I can do a modem to modem connect with full compression and find better performance, why can something similar not be approached with my ISP? Especially if we're both using the same modems? (I have no idea of your average ISP actually enables such connections - they may not).
My experience with this is pretty shallow and I've not heard much from people regarding using the compression techniques available with their modems, even back when such a thing would have been extremely beneficial. I'm curious to know if this was a feature manufacturers packed in that was largely overlooked by users and never taken advantage of, or not. Of course, not useful for an ISP in general (and I'm going out on a bit of a whim) but for relatively closed systems still requiring such a connection, I would think it would be to one's best interest to implement this, no?
---
seumas.com
Im just thinking if a modem has the "feature" to allow call waiting to "work", then people wont dial *70. Then when they play some low latency game, they will forget to re-add *70.
Right now it is easy, everyone simply disables call waiting because you get hung up.
Will I be able to upgrade by upgrading the flash in the modem? I guess this is possible, but this will not be an option for "monetary" reasons..
And if the uplink connection can go as high as 48kbps, isn't it possible to connect now two regular modems at higher speeds, like some upgrade of v.34+?
And when the modem interrupts because there is an incoming call, how will it signal to the OS? Perhaps it will be transparent, the connection just stops sending/receiving data while you are talking, but then our pppds should not be any timeouts..
Comments?
On a very noisy line I was getting something like 19Kbps, Compaq Armade with built-in modem; at some point I've downloaded a new microcode and got around 45Kbps, on the same noisy line. If you got a shitty modem which is not PROM-upgradable,and can't shelve a few bucks to get a decent one - well, it is *your* and not v.92 problem.
Aren't you the same /.er who just got done spamming the message area of the last few stories with ascii art?
___
Sure, we've got DSL and Cable Modem and what-have-you, but not everybody does. There are still places where these things are a rarity, or too pricey to afford. (Or, in some areas, where Linux users can't actually USE the local DSL provider's system because the proprietary logon software is Windows only...)
/. readers come from the States and Canada. :-)
Think, for instance, third-world countries. No way will broadband connections be affordable. I believe that it's even pretty bad in some parts of Europe.
The complaints about "too little, too late" just go to show that most
Nicholas
disclaimer: opinions contained therein are not neccessarily those of my employer.
This is good for those who are just about out of the loop for getting DSL or have a Cable company which isn't even equipped to roll out Cable internet in the general area of the Cable building.
You can check for DSL subscription rates and service areas at DSLReports, but they themselves claim that phone companies may disagree with the distance or service areas we provide you with.
Cable and DSL providers are not equipped to handle the millions of people who would love having a broadband connection now, what makes you think they'll remedy this by November 2000, rendering this standard useless? I've been checking with BellAtlantic over the past 2 years for DSL, and they haven't even come close to exdpanding their service area to my home. I doubt they will compensate 2 years sloth in the period of 5 months. Nevermind Cablevision's arcane method of rolling out Cable Internet to its customers (its only available in Rhode Island and Connecticut, while its main offices are in New Jersey). Whatever spruces up my Dial-Up internet connection is a good thing in my, and any other Dial-Up user's, opinion. The only bad part is that I'll have to find a hardware-based modem that supports the new standard.
I live in South Jersey, and this area has been slated for broadband access "in the next three months" since early 1998. Our local cable company who was bought out by Comcast no longer even mentions the idea of bringing cable Internet to this area.
I spoke with a person who works at Bell Atlantic and he said the demand for DSL in this area is huge but Bell doesn't want to put the money in for upgrading the backbone. They don't believe they'll profit even with the large demand. Far from it: in many areas around here, they're doing some "splitting" trick with the phone lines, breaking the 64 kbit channel into two 32 kbit ones. Of course, this makes dialup access suck like hell. I almost cream myself when I get 3K/sec on binary downloads.
ISDN is nearly impossible to afford around here since "residential" plans aren't offered. All the plans are aimed for medium sized businesses and are priced accordingly.
At this point, I'd love to have anything: cable, DSL, or even cheap ($50/month or less) ISDN, but it ain't happening. So for you who think DSL is "everywhere," think again. it's not, and not even close.
Intrestingly enough, Bell Atlantic says that DSL will be available in my area "in the next six months," but I have a feeling any area which does not currently offer it carries that message.
Then telcos started to notice that (a) people started installing second lines for their modems, (b) heavy modem use was after business hours (non-peak), which meant that
- They were getting more money per household
- It was using existing infrastructure at off-peak hours
Although they might have continued to lobby regulators for extra charges on the line ($why not?), most telcos were probably secretly happy to have modem lines come in.There are, of course, exceptions. In the mid '90s one ISP opened a large modem pool in New Westminister because it gave them toll-free access to the Largest part of the metropolitan Vancouver population. The telco sales people were happy, but I guess that they didn't explain things to engineering. Nobody bothered to provision extra bandwith for all of these high-utilization lines. They brought up the new modem pool and, soon thereafter, brought down phone service for the whole exchange.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Ow...even after converting to US $, that's still a fortune. Do they include Vaseline in that price? They should. :-)
(I probably shouldn't mention that I'm getting the same upstream speed and 4x the downstream speed through my cable-modem hookup for $40/month. Even here, ISDN is a ripoff by comparison...not as bad as you have it, but it costs at least as much (probably more) as cable-modem service, and it only delivers 128 kbps. Two POTS lines and a MLPPP connection would be almost as good as ISDN, and cheaper too.)
_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull # to send mail)
\_^_/
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
When I was buying a new modem, I needed an external one. Besides, IMHO, being more reliable, they also have those neato LEDs that may also come in handy.
Since I'm familiar with the brand, and since I considered them to be reliable, I went for a U.S. Robotics at first. I bought an open-box unit for about 2/3 the price and went home to enjoy it. After about 12 hours of continuous use, it died.
