Dial-up Modem Speed of 56 Mbps?

Hi:

Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?

Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
give a max of 56 Mbps?


Thanks,

Radium

On 23 Apr 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.modems, in article
<1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.c om>, Radium wrote:

Followup-To: set - to give some chance that a response will be seen.


>Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
>with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?

No. Look at your computer, and tell us how many modems you can
install in it. Five? Ten? How many can your operating system
work with? 4? 16? 64? 192? How much do you think Pacific Bell
is going to shove it to you for those lines, compared to how much
it would cost to get your own wideband satellite link from Hughes
or Pan Am?

>Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
>give a max of 56 Mbps?

See RFC1990, which you can find using the search engine you posted
from. In practice, I've seen a thirtytwo port Cylades card with 32
modems used, but the results were less than satisfactory.

1990 The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP). K. Sklower, B. Lloyd, G.
McGregor, D. Carr, T. Coradetti. August 1996. (Format: TXT=53271
bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1717) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)

You are spewing to a lot of microslop newsgroups, which leads one to
suspect you are using windoze of some version. You'd probably need
a special driver to handle this, much like the Diamond shotgun modems
(which combined two modems into a single entity) from a couple of
years ago.

This all assumes you would be bonding connections to a single ISP.
Trying to dial in to multiple ISPs is possible, but requires that
each connection be a separate one - thus the chance of aggregating
bandwidth is nearly nil.

You are much better of sticking with your cable provider.

Old guy

Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> said in news:1177378238.361891.73650
@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> Hi:
>
> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
> with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?
>
> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
> give a max of 56 Mbps?

You fucking dumb ass.

Rectum Burrrrrrrn

On Apr 23, 6:30 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
> with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?

>
> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
> give a max of 56 Mbps?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium

No. For several reasons.

1 megabit =1024 kilobits (not 1000)

FCC limits so called 56K modems to only 53K, and often line conditions
limit speeds to 40k, or much less. People in rural areas often must
suffer with 28.8 or less, because of crappy phone lines.

It would be hideously impractical, Requiring specialized hardware AND
software.

It would be way cheaper to get cable internet access.

Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegrou ps.com:

> Hi:
>
> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
> numbers?
>
> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium
>

Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even *I* can
tell the guy is a fucking troll.

--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

On Apr 23, 8:17 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.modems, in article
>
> <1177378238.361891.73...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.c om>, Radium wrote:
>
> Followup-To: set - to give some chance that a response will be seen.
>
> >Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
> >with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?
>
> No. Look at your computer, and tell us how many modems you can
> install in it. Five? Ten?


Well, the theoretical limit for USB is 127, with cascading hubs. I
think that would suck, though, even if you could get windows to play
nice with all those devices. :) It would use more bandwidth than usb 2
could handle. Several times more.

There are also 8 port pci serial cards, with a crazy 8 headed cable,
each end connects to a different serial device (ie, external modem). 8
x 2-6 pci slots = a lot of modems.

I know you can get at least 4 modems to actually work independently in
an ordinary PC. (Poor man's modem server)

> How many can your operating system
> work with? 4? 16? 64? 192? How much do you think Pacific Bell
> is going to shove it to you for those lines, compared to how much
> it would cost to get your own wideband satellite link from Hughes
> or Pan Am?
>
> >Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
> >give a max of 56 Mbps?
>
> See RFC1990, which you can find using the search engine you posted
> from. In practice, I've seen a thirtytwo port Cylades card with 32
> modems used, but the results were less than satisfactory.
>
> 1990 The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP). K. Sklower, B. Lloyd, G.
> McGregor, D. Carr, T. Coradetti. August 1996. (Format: TXT=53271
> bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1717) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)
>
> You are spewing to a lot of microslop newsgroups, which leads one to
> suspect you are using windoze of some version. You'd probably need
> a special driver to handle this, much like the Diamond shotgun modems
> (which combined two modems into a single entity) from a couple of
> years ago.
>
> This all assumes you would be bonding connections to a single ISP.
> Trying to dial in to multiple ISPs is possible, but requires that
> each connection be a separate one - thus the chance of aggregating
> bandwidth is nearly nil.
>
> You are much better of sticking with your cable provider.
>
> Old guy

<paulmd@efn.org> wrote in message
news:1177385424.734594.247600@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> On Apr 23, 6:30 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
>> with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?
>
>>
>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
>> give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Radium
>
> No. For several reasons.
>
> 1 megabit =1024 kilobits (not 1000)

line speed and throughput should be measured in the context of information
theory. they use 1 megabit = 1,000,000 bits.

in a download meter, it would make more sense to use binary megabytes i.e.
mebibytes.

