🚀 go-pugleaf

Anonymous <nobody@base.xs4all.nl> 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?

Nothing, I suspect.  Except perhaps you're overestimating the number
of slow web servers out there.  Reliable sources tell me that ISDN is
a joy to behold and I covet it.

die_laughing