Not being easily discouraged, I returned that one, and bought a second identical unit, this time still in its original shrink-wrap, and for full-price. Guess what? The same thing happened.
So I returned another modem, and bought a Zoom modem instead.
--
For a slightly higher fee?
.ISO in less than an hour. I have a CD burner at work to bring it home.
I have an amusing anecdote to tell.
I was a US West customer about six months ago. I established a dialup account with them with the understanding that they would be billing me direct on my phone bill. A few months later I switched to Earthlink. I called up US West and told them to get rid of my account.
About two weeks ago I decided to give US West another try. I connected to their website to establish another account. When I submitted my phone number, it told me there was already an account at that phone number. So I dug out my old dialup settings for the US West account. Lo and behold it still works! And they've never, ever, charged me a dime for the account on my phone bill. My account must have slipped into a crack in the floor or something.
My friend has a DSL account with US West. He claims his phone bill since getting DSL (just a single line of regular service in addition to the DSL) has never been less than $70 a month.
So I would say that the 'slightly higher fee is more than infinitely times higher, at least in my case, since even infinity times zero dollars doesn't equal 70 dollars.
If I need broadband, say to grab the latest NetBSD ISO or some more Slackware, I can connect to my workplace (SecureID dialup) and telnet into an OS/2 machine at night and manually FTP a whole 600MB
In the US, people just use ISDN for a fast Internet connection, rather than actually using it as an Integrated Services Digital Network. Almost nobody uses ISDN telephone sets, and as a result, they're pretty expensive. The phone companies don't know what to do if you do want to use an ISDN phone; I've been trying to get my phone company (Southwestern Bell) to add a few call appearances to my line, and they screwed it up, making my line non-functional. They reverted back to the previous configuration, and are now trying to figure out what to do next... it's been over a month now.
Anyways, I guess that wasn't really relevant to what you were saying, but I felt like complaining :) At least in my area, a plain ISDN line with no extra voice features (no calling number delivery, no call forwarding, no call waiting, etc...) is about the same price as two analog lines, with no per-minute charges for local calls. Not a bad deal... However, if you do want the extra voice features, they cost more than the equivalents on a POTS line :(
I'm generally quite happy with my ISDN line; I can't get DSL or cable modem access where I am, but if/when I can, I'll probably keep the ISDN line and use it just for voice calls.
They are ticked that ISPs are using *their* telephone networks for essentially free while charging their $20 a month for internet access.
Essentially free?! What are you smoking?!
The ISP I work at pays approximately $2400 per month for the use of 96 DEAs (phone lines). I guess you could claim that we are using their switching equipment (what routes our customer's exchanges to ours) for free but I don't buy it. If they would clue in and drop the prices on allowing us to either lease ports off their DSLAMs or put in our own I could see your arguement. The telcos don't want to put in the infrastructure to take the burden off. They're making more money off dialup.
Hell one of the towns we have a POP in doesn't even have the infrastructure to support ISDN let alone DSL!
I'd rather own the wiring in my walls, and be able to upgrade it at will, than have to deal with 'Central Services' (ob. 'Brazil' reference) tearing into the walls anytime they liked, and prohibiting me from doing anything to it.
The ITU just agreed on the V.94 Standard. This a great improvement on the older V.92, which allow only 56 kbps of download, while V.94 allows 58 kbps. That's a huge improvement of 2 kbps, allowing 1 free Meg of download every hour!
My point is: who needs those improvements? 14.4 to 28.8 gave you a factor of two. V.90 to V.92 gives you almost nothing (add teh fact that the line noise will likely eliminate all this gain). It's like upgrading from a 700 MHz CPU to a 750 MHz. Except for marketing, I really don't see the idea.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
We've got it here in the US, but my experiences with it have been bad. It was more expensive than a traditional line, billed minutly. The speed was admittidly better than normal phone lines. I had a time getting both channels to connect reliably, but they seemed to be a problem with Win95s dial up networking.
treke
So, v.92's supposed to be approved in four months or so... shouldn't there be modems out already?
crap modems at the ISP's (Internet service, only $9.95/month!!!)
Whoa there. Back up.
We are offerring unlimited interactive dialup internet for 9.95/month (prepaid 1yr, $14.95/mo otherwise). Our equipment yields over 46k connections more than 75% of the time and we're expanding into a Nortel CVX POP box within two months.
I certainly don't consider our service crappy, although I do agree with all your other points. Especially the WinModems. People seem to love buying a $25 WinModem and throwing it in a P100 and wondering why their connect rates are so shitty and there are so many line disconnections.
Yes. My USR Courier says 'V.everything' on it's front badge, and it started out as an x2, so it better be possible to upgrade it from v.90 to v.92.
well, AFAIK 3Com/USR should have one out ASAP. When the 33.6 standard came out I know that soon after that I was upgrading my 28.8 Courier to a 33.6. When the 56k standard showed its face I did the same.
:)
I can only assume that vendors will allow upgrades on *some* of their modems, but I *know* 3Com/USR will have upgrades for at least the Courier
Why are the v.90 modems limited to a download
speed of 53K? Will v.92 correct this shortcoming?
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
I think that's exactly the reason why old telephone modems won't be obsolete yet. Not everybody lives in cities. And getting ADSL or cable modem or something to that part of the population isn't going very fast. It's just to expensive. I can't imagine my parents getting anything close to that any time soon.
On the other hand, I'm enjoying the 10 Mb/s ethernet connection I have had for two and a half years now, since I moved away from home. But one must realize that internet access can be entirely different worlds depending on where you live.