<paulmd@efn.org> wrote in message
news:1177385424.734594.247600@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> On Apr 23, 6:30 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi:
>>
>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
>> with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?
>
>>
>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
>> give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Radium
>
> No. For several reasons.
>
> 1 megabit =1024 kilobits (not 1000)

modems use compression e.g. v.44. two modems with Multilink should burst to
300 kbps on certain material.

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns991C97AB1B12thanexit@66.250.146.158...
> Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegrou ps.com:
>
>> Hi:
>>
>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
>> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
>> numbers?
>>
>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Radium
>>
>
> Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even *I* can
> tell the guy is a fucking troll.

And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a stupid question,
or someone who just likes to bitch?

....and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is no easy way to
amalgamate all the connections into a single stream. Just put two 100mbit
network cards in a PC. It won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let you
have two 100mbit streams though.

"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in message
news:mVkXh.121595$DE1.37097@pd7urf2no...
>
> "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns991C97AB1B12thanexit@66.250.146.158...
>> Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegrou ps.com:
>>
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
>>> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
>>> numbers?
>>>
>>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>>> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Radium
>>>
>>
>> Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even *I* can
>> tell the guy is a fucking troll.
>
> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a stupid
> question, or someone who just likes to bitch?
>
> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k.

even if they weren't regulated, signal to noise and bandwidth limits the
speed. (Shannon theorem.)

>Also, There is no easy way to amalgamate all the connections into a single
>stream. Just put two 100mbit network cards in a PC. It won't let you
>download at 200mbit. It will let you have two 100mbit streams though.
>

i think the bonding and multilink PPP techniques require the help of the
ISP. you should be able to use a load balancer with 2 DSL lines fairly
easily.

there are downloader programs that use threading and mirrors (like
Getright).

multilink or load balancing 56k would only make sense somewhere that had no
DSL, no cable, no satellite ...

>>>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
>>>> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
>>>> numbers?
>>>>
>>>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>>>> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?

>>> Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even *I* can
>>> tell the guy is a fucking troll.
>>
>> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a stupid
>> question, or someone who just likes to bitch?
>>
>> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k.
>
> even if they weren't regulated, signal to noise and bandwidth limits the
> speed. (Shannon theorem.)

They were capable of 56k, given perfect conditions.

>>Also, There is no easy way to amalgamate all the connections into a single
>>stream. Just put two 100mbit network cards in a PC. It won't let you
>>download at 200mbit. It will let you have two 100mbit streams though.
>
> i think the bonding and multilink PPP techniques require the help of the
> ISP. you should be able to use a load balancer with 2 DSL lines fairly
> easily.

But you couldn't use BOTH streams to double the speed of a single download.

> there are downloader programs that use threading and mirrors (like
> Getright).
>
> multilink or load balancing 56k would only make sense somewhere that had
> no DSL, no cable, no satellite ...

Actually, I've got a dual WAN router here and two cable modems. Still, my
fastest download for a single file is only 7mBit (the speed of one
connection).

On 23 Apr 2007 18:30:38 -0700, Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Hi:
>
>Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
>with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?
>
>Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
>give a max of 56 Mbps?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Radium


Quit jerking off and get a girlfriend.

On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
> "thanatoid" <wait...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns991C97AB1B12thanexit@66.250.146.158...
>
>
>
> > Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegro ups.com:
>
> >> Hi:
>
> >> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
> >> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
> >> numbers?
>
> >> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
> >> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>
> >> Thanks,
>
> >> Radium
>
> > Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even *I* can
> > tell the guy is a fucking troll.
>
> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a stupid question,
> or someone who just likes to bitch?
>
> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is no easy way to
> amalgamate all the connections into a single stream. Just put two 100mbit
> network cards in a PC. It won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let you
> have two 100mbit streams though.

