🚀 go-pugleaf

> 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?

+ I can easily keep up with a 40K streaming audio feed with a 64K ISDN
+ connection. Download speed from an FTP site obviously depends on how busy
+ the FTP site is, among other variables.  

Yes, but finally someone is getting to my point:  The "other variables" are so
oppressive on the "World Wide Wait" that they appear to make ones connect rate
with his ISP the least of his worries; there's usually a bottleneck somewhere
else.

I could also keep up with a 40k streaming audio feed with a 45k connect on a
conventional  K56 modem, but the 40k streaming audio feed is virtually always
dropping out every few seconds from "net congestion" errors anyway, and I have
to drop to a feed with a slower sampling rate.  I can't see how a cable modem
or a 128 ISDN connect would change this.

If, for example, an FTP site is only moving a file at a quarter of my connect
speed, won't the throughput be just as lousy no matter how much faster my
modem device can connect to my ISP?

I can obviously see that _if there are no other bottlenecks_, a super-speed
device can be pretty impressive, but in my experience there are _almost
always_ other bottlenecks that prevent even a conventional modem from being
used to the capacity of the connect speed.  Seems to me you'd also have to
take care of every other problem constricting throughput between you and your
target URL.

Again, if some TCP/IP maven can explain the part of this I'm missing, I'd be
grateful.