🚀 go-pugleaf

On 23 Apr 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.modems, in article
<1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Radium wrote:

Followup-To: set - to give some chance that a response will be seen.


>Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
>with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?

No.   Look at your computer, and tell us how many modems you can
install in it.   Five?   Ten?   How many can your operating system
work with?  4?  16?  64?   192?   How much do you think Pacific Bell
is going to shove it to you for those lines, compared to how much
it would cost to get your own wideband satellite link from Hughes
or Pan Am?

>Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
>give a max of 56 Mbps?

See RFC1990, which you can find using the search engine you posted
from.  In practice, I've seen a thirtytwo port Cylades card with 32
modems used, but the results were less than satisfactory.

  1990 The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP). K. Sklower, B. Lloyd, G.
       McGregor, D. Carr, T. Coradetti. August 1996. (Format: TXT=53271
       bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1717) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)

You are spewing to a lot of microslop newsgroups, which leads one to
suspect you are using windoze of some version.  You'd probably need
a special driver to handle this, much like the Diamond shotgun modems
(which combined two modems into a single entity) from a couple of
years ago. 

This all assumes you would be bonding connections to a single ISP.
Trying to dial in to multiple ISPs is possible, but requires that
each connection be a separate one - thus the chance of aggregating
bandwidth is nearly nil.

You are much better of sticking with your cable provider.

        Old guy

Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> said in news:1177378238.361891.73650
@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> Hi:
> 
> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
> with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?
> 
> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
> give a max of 56 Mbps?

You fucking dumb ass.

 Rectum Burrrrrrrn

On Apr 23, 6:30 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
> with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?

>
> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
> give a max of 56 Mbps?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium

No. For several  reasons.

1 megabit =1024 kilobits (not 1000)

FCC limits so called 56K modems to only 53K, and often line conditions
limit speeds to 40k, or much less. People in rural areas often must
suffer with 28.8 or less, because of crappy phone lines.

It would be hideously impractical, Requiring specialized hardware AND
software.

It would be way cheaper to get cable internet access.

Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com: 

> Hi:
> 
> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
> numbers? 
> 
> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Radium
> 

Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even *I* can 
tell the guy is a fucking troll.

-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

<paulmd@efn.org> wrote in message 
news:1177385424.734594.247600@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 6:30 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
>> with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?
>
>>
>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
>> give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Radium
>
> No. For several  reasons.
>
> 1 megabit =1024 kilobits (not 1000)

line speed and throughput should be measured in the context of information 
theory.  they use 1 megabit = 1,000,000 bits.

in a download meter, it would make more sense to use binary megabytes i.e. 
mebibytes. 

<paulmd@efn.org> wrote in message 
news:1177385424.734594.247600@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 6:30 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
>> with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?
>
>>
>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
>> give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Radium
>
> No. For several  reasons.
>
> 1 megabit =1024 kilobits (not 1000)

modems use compression e.g. v.44.  two modems with Multilink should burst to 
300 kbps on certain material. 

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Xns991C97AB1B12thanexit@66.250.146.158...
> Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Hi:
>>
>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
>> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
>> numbers?
>>
>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Radium
>>
>
> Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even *I* can
> tell the guy is a fucking troll.

And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a stupid question, 
or someone who just likes to bitch?

...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is no easy way to 
amalgamate all the connections into a single stream. Just put two 100mbit 
network cards in a PC. It won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let you 
have two 100mbit streams though. 

"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in message 
news:mVkXh.121595$DE1.37097@pd7urf2no...
>
> "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:Xns991C97AB1B12thanexit@66.250.146.158...
>> Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
>>> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
>>> numbers?
>>>
>>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>>> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Radium
>>>
>>
>> Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even *I* can
>> tell the guy is a fucking troll.
>
> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a stupid 
> question, or someone who just likes to bitch?
>
> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k.

even if they weren't regulated, signal to noise and bandwidth limits the 
speed.  (Shannon theorem.)

>Also, There is no easy way to amalgamate all the connections into a single 
>stream. Just put two 100mbit network cards in a PC. It won't let you 
>download at 200mbit. It will let you have two 100mbit streams though.
>

i think the bonding and multilink PPP techniques require the help of the 
ISP.  you should be able to use a load balancer with 2 DSL lines fairly 
easily.

there are downloader programs that use threading and mirrors (like 
Getright).

multilink or load balancing 56k would only make sense somewhere that had no 
DSL, no cable, no satellite ... 

>>>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
>>>> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
>>>> numbers?
>>>>
>>>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>>>> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?

>>> Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even *I* can
>>> tell the guy is a fucking troll.
>>
>> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a stupid 
>> question, or someone who just likes to bitch?
>>
>> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k.
>
> even if they weren't regulated, signal to noise and bandwidth limits the 
> speed.  (Shannon theorem.)

They were capable of 56k, given perfect conditions.

>>Also, There is no easy way to amalgamate all the connections into a single 
>>stream. Just put two 100mbit network cards in a PC. It won't let you 
>>download at 200mbit. It will let you have two 100mbit streams though.
>
> i think the bonding and multilink PPP techniques require the help of the 
> ISP.  you should be able to use a load balancer with 2 DSL lines fairly 
> easily.

But you couldn't use BOTH streams to double the speed of a single download.

> there are downloader programs that use threading and mirrors (like 
> Getright).
>
> multilink or load balancing 56k would only make sense somewhere that had 
> no DSL, no cable, no satellite ...

