GeekDrew
Diamond Member
- Jun 7, 2000
- 9,099
- 19
- 81
I *still* have dialup, as do most of the people that live near me. I live within a [line] mile of the RT that I am serviced by, but Verizon says that it is prohibitively expensive to install a DSLAM in that terminal, so everyone in my area is screwed.
I remember the day my parents house got DSL, it was right around my 16th birthday (Dec 1999), it was so fast, when the rest of the world was using 28-56k modems. 1.5 mbps down and 128 kbps up. Sadly, SBC (now AT&T) hasn't upgraded the speeds much, the fastest I can get is now 3 mbps down and 512 kbps up, in more than 7 years. Definitely not keeping up with Moore's law. They are really going to have to install fiber to get anymore speed boost out of those lines.
Of course, in my apartment in midtown Atlanta, I get 25 mbps down and 18 mbps up (yay fiber!)
Of course, in my apartment in midtown Atlanta, I get 25 mbps down and 18 mbps up (yay fiber!)
It's BA-BELL and AT&T!!1 Hold'n us DowN!Zor!!
PHreak1 1800 redbox whitebox bluebox NoBOX, aint no pay phones Left in America!
.... dude,if you didnt have cable/dsl/t123 (for you titty babies living indorms) you would be crap-tastic happy with some AOL free'bee dial up.
That a retarded post, and I'm even more dumb for reply'n to it.
PHreak1 1800 redbox whitebox bluebox NoBOX, aint no pay phones Left in America!
.... dude,if you didnt have cable/dsl/t123 (for you titty babies living indorms) you would be crap-tastic happy with some AOL free'bee dial up.
That a retarded post, and I'm even more dumb for reply'n to it.
GeekDrew
Diamond Member
- Jun 7, 2000
- 9,099
- 19
- 81
You people and your 28.8 and 36.6 and 56k. I still have 21.6.
They could get at least 20-30 people within 1 line mile of that RT to subscribe to DSL, if they tried to. Their engineering department set something so that their computers thought that there was a DSLAM there, and we were all thrilled. I know the tech that got to go around to 25 different houses (all of which ordered within 1 week of it becoming available) and tell them that there had been a mistake.
We've even asked if they could increase our monthly cost (distributed among several of us) to pay for a DSLAM over the course of a year or something. Or even just tell us how much one is, and we'd pay for it up front. Nope.
They could get at least 20-30 people within 1 line mile of that RT to subscribe to DSL, if they tried to. Their engineering department set something so that their computers thought that there was a DSLAM there, and we were all thrilled. I know the tech that got to go around to 25 different houses (all of which ordered within 1 week of it becoming available) and tell them that there had been a mistake.
We've even asked if they could increase our monthly cost (distributed among several of us) to pay for a DSLAM over the course of a year or something. Or even just tell us how much one is, and we'd pay for it up front. Nope.
Originally posted by: FoBoT
why didn't they just make high definition TV back in 1946?
what were they thinking waiting 60 years to sell these flat LCD and plasma TV's?
Money dumbass... What better way to make money than to incrementally upgrade televisions and technology so that people have to buy the same ****** again and again.
Yeah! and you can't get a connection that is faster than 33.6K even those the modem is 56K. And, by the time they figured out to get it up to 49K transfer rate we have much faster technologies in place.
what impressed me was when I got 9600 & then 14.4 because I was use to logged into the local university with a 1200 or a 2400 baud loaner modem.
Like others has said technology comes with research & time.
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
Right... let me explain my reasoning for asking this.
I know absolutely nothing about the hardware at the other end (companys end) but the hardware on my end can be a pentium 1 or a 486 that can be used as a server, crappy slow hardware can do broadband easily. So i figured if the computer can be crappy and slow on my end, theres no need for anything particularly high-tech/high-end at the companys place so therefore the speed would be limited by the physical wire itsself. I guess thats wrong though huh..... jeez sorry for asking :roll:
I dont do networking or software i only know computer hardware.
I know absolutely nothing about the hardware at the other end (companys end) but the hardware on my end can be a pentium 1 or a 486 that can be used as a server, crappy slow hardware can do broadband easily. So i figured if the computer can be crappy and slow on my end, theres no need for anything particularly high-tech/high-end at the companys place so therefore the speed would be limited by the physical wire itsself. I guess thats wrong though huh..... jeez sorry for asking :roll:
I dont do networking or software
i only know computer hardware.
Originally posted by: Soviet
Right... let me explain my reasoning for asking this.
I know absolutely nothing about the hardware at the other end (companys end) but the hardware on my end can be a pentium 1 or a 486 that can be used as a server, crappy slow hardware can do broadband easily. So i figured if the computer can be crappy and slow on my end, theres no need for anything particularly high-tech/high-end at the companys place so therefore the speed would be limited by the physical wire itsself. I guess thats wrong though huh..... jeez sorry for asking :roll:
I dont do networking or software
Well if you have a 486 with crappy slow hardware and all you do is visit web sites that are 100% all text, nothing else really matters.
Originally posted by: Soviet
Right... let me explain my reasoning for asking this.
