🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2011-11-08, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> dye <dye11@adsl-64-108-194-61.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>I really think once Uverse is "mostly available", the DSL is going to
>>>>>end up where ISDN is now, a legacy service that few of their people
>>>>>are going to know about it.
>
>>>>I would have loved ISDN, but AT&T fucked it up so it never became a
>>>>ubiquitous service unless you were provisioning a PBX.
>
>>>Sadly, the committee or whoever that came up with ISDN seemed to think 
>>>these were the people that would want it. So obviously since nobody aside 
>>>from 14 businesses used it, it was hard to get for anybody else.
>
>>2x 64K was three times as fast as the 40k "56k" modems of the time.
>
> The 56k was limited to 53k by FCC for a technical reason I never understood.
> It was never anywhere close to that speed due to usual crap telephone lines,
> and that not every switch was appropriate to the digital link that speed
> required.

IIRC, it was a power issue. In order to get 56K over typical line noise, the 
modem needed to send out more power than the phone regs would actually 
allow. 

-- 

Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com