Actually, I've got a dual WAN router here and two cable modems. Still, my 
fastest download for a single file is only 7mBit (the speed of one 
connection). 

On 23 Apr 2007 18:30:38 -0700, Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hi:
>
>Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
>with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?
>
>Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
>give a max of 56 Mbps?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Radium


Quit jerking off and get a girlfriend.

On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
> "thanatoid" <wait...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns991C97AB1B12thanexit@66.250.146.158...
>
>
>
> > Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> Hi:
>
> >> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
> >> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
> >> numbers?
>
> >> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
> >> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>
> >> Thanks,
>
> >> Radium
>
> > Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even *I* can
> > tell the guy is a fucking troll.
>
> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a stupid question,
> or someone who just likes to bitch?
>
> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is no easy way to
> amalgamate all the connections into a single stream. Just put two 100mbit
> network cards in a PC. It won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let you
> have two 100mbit streams though.

You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who actually just
wants an answer to a wild thought they had. It is an interesting
question, in theory.

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message 
news:fm8s239m1ravnnv4b2958mm0daip5mfac0@4ax.com...
> On 23 Apr 2007 18:30:38 -0700, Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Hi:
>>
>>Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
>>with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?
>>
>>Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
>>give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Radium
>
>
> Quit jerking off and get a girlfriend.

trolling Usenet is a distant second to sex.  a very sad distant second.

anyone have $300 to get this guy laid? 

On 24 Apr 2007 09:09:48 -0700, "paulmd@efn.org"
<paulmd@efn.org> wrote:


>You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who actually just
>wants an answer to a wild thought they had. It is an interesting
>question, in theory.
>

I believe you can, if given prior evidence.

Either way, a "wild thought" would still be researched prior
to public scrutiny.

"paulmd@efn.org" wrote:
> On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
>
... snip ...
>>
>> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is no easy
>> way to amalgamate all the connections into a single stream. Just
>> put two 100mbit network cards in a PC. It won't let you download
>> at 200mbit. It will let you have two 100mbit streams though.
> 
> You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who actually just
> wants an answer to a wild thought they had. It is an interesting
> question, in theory.

Besides which 56k modems usually have compression techniques added,
so they can process communications at well over 56k.

-- 
 <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
 <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
 <http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
                            cbfalconer at maineline.net



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"paulmd@efn.org" <paulmd@efn.org> wrote in
news:1177430988.571457.266060@u32g2000prd.googlegroups.com: 

> On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
>> "thanatoid" <wait...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Xns991C97AB1B12thanexit@66.250.146.158...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> Hi:
>>
>> >> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using
>> >> 1,000 dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone
>> >> ports and numbers?
>>
>> >> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>> >> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>
>> >> Thanks,
>>
>> >> Radium
>>
>> > Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even
>> > *I* can tell the guy is a fucking troll.
>>
>> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to
>> a stupid question, or someone who just likes to bitch?
>>
>> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is no
>> easy way to amalgamate all the connections into a single
>> stream. Just put two 100mbit network cards in a PC. It
>> won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let you have
>> two 100mbit streams though. 
> 
> You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who
> actually just wants an answer to a wild thought they had.
> It is an interesting question, in theory.

1) Not "in advance", I read the question!

2) In theory, exactly. And not THAT interesting, IMHO. And 
anyone who knows the difference between a modem and a graphics 
card knows it can't be done. 

3) NO ONE would ever attempt to try it in real life if nothing 
else because of the cost.

4) Ergo: troll.


-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in
news:63ks231useg19ln7ml1gdm5cabjufksquc@4ax.com: 

> On 24 Apr 2007 09:09:48 -0700, "paulmd@efn.org"
> <paulmd@efn.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who
>>actually just wants an answer to a wild thought they had.
>>It is an interesting question, in theory.
>>
> 
> I believe you can, if given prior evidence.
> 
> Either way, a "wild thought" would still be researched
> prior to public scrutiny.
> 

Not bad, a new definition of a geek with nothing better to do!

-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:462E51B4.C1DDE988@yahoo.com: 

> "paulmd@efn.org" wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>>
>>> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is
>>> no easy way to amalgamate all the connections into a
>>> single stream. Just put two 100mbit network cards in a
>>> PC. It won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let you
>>> have two 100mbit streams though. 
>> 
>> You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who
>> actually just wants an answer to a wild thought they had.
>> It is an interesting question, in theory.
> 
> Besides which 56k modems usually have compression
> techniques added, so they can process communications at
> well over 56k. 
> 

AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300 baud 
etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated speeds", and no 56 
modem can process anything at a faster speed than 53 or 56 (I 
don't know which is correct - see thread - and they're 
practically the same anyway). 
And it achieves that speed by compression. AFAIK, it's just a 
14.4 or 28.8 (my knowledge fails me here) modem with much better 
compression algorithms and some newer components.

-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in
news:mVkXh.121595$DE1.37097@pd7urf2no: 

> 
> "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:Xns991C97AB1B12thanexit@66.250.146.158...
>> Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
>>> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
>>> numbers?
>>>
>>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>>> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Radium
>>>
>>
>> Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even
>> *I* can tell the guy is a fucking troll.
> 
> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a
> stupid question, or someone who just likes to bitch?

VERY good question. AFAIAC, there are about 4 billion too many 
people in the world as it is.