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
Oh my,
Being a helpdesker I really, *really* hope never to see *this* supported. I know the amount of troubles V90 gave (and K56Flex - oh, and let's not forget USR's X2), because to actually *get* a V90 connection you need to be *lucky* - i.e.
- *your* telephone line shouldnt have too much interference,
- the telephone company's switchers shouldn't interfere too much,
- your modem should support it well (gawd the amount of time I've seen that those "WE ARE V90" stickers and found out that they *werent*...)
- and for all windows users, there's this issue with Windows which has an instable Dial-up Networking which seems quite happy to NOT work when you reinstall everything - even if it did before.
and if *all* that works for you, and you actually *do* get a connection at more then 33k6 bps then you can only hope that it's *stable* - which, in about 50 % of all connections, it isn't, due to the aforementioned reasons.
No, V90 is like balancing on the edge of the cliff of what's possible using analog (non-DSL) modems, and as such it's just another way to drive up sales.
(and make crappier modems - the modem industry probably learned from MS that you dont need a good product, as long as the people dont know it's not good).
Pushing it even further is nice for a theoretical discussion and proof of human capabilities to crank (possibly) even more out of an already overstretched way of communication, but it's already too unstable.
Cpt. Fwiffo
Forget the speed increase -- I want Internet Call Waiting! That will free up my phone line until my DSL arrives. Imagine that, talking to real people! (For me, a little more important than 16 kbps)
Additionally, this feature will allow others to avoid giving the monopolistic telco's another $20/month for a second line.
And the leased lines it used were damned expensive, too; the cheaper leased lines used by some leaf nodes were actually as slow as 8Kbps. This was true as little as 18 years ago, back when TCP/IP was just being invented. (Betcha didn't know that the ARPANET didn't always use TCP/IP.) So it's silly to say that TCP/IP wasn't designed for such low datarates -- at the time there wasn't much that was faster.
There are two main parameters that define a channel, its central frequency (sort of "how fast the signal changes on average") and its bandwidth ("how fast the signal changes around that average").
Narrowband, as you said, is a signal transmitted through a narrow band. That usually means that it's bandwidth is "small" compared to the central frequency at which it is transmitted. What is "small"? There is not an exact definition for that, but let me give you an example. The GSM wireless telephone system is considered to be narrowband. In it the central frequency can be around 900 MHz, 1800 MHz or 1900 MHz, while the bandwidth of each channel is 200 kHz (i.e. 5000 to 10000 times smaller than the central frequency).
On the other hand, wideband and broadband are more or less the same, i.e. the opposite of narrowband. The future UMTS wireless telephony system will be wideband, with a central frequency around 2 GHz (2000 MHz) and a channel bandwith around 5 MHz (i.e. 400 times smaller than the central frequency).
What you call broadband is in fact called "frequency multiplexing", "Frequency Division Multiple Access" or FDMA, i.e. using multiple carrier frequencies to diviede a medium into many different bands.
Baseband, as you said means that your central frequency is zero. However an Ethernet system is also able to have more than one user at a time. But instead of using Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) it uses Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), because all users use the same frequency but do not transmit at the same time.
This is in fact a simplicitation and sligthly inaccurate, because normally in a TDMA system there are "time slots" or times at which you can start to transmit, while in ethernet you can transmit anytime you want and you only stop if two or more users transmit simultaneously, thus causing a "collision" between them. In that case they will all wait for a random amount of time and try again. This procedure is often called Random Access.
I hope this helps. Cheers,
Angel
You think 19.2 kbps is bad? The company for which I work had (until recently) a store in Milpitas, CA. My understanding is that Milpitas is somewhere in the Bay Area/Silicon Valley general neighborhood (having never lived in the People's Republic of California, I'm not too familiar with what's where there). Anyway, each store had a point-of-sale system that we could dial into and take over with pcAnywhere. We use US Robotics controller-based modems (usually externals, never Winmodems) at each store and at the home office. Connections to most other stores would run from the mid-20s to the low 30s, but we'd always connect to the Milpitas store at the whopping fast speed of 9600 bps!
(When we called PacBell (the local phone company up there) about the problem, they passed some BS off on us about how that was as much speed as they'd guarantee for a POTS line. Yeah, whatever...)
At least I get a consistent 512 kbps out of the cable modem at home...I've not even had the bog-downs that other people have complained about.
_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull # to send mail)
\_^_/
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Why would anybody want a PCI OR an ISA modem in the first place? Don't you realize that with any internal modem, you're plugging your computer into a big antenna for lightening strikes and other unpleasantries?
Any lightning strike great enough to blow your modem to ratshit is great enough to travel along a 5' length of 26AWG to your computer and take it out, too. If the lightning strike only fries the modem and/or it's protection circuitry that same circuitry is in the internal modem as well, as part of the Part-15 interface.
I used to think the same way as you but in the last three years I've come to the conclusion that the extra wall wart and cabling and plastic box with lights doesn't give me a whole lot of advantage to the card in the computer. I can tell what's going on with pppd -debug or -kdebug and ifconfig.
Besides, that's what backups and insurance are for.
Pacbell, eh ?
They have oversold the 408-650 area codes over by 5000 subscribers +/- 1000, and guess what they keep on advertising!!
I'm running on a pacbell DSL circuit right now in the 408 luckily. However, when the install techs came out here to do their 30 dollar an hour overtime hocus-pocus for 6 hours they still could not even manage to install the PPPOE adapter on a Win98 box, and I will not play with windows 98 and it's perverted routing to fix it. Running fine on mandrake 7.0 with Roaring Penguin's wonderous little PPPOE client.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Hmm... ...
... (LOL). And got ripped good. (L-even-LOUDER).
When it's free?
(yeah, right - just like I said. never.)
Just look where ISDN went. It's still expensive as hell. It still sucks. It Still Does Nothing - lol - I love that one.
