Originally posted by: LED
VirtualLarry...I think @ one time there was a exceeding point when X2 Robotics and 3 Com were separate as the X2 technology could exceed that but when they united with KFlex to form V90 the FCC limits could not be exceeded. The X2 tech. could 57+K so please don't think I'm doubting you just pointing out that it not going to happen in 99% of the Cases because past the fact that a very clean line is needed, anyone who flashed the X2 Modem to V90 can not go back and hardly any ISP support it.
I agree that 99% of people will never see connect speeds like that, I was very, very lucky to have clean, short POTS lines. (It's a small town.) But I was just trying to point out that the limit was not on the speeds at all, but simply a matter of power that could be shoved down one POTS line, without interfering with neighboring POTS lines sharing a cable bundle. That's the real limit here, and had nothing to do (directly) with data-rate speeds at all. But all of the modem mfg's latched onto that excuse, as for why the modems that they had been selling as "56K" (rather than "56K max"), so that they wouldn't get sued. That's all. It also didn't have anything to do with X2/V.90 per se, I was connecting with V.90 modulation at those speeds, not X2 anyways.
Originally posted by: LED
Plus nowadays most with dial-up are using
Web Accelerators which of course doesn't help on download speeds.
"Download accellerators" are funny things. I still prefer more transparent link-layer compression schemes, degrading the quality of the content that you download, by default, seems just wrong to me. But it's interesting, how few ISDN/DSL/Cable modems, offer link-layer encryption schemes anymore. (USR's ISDN modems did, but few head-end modems offered it as well, unless they were also USR models.) I know that PPPoE is a variant of PPP, and offers multiple named "services" over it (most ISPs only offer one), and PPP offers a link-layer compression option - so why not allow a newsgroup-specific PPPoE connection service option, that would do link-layer compression. Most people use routers to handle the PPPoE overhead anyways, so it would be trivial for your DSL modem/router to handle the decompression transparently, and your main host machine with the ethernet connection wouldn't really know the difference. (Other than you might need to special-case some ports, like NNTP ports, to connect to the alternate "NNTP compressed connection PPPoE service". Not sure what the overhead on the head-end would be like, you certainly wouldn't want to have the NNTP server itself doing the link-layer compression. Some sort of intermediate access-server would be best. Sorry, I'm wandering OT here I guess.
Facebook
Twitter