<SNIP>


-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

"Strings" <strings@example.net> wrote in
news:462e45d8$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:

> 
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message 
> news:fm8s239m1ravnnv4b2958mm0daip5mfac0@4ax.com...
>> On 23 Apr 2007 18:30:38 -0700, Radium
>> <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi:
>>>
>>>Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
>>>dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
>>>numbers? 
>>>
>>>Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>>>could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Radium
>>
>>
>> Quit jerking off and get a girlfriend.
> 
> trolling Usenet is a distant second to sex.  a very sad
> distant second. 
> 
> anyone have $300 to get this guy laid? 

IMHO he only deserves a $25 hooker.


-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:462E51B4.C1DDE988@yahoo.com:
>> Besides which 56k modems usually have compression
>> techniques added, so they can process communications at
>> well over 56k.
>>
>
>AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300 baud
>etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated speeds", and no 56
>modem can process anything at a faster speed than 53 or 56 (I
>don't know which is correct - see thread - and they're
>practically the same anyway).

>And it achieves that speed by compression. AFAIK, it's just a
>14.4 or 28.8 (my knowledge fails me here) modem with much better
>compression algorithms and some newer components.

There are some rather dramatic differences between 14.4/28.8
(v.32 or v.34) modems and a v.90 or v.92 modem.

The actual bit rate over the modem link does in fact approach
53Kbps (though it is an extremely rare circumstance that it
actually gets that high, and more typical links would run at 42
to 49 Kbps).

The actual throughput depends on how much the data can be
compressed, and might actually peak at 4 times the link rate,
though that again is very rare.  More common rates would be just
less than 2x compression on regular text files, and no
compression at all on many binary files.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

thanatoid wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
>
... snip ...
>>
>> Besides which 56k modems usually have compression
>> techniques added, so they can process communications at
>> well over 56k.
> 
> AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300 baud
> etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated speeds", and no 56
> modem can process anything at a faster speed than 53 or 56 (I
> don't know which is correct - see thread - and they're
> practically the same anyway).
> And it achieves that speed by compression. AFAIK, it's just a
> 14.4 or 28.8 (my knowledge fails me here) modem with much better
> compression algorithms and some newer components.

Not so.  The bit rate can seriously exceed 56k.  You will also find
that such things as .zip files do not achieve this.

-- 
 <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
 <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
 <http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
                            cbfalconer at maineline.net



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Xns991CA2F8F87Athanexit@66.250.146.158...
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:462E51B4.C1DDE988@yahoo.com:
>
>> "paulmd@efn.org" wrote:
>>> On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
>>>
>> ... snip ...
>>>>
>>>> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is
>>>> no easy way to amalgamate all the connections into a
>>>> single stream. Just put two 100mbit network cards in a
>>>> PC. It won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let you
>>>> have two 100mbit streams though.
>>>
>>> You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who
>>> actually just wants an answer to a wild thought they had.
>>> It is an interesting question, in theory.
>>
>> Besides which 56k modems usually have compression
>> techniques added, so they can process communications at
>> well over 56k.
>>
>
> AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300 baud
> etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated speeds", and no 56
> modem can process anything at a faster speed than 53 or 56 (I
> don't know which is correct - see thread - and they're
> practically the same anyway).

Not true...

Take a 1 megabyte file full of zeros and transfer it over a 56k modem... 
You'll see VERY high throughput. Compression CAN take the data stream faster 
than the signalling rate.

Much of this is moot as dialup data is going the way of the dinosaur. I find 
it funny that nobody has come up with a CHEAP and SIMPLE modem that does 
strictly Fax and advanced voice. 

>>>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
>>>> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
>>>> numbers?
>>>>
>>>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>>>> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?

>>> Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even
>>> *I* can tell the guy is a fucking troll.

>> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a
>> stupid question, or someone who just likes to bitch?

> VERY good question. AFAIAC, there are about 4 billion too many
> people in the world as it is.

I agree. What we need is another world war. I can't decide if I'd want to be 
a winner or loser in that fight though. 

On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:

> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is no easy way to
> amalgamate all the connections into a single stream. Just put two 100mbit
> network cards in a PC. It won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let you
> have two 100mbit streams though.

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/2427/clocksignalexample8is.gif

If each clock signal is 1 GHz, and you have a 4 of them, staggered
such that every 1ns part of the CPU can start, and finish, an
instruction - making the effective 'clock rate' 4 GHz.

I wondering if something analogous could be done with dial-up modems.
IOW, using more phone lines/modems/phone #'s to get a faster speed.

Radium wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> I wondering if something analogous could be done with dial-up
> modems. IOW, using more phone lines/modems/phone #'s to get a
> faster speed.

It has.

-- 
 <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
 <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
 <http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
                            cbfalconer at maineline.net



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in
news:JAwXh.123949$6m4.88170@pd7urf1no: 

>>>>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using
>>>>> 1,000 dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone
>>>>> ports and numbers?
>>>>>
>>>>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>>>>> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
> 
>>>> Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even
>>>> *I* can tell the guy is a fucking troll.
> 
>>> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to
>>> a stupid question, or someone who just likes to bitch?
> 
>> VERY good question. AFAIAC, there are about 4 billion too
>> many people in the world as it is.
> 
> I agree. What we need is another world war. I can't decide
> if I'd want to be a winner or loser in that fight though. 

Another very good question. I was originally going to say that 
dying would be a plus since one would be done with this stinking 
world, but then I thought, MAYBE with 2 billion people life 
would be slightly more bearable. Then I remembered the problem 
is in MY head so it doesn't matter whether 6 billion people 
annoy me or only 2 billion.

I recently saw a quote from a European philosopher which 
basically said, although in very different words, "once you're 
born, you're screwed".