Who I feel sorry for are those people who rushed out and picked up ISDN lines
IMHO - It's - like you (pretty much) said - just another waste of time / money / etc....
-FekIhr : monkey - scripter - jerk -
-FekIhr : monkey - scripter - jerk -
http://www.fekihr.com
If you were getting a literal 40k+ connection, you were probably not connecting from (or maybe to) a standard modem? If you're using anything but an analog connection from one machine, you probably weren't connecting directly to your other modem. In fact.. I'm not even sure how you could connect if it were from an ISDN or other service to a modem...?
---
seumas.com
ISDN works well for me - but I live in Germany. You can say much against the german Telekom, but they did a good job of supporting ISDN. I have two 64kBit channels that can be combined for Internet access, or I can surf with 64k and leave the other channel free for phone use. Monthly cost is twice that of an analog line, but I effectively get two lines. And while 64kBit/s doesn't seem a big improvement over a 56k modem, it is noticeably faster - partly due to the lower latency of an ISDN line compared to a modem, I think. On the other hand, you cannot get a cable modem over here - the cable TV network is hopelessly outdated and must be upgraded to support a return channel. Our beloved Telekom has only recently been forced to sell of the TV cable network, and they evidently had no interest in upgrading it. But you can at least get ADSL now in most cities. Stefan
I'm getting mildly irritated by the use of the word "broadband" in the media today. Broadband has absolutely NOTHING to do with bandwidth or speed. Broadband is a term used to describe a medium that can carry data over several channels at once (e.g. wavelengths in a fiber, carrier frequencies in radio etc). Mediums that can only carry one channel at a time (like Ethernet) are called Baseband. Remember "10baseT" ? Guess what the "base" stands for... / Moonlit
- Yup. He got it.
Sympathy well taken.... :-)
No Joe Average user wants to hear that their brand spankin new $1200 computer has a $15 POS Winmodem in it.
Customer: Why do you keep booting me off?
Me: Sir, we do not boot users of under normal circumstances.
Customer: Well, you boot me off all the time.
Me: I can assure you we do not sir.
Then after much repeating of instruction I find out what modem he has.....9 chances out of 10 its a Rockwell/Conexant HCF modem with an extremely outdated driver version.
If Winmodem didn't exist call volume in the office would drop 75%.
oh and btw, I live in a very rural area and have had access to a cable connection for about 2 years and ISDN even longer.
For example, here's what a search for dwelle.de (German TV station) returned:
.int is reserved for international organizations. I believe all UN and EU sites are registered under
--Kevin
The above moderation, at the time of this writing, is (Score:0, Overrated). Proof Slashdot's moderation system is corrupt. Just because I pointed out a problem in Linux some $3 crack-smoking moderator has to mod me down.
Enjoy life, drink beer.
Most of the 56k connections I've ever seen worked really well, sometimes up to 54k and rarely less than 48k, even in the small alpine towns I live around... (and this is Italy, not exactly the Eden of technology...(. Phone lines in the USA suck and everyone knows that.
He could've had something like a USR Courier I-modem, which is an ISDN adapter that can act as the "server side" of a V.90 connection, at the remote site. A connection between two ordinary modems certainly wouldn't get anything beyond 33.6 kbps, as you noted.
_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull # to send mail)
\_^_/
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
ISDN is not nearly as bad as ADSL. I work for an ISP that offers both, and most of the outages occur in ADSL. Personally they're both overrated. Road Runner on the other hand....*drool* I had to buy a new hard drive for all my MP3's...*LOL*
Last week my local central office installed DSL. I have been using it since. In fact, just about everyone I know in my city has been using DSL.
"Broadband" is the wave of the future! POTS is good for fast and easy voice transmission, but admit it: it's dead for Internet.
Sorry to disappoint you, but DSL *DOES* run on POTS by definition. That's the good thing about DSL. It doesn't require re-wiring, and your POTS will do. You can have a good explanation of DSL and its variations (ADSL, HDSL, SDSL, and others) here.
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
then again, I have a 33.6 modem, and ever since I set my MTU to 1024, I've been downloading at 6.5-7K, occasionally going up to 8 for short amounts of time, so in effect, I HAVE a 56K (sometimes 64) modem.
Think --> Think Different --> Think OSS
One thing I'm a bit curious about is this 'v42bis reccomendation'. I've never heard of this, and as far as I know, only v32 is currently supported or used.
Anyone know more information about it?
You know, I'm not so sure service providers are going to like the 'hold' feature that allows you to take an incoming call without disconnecting your network activity. Just what they need, someone taking up their network connection while they spend an hour talking to Aunt Beatrice...
---
seumas.com
Frankly I am forced to live outside of the city where they don't understand someone might like DSL... Heck 3 cities within 75 miles of me are capable of using either DSL or Cable modems. I'm not living in the middle of a desert either... So their are probably 50 cities within that 75 miles which makes 3 of 50... Which is pretty small... I can't even get ISDN here, and only about another 20 or so cities in that area can get that...
Guess what that means? That means that most of us around here have to use dial-ups. That or the phone company has to decide we are a market... Frankly the local cable company doesn't even have an office in this city because we are 'only' 5500 people, so I doubt they care for providing us broadband.
My point is we don't all have the option of living in broadband access areas, so your point is completely worthless in the real world outside of the large cities with huge markets to spur the use of broadband installation...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Less household people will have cables the more bandwidth our providers give us. Already in some cities @Home is almost as slow as 56k modem. :)
http://dtum.livejournal.com
Ironic, no?