You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who actually just
wants an answer to a wild thought they had. It is an interesting
question, in theory.

<paulmd@efn.org> wrote in message
news:1177430988.571457.266060@u32g2000prd.googlegr oups.com...
> On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
>> "thanatoid" <wait...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Xns991C97AB1B12thanexit@66.250.146.158...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegro ups.com:
>>
>> >> Hi:
>>
>> >> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
>> >> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
>> >> numbers?
>>
>> >> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>> >> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>
>> >> Thanks,
>>
>> >> Radium
>>
>> > Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even *I* can
>> > tell the guy is a fucking troll.
>>
>> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a stupid
>> question,
>> or someone who just likes to bitch?
>>
>> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is no easy way to
>> amalgamate all the connections into a single stream. Just put two 100mbit
>> network cards in a PC. It won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let
>> you
>> have two 100mbit streams though.
>
> You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who actually just
> wants an answer to a wild thought they had. It is an interesting
> question, in theory.
>
In the UK, 1000 telephone lines would cost about 10000GBP per month! Pay
as you go would be 50GBP per minute.

Mike.

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:fm8s239m1ravnnv4b2958mm0daip5mfac0@4ax.com...
> On 23 Apr 2007 18:30:38 -0700, Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Hi:
>>
>>Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
>>with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?
>>
>>Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
>>give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Radium
>
>
> Quit jerking off and get a girlfriend.

trolling Usenet is a distant second to sex. a very sad distant second.

anyone have $300 to get this guy laid?

On 24 Apr 2007 09:09:48 -0700, "paulmd@efn.org"
<paulmd@efn.org> wrote:


>You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who actually just
>wants an answer to a wild thought they had. It is an interesting
>question, in theory.
>

I believe you can, if given prior evidence.

Either way, a "wild thought" would still be researched prior
to public scrutiny.

"paulmd@efn.org" wrote:
> On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>>
>> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is no easy
>> way to amalgamate all the connections into a single stream. Just
>> put two 100mbit network cards in a PC. It won't let you download
>> at 200mbit. It will let you have two 100mbit streams though.
>
> You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who actually just
> wants an answer to a wild thought they had. It is an interesting
> question, in theory.

Besides which 56k modems usually have compression techniques added,
so they can process communications at well over 56k.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline.net



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"paulmd@efn.org" <paulmd@efn.org> wrote in
news:1177430988.571457.266060@u32g2000prd.googlegr oups.com:

> On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
>> "thanatoid" <wait...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Xns991C97AB1B12thanexit@66.250.146.158...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegro ups.com:
>>
>> >> Hi:
>>
>> >> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using
>> >> 1,000 dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone
>> >> ports and numbers?
>>
>> >> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>> >> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>
>> >> Thanks,
>>
>> >> Radium
>>
>> > Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even
>> > *I* can tell the guy is a fucking troll.
>>
>> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to
>> a stupid question, or someone who just likes to bitch?
>>
>> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is no
>> easy way to amalgamate all the connections into a single
>> stream. Just put two 100mbit network cards in a PC. It
>> won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let you have
>> two 100mbit streams though.
>
> You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who
> actually just wants an answer to a wild thought they had.
> It is an interesting question, in theory.

1) Not "in advance", I read the question!

2) In theory, exactly. And not THAT interesting, IMHO. And
anyone who knows the difference between a modem and a graphics
card knows it can't be done.

3) NO ONE would ever attempt to try it in real life if nothing
else because of the cost.

4) Ergo: troll.


--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in
news:63ks231useg19ln7ml1gdm5cabjufksquc@4ax.com:

> On 24 Apr 2007 09:09:48 -0700, "paulmd@efn.org"
> <paulmd@efn.org> wrote:
>
>
>>You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who
>>actually just wants an answer to a wild thought they had.
>>It is an interesting question, in theory.
>>
>
> I believe you can, if given prior evidence.
>
> Either way, a "wild thought" would still be researched
> prior to public scrutiny.
>

Not bad, a new definition of a geek with nothing better to do!

