🚀 go-pugleaf

This sounds alot like someone who calls tech support telling me of their
slow ISDN connections, when they have their ISDN line set in 'slow'
mode, only getting 28k instead of the full 56k. Having a 56k modem, just
upgraded from a 28.8 and a crappy isp, the download speeds have greatly
increased, and when at work, having a T1 the speed is *VERY* noticiable.
I can't stand it when people say 'well, I can't download fast' stop
downloading off of LOTSOXXXPORN.com and download.com. A faster modem is
the best way to speed up downloads, sustained or not. Phone lines also
come into play as well as the phone company (don't use roseville). So,
my advice to you? Get off your lazy ass and read some data yourself, try
using a 300bps modem and then a 56k modem yourself dumbfuck. 

Also, why are you posting in an american newsgroup if your in a diffrent
country? (.nl)

Anonymous wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?