---
seumas.com
B1ood
Note to self: pasty-skinned programmers ought not stand in the Mojave desert for multiple hours. -- John Carmack
Depending on your region, you might want to use the prefix *70
There is no magic bullet that will make modems run significantly faster that 33.6 kbps. For a given bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio, you can push only so many bits through a channel. V.90 technology cheats this by exploiting the fact that a subscriber's telephone line is not limited to 3 kHz of bandwidth, and is directly connected to a CODEC (coder/decoder) at a modern central office switch. If that isn't true, you are going to have to live with V.34 class speeds.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The phone network is still expanding. There are areas it has yet to reach.
It's taken decades to get the phone network everywhere it is today and it's not "job done" yet.
I expect DSL to take less time but it won't be done very quickly...
For people who wern't very importent to the POS network this'll be great for them.. becouse they won't see DSL for a long time yet...
I don't actually exist.
I'd buy broadband if I could. No luck. Our cable company isn't interested. Also our phone switch won't do ISDN, and I'm too far away to do 56K, so even this won't help me. It's 28.8K for me, baby! Having a laptop with an 18GB drive helps; I telnet in, DL big files, then copy them to the laptop the next day. Yes, it's sneakernet. Remember, it'll be a lot of years before getting rid of modems is even an option for EVERYONE.
I know and I sympathize with people who may not have a choice in receiving broadband services.
The choice of country, state, city, neighborhood block is nearly solely dependent on one thing: is 1.5Mbps DSL available at my place of location.
Don't give me "you will live in the area" b.s.. I want a technician who has been to the apartment/dwelling/home and verify that the line does work.
Anything less is not acceptable. I have not access the internet with speeds slower than a cable modem. I will not go back.
Thumbs down to Southwestern Bell and every other DSL provider who utilizes PPPoE and ends up strangling the life out of the customer's bandwidth
ChozSun [e-mail]
ChozSun
ChozSun.com
According to Ann Landers, 3-5 people a year get killed by lightning over telephone wires a year in the US. Something to think about the next time you are smoking rocks.
I fail to see what you're getting at.
If you are on a computer with a modem (external or internal) and a lightning strike capable of killing you (i.e. it's directly on the telephone line outside your house or *very* close to it, not down at the CO or induced from the nearby power lines) you are at just as great a danger if the modem is internal or external. That 5' of 26AWG cable is not going to save you or your computer.
Any sufficient length of phone line out on the pole will have some kind of lightning arrestor helping to protect it. Most lightning strkes that take out the modem without blowing it apart are just overvoltages which the metal oxide varistors (MOVs) weren't quick enough or powerful enough to protect against. Let me repeat it again. Your computer is not safe from a direct lightning strike, no matter what kind of modem you're using. You can only hope to save your equipment if you're using a combination of protection, and you don't have a hope in hell unless you're using station-class lightning arrestors. Those puppies don't fit into your typical external modem.
Now there is a small band of lightning strike intensities which would fry a computer with an internal modem but not one with an external modem but that band is so narrow it's not worth the extra bother with the box and cabling and everything. That is what my reference to insurance and backups were all about, Mr. Coward.
Now you are probably safer using a computer during a lightning strike than you are a phone but that is beside the point in this discussion.
Next time you try to blow off a valid point with some inane bit of trivia and accuse me of drug abuse, think for a half second and ask yourself if what you're saying really really matters. I bet you'll close the window instead of hitting the submit button and polluting /. with just another bit of anemic squitter.
I want to register www.sex.int and sell it for millions of dollars!
--
Why don't the ITU start designing a new copper line standard with a, say, 8kHz bandwidth.
1- The sound would be much clearer, AM radio quality
2- It would immediately triple the bandwidth of dialups modems
3- Unlike DSL, it would retain compatibility with existing equipments (Modems, Phones, FAX)
---
Yahuh sorry i did forget to mention the 'onramp' capping - which makes ISDN viable for businesses to get permantently connected. Those capped prices however, are still out of reach of ordinary Australians. Yes any POTS connections have an inbuilt 100-110ms lag (question: is it like that everywhere else in the world?), but thanks to the speed of light, the fastest ping you'll be getting from a geostationary satellite is approx 260ms - not unmanageable but certainly 'existant'. In any case it aint nothin on the 15ms intercapital pings you rich 'terrestrially connected' city folk can obtain :)
"For spirit of Minjin, who feeds on the souls of those who graze too late"
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
This I can understand.... Courier I-modems are not available in .au *he says in his defence* :)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Just as an example, I live in a medium density suburban area and my modem is 6300 meters away from the central office.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I don't seem to see what that has to do with anything you just said.
10baseT == 10 base ten (10) kilobits per second.
10base2 == 10 base two (2) kilobits per second
100baseT == 100 base ten (100) kilobits per second (fast ethernet)
1000baseT == 1000 base ten (1000) kilobits per second (gigabit ethernet)
baseT means base ten number, as in using the decimal system.
base2 means base two number, as in using the binary system.
What on earth does that have to do with multiplexing (carrying multiple channels at once)?
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
No one in this thread seems to be mentioning the added ability to sense call waiting beeps and put the connection on holduntil you're done handling whoever called. Currently, I have to change my modem init string to include "atm2", and then listen to the white modem noise through my computer speaker for call waiting beeps by ear. People w/ less modem knowledge don't have any choice.
There's more to this new standard than increased upstream (which helps Quake playability) and better compression (which makes a difference when downloading 500K of Slashdot comments), which everyone here seems to be poo-pooing.
Looks like I'll actually use that flashable-firmware feature on my modem after all.
Ramble on!
foo = bar/*myPtr;
Check out Project Upper/Mute, an all-around awesome compiler fra
Ping times reminds me of something I heard, about a large company (Yahoo? definitely not sure tho), one of whose managers complained that the ping times between the US and UK were too high.
"What do you want me to do? Bend the laws of relativity?"
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
'Wideband' - Broadcasting the same signal over many bands at once.
