Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like that.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K I think they reached the limits already (dialup over the tele lines). I'm on dialup too. And some of the tele lines can't even hande 56K. letterman@invalid.com wrote: > In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out > with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out > with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I > know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these > days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure > would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like > that.
Guest Jeff Richards Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K Modems of much higher speeds than 56k have been available for many years, but they won't work on the PSTN which has built-in features that effectively mean 56k is the fastest modem you can use. The limitation isn't the modem - it's the phone line. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message news:oqbqr3paho0fuq7qsks3gjbgbjeubohd34@4ax.com... > In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out > with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out > with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I > know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these > days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure > would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like > that.
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:54:16 +1100, "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote: >Modems of much higher speeds than 56k have been available for many years, >but they won't work on the PSTN which has built-in features that effectively >mean 56k is the fastest modem you can use. The limitation isn't the modem - >it's the phone line. Thanks You lost me on the "PSTN" What's that? I actually get 44K to 46K most of the time, out here in the country. I've never gotten 56K. When I spent a couple weeks in a city due to a sick relative, I hauled an older computer there, and my 56K modem. I was not going to spend a fortune for a couple weeks of service so I got a cheap one month dialup connection. There I got 48.5 or 48.8 (something like that). I have never gotten 56K anywhere. I just thought that it's normal to never get the full speed of the modem. It's been a long time, but I used to have a 28K, 14.4K, and as far back as a 1200 (my first modem was a 1200 baud). I dont think I ever got the full rated speed of any modem. I'm sure glad I dont have a 1200 or 2400 anymore. I remember when it took an hour just to download a small gif picture or a dos utility. Thats before the internet. We used local BBSs back then. So now I spend an hour downloading a 25 meg video on youtube or something like that. By the way, I found a trick for youtube vids. Dont watch them while they download. I use Firefox with an addon called "download helper". I just select one, and let download helper download it to my drive. Having a flash blocker installed prevents them from loading. They download much faster, and I use Applian FLV player to view them after they download, or they can be previewed during the download with that player. Better yet, I can save them, and must admit I have quite a collection of them (around 1000).
Guest Don Phillipson Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message news:lrkqr397b2289n2dhcdbi5im4jp82ie63e@4ax.com... > I actually get 44K to 46K most of the time, out here in the country. . . . > So now I spend an hour downloading a 25 meg video on youtube or > something like that. The OP may have overlooked that cell phone coverage now extends to much of rural N.America as well as all Europe and thus enables wireless high speed Internet (whether ISPs know it or not.) Several cities (e.g. New York and Toronto) have noticed this, thus now promise cheap high speed service by wireless everywhere (whether or not ISPs yet deliver it.) -- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
Guest Tim Slattery Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K letterman@invalid.com wrote: >On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:54:16 +1100, "Jeff Richards" ><JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote: > >>Modems of much higher speeds than 56k have been available for many years, >>but they won't work on the PSTN which has built-in features that effectively >>mean 56k is the fastest modem you can use. The limitation isn't the modem - >>it's the phone line. > >Thanks >You lost me on the "PSTN" >What's that? PSTN = Public Switched Telephone Network. In other words, normal phone service. -- Tim Slattery MS MVP(Shell/User) Slattery_T@bls.gov http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
Guest Franc Zabkar Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:03:38 -0600, letterman@invalid.com put finger to keyboard and composed: >On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:54:16 +1100, "Jeff Richards" ><JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote: > >>Modems of much higher speeds than 56k have been available for many years, >>but they won't work on the PSTN which has built-in features that effectively >>mean 56k is the fastest modem you can use. The limitation isn't the modem - >>it's the phone line. > >Thanks >You lost me on the "PSTN" >What's that? > >I actually get 44K to 46K most of the time, out here in the country. >I've never gotten 56K. Throughput is more important than connection speed. Higher speeds may result in more errors which could then result in a lower throughput. >When I spent a couple weeks in a city due to a sick relative, I hauled >an older computer there, and my 56K modem. I was not going to spend a >fortune for a couple weeks of service so I got a cheap one month >dialup connection. There I got 48.5 or 48.8 (something like that). I >have never gotten 56K anywhere. I just thought that it's normal to >never get the full speed of the modem. It's been a long time, but I >used to have a 28K, 14.4K, and as far back as a 1200 (my first modem >was a 1200 baud). I dont think I ever got the full rated speed of any >modem. Your speeds are good. I wouldn't expect any better. Having said that, the reported connection speed may be optimistic and may fall during your dialup session. What happens is that, during the initial "training" phase, your modem and your ISP's modem probe the phone line to determine its quality. These are the sounds you hear before a connection is established. The modems then agree on an upload and download speed which they believe will result in an error free connection. If errors begin to accumulate, then the modems will fallback to a slightly lower speed. If the line stays error free, then they may try to upshift to the next highest speed. If the line gets really bad, then they may give up altogether and retrain, which means that they will reassess line conditions just as they did during the initial connection phase. You will notice a ~20 second pause while this is happening. Here are some links from an excellent resource: Information your modem can tell you about your connection: http://modemsite.com/56k/diag.asp How many 56k owners are getting what connect speeds: http://modemsite.com/56k/what56.asp Monitoring & Determining Throughput: http://modemsite.com/56k/x2-thru.asp Troubleshooting: http://modemsite.com/56k/trouble.asp Windows 98 has an inbuilt throughput monitoring utility called System Monitor. You don't need any third party utility such as Net Medic. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Guest John Dulak Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K Don Phillipson wrote: > <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message > news:lrkqr397b2289n2dhcdbi5im4jp82ie63e@4ax.com... > >> I actually get 44K to 46K most of the time, out here in the country. . . . >> So now I spend an hour downloading a 25 meg video on youtube or >> something like that. > > The OP may have overlooked that cell phone coverage > now extends to much of rural N.America as well as all > Europe and thus enables wireless high speed Internet > (whether ISPs know it or not.) Several cities (e.g. > New York and Toronto) have noticed this, thus now > promise cheap high speed service by wireless everywhere > (whether or not ISPs yet deliver it.) > Don: Also known as "WISP" : http://www.high-speed-internet-access-guide.com/wireless/ http://www.bbwexchange.com/wisps/ John -- \\\||/// ------------------o000----(o)(o)----000o---------------- ----------------------------()-------------------------- '' Madness takes its toll - Please have exact change. '' John Dulak - Gnomeway Services - http://tinyurl.com/2qs6o6
Guest MEB Posted February 21, 2008 Posted February 21, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message news:oqbqr3paho0fuq7qsks3gjbgbjeubohd34@4ax.com... | In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out | with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out | with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I | know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these | days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure | would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like | that. There was another option. Using two phone lines and "shotgun" style technology {Creative's name for it} [two modems and software or a modem that handled two lines] one can/could split the accessing between the two V90 lines, creating one access point and almost twice the speed. The issue with this was that the ISP had to ALLOW and support this feature. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com _________
Guest Lil' Dave Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message news:oqbqr3paho0fuq7qsks3gjbgbjeubohd34@4ax.com... > In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out > with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out > with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I > know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these > days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure > would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like > that. Your ISP would have to support such a faster modem service (112K) if such was available. Don't see that happening. Same boat here. 56K USR external modem. Best I can do is 52K, more likely 48K. Rural area. Satellite provided internet is available at 80 a month basic service here plus very hefty installation fee. I'm still choking on that. I'll wait till something happens out here like cable. -- Dave
Guest Rick Chauvin Posted February 22, 2008 Posted February 22, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message news:OfLCs8QdIHA.4220@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl [...] > Same boat here. 56K USR external modem. Best I can do is 52K, more > likely 48K. Rural area. Satellite provided internet is available at 80 > a month basic service here plus very hefty installation fee. I'm still > choking on that. I'll wait till something happens out here like cable. You mean Hughesnet right.. http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/layoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589]] Rick > > -- > Dave
Guest Bob Harris Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K If you have a clear view of the south-western sky you might be able to get satellite internet. That is normally fast for downloading, but uses your phone line for uploading (hence 56K max upload). However, I have heard rumors of a newer satellite internet that also supports high-speed uploads. But, be careful, some satellite ISPs limit downloads to so many Meg (or Gig) per month, and, if exceed, then restrict you back to 56K service for the rest of the month. Check the fine-print before signing any contract. Plan B: Is there is nearby town with a Starbucks, Panera Bread, or similar? They often offer free wireless internet for customers. In my travels in the Eastern US I have found some pretty rural-looking places with wireless internet. Plan C: Many libraries offer internet service, and often provide the PCs, too. Use a USB pen drive to transfer files. Plan D: Lobby your state's public utility commission to get cable TV providers to extend service into your area. Nearly all cable TV companies also offer high-speed internet over the same cable. As for DSL, even when I lived about 2 miles from Hartford, CT, I could not get DSL. The land-line phone companies seem to only want to wire DSL in very densely populated areas, since they have to upgrade the wires. Cable, on the other hand, automatically seems to support high-speed internet. <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message news:oqbqr3paho0fuq7qsks3gjbgbjeubohd34@4ax.com... > In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out > with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out > with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I > know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these > days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure > would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like > that.