-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:462E8321.182A78CC@yahoo.com: 

> thanatoid wrote:
>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>
> ... snip ...
>>>
>>> Besides which 56k modems usually have compression
>>> techniques added, so they can process communications at
>>> well over 56k.
>> 
>> AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300
>> baud etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated
>> speeds", and no 56 modem can process anything at a faster
>> speed than 53 or 56 (I don't know which is correct - see
>> thread - and they're practically the same anyway).
>> And it achieves that speed by compression. AFAIK, it's
>> just a 14.4 or 28.8 (my knowledge fails me here) modem
>> with much better compression algorithms and some newer
>> components. 
> 
> Not so.  The bit rate can seriously exceed 56k.  You will
> also find that such things as .zip files do not achieve
> this. 
> 

I realize whether the data transmitted is raw, zipped, rar'd, 
yEnc'd or mimed doesn't matter, but I do not believe bitrate can 
exceed 56KB (if that) - and most of the others in the thread 
seem to feel the same way.

I HAVE noticed something interesting with MY 33.6 modem (laugh - 
it works great, and I'm in no hurry).

When dl'g *headers* from groups XNews *sometimes* - not always - 
shows bitrates approaching 25000 - fast as heck (well, for a 
dialup guy). Actual posts usually dl at about 3500. But most of 
the time the headers dl at about 4500-5000 - still faster than 
posts, but nothing like 25000.

I think this may have something to do with MRU - several headers 
probably fitting in one packet. (Am I using the right terms? The 
thing that used to be about half of 1500 and you had to modify 
settings for better performance, but Microsoft insisted on 1500 
and now the MRU my ISP uses is 1524 ...)

But if it IS the packets, why is the very rapid header download 
speed not standard but quite intermittent?


-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

thanatoid wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
>
... snip about modems ...
>>
>> Not so.  The bit rate can seriously exceed 56k.  You will
>> also find that such things as .zip files do not achieve
>> this.
> 
> I realize whether the data transmitted is raw, zipped, rar'd,
> yEnc'd or mimed doesn't matter, but I do not believe bitrate can
> exceed 56KB (if that) - and most of the others in the thread
> seem to feel the same way.

But it does matter, highly.  Your modem may not do compression, or
may be configured to avoid it.  Zipped files are already highly
compressed, and cannot be much further processed.

-- 
 <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
 <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
 <http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
                            cbfalconer at maineline.net


-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 > AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300 baud
> etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated speeds", and no 56
> modem can process anything at a faster speed than 53 or 56 (I
> don't know which is correct - see thread - and they're
> practically the same anyway).
> And it achieves that speed by compression. AFAIK, it's just a
> 14.4 or 28.8 (my knowledge fails me here) modem with much better
> compression algorithms and some newer components.

this is clearly wrong.  there are multiple bits per baud in faster modems. 
for instance the 9600 baud used for PCs used quadrature modulation.

it's pretty clear, that on a clean analog line you can get at least 30 kbps. 
this is due to the bandwidth and SNR, and the Shannon theorem sets an upper 
bound on line speed.

56k modems go well past 56 kbps on material which can be compressed heavily. 

> AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300 baud
> etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated speeds",

this is definitely wrong since you can download zipped files (bz2, 7z) at 50 
kbps on a clean line.  those types of files cannot be compressed much by 
v.44.

there is no *general* compression algo that can magically compress any file. 
text, HTML, xls, can be compressed because they are highly redundant i.e. 
low entropy. 

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:462ED5C1.EEB107A@yahoo.com...
> thanatoid wrote:
>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>
> ... snip about modems ...
>>>
>>> Not so.  The bit rate can seriously exceed 56k.  You will
>>> also find that such things as .zip files do not achieve
>>> this.
>>
>> I realize whether the data transmitted is raw, zipped, rar'd,
>> yEnc'd or mimed doesn't matter, but I do not believe bitrate can
>> exceed 56KB (if that) - and most of the others in the thread
>> seem to feel the same way.
>
> But it does matter, highly.  Your modem may not do compression, or
> may be configured to avoid it.  Zipped files are already highly
> compressed, and cannot be much further processed.

some stuff that is misunderstood by computer newbies:

1.  "bps = baud."  this was only true in the early modems.

2.  Bps vs bps.  Bps usually refers to bytes per second.

3.  the line speed is limited by Shannon's theorem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon's_theorem

4.  line speed vs throughput.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.44#Error_control_and_data_compression

5.  UART caps..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UART 

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:462ED5C1.EEB107A@yahoo.com: 

> thanatoid wrote:
>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>
> ... snip about modems ...
>>>
>>> Not so.  The bit rate can seriously exceed 56k.  You will
>>> also find that such things as .zip files do not achieve
>>> this.
>> 
>> I realize whether the data transmitted is raw, zipped,
>> rar'd, yEnc'd or mimed doesn't matter, but I do not
>> believe bitrate can exceed 56KB (if that) - and most of
>> the others in the thread seem to feel the same way.
> 
> But it does matter, highly.

No it does not. If a modem can only receive 25kb per second due 
to whatever reasons, it does NOT matter whether that 25kb is raw 
text or a zipped file. It will do whatever compression it can, 
and give you whatever amount of data it can handle.

> Your modem may not do
> compression,

Even my nearly 10 year old modem does compression. As I said, 
all modem protocols except the very earliest ones - before they 
started using the term bps because at the time baud was more 
accurate and realistic - use compression. Mine only gives me the 
option to turn off IPX header compression. I don't even know 
what that means, it's NOT turned off, and everything works fine.

