🚀 go-pugleaf

Anonymous <nobody@base.xs4all.nl> writes:

> With all this talk of swoopy, high-priced tech for linking to the net
> at astronomical connect rates, I can't help but ask the obvious
> question:  What's the point, when net congestion and server overloads
> are such that you rarely can move data at sustained rates over 28.8k
> anyway?
> 

Well, I always suspect trolls when I see anonymous posts, posts from the
Netherlands in ba.internet, and seemingly exaggerated claims (in this case,
exaggerated claims of poor performance).

> An example:  A knucklehead friend who's always downloading smut .JPGs
> from porn sites told me the other day that he finally sat down and
> figured it out - his actual, averaged download speed on this junk is as
> slow as it was in 1983 with an old 300-baud modem.  How would some zippy
> cable modem improve that?

Is it that bad in Europe? If your so-called knucklehead is consistently 
connected at 300 baud, something other than congestion is wrong.

> 
> If I can't keep up a simple 16K streaming audio feed with a 50K connect,
> what difference will dropping the bucks for 128b ISDN make?

I have a cable modem, and I keep up fine with streaming audio, streaming
video, you name it. And it's flat rate. Nothing swoopy, nothing high-
priced. 

> 
> If the average FTP site downloads at only a quarter to half the speed of
> my K56 modem's capability, why bother with something faster?
> 
> What am I missing here?

You're missing something, that's for sure -- you've misconfigured your set
up, most likely. Maybe it's because your accessing xs4all from North
America and then back again for the downloads? Or else you're just trolling.

-- 
Phil Stripling               | Sorry for the munged replyto
The Civilized Explorer       | line, but you know what. 
http://www.cieux.com/        | needs to be removed