'Narrowband' - using a very narrow band to transmit. Sort of opposite of wideband.
'Broadband' - The use of multiple 'bands' for transmission (or reception). ie: cable TV is broadband. Using multuiple carrier frequencies to divide a medium into many different bands.
Baseband - using a single, base channel for all transmission. ie: Ethernet.
Please not that although there are obvious real-world examples of how broadband has a higher capacity than baseband, neither definnition has anything whatsoever to do with speed of data transmition.
Your cable modem is 'broadband' only because it modulates it's signal up into RF for transmission on the cable line. Technically, it doestn' really have 'broadband' characteristics; it can't receive on multiple channels at once.
If you had a 100baseT ethernet connection to your house, that would still be baseband, not broadband (hey.. that's what the 'base' stands for)
Perhaps one could consider CDPD data (19kbps or whatever) to the palmpilot or something, whatever it is, to be broadband. It is modulated up over a broadband medium (space).
As I mentioned in an above post, Bell Atlantic is using some splitting methond to double the lines by splitting 64k channels into two 32k ones. Add this to the fact that my line is awfully noisy (even though I've had two line noise checks in two years), and this degrades me to typical downloads slumping just over 2K/sec, even with my USR 56K (real) modem running in Linux (with it's better than usual TCP/IP stack).
Even though I connect at 31200 usually, getting the full bandwidth out of 19200 would be a real luxury these days.
Zoom isn't a generic brand. They have been around since 1977 and make the best damn modems in the world. imho
I have a few friends in remote areas that broadband access is not possible. This will lift their spirits. I personally only got broadband cable access in my area last year, which really sucked. Service is not bad though.
Atleast this isn;t taking the same route as 56K did. X2 and KFlex, before finally settling at V.90. That created alot of unhappy people
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
Silicon Valley. Ironic, no?
Ha. Painfully so.
And? I'd rather have a spammer than a whore any day.
The average local loop length is much longer in the United States than in Europe.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Hmm, odd coincidence, I did the same. I wonder if Monday was a busy day for DSL signups?
Not that this changes anything; I've been waiting for DSL for a couple years now....
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Yes, they do have their heads in the sand.
Like it or not, the Internet was not designed to operate on conventional phone lines. Sure, people are getting along fine on dialups, but bad mean corporations like AOL are making it mad easy to get online thru your dialup, while sufficiently screwing over many broadband providers ("Cable? I don't want some weird guy to destroy my house just for a cable modem that might not work") ... at least as far as how they're perceived by the public.
When cable, DSL, or even ISDN (which I've been on since the dawn of time, it seems) becomes the de facto standard, I'll be happy. Until then, the concept of dialup connections is simply too horrible for me to stomach, no matter how sweet (or less bitter?) the bandwidth may seem.
-- BlueCalx | http://nickd.org/
LINE NOISE LINE NOISE LINE NOISE if the line quality is crap, so will your connection be.
The number of digital to analog and analog to digital switches between you and your provider. I don't remember the exact number, but I think if that goes over 3 or 4, anything for 33.6 is impossible, regardless of the modems on either side.
The problem isn't the modems the dial-up providers are using, it's the fact that copper sucks.
What?
I was just over in Germany for a few weeks and was astounded by the proliferation of ISDN. My host family has a 3 number, 2 line ISDN service and it is actually cheaper than having 2 analog phone lines! Also, I wish USA cellular companies would impliment the SMS (short message service), where people can type a message on their cellphone to someone else's cellphone. Stupid country. Chris M. Hickman
V.92 will never take off. It's like releasing an operating system tied to the x86 architecture which will be obsolete eventually. V.92 is tied to POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service).
Last week my local central office installed DSL. I have been using it since. In fact, just about everyone I know in my city has been using DSL.
"Broadband" is the wave of the future! POTS is good for fast and easy voice transmission, but admit it: it's dead for Internet.
Enjoy life, drink beer.
I always had to laugh at customers who used to come in to the shop and complain about getting 26.4 on their 56K modem. Usually, they had one of four problems:
- shitty phone lines (most of the time)
- 25 foot phone extensions, run through 2-3 splitters (signal loss? What's that?)
- shitty Winmodems (The stuff they put in Compaq Presarios and HP's are just garbage)
- crap modems at the ISP's (Internet service, only $9.95/month!!!)
The phone system in the Wichita area here is horrible. I've installed computers for customers from one side of town to the other, and I've never seen a solid connection speed above 38K. Of course, considering Southwestern Bell offers DSL, it's no wonder they aren't interested in the noise on their regular lines.
Hawkins pointed out that places of the world which haven't yet deployed traditional communications infrastructure (I think he was specifically refering to Africa and parts of Asia) probably never would!!!
/joeyo
2^5
Dozens of people have complained to me over the last year or two, about their inability to connect to their 56k account at anything higher than 19200bps. That's 19200bps! I haven't seen connections like that since late in 1994!
It's only become worse. I'm still waiting for my DSL and the company that is providing it offered free dial-up service until my DSL is actually installed and running. Only problem? I can't actually connect to a single one of their dial-up numbers. After a flurry of handshaking and choking on signals, both modems give up and I'm left with the recorded voice of the operating piping through my computer, telling me that if I'd like to make a call, perhaps I should hang up and try again.
As long as dial-up providers keep implementing cheap modems to so they can claim "20,000 modems -- no busy signals!", connections will still be poor. Clinging to a v.92 standard is fine, but a lame-duck modem is still a lame-duck modem.
---
seumas.com
Wireless will save the outback. Really.
Just wait and see.
So they've increased the compression when downloading by upwards of 25%.
But how can they claim to have increased data throughput rates from 150-200 kbit/s to over 300 kbit/s ? This is a 50-100% speedup.