> or may be configured to avoid it.

Huh?

> Zipped
> files are already highly compressed, and cannot be much
> further processed. 

I an aware of the fact you can drink water but not sand, thank 
you.


-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

"Strings" <strings@example.net> wrote in
news:462f31bd$0$97228$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:

>> AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300
>> baud etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated
>> speeds", 
> 
> this is definitely wrong since you can download zipped
> files (bz2, 7z) at 50 kbps on a clean line.  those types of
> files cannot be compressed much by v.44.
> 
> there is no *general* compression algo that can magically
> compress any file. text, HTML, xls, can be compressed
> because they are highly redundant i.e. low entropy. 

You know more than I but you are not being logical. A modem can 
NOT handle more than, say - in my case - 3500bps of data. Of 
course, if that data was compressed to begin with or if it is 
sent using yEnc, I will get it more of it in less time. And 
certain text files can be compressed by 85% or more as anybody 
who has ever zipped one knows. A bmp file will take forever 
while a visually equivalent jpg sent using yEnc will take 1/15 
of the time.

All that, however, has NOTHING to do with the subject. A modem 
can only do SO MUCH with ANY data it receives.


-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> thanatoid wrote:
>>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>
>> ... snip about modems ...
>>>>
>>>> Not so.  The bit rate can seriously exceed 56k.  You will
>>>> also find that such things as .zip files do not achieve
>>>> this.
>>>
>>> I realize whether the data transmitted is raw, zipped,
>>> rar'd, yEnc'd or mimed doesn't matter, but I do not
>>> believe bitrate can exceed 56KB (if that) - and most of
>>> the others in the thread seem to feel the same way.
>>
>> But it does matter, highly.
>
>No it does not.

CBFalconer is correct, it matters.

>If a modem can only receive 25kb per second due
>to whatever reasons, it does NOT matter whether that 25kb is raw
>text or a zipped file. It will do whatever compression it can,
>and give you whatever amount of data it can handle.

Not necessarily.

>> Your modem may not do
>> compression,
>
>Even my nearly 10 year old modem does compression.

Ten years ago is when modems ceased to be a significant factor
in computer networking for consumers.  That is the mere end of
their history.

Keep in mind that CBFalconer was a grizzled old fart even then,
never mind now!  ;-)

But, seriously, he is correct about modems that optionally do
not compress.

>As I said,
>all modem protocols except the very earliest ones - before they
>started using the term bps because at the time baud was more

The term bps was in use, even then.  M-ary encoding schemes have
existed since at least the 1930's.  Keep in mind that the PCM
encoding used in digital telephony was fully specified by the
mid-1940's.

The term "baud" was used with FSK modems because it is correct.
But the first modems introduced as consumer products where FSK
modems, and when consumer products moved to PSK using multiple
bits per symbol the consumer advertizing continued to use the
term "baud" because consumers were familiar with it.

It was not a technically correct usage, and it had not been used
in describing the many earlier professional modems that used the
same techniques.

>accurate and realistic - use compression. Mine only gives me the
>option to turn off IPX header compression. I don't even know
>what that means, it's NOT turned off, and everything works fine.

I suspect that your modem allows non-compressed data transfers
too.

>> or may be configured to avoid it.
>
>Huh?

Disabling compression is not commonly used, but is typically
available as a configuration option.

>> Zipped
>> files are already highly compressed, and cannot be much
>> further processed.
>
>I an aware of the fact you can drink water but not sand, thank
>you.

Are you aware that enabling compression increases latency?  If
your application is sensitive to latency and the data is not
compressable, the most reasonable modem configuation is to
disable compression.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

> I realize whether the data transmitted is raw, zipped, rar'd,
> yEnc'd or mimed doesn't matter, but I do not believe bitrate can
> exceed 56KB (if that) - and most of the others in the thread
> seem to feel the same way.

I think folks are arguing two different things here...

Physically, a 56k modem can download at max, with a perfect line at 53kbit 
per second. (53k here in Canada and US. Not sure if other areas limit power 
the same as here). That is the raw data between modems.

Data can be transmitted THROUGH the modem much faster if the data is easily 
compressed WITHIN the modem (yes, dialup modems do compression on the fly). 
For example, send a large text file full of space characters only and the 
modem will squash that data BEFORE putting it on the line to the other end. 
While the data stream never goes above the 53kbps limit between the modems, 
the actual data throughput is much higher.

If you want to test efficiency, create a text document, about one megabyte 
in size, that contains nothing but space characters. This file contains 
8388608 bits of data. After adding a start bit, parity bit and stop bit you 
end up with 11534336 bits of data. At 100% efficiency (which will never 
happen), this file could be dowloaded in 217.6 seconds.

Zip this file using your compression ratio of choice. This file should be a 
LOT smaller than the original.

At this point you should have "bigfile.txt" and "bigfile.zip"

Put both of these files onto webspace on the internet somplace and try to 
download them with your 56k modem. What kind of download speeds and download 
times do you actually see?

... and there is one other item to take into consideration here. A 56kbit 
modem will ONLY run faster than 33.6kbit if the answering end of the system 
is digital. It can't be an analog phone line, etc. This means you'll never 
get 56kbit dialing between PC modems. 

"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote:
>
>... and there is one other item to take into consideration here. A 56kbit
>modem will ONLY run faster than 33.6kbit if the answering end of the system
>is digital. It can't be an analog phone line, etc. This means you'll never
>get 56kbit dialing between PC modems.

