Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > ba.internet > #19280 > unrolled thread

Re: 33.6 Access Hardware and ISP's

Back to article view | Back to ba.internet

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: 33.6 Access Hardware and ISP's scharf.steven@gmail.com - 2017-06-09 14:05 -0700
    Re: 33.6 Access Hardware and ISP's David Arnstein <arnstein+usenet@pobox.com> - 2017-06-09 21:59 +0000
    Re: 33.6 Access Hardware and ISP's roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> - 2017-06-09 17:10 -0700
      Re: 33.6 Access Hardware and ISP's poldy <poldy@kfu.com> - 2017-06-11 18:33 -0700
        Re: 33.6 Access Hardware and ISP's roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> - 2017-06-11 21:14 -0700
        Re: 33.6 Access Hardware and ISP's "David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-14 00:57 -0700
          Re: 33.6 Access Hardware and ISP's Julian Macassey <julian@tele.com> - 2017-06-14 15:27 +0000
            Re: 33.6 Access Hardware and ISP's billy@MIX.COM - 2017-06-15 15:38 +0000
              Re: 33.6 Access Hardware and ISP's Julian Macassey <julian@tele.com> - 2017-06-16 23:09 +0000
          Re: 33.6 Access Hardware and ISP's noozguru@sbcglobal.net - 2017-06-14 10:36 -0700

#19280 — Re: 33.6 Access Hardware and ISP's

On Tuesday, December 26, 1995 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Lory W. wrote:
> I've seen references in this newsgroup and various print media that
> the maximum bandwidth feasible on standard (Non-ISDN) phone lines is
> 33.6.  I'm currently planning to upgrade my old 14.4 internal to a
> 28.8, but have three questions for the cognizenti:
> 
> 1.  Will I be likely to experience noticeable increase in speed of
> loading webpages, usenet retrieval, FTP, etc...or is the ISP and other
> ends' connect speed likely to be the limiting factor irrespective of
> my modem's max.?  (I'm on Netcom, "ix" account via Win 95 TCP/IP)
> 
> 2.  What exactly is the difference between a 28.8 modem that also
> specifies "V.34" versus one that does not?
> 
> 3.  Is it expected that 33.6 modems and acceptance of this as a new
> standard (or at least capability) by ISP's is likely in the next year
> or so?

Unlikely. Look into faster speeds with DSL (AT&T) or broadband (Comcast), or fiber (AT&T).

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#19281

Steve,

Are you feeling nostalgic for 1995?
-- 
David Arnstein                       (00)
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com          {{   }}
                                     ^^

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19282

1995 returns!

On 6/9/2017 2:05 PM, scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 26, 1995 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Lory W. wrote:
>> I've seen references in this newsgroup and various print media that
>> the maximum bandwidth feasible on standard (Non-ISDN) phone lines is
>> 33.6.  I'm currently planning to upgrade my old 14.4 internal to a
>> 28.8, but have three questions for the cognizenti:
>>
>> 1.  Will I be likely to experience noticeable increase in speed of
>> loading webpages, usenet retrieval, FTP, etc...or is the ISP and other
>> ends' connect speed likely to be the limiting factor irrespective of
>> my modem's max.?  (I'm on Netcom, "ix" account via Win 95 TCP/IP)
>>
>> 2.  What exactly is the difference between a 28.8 modem that also
>> specifies "V.34" versus one that does not?
>>
>> 3.  Is it expected that 33.6 modems and acceptance of this as a new
>> standard (or at least capability) by ISP's is likely in the next year
>> or so?
> 
> Unlikely. Look into faster speeds with DSL (AT&T) or broadband (Comcast), or fiber (AT&T).
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19283

On 6/9/17 5:10 PM, roy wrote:
> 
> 
> 1995 returns!
> 
> On 6/9/2017 2:05 PM, scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 26, 1995 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-8, Lory W. wrote:
>>> I've seen references in this newsgroup and various print media that
>>> the maximum bandwidth feasible on standard (Non-ISDN) phone lines is
>>> 33.6.  I'm currently planning to upgrade my old 14.4 internal to a
>>> 28.8, but have three questions for the cognizenti:
>>>
>>> 1.  Will I be likely to experience noticeable increase in speed of
>>> loading webpages, usenet retrieval, FTP, etc...or is the ISP and other
>>> ends' connect speed likely to be the limiting factor irrespective of
>>> my modem's max.?  (I'm on Netcom, "ix" account via Win 95 TCP/IP)
>>>
>>> 2.  What exactly is the difference between a 28.8 modem that also
>>> specifies "V.34" versus one that does not?
>>>
>>> 3.  Is it expected that 33.6 modems and acceptance of this as a new
>>> standard (or at least capability) by ISP's is likely in the next year
>>> or so?
>>
>> Unlikely. Look into faster speeds with DSL (AT&T) or broadband 
>> (Comcast), or fiber (AT&T).
>>
> 


One thing I would say though is that back in the day, a 56.6 modem 
wasn't too bad for surfing.  In contrast, these days websites are so 
loaded up that if you get only a 3G or 4G (but not LTE) signal, your 
smart phones struggle with a lot of web sites.

