Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: TheLastSysop Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Redundancy/Survival Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:48:03 GMT Organization: The Null Device Restoration Society Lines: 98 Message-ID: References: <10v55mv$2co0n$1@dont-email.me> <10v6qg9$2ot19$2@dont-email.me> <10v8tsh$3ajmv$2@dont-email.me> <10vaorr$3r8c4$1@dont-email.me> <10vk256$27ab8$5@dont-email.me> <10vl3kr$2ii0i$1@dont-email.me> <10vmtdr$6c5k$1@solani.org> Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:48:04 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="3200704"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/l1nqTOu92lpcCBFnpI/OACpl+4rRi0dg="; posting-host="d100ee8f79d7efae5410fccadbdcc1df" Cancel-Lock: sha1:1BHQd2oJBbvHeRx3s6g/bkLqn20= sha256:4UGsn+u0uJWQjIBD3s+wj3HLvunlbHP4+V6ZdKAyIJk= sha1:i5HYeGzuaspHyllF5QibJbkjq5w= In-Reply-To: <10vmtdr$6c5k$1@solani.org> X-Newsreader: tin can + wet string 0.9.7 X-Archive-Policy: please preserve the funny parts X-Mood: reasonably caffeinated X-Operating-System: TempleOS-adjacent abacus cluster Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:87369 >On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 17:38:35 +0200, Marco Moock wrote: >Am 02.06.26 um 01:12 schrieb InterLinked: >> On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >>> InterLinked wrote: >>>> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. >>> >>> 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to >>> digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the >>> underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. >> > >>>> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >>>> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) >>> >>> Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: >>> 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange >>> 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to >>> digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. >>> >>> The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a >>> digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet >>> signaling over the line). >>> >>> But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't >>> get better than 33.6.  And all the "fiber to your home, with a little >>> box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to >>> POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way >>> (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the >>> copper as digital baseband). >> >> Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. >> >> I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) >> when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling the >> dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter which >> reseller you use), but usually just 33600. >> >> That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the negotiation >> fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to negotiate V.90/V.92). >> >> My point was that copper POTS customers can get speeds in the 40s/50s >> calling the same service, no problem at all, but I'm not able to do that >> with my service being delivered over fiber. Dial-up Internet speeds are >> actually *hampered* by fiber... how ironic is that? > >This is because the analog signal is being converter to a digital signal >by an analog to digital converter - it does not interpret the digital >data signal. With ISDN, this was't that faulty, as ISDN is >line-switched. IP is packet-switched, so jitter is there and relevant. >The VoIP phone signal is also transferred between different carriers, >which means there might be codec conversions. > >TLDR: V.90 is intended for analog lines, not for any digital service. > >> So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior >> quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. There's >> already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant to begin >> with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor of another >> expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for the telco! >> Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is on the consumer. > >Analog dialup internet is a dead thing. It already was when ISDN came >out - although usage was still possible. > >Nowadays analog dialup is almost useless. Even if you could use it >nowadays, the speed is so low, no normal website can be opened in a >reasonable time, you will most likely get timeouts. >That means the amount of people who will use it is very low and that >means the providers will stop providing it. Some still provide it, but >they won't invest in it. >If their devices fail, they will stop providing the service. > >The ISDN support was removed from Linux, dunno about Windows. Device >drivers for various ISDN devices were last supported on XP... > >This will mean it will be harder for telcos to provide dialup internet - >even if they want. > >Satellite based internet will thrive away the last users, as this is >much faster. For redundancy, I would treat analog dialup over a fibre/VoIP terminal as a best-effort curiosity, not as the backup path. A practical setup is usually: * put the ONT/router/phone ATA on a UPS and actually time how long it runs; * keep a small LTE/5G router or phone-tethering path tested and documented; * if dialup still matters, test the exact modem, number, and carrier path you intend to use, because codec/ATA/carrier changes can break it without notice. The important part is not what the service is called, but whether it survives the failure you care about. A copper pair with central-office battery was good at that; a fibre ONT in the house is only as good as its local power and the provider's outside plant. -- TheLastSysop "I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."