I know absolutely nothing about the hardware at the other end (companys end) but the hardware on my end can be a pentium 1 or a 486 that can be used as a server, crappy slow hardware can do broadband easily. So i figured if the computer can be crappy and slow on my end, theres no need for anything particularly high-tech/high-end at the companys place so therefore the speed would be limited by the physical wire itsself. I guess thats wrong though huh..... jeez sorry for asking :roll:
I dont do networking or software
Someone else already explained this, but I'll kind of reword it for you.
Typical analog modems are limited to working within the spectrum of audible sound, because that is all the phone systems were capable of transmitting. That is why, with a dial-up modem, if you picked up the phone while the modem was connected, you would hear all the beeps and screeches. Every bit had to be transmitted as a beep, and there were only so many different frequencies of beeps, and only so many could be sent per period of time, so there was a very limited amount of data that could be transmitted through the phone line.
Nowadays, the phone system is upgraded to allow transfer on frequencies outside of the audible range. That is why you cannot hear a dsl connection on your phone. The area used outside of the audible range is much wider; it has a much higher bandwidth. Also now, they do not need to use beeps to transmit the data, it is transmitted via electrical signals that turn on and off creating the 1s and 0s of digital data. This is why they are called Digital Subscriber Lines
Even 8 years ago you could only get 2.5 gbs on a fiber. Now you can get over 960 gbs on a fiber.
- Feb 8, 2004
- 12,604
- 15
- 81
Originally posted by: zeruty
Originally posted by: Soviet
Right... let me explain my reasoning for asking this.
I know absolutely nothing about the hardware at the other end (companys end) but the hardware on my end can be a pentium 1 or a 486 that can be used as a server, crappy slow hardware can do broadband easily. So i figured if the computer can be crappy and slow on my end, theres no need for anything particularly high-tech/high-end at the companys place so therefore the speed would be limited by the physical wire itsself. I guess thats wrong though huh..... jeez sorry for asking :roll:
I dont do networking or software
Someone else already explained this, but I'll kind of reword it for you.
Typical analog modems are limited to working within the spectrum of audible sound, because that is all the phone systems were capable of transmitting. That is why, with a dial-up modem, if you picked up the phone while the modem was connected, you would hear all the beeps and screeches. Every bit had to be transmitted as a beep, and there were only so many different frequencies of beeps, and only so many could be sent per period of time, so there was a very limited amount of data that could be transmitted through the phone line.
Nowadays, the phone system is upgraded to allow transfer on frequencies outside of the audible range. That is why you cannot hear a dsl connection on your phone. The area used outside of the audible range is much wider; it has a much higher bandwidth. Also now, they do not need to use beeps to transmit the data, it is transmitted via electrical signals that turn on and off creating the 1s and 0s of digital data. This is why they are called Digital Subscriber Lines
AHA!! I see! Theres more to it than pushing stuff through a wire, excellent. Back then they simply didnt know how to transmit via electrical signal or out of the audible range or if they did the technology wasent cheap enough at the time for mass implimentation. Suppose that might explain the nasty noise the modem would make when it dialled up too.
Awsome
let it die now, i dislike being labelled stupid :frown:
Originally posted by: Soviet
AHA!! I see! Theres more to it than pushing stuff through a wire, excellent. Back then they simply didnt know how to transmit via electrical signal or out of the audible range or if they did the technology wasent cheap enough at the time for mass implimentation. Suppose that might explain the nasty noise the modem would make when it dialled up too.
Awsome
Yes, that nasty noise they made when they connected was called a handshake. It was where your modem and the modem on the other end were introducing themselves and telling each other what speed they were, what features they supported, and determining the fastest connection speed the two could make over the given telephone circuit.
And if we can fly to the moon now, like, why didn't the Wright Brothers just do that 100 years ago to begin with?
I'm not usually for ad hominem attacks, but you're either 12 years old, or mildly retarded. :roll:
there is also the issue of what frequency on the phone lines were used. ever wondered why today you can surf and still talk on the phone at the same time on the same line? telephones use the frequency that we can hear. DSL uses a much higher frequency that doesn't interfere and also has higher bandwidth. there is also the issue with nodes.
please.
i had a 14.4 modem in 5th grade (must have been around 1991 or 1992) and that was top of the line (~$5-600)
AOL would only let me dial in at 300 baud so I switched to Prodigy which only allowed users to dial in at 2400 baud, I think compuserve let you go at 2400 or 4800...
I remember when AOL and Prodigy took the big leap and let you log on @ 9600... I thought I was on the Autobahn...
I can't believe I can get 1,000,000x faster speeds than that for the same price or even cheaper.
i had a 14.4 modem in 5th grade (must have been around 1991 or 1992) and that was top of the line (~$5-600)
AOL would only let me dial in at 300 baud so I switched to Prodigy which only allowed users to dial in at 2400 baud, I think compuserve let you go at 2400 or 4800...
I remember when AOL and Prodigy took the big leap and let you log on @ 9600... I thought I was on the Autobahn...
I can't believe I can get 1,000,000x faster speeds than that for the same price or even cheaper.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter