A bit off-topic, but a few additional thoughts:
1) Achievable speed is totally dependent upon your telco's
outside plant characteristics. For example, I'm 2 1/2
miles from my local telco's switch. My ISP is about 6
miles from the same switch. I cannot get a *reliable*
connection over 28.8. Con
On Tue, Sep 09, 1997 at 10:08:38AM -0400, Pete Templin wrote:
> On a different angle, what about the FCC rules which essentially limit 56k
> modems to 51 or 53k? I know practically nothing about it, except that I
> read it somewhere in Network World, I believe. Back when I was a student
> and too
On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Mike wrote:
> Nils Rennebarth wrote:
> >No, it's just vice versa. Upload speed with 56k Modem (from you to your
> >provider) is 56k. From your provider to you it's still 33.6 maximum,
>
> Bullsh*t. Go read something on the subject. Upload is 33, download is 56.
> Otherwise it
On 9 Sep, Adam Shand wrote:
Re: >No, it's just vice versa. Upload speed with 56k Modem (from you to your
Re: >provider) is 56k.
Re:
Re: I'm pretty sure that is incorrect (but not positive), if it is true then
Re: it's a seriously stupid piece of engineering since 90% of most peoples
Re: traffic i
>No, it's just vice versa. Upload speed with 56k Modem (from you to your
>provider) is 56k.
I'm pretty sure that is incorrect (but not positive), if it is true then
it's a seriously stupid piece of engineering since 90% of most peoples
traffic is *to* them.
Can anyone confirm this for us?
Adam.
Nils Rennebarth wrote:
>No, it's just vice versa. Upload speed with 56k Modem (from you to your
>provider) is 56k. From your provider to you it's still 33.6 maximum,
Bullsh*t. Go read something on the subject. Upload is 33, download is 56.
Otherwise it would be impossible to sell 56k modems, becau
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Adam Shand wrote:
>(http://www.direcpc.com I think). Remember though (just to be pedantic)
>that in this case there would be zero point in buying a 56k modem since the
>data transfer rates are asymetric. In other words with a 56k modem you g
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 16:25:03 -0800, Adam Shand wrote:
>>I'd stay away from sat until LEO stuff starts to come out.the latency is
>>500ms+ jumping out 33,000 miles.
>
>Yep... but from what I understand this is minimised by the two way
>connection. Commands (eg. FTP/HTTP 'get' commands) are se
>I'd stay away from sat until LEO stuff starts to come out.the latency is
>500ms+ jumping out 33,000 miles.
Yep... but from what I understand this is minimised by the two way
connection. Commands (eg. FTP/HTTP 'get' commands) are sent over the modem
link so latency is less of an issue.
Wh
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 14:49:37 -0800, Adam Shand wrote:
>>I've been told that by using the miracles of IP masquerading, I can do this
>>by purchasing a single connection for the server, and letting the remainder
>>od the machines "leach" off it in some way.
>
>Yep this is very possible and not all
>I've been told that by using the miracles of IP masquerading, I can do this
>by purchasing a single connection for the server, and letting the remainder
>of the machines "leach" off it in some way.
Yep this is very possible and not all that hard to do. If you don't
already know about this sort
11 matches
Mail list logo