It kinda gets me how it is announced only two days after i order my DSL... at least it isn't that old 2400 i used up til early last year... then i upgraded to a full 14.4 woohoo... now what to do with my two 56K's... -Moldy
Sympatico sucks. They filter (badly) all outgoing HTTP requests, they give you annoying NATted pseudo-IPs, they have high latency, and they just generally suck.
Note that I'm not saying DSL sucks, just Sympatico DSL. Our cable provider is much better, here in Regina, SK.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Be ot or bot ne ot, taht is the nestquoi.
Whilst all you Americans, Canadians and Europeans may think this 'too little, too late', this is great news for us Aussies.
In Australia there is a keen, competitive dialup ISP market - but the one & only local loop telco, telstra, is a complete joke.
The great thing about this new modem standard is that the upgrading need only be done at the ISP end and the user end.....
No need for the telco to do anything - Telstra has been able to do ADSL for years, but there is not a single available ADSL connection in Australia.
And aside from the capital cities, cable is very much over the horizon, looking into 2001 or 2002.
The only high bandwidth option available to me here is ISDN, which is laugably expensive (line charges are at the rate of a few dollars per hour) or satellite, which is expensive to setup and the lag means that quake II isnt happening over it.
Thus ive found the best solution is to multilink in three 56k modems to the ISP - 168kbps d/l - i can almost pretend I have ADSL.
With the introduction of this standard, hopefully sometime early next year Ill have the upstream to go with that d/l speed.
"For spirit of Minjin, who feeds on the souls of those who graze too late"
If you have a Zoom modem. they have a few flash upgrades on their site. I upgraded mine a few weeks ago so I could get the call waiting features.. It's pretty cool, the speaker on the modem makes an audible alert whenever you have a call, and you can choose to take the call or not. Of course, this will drop your connection.
Oops I forgot to ask how far you guys have to actually use copper for. I think i'm about 50m from optic fibre here and it's almost certainly more where me 'rents live.
There are a lot of people on here that seem to think that a new standard for transmission over the POTS is a waste of time because of the availability of DSL/Cable/Whatever.
.net connections to think about. A lot of those use a modem as their uplink. I'm sure they'd welcome an extra 15Kbps upstream!
This is, as usual, a very narrow minded and selfish approach.
Of course internet over POTS is going to survive.
I live in Australia, here we are just beginning trials of DSL, and even when it comes in it'll only be available in metropolitan areas.
Considering we are a country that has some of the most remote internet users (many hundreds of kilometres from the nearest city), I can't see broadband or services with similar speeds for a similar price getting out into the rural areas for a long time! Hence net over POTS lives on!
Then you have to take into consideration all the other third world countries where the internet is only available to a select few. These people aren't going to be getting DSL to their houses like the rich fat americans any time soon!
Next to consider is the average household user. The person who just wants to get/send emails and maybe do a bit of surfing sometimes. Why would they bother with anything other than a V.92 modem?
There's also the people using satellite
With all that, without even mentioning the cost difference between analogue and digital services, I think the humble modem will live a while longer. Even if only half what I've said is valid!
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
...have trouble remembering what it was like to have a POT connection?
/. -- then I'm just happy when it loads at all).
I was running on a 19.2K modem right up until I got a cable connection (maybe a year ago). I didn't see any reason to pay for the upgrade to a 28.8K modem, let alone those newfangled 56K models. Now it seems bizarre and unnatural when a web page doesn't load instantly (except from
Oddly enough, I only started using Lynx after I got my fast connection...
I'm not complaining about this tho; it could make it much more feasible for me to upload crap to my cable modem friends machines, IFF there are patches avaliable for my generic ZOOM brand 56K modem.
My box can download 7KB/sec from cdrom.com under linux but is lucky to get 4KB/sec under windows...
What is a CO?
This is pretty pathetic stuff. People actually worked to make old-fashioned dial-up connections faster? I don't care how fast you make them, how quick you can download, and many new protocols you come up with. If this is not to be the standard until 2001 then why even bother, by them even more people will have broadband connections. It is true that AOL is making it pretty much AOHell, making connecting to their worthless and pathetic internet service so easy. If these people are so attatched to AOL they can connect with broadband too, I think there is a TCP/IP selection in AOL. Oh and I leave by saying this: "The line is busy please hang up and try your call again"
Anyone have some good links on exactly how the increased upstream works?
I thought the whole "trick" to v90 was taking advantage of the lack of an analog/digital conversion on the ISP/provider end (straight telco trunks in to NAS equipment), which was why the 56k downstream was possible (64k per channel + robbed bit signaling = 56k).
It's quite obvious the "customer side" is analog though, so how are we scamming 48k upstream?
I say nothing but pure facts. Such linux bigotry, can you not even admit a linux shortcoming? Without resorting to modding me down? Also check out the netcraft whatis for andover.net.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Does anyone have reliable information about upgrades for existing v.90 modems? This could be quite interesting for a software update, but not very handy (or cost effective) if new modems are needed.
Also, it would be nice if the high and low-speed channels were reversible like the old courier 9600-HSTs. The 9600 and 1200baud channels were reversible to accommodate the direction that needed the highest bandwidth. Is this possible with the mixed analog-digital signaling of a 56k modem?
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
I work for an ISP. People complain alot that they're 56K modem is only connecting at 49.2 (or some really good number). Anyways, we can check our Total Control box and see what they connect at and what their current connection is. There's an initial connection speed and a current connection speed. Windows only displays the initial connection speed, even though it may vary during the course of the connection. The people getting a 49.2 initial end up having a 52 kbps eventually and they still complain. It's pretty good considering the telco here isn't the greatest.
The current maximum upstream of v.90 is 33600 bps.