Speed tests can show over 1 Mbps but it can be a painful experience.

All the gains in bandwidth but it gets clogged up with stuff.  And 
that's even using ad blockers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19284

On 6/11/2017 6:33 PM, poldy wrote:
> ...
> 
> 
> One thing I would say though is that back in the day, a 56.6 modem 
> wasn't too bad for surfing.  In contrast, these days websites are so 
> loaded up that if you get only a 3G or 4G (but not LTE) signal, your 
> smart phones struggle with a lot of web sites.
> 
> Speed tests can show over 1 Mbps but it can be a painful experience.
> 
> All the gains in bandwidth but it gets clogged up with stuff.  And 
> that's even using ad blockers.

Its all related to Parkinson;s Law and its corollaries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law

A computer corollary

		Data expands to fill the space available for storage

Same goes for bandwidth

I think that in 1995 I was replacing the chips in my Sportster modems 
for 33.6 up from 14.4.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19285

"poldy" <poldy@kfu.com> wrote

> All the gains in bandwidth but it gets clogged up with stuff.  And that's 
> even using ad blockers.

It's gotten to be horrible.  On Windows browsers a right click will bring up 
the floating menu and a selection of "View Page Source", showing the actual 
HTML, JavaScript and whatnot that were used to create the page.   And that's 
just the stuff that is displayed.  There are lots of pointers to other 
locations for recurring JavaScript, RSS (style sheets), and the like.  It's 
no wonder that most browsers tend to gag on websites these days.  Even a 
site as innocuous looking at Google's main page, is loaded to the gills with 
code.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19286

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 00:57:10 -0700, David Kaye <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "poldy" <poldy@kfu.com> wrote
>
>> All the gains in bandwidth but it gets clogged up with stuff.  And that's 
>> even using ad blockers.
>
> It's gotten to be horrible.  On Windows browsers a right click will bring up 
> the floating menu and a selection of "View Page Source", showing the actual 
> HTML, JavaScript and whatnot that were used to create the page.   And that's 
> just the stuff that is displayed.  There are lots of pointers to other 
> locations for recurring JavaScript, RSS (style sheets), and the like.  It's 
> no wonder that most browsers tend to gag on websites these days.  Even a 
> site as innocuous looking at Google's main page, is loaded to the gills with 
> code.

	Back in the days, before the goggle monster decided its
slogan should be "Don't be evil, that's our job", people would
point to the google.com home page as an example of how to build a
simple page with minimum cruft that loaded quickly.

	I miss those days.


-- 
"Microsoft's just er... it's McDonald's, and that's what saddens me."
- Steve Jobs 1995 TV interview

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19288

Julian Macassey <julian@tele.com> writes:

>         Back in the days, before the goggle monster decided its
> slogan should be "Don't be evil, that's our job", people would
> point to the google.com home page as an example of how to build a
> simple page with minimum cruft that loaded quickly.
> 
>         I miss those days.

Here's my site - no cruft, no script, no style sheets, no ...  It
used to validate fine, no problemo, but now I get lots of warnings
to use CSS, et cetera.  No thanks...

          http://MIX.ORG

The two ads are software that's particularly decent - I don't charge
for them.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
        add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
        bcc     20$                     ; not a number

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19289

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:38:35 +0000 (UTC), billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote:
> Julian Macassey <julian@tele.com> writes:
>
>>         Back in the days, before the goggle monster decided its
>> slogan should be "Don't be evil, that's our job", people would
>> point to the google.com home page as an example of how to build a
>> simple page with minimum cruft that loaded quickly.
>> 
>>         I miss those days.
>
> Here's my site - no cruft, no script, no style sheets, no ...  It
> used to validate fine, no problemo, but now I get lots of warnings
> to use CSS, et cetera.  No thanks...
>
>           http://MIX.ORG

	Simple, light, does the job.

	Thanks.


-- 
"If you go home with somebody and they don’t have books, don’t
fuck them.” - John Waters, film director

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#19287

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 12:57:13 AM UTC-7, David Kaye wrote:
> "poldy" <poldy@kfu.com> wrote
> 
> > All the gains in bandwidth but it gets clogged up with stuff.  And that's 
> > even using ad blockers.
> 
> It's gotten to be horrible.  On Windows browsers a right click will bring up 
> the floating menu and a selection of "View Page Source", showing the actual 
> HTML, JavaScript and whatnot that were used to create the page.   And that's 
> just the stuff that is displayed.  There are lots of pointers to other 
> locations for recurring JavaScript, RSS (style sheets), and the like.  It's 
> no wonder that most browsers tend to gag on websites these days.  Even a 
> site as innocuous looking at Google's main page, is loaded to the gills with 
> code.

Not to mention how ads from overtaxed ad servers slow things down too.  That's why so many use ad blockers and some sites are waking up and selling just space on the site as content rather than relying on some remote ad service.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | ba.internet

csiph-web