--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:462E51B4.C1DDE988@yahoo.com:

> "paulmd@efn.org" wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>>
>>> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is
>>> no easy way to amalgamate all the connections into a
>>> single stream. Just put two 100mbit network cards in a
>>> PC. It won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let you
>>> have two 100mbit streams though.
>>
>> You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who
>> actually just wants an answer to a wild thought they had.
>> It is an interesting question, in theory.
>
> Besides which 56k modems usually have compression
> techniques added, so they can process communications at
> well over 56k.
>

AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300 baud
etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated speeds", and no 56
modem can process anything at a faster speed than 53 or 56 (I
don't know which is correct - see thread - and they're
practically the same anyway).
And it achieves that speed by compression. AFAIK, it's just a
14.4 or 28.8 (my knowledge fails me here) modem with much better
compression algorithms and some newer components.

--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in
news:mVkXh.121595$DE1.37097@pd7urf2no:

>
> "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns991C97AB1B12thanexit@66.250.146.158...
>> Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegrou ps.com:
>>
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
>>> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
>>> numbers?
>>>
>>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>>> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Radium
>>>
>>
>> Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even
>> *I* can tell the guy is a fucking troll.
>
> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a
> stupid question, or someone who just likes to bitch?

VERY good question. AFAIAC, there are about 4 billion too many
people in the world as it is.

<SNIP>


--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

"Strings" <strings@example.net> wrote in
news:462e45d8$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readf reenews.net:

>
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:fm8s239m1ravnnv4b2958mm0daip5mfac0@4ax.com...
>> On 23 Apr 2007 18:30:38 -0700, Radium
>> <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi:
>>>
>>>Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
>>>dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
>>>numbers?
>>>
>>>Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>>>could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Radium
>>
>>
>> Quit jerking off and get a girlfriend.
>
> trolling Usenet is a distant second to sex. a very sad
> distant second.
>
> anyone have $300 to get this guy laid?

IMHO he only deserves a $25 hooker.


--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:462E51B4.C1DDE988@yahoo.com:
>> Besides which 56k modems usually have compression
>> techniques added, so they can process communications at
>> well over 56k.
>>
>
>AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300 baud
>etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated speeds", and no 56
>modem can process anything at a faster speed than 53 or 56 (I
>don't know which is correct - see thread - and they're
>practically the same anyway).

>And it achieves that speed by compression. AFAIK, it's just a
>14.4 or 28.8 (my knowledge fails me here) modem with much better
>compression algorithms and some newer components.

There are some rather dramatic differences between 14.4/28.8
(v.32 or v.34) modems and a v.90 or v.92 modem.

The actual bit rate over the modem link does in fact approach
53Kbps (though it is an extremely rare circumstance that it
actually gets that high, and more typical links would run at 42
to 49 Kbps).

The actual throughput depends on how much the data can be
compressed, and might actually peak at 4 times the link rate,
though that again is very rare. More common rates would be just
less than 2x compression on regular text files, and no
compression at all on many binary files.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

thanatoid wrote:
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
>
.... snip ...
>>
>> Besides which 56k modems usually have compression
>> techniques added, so they can process communications at
>> well over 56k.
>
> AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300 baud
> etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated speeds", and no 56
> modem can process anything at a faster speed than 53 or 56 (I
> don't know which is correct - see thread - and they're
> practically the same anyway).
> And it achieves that speed by compression. AFAIK, it's just a
> 14.4 or 28.8 (my knowledge fails me here) modem with much better
> compression algorithms and some newer components.

Not so. The bit rate can seriously exceed 56k. You will also find
that such things as .zip files do not achieve this.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline.net



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns991CA2F8F87Athanexit@66.250.146.158...
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:462E51B4.C1DDE988@yahoo.com:
>
>> "paulmd@efn.org" wrote:
>>> On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
>>>
>> ... snip ...
>>>>
>>>> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is
>>>> no easy way to amalgamate all the connections into a
>>>> single stream. Just put two 100mbit network cards in a
>>>> PC. It won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let you
>>>> have two 100mbit streams though.
>>>
>>> You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who
>>> actually just wants an answer to a wild thought they had.
>>> It is an interesting question, in theory.
>>
>> Besides which 56k modems usually have compression
>> techniques added, so they can process communications at
>> well over 56k.
>>
>
> AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300 baud
> etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated speeds", and no 56
> modem can process anything at a faster speed than 53 or 56 (I
> don't know which is correct - see thread - and they're
> practically the same anyway).

Not true...

Take a 1 megabyte file full of zeros and transfer it over a 56k modem...
You'll see VERY high throughput. Compression CAN take the data stream faster
than the signalling rate.

Much of this is moot as dialup data is going the way of the dinosaur. I find
it funny that nobody has come up with a CHEAP and SIMPLE modem that does
strictly Fax and advanced voice.

>>>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000
>>>> dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone ports and
>>>> numbers?
>>>>
>>>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>>>> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?

>>> Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even
>>> *I* can tell the guy is a fucking troll.

>> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a
>> stupid question, or someone who just likes to bitch?

> VERY good question. AFAIAC, there are about 4 billion too many
> people in the world as it is.

I agree. What we need is another world war. I can't decide if I'd want to be
a winner or loser in that fight though.

On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:

> ...and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is no easy way to
> amalgamate all the connections into a single stream. Just put two 100mbit
> network cards in a PC. It won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let you
> have two 100mbit streams though.

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/242...example8is.gif

If each clock signal is 1 GHz, and you have a 4 of them, staggered
such that every 1ns part of the CPU can start, and finish, an
instruction - making the effective 'clock rate' 4 GHz.

I wondering if something analogous could be done with dial-up modems.
IOW, using more phone lines/modems/phone #'s to get a faster speed.

Radium wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> I wondering if something analogous could be done with dial-up
> modems. IOW, using more phone lines/modems/phone #'s to get a
> faster speed.

It has.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline.net



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in
news:JAwXh.123949$6m4.88170@pd7urf1no:

>>>>> Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using
>>>>> 1,000 dial-modems with a 1,000 different telephone
>>>>> ports and numbers?
>>>>>
>>>>> Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used,
>>>>> could this give a max of 56 Mbps?
>
>>>> Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even
>>>> *I* can tell the guy is a fucking troll.
>
>>> And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to
>>> a stupid question, or someone who just likes to bitch?
>
>> VERY good question. AFAIAC, there are about 4 billion too
>> many people in the world as it is.
>
> I agree. What we need is another world war. I can't decide
> if I'd want to be a winner or loser in that fight though.

Another very good question. I was originally going to say that
dying would be a plus since one would be done with this stinking
world, but then I thought, MAYBE with 2 billion people life
would be slightly more bearable. Then I remembered the problem
is in MY head so it doesn't matter whether 6 billion people
annoy me or only 2 billion.

I recently saw a quote from a European philosopher which
basically said, although in very different words, "once you're
born, you're screwed".


--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:462E8321.182A78CC@yahoo.com:

> thanatoid wrote:
>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>
> ... snip ...
>>>
>>> Besides which 56k modems usually have compression
>>> techniques added, so they can process communications at
>>> well over 56k.
>>
>> AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300
>> baud etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated
>> speeds", and no 56 modem can process anything at a faster
>> speed than 53 or 56 (I don't know which is correct - see
>> thread - and they're practically the same anyway).
>> And it achieves that speed by compression. AFAIK, it's
>> just a 14.4 or 28.8 (my knowledge fails me here) modem
>> with much better compression algorithms and some newer
>> components.
>
> Not so. The bit rate can seriously exceed 56k. You will
> also find that such things as .zip files do not achieve
> this.
>

I realize whether the data transmitted is raw, zipped, rar'd,
yEnc'd or mimed doesn't matter, but I do not believe bitrate can
exceed 56KB (if that) - and most of the others in the thread
seem to feel the same way.

I HAVE noticed something interesting with MY 33.6 modem (laugh -
it works great, and I'm in no hurry).

When dl'g *headers* from groups XNews *sometimes* - not always -
shows bitrates approaching 25000 - fast as heck (well, for a
dialup guy). Actual posts usually dl at about 3500. But most of
the time the headers dl at about 4500-5000 - still faster than
posts, but nothing like 25000.

I think this may have something to do with MRU - several headers
probably fitting in one packet. (Am I using the right terms? The
thing that used to be about half of 1500 and you had to modify
settings for better performance, but Microsoft insisted on 1500
and now the MRU my ISP uses is 1524 ...)

But if it IS the packets, why is the very rapid header download
speed not standard but quite intermittent?


--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.