Guest MEB Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K "Bob Harris" <rharris270[sPAM]@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23iLKobodIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... | If you have a clear view of the south-western sky you might be able to get | satellite internet. That is normally fast for downloading, but uses your | phone line for uploading (hence 56K max upload). However, I have heard | rumors of a newer satellite internet that also supports high-speed uploads. | | But, be careful, some satellite ISPs limit downloads to so many Meg (or Gig) | per month, and, if exceed, then restrict you back to 56K service for the | rest of the month. Check the fine-print before signing any contract. | | Plan B: Is there is nearby town with a Starbucks, Panera Bread, or similar? | They often offer free wireless internet for customers. In my travels in the | Eastern US I have found some pretty rural-looking places with wireless | internet. | | Plan C: Many libraries offer internet service, and often provide the PCs, | too. Use a USB pen drive to transfer files. | | Plan D: Lobby your state's public utility commission to get cable TV | providers to extend service into your area. Nearly all cable TV companies | also offer high-speed internet over the same cable. As for DSL, even when I | lived about 2 miles from Hartford, CT, I could not get DSL. The land-line | phone companies seem to only want to wire DSL in very densely populated | areas, since they have to upgrade the wires. Cable, on the other hand, | automatically seems to support high-speed internet. Along those lines: many state's governments are now contemplating free [or almost free] {wireless} access. If one checks the State Government site for your state, you may find plans for such posted there. [example; Ohio {see governor's Office} has instituted an initiative for free public access, when it might be accomplished or whether it will, might be demonstrative of government verses corporations / capitialism.]. This may be part of why the TV signal/transmission bands (and several others) are being cleared [also think other federal activities]. As for cable, that style [though shielded] WAS the original networking wire used [ Thick v. Thin net]. With the upgraded cable/tv lives [which are shielded] it was only a matter of WHEN they got around to offerring Internet, particularly after the main lines went fiber. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com _________ | | <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message | news:oqbqr3paho0fuq7qsks3gjbgbjeubohd34@4ax.com... | > In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out | > with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out | > with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I | > know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these | > days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure | > would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like | > that. | |
Guest mm Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:36:37 GMT, John Dulak <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote: >Don Phillipson wrote: >> <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message >> news:lrkqr397b2289n2dhcdbi5im4jp82ie63e@4ax.com... >> >>> I actually get 44K to 46K most of the time, out here in the country. . . . >>> So now I spend an hour downloading a 25 meg video on youtube or >>> something like that. >> >> The OP may have overlooked that cell phone coverage >> now extends to much of rural N.America as well as all >> Europe and thus enables wireless high speed Internet >> (whether ISPs know it or not.) Several cities (e.g. >> New York and Toronto) have noticed this, thus now >> promise cheap high speed service by wireless everywhere >> (whether or not ISPs yet deliver it.) >> > >Don: > >Also known as "WISP" : > >http://www.high-speed-internet-access-guide.com/wireless/ > >http://www.bbwexchange.com/wisps/ > >John Very interesting The first of the pages above had a link at the bottom Wifi Hot Spot List, http://www.wi-fihotspotlist.com/ Sometimes my brother has no internet, so I entered his address and 1 mile and got 3 Starbucks. The Starbucks don't charge, do they? You don't have to have subscribed to a national WISP? You use their subscription. (Do they have to pay extra for letting everyone use their ISP?) The chart says that all 3 have T-mobile Wireless. Is that just for information. because surely the customers have to ha I entered his address and 10 miles and got a long list, including a lot of Starbucks and a few Ginkoes, and a few hotels. I know Ginkos charges. The hotels probably charge too, right? I've been to hotels outside the US just for the purpose of getting my email, and you have to pay a reasonable charge if you aren't staying there. But I got the impression that at the Gatwick Hilton, wi-fi was free on the first floor, because most of the people there were staying at the hotel or at least eating in the dining room (I was there because my plane left 3 hours late and I missed my connection and British Air gave me a "day room" to take a nap. I asked at the desk about internet, so I could tell the people meeting me that I wouldn't be on time, and they gave me a room in the business wing, whhere iirc it was 15 dollars to use the internet via a wire, a cable. They didn't tell me about the lobby, and there were no signs. When it was too late, someone who didn't work