/per
Slagborr
No it's not. And it won't be for quite some time. Check out this page for the reason why, complete with actual numbers. Where I live (rural NH, USA), we won't have a high speed internet connection until/unless 2-way satellite systems come online at an affordable price. No way will I ever see cable or ADSL here, ever. Population density is simply too low.
Y'all might want to keep this article in mind while designing your web pages :-)
- sgage
... is that DoubleClick can spy on me at a faster rate, I can connect faster so that spam is still nice and warm when I check my inbox, and I can also see if my favorite telemarketers are calling me while I am on-line! I can't wait. --Nick
http://cassettefetish.com
Do you guys have ISDN over in the US ?
Because back here in Switzerland and Germany as well it's been doing quite well.
Over here it's about the same price (or even less expensive) than traditional analogue lines. And a 100% clean, 64kb (or if you use both channels it can be 128kb), low latency line is pretty nice if you just don't want to go ahead to DSL.
Murphy(c)
And I'm one of them. Around here (northern Delaware), all of the COs are in run down urban areas. Bell Atlantic hasn't built a CO in Delaware for over 40 years. And guess where the cable company is offering cable modem access? Yup, only in the urban areas, the same damn areas that can get DSL. Poor bastards in the 'burbs around here can't get DSL *or* cable modem....
In '96 our cable system was TCI and they began test deployments of cable modems in downtown Wilmington (the people who can least afford it). When they were ready to expand deployment, they got bought by Suburban Cable (of Phila). When I called them in '98 they said that all cable modem rollouts were delayed due to the sale of the cable system. So last year my area was scheduled for cable modem capability "in six months." So what happens, Comcast Cable buys out the system and what do you know, they now tell me that cable modem expansions are "on hold" for at least six months due to change of ownership.
Sigh... No DSL, no cable, and V.92 won't help me out in the least....
Good point!
V.92 will probably work great for someone who lives close to their provider's modem banks, and has a good modem. But for all-too-many users who live 10 miles outside of Bufutown, have a POS Winmodem, and are using phone lines that were probably put in as a WPA project -- they'll still have to limit DTE to 19200 and disable compressions to have a prayer of getting/staying connected.
Damn I have no use of my ADSL anymore. :-) I still don't know why they have limited the upload connection to 28.8 on V.90 when I think of all the time I have lost upload on FTP server before I get broadband. But the most valuable asset with broadband line is the always on feature... no connection waiting time. Something like 20 secondes to get connected is way too much, when dialing gets through. Anyway if the phone line where better here in the US I am sure we could get twice or more speed on a simple modem.
Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too"
--- Bouh !!! ---
This has been happening for years already if you have call waiting and don't disable it (there is a prefix to disable call waiting you add to your isps phone number, I don't remember it). Call waiting has been disconnecting ignorant AOLers for years.
The first post IS correct, except for the last sentence - or at least, that's what my Comp. Eng. courses said. (not saying my professors were always right, but it made sense to me)
I agree that broadband means multiplexing, and that it's used in ways it shouldn't be, but the "base" in, i.e. 10baseT doesn't mean "baseband".
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
And we had to walk 10 miles to school through the snow :-).
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I'm really glad to see this! I remember reading a while ago about an increase in upload speed, to 45kbps. It was announced by a modem manufacturer, a year ago or so, then not implemented because they didn't see a demand for it. They suppressed it from the marketplace. I'm glad to see it become an official standard now! And at 48kbps instead of 45, a small bonus.
Having fast connect time (perhaps by skipping all those old legacy connection probes that are done) is another good idea, one that will sell well, especially with places that get frequent disconnects.
The third new thing they announced, Call Waiting standardization, is also something I've been hoping for a while to have. I remember having a 14.4 modem that always would disconnect when Call Waiting was received, but could be set to prevent this if desired (increase carrier loss wait time, I forgot the S-Register for this). The newer modems were "too good", just plowing right through the Call Waiting beep (regardless of their settings) so I missed some important calls back in the day.
Now, I have a DSL connection. Like a 56K modem, it is much faster downstream than upstream. Do you think there's a conspiracy here? Content providers don't want to make it easy for people to pirate or come up with their own ideas, so they lobby the industry to restrict upload speeds and condition people to only consider the download speed when choosing a connection service. I'm glad to see this official standard, it's a step in the right direction to restore upload speed!
Dr. Demento On The 'Net!
Every time they bring out a new standard, they said that it was the limitation of analogue carrier modulation over the copper medium that would prevent any advance in speed. When V34 came in, they said we'd never get higher than 28.8Kbit/s. With the V90 standard, they said it was absolutely impossible to get more than 33.6Kbit/s upstream out of the copper, and now they're saying we'll get 48Kbit/s!! Next thing, in two years time, we'll have 64Kbit/s from one phone line!
Well, I'm not complaining. I get free internet access via modem, and it can only be a good thing. My area will some time this year get ADSL, but the spec keeps getting worse. Originally it was going to be 128K upstream, 512K downstream. Now it may be limited to 256K downstream. It looks like it's gonna cost $75/month. I'm quite happy getting free modem access at V90 speeds for now. My cable TV is good enough for watching movies on, and V90 is good enough for VOIP if I want to use that.
Cheers,
J
Thanks for refreshing my memory. It seems like 20 years have gone by since the opus/binkley days. I don't think we have a single bbs within local calling range anymore.
Modem speeds sure haven't increased with computer speeds. If they had, we would all have broadband over simple copper... Maybe someday.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
I know most of the world is stuck on dialup. The ITU and everyone else should be concentrating on getting rid of that situation, nevermind trying to eke out every last bit from an outdated technology.
towards pacifying and improving the internet speed for people without access to high-speed connections. Let's face it, not everyone lives in a city with cable or DSL hookups. This is a much-needed upgrade to basic phone service until broadband solutions are more widely available.