What is required is that there be only one codec in the
connection.  It makes no difference which side answers and which
side originates.

However, your conclusion that 56Kbps cannot happen "dialing
between PC modems" is correct, because there is necessarily a
requirement for two codecs if each "PC modem" is a modem
connected to a POTS telephone line.  That is a function of the
POTS lines, not of a "PC modem", unless of course you define it
to be a modem that only uses a POTS line, as opposed, for
example, to being an ISDN modem).  That's obviously a lot of
hair splitting... :-)

The "analog phone line" is not actually used as an analog phone
line when there is only one codec.  Instead the codec becomes a
digitial level shifting mechanism (which converts digital PCM to
digital PAM, and there is nothing analog about the data!  If it
is, however, decoded by a 2nd codec...  it becomes a
"quasi-analog" signal, and can no longer be used in any way that
will produce a bit rate approaching 56Kbps.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
news:87zm4w8djo.fld@barrow.com: 

Thanks for a comprehensive and polite reply...

<SNIP>

>>>> I realize whether the data transmitted is raw, zipped,
>>>> rar'd, yEnc'd or mimed doesn't matter, but I do not
>>>> believe bitrate can exceed 56KB (if that) - and most of
>>>> the others in the thread seem to feel the same way.
>>>
>>> But it does matter, highly.
>>
>>No it does not.
> 
> CBFalconer is correct, it matters.

Maybe. I really don't care. I can't believe that after 
complaining about the OP, I have become the main element in 
continuing the discussion.

<SNIP>

>>Even my nearly 10 year old modem does compression.
> 
> Ten years ago is when modems ceased to be a significant
> factor in computer networking for consumers.  That is the
> mere end of their history.

It will be years until NO ONE on the PLANET uses a dial-up 
modem. I have no intention of even upgrading to a 56 from my 
33.6 until the 33.6 bites it - I realize I am a member of an 
EXTREME minority, of course. 

But MANY people still use modems. People in highly 
industrialized/advanced nations (I read once Holland has every 
home wired for BB, ergo the joys of alt.binaries.boneless etc) 
are not the majority.

<SNIP>

> But, seriously, he is correct about modems that optionally
> do not compress.

There may be such things, I am not aware of them, mine has NO 
options except the IPX header compression on/off, and I don't 
care.

<SNIP>

> The term "baud" was used with FSK modems because it is
> correct. But the first modems introduced as consumer
> products where FSK modems, and when consumer products moved
> to PSK using multiple bits per symbol the consumer
> advertizing continued to use the term "baud" because
> consumers were familiar with it. 

Yes, I knew most of that...

> It was not a technically correct usage, and it had not been
> used in describing the many earlier professional modems
> that used the same techniques.

Yes, I knew that...

> I suspect that your modem allows non-compressed data
> transfers too.

Well if it does, it requires a magic spell since there are no 
options in any of the settings and there is no mention of it in 
the manual (which I have read EVERY word of).

> Disabling compression is not commonly used, but is
> typically available as a configuration option.

Maybe on some modems - not on mine ("U.S. Robotics Sportster 
Voice 28.8 Faxmodem with Personal Voice Mail" / "28.8 v.34 and 
33.6 Faxmodem with Speakerphone and Personal Voice Mail"). It 
mentions "compression" only when mentioning what V.42 bis/MNP 5 
stands for (and which it supports).

>>> Zipped
>>> files are already highly compressed, and cannot be much
>>> further processed.
>>
>>I an aware of the fact you can drink water but not sand,
>>thank you.
> 
> Are you aware that enabling compression increases latency? 
> If your application is sensitive to latency and the data is
> not compressable, the most reasonable modem configuation is
> to disable compression.

I don't know what latency is and my modem does not allow for 
disabling compression. (Just checked what it is. OK. If I really 
cared about speed, I *would* have BB wouldn't I? But I'm in no 
hurry, for anything.)

{I once ran about 6 on-line hours of "Modem Doctor" (or 
something) tests (during which it dialed my ISP at least 500 
times) and it told me my modem was operating at 99.8 efficiency. 
Good enough for me.}

Cheers and thanks for clarifying a few things for me.

P.S.
One of the pages on latency 
(http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/rants/Latency.html) says:

"The solution is easy. You can get two telephone lines, and use 
them together in parallel, giving you a total of 66kbit/sec. If 
you need even more you can get ten telephone lines, giving you 
330kbit/sec. Sure, it's expensive, and having ten modems in a 
pile is inconvenient, and you may have to write your own 
networking software to share the data evenly between the ten 
lines, but if it was important enough to you, you could get it 
done. It may not be cheap, but at least it's possible."

So, not that the OP is around anymore, but apparently one COULD 
use one thousand modems at once. Unless the author of the page 
is wrong.

Sigh.


-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Xns991D8C800FEFFthanexit@66.250.146.158...

> You know more than I but you are not being logical. A modem can
> NOT handle more than, say - in my case - 3500bps of data. Of
> course, if that data was compressed to begin with or if it is
> sent using yEnc, I will get it more of it in less time. And
> certain text files can be compressed by 85% or more as anybody
> who has ever zipped one knows. A bmp file will take forever
> while a visually equivalent jpg sent using yEnc will take 1/15
> of the time.
>
> All that, however, has NOTHING to do with the subject. A modem
> can only do SO MUCH with ANY data it receives.
>
>
> -- 
> Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed. 

