🚀 go-pugleaf

ttoews@microage-ll.awinc.com (Tony Toews) writes:

:But what is the speed of the devices between your ethernet network and
:the fibre optic network.  That could be your "weak link".

  10 megabit/s ethernet to a 10 megabit/s proxy, through a firbe optic 
  line direct to the ARNet (I*) router...  I don't see any weak link.

:> The
:>  transfer rates I get to local servers are usually in the order of 200kB/s.
:>  My transfer rates to large US and even UK servers often reach the same
:>  speeds, From this I can conclude that CANET is no slower then the
:>  backbones to which any of those other large sites are connected.  

:And I'm running a 28.8 kb/s, which is I assume 2.88 kB/s (bytes) which
:is what I assume why your B is capitalized and I don't care about all
:that nice neat stuff other than to ensure I get good speed between my
:modem and my provider.  I may lust after such a high speed connection
:but I sure don't got such.

  Your modem is 28.8 kilobits per second, which equates (without 
  compression) to 3.2 kiloBytes per second.  Lower case 'b' represents 
  bits; upper case 'B' represents Bytes.  9 bits = 1 Byte -- for 
  a modem connection assuming no parity, 8 data bits and 1 stop bit.  Of 
  course there it will be a little slower to accomodate for the double 
  digital/analog conversion.  Sorry for being a little vague about my units.

  My point out of this is that if I can suck out 200 kB/s of bandwidth 
  from the states it shows that CANet is not the deliminating factor.  
  Certainly, if I'm not getting a slow down at these speeds, a 28.8 kbps 
  modem user will not suffer from being on CANet as opposed to a US network.

  It simply seems to me that our AGT rep is just trying to make a pitch 
  for his service inorder to pick up an inflated commission check.

Stephen Caplan