"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in
news:E5PXh.126796$DE1.126581@pd7urf2no: 

>> I realize whether the data transmitted is raw, zipped,
>> rar'd, yEnc'd or mimed doesn't matter, but I do not
>> believe bitrate can exceed 56KB (if that) - and most of
>> the others in the thread seem to feel the same way.
> 
> I think folks are arguing two different things here...
> 
> Physically, a 56k modem can download at max, with a perfect
> line at 53kbit per second. (53k here in Canada and US. Not
> sure if other areas limit power the same as here). That is
> the raw data between modems. 
> 
> Data can be transmitted THROUGH the modem much faster if
> the data is easily compressed WITHIN the modem (yes, dialup
> modems do compression on the fly). For example, send a
> large text file full of space characters only and the modem
> will squash that data BEFORE putting it on the line to the
> other end. While the data stream never goes above the
> 53kbps limit between the modems, the actual data throughput
> is much higher. 
> 
> If you want to test efficiency, create a text document,
> about one megabyte in size, that contains nothing but space
> characters. This file contains 8388608 bits of data. After
> adding a start bit, parity bit and stop bit you end up with
> 11534336 bits of data. At 100% efficiency (which will never
> happen), this file could be dowloaded in 217.6 seconds.
> 
> Zip this file using your compression ratio of choice. This
> file should be a LOT smaller than the original.
> 
> At this point you should have "bigfile.txt" and
> "bigfile.zip" 
> 
> Put both of these files onto webspace on the internet
> somplace and try to download them with your 56k modem. What
> kind of download speeds and download times do you actually
> see? 
> 
> ... and there is one other item to take into consideration
> here. A 56kbit modem will ONLY run faster than 33.6kbit if
> the answering end of the system is digital. It can't be an
> analog phone line, etc. This means you'll never get 56kbit
> dialing between PC modems. 

Nice to see a little sanity interjected into the discussion.
Thank you.


-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

thanatoid wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> thanatoid wrote:
>>
>> ... snip about modems ...
>>>
>>> I realize whether the data transmitted is raw, zipped,
>>> rar'd, yEnc'd or mimed doesn't matter, but I do not
>>> believe bitrate can exceed 56KB (if that) - and most of
>>> the others in the thread seem to feel the same way.
>>
>> But it does matter, highly.
> 
> No it does not. If a modem can only receive 25kb per second due
> to whatever reasons, it does NOT matter whether that 25kb is raw
> text or a zipped file. It will do whatever compression it can,
> and give you whatever amount of data it can handle.

However, once that compressed item is received, it is expanded to
more than the original number of bits, and those are deposited in
your file.  You never see the compression or expansion.  Neither
does the other end.  Thus the apparent rate can exceed 56k.

-- 
 <http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
 <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
 <http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
                            cbfalconer at maineline.net



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Apr 24, 8:24 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Radium wrote:

> > I wondering if something analogous could be done with dial-up
> > modems. IOW, using more phone lines/modems/phone #'s to get a
> > faster speed.

> It has.

Where can I find examples of this?

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:463005D7.3941D61@yahoo.com: 

> thanatoid wrote:
>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> thanatoid wrote:
>>>
>>> ... snip about modems ...
>>>>
>>>> I realize whether the data transmitted is raw, zipped,
>>>> rar'd, yEnc'd or mimed doesn't matter, but I do not
>>>> believe bitrate can exceed 56KB (if that) - and most of
>>>> the others in the thread seem to feel the same way.
>>>
>>> But it does matter, highly.
>> 
>> No it does not. If a modem can only receive 25kb per
>> second due to whatever reasons, it does NOT matter whether
>> that 25kb is raw text or a zipped file. It will do
>> whatever compression it can, and give you whatever amount
>> of data it can handle. 
> 
> However, once that compressed item is received, it is
> expanded to more than the original number of bits, and
> those are deposited in your file.  You never see the
> compression or expansion.  Neither does the other end. 
> Thus the apparent rate can exceed 56k. 

Yes, I know. I understand the concept of compression and 
decompression, BION.

Also, while I SINCERELY apologize for dragging this on, but 
surely you meant "same as the original" unless by "original" you 
mean "compressed" which would be kind of weird IMO.

As to what is "apparent" or not - to whom and under what 
circumstances - well, this may not be the best group for that 
subject... ;-)



-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1177561509.204860.273470@c18g2000prb.googlegroups.com: 

> On Apr 24, 8:24 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com>
> wrote: 
> 
>> Radium wrote:
> 
>> > I wondering if something analogous could be done with
>> > dial-up modems. IOW, using more phone lines/modems/phone
>> > #'s to get a faster speed.
> 
>> It has.
> 
> Where can I find examples of this?

This link does not provide EXAMPLES but appears to claim it to 
be possible - albeit troublesome to put it mildly. (In fact I 
doubt it HAS been done, certainly not with a THOUSAND modems.)

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/rants/Latency.html


-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

"thanatoid" wrote:
>
> This link does not provide EXAMPLES but appears to claim it to
> be possible - albeit troublesome to put it mildly. (In fact I
> doubt it HAS been done, certainly not with a THOUSAND modems.)
>
> http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/rants/Latency.html

There used to be something called "shotgunning modems", where you would use 
two modems on two different phone lines in the same box to double your d/l 
speed.  It was pretty picky though, IIRC.

Jon 

On 26 Apr 2007 05:00:02 GMT, thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:


>Yes, I know. I understand the concept of compression and 
>decompression,

Good, then the dead horse has been beaten enough.  
 
Don't let ego drag out a thread that was senseless right
from the start.

Also, please do not change thread subject lines!  If you
disagree with a topic, fine, put that in the body of the
message.  A subject line is for continuity of threads, not a
place to put your own personal opinions by changing the
subject (line).

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message 
news:d0k133pso74m8po8jpcgqjmjbb3okf3i47@4ax.com...
> On 26 Apr 2007 05:00:02 GMT, thanatoid
> <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, I know. I understand the concept of compression and
>>decompression,
>
> Good, then the dead horse has been beaten enough.
>
> Don't let ego drag out a thread that was senseless right
> from the start.
>
> Also, please do not change thread subject lines!  If you
> disagree with a topic, fine, put that in the body of the
> message.  A subject line is for continuity of threads, not a
> place to put your own personal opinions by changing the
> subject (line).

thanatoid may be a troll.  it's an ancient tactic to say one thing, 
backpedal, agree with some people, argue with others, etc.

this thread may be akin to counting the angels on the head of a pin.  no ISP 
or phone company will agree to bond 1,000 phone lines.  they'd insist on 
fiber, T1, whatever for 56 mbps.

you can get high speed lines run to homes.  the guy who owns nyx.net has 
one.

even multilink 2 * 56k would be silly.  you can get satellite internet for 
that price.

most dialup ISPs have timeouts, as low as 4 hours for PeoplePC.  ironically 
AOL, considered the worst ISP by many, has no timeout locally. 

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in 
news:d0k133pso74m8po8jpcgqjmjbb3okf3i47@4ax.com:

> On 26 Apr 2007 05:00:02 GMT, thanatoid
> <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Yes, I know. I understand the concept of compression and 
>>decompression,
> 
> Good, then the dead horse has been beaten enough.  

*That* statement proves it to you? I SAID I'm sorry to have 
dragged this on - I just have nothing better to do when I drink 
my morning coffee.

> Don't let ego drag out a thread that was senseless right
> from the start.

I have no ego - but I admit I enjoy having the last word, even 
if it's incorrect, as it often is. And I was the 1st one to say 
the thread was stupid and probably trollwork. However, I read a 
few articles and learned a few things (admittedly, pretty 
useless) as a result of it.

> Also, please do not change thread subject lines!  If you
> disagree with a topic, fine, put that in the body of the
> message.  A subject line is for continuity of threads, not a
> place to put your own personal opinions by changing the
> subject (line).

Lighten up. I did not CHANGE it, I added a phrase. It's done all 
the time. When Usenet consisted of 3,000 geeks, "rules" made 
sense to all of them.

But it's not 1985 anymore. I read a thread in a group frequented 
by *serious* anal-retentives just yesterday, which had about 30 
posts, 75% of them top-posting, and no-one even bothered to make 
an issue of it. I was actually surprised.



-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

"S" <s@example.net> wrote in
news:4630e213$0$97237$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:

> 
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message 
> news:d0k133pso74m8po8jpcgqjmjbb3okf3i47@4ax.com...
>> On 26 Apr 2007 05:00:02 GMT, thanatoid
>> <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, I know. I understand the concept of compression and
>>>decompression,
>>
>> Good, then the dead horse has been beaten enough.
>>
>> Don't let ego drag out a thread that was senseless right
>> from the start.
>>
>> Also, please do not change thread subject lines!  If you
>> disagree with a topic, fine, put that in the body of the
>> message.  A subject line is for continuity of threads, not
>> a place to put your own personal opinions by changing the
>> subject (line).
> 
> thanatoid may be a troll.

And you may be stupid.

> it's an ancient tactic to say
> one thing, backpedal, agree with some people, argue with
> others, etc. 

Yes, conversation has been an option for Homo Sapiens for SOME 
time. 
Welcome to the world of human and semi-human interaction. (Some 
claim all humans are descended from trolls, you know.)

> this thread may be akin to counting the angels on the head
> of a pin.  no ISP or phone company will agree to bond 1,000
> phone lines.  they'd insist on fiber, T1, whatever for 56
> mbps. 

I, "the troll" was the first to say the OP WAS a troll. I still 
can't understand how this has dragged on so long. But if you 
read my posts, at least I found out that it is apparently 
technically possible to do it - which I did NOT originally 
believe. In practice, of course, it would never happen.

<SNIP>


-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Xns991E8A82633ACthanexit@66.250.146.158...
> "S" <s@example.net> wrote in
> news:4630e213$0$97237$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:
>
>>
>> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:d0k133pso74m8po8jpcgqjmjbb3okf3i47@4ax.com...
>>> On 26 Apr 2007 05:00:02 GMT, thanatoid
>>> <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, I know. I understand the concept of compression and
>>>>decompression,
>>>
>>> Good, then the dead horse has been beaten enough.
>>>
>>> Don't let ego drag out a thread that was senseless right
>>> from the start.
>>>
>>> Also, please do not change thread subject lines!  If you
>>> disagree with a topic, fine, put that in the body of the
>>> message.  A subject line is for continuity of threads, not
>>> a place to put your own personal opinions by changing the
>>> subject (line).
>>
>> thanatoid may be a troll.
>
> And you may be stupid.

no, i am observant, and you said compression is how modems achieve their 
rated speeds.  which is wrong.  then you reversed and said that the line 
speed was 56k.  i'm using paraphrasing, but that was precisely the argument 
you made.

it was not the backpedalling that makes me suspicious, but the fact you 
didn't admit to be wrong.

you are using ancient troll methods, whether intentional or not.