there told me.) It didn't have a bathtub either, only a shower. Some of their rooms have tubs, and I guess that's what I shoudl have asked for. Now I don't have to subsribe to a WISP to use Starbucks, right? AS long as I buy some 4 dollar coffee, I can sit there for quite a while. (I'm actually more interested in driving from Baltimore to Dallas, and using the internet along the way.) Can I buy a coffee and sit in my car and use the net? But looking in my area, I find that there are four hotspots listed at Baltimore-Washington Airport. Even though I don't travel much at all, I could really use these when waiting for a plane, now that we have to get there, what, 2 hours early. They are all Boingo. Since I don't pay fees to Boingo, does that mean I can't use them? (There maybe be plugin internet too, but those might all be busy, and certainly not close to the gate. ) Thanks a lot for any help. If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
Guest mm Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:21:51 -0500, "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote: > > >"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message >news:OfLCs8QdIHA.4220@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl > >[...] > >> Same boat here. 56K USR external modem. Best I can do is 52K, more >> likely 48K. Rural area. Satellite provided internet is available at 80 >> a month basic service here plus very hefty installation fee. I'm still >> choking on that. I'll wait till something happens out here like cable. > >You mean Hughesnet right.. >http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/layoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589]] Well, the cheap version of this is only 60 a month. The expensive version is 80 dollars. Maybe there was no cheap version last Dave checked, or maybe it doesn't exist where he is, but this second choice seems unlikely. And the two lines, two modems seems good if the ISP will do it. Although maybe not any cheaper than 60 or 80. >Rick > >> >> -- >> Dave > If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
Guest John Dulak Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K mm wrote: > The first of the pages above had a link at the bottom Wifi Hot Spot > List, http://www.wi-fihotspotlist.com/ > > > Sometimes my brother has no internet, so I entered his address and 1 > mile and got 3 Starbucks. The Starbucks don't charge, do they? <SNIP> mm: It is a mixed bag as to who charges and who does not. I don't personally know what Starbucks policy is. It may even vary from store to store. I do know "Panera" resturants and "Caribou" coffee shops that have WiFi Access do not charge for it and that you CAN sit outside and get a connection. I can even sit in my living room and get 2-4 unencrypted WiFi connections from neighbors who never bother to encrypt or don't even realize they are broadcasting a WIFi signal!! BTW these are just local WiFi hotspots. WISPs are a bit different. They use radio to provide service to a MUCH wider area that WiFi (802.11) can cover. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_internet_service_provider HTH & GL John -- \\\||/// ------------------o000----(o)(o)----000o---------------- ----------------------------()-------------------------- '' Madness takes its toll - Please have exact change. '' John Dulak - Gnomeway Services - http://tinyurl.com/2qs6o6
Guest Lil' Dave Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K "mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:2722s39dctd7848tqo3d7q4teilvjp1pjs@4ax.com... > On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:21:51 -0500, "Rick Chauvin" > <justask@nospamz.com> wrote: > >> >> >>"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message >>news:OfLCs8QdIHA.4220@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl >> >>[...] >> >>> Same boat here. 56K USR external modem. Best I can do is 52K, more >>> likely 48K. Rural area. Satellite provided internet is available at 80 >>> a month basic service here plus very hefty installation fee. I'm still >>> choking on that. I'll wait till something happens out here like cable. >> >>You mean Hughesnet right.. >>http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/layoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589]] > > Well, the cheap version of this is only 60 a month. The expensive > version is 80 dollars. Maybe there was no cheap version last Dave > checked, or maybe it doesn't exist where he is, but this second choice > seems unlikely. > > And the two lines, two modems seems good if the ISP will do it. > Although maybe not any cheaper than 60 or 80. > It was 80 more than year ago. Yes, its 60 now for basic service. Doesn't include maintenance service if needed, that I consider part of any basic package. They nickel and dime you to death for anything more. (phone company business model). Dave
Guest Lil' Dave Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K Cable and DSL service both seem to have some dense population threshold before running lines to provide service. My TV reception is from satellite here in the sticks. I don't like alot about current satellite internet packages and their prices. -- Dave "Bob Harris" <rharris270[sPAM]@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23iLKobodIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > If you have a clear view of the south-western sky you might be able to get > satellite internet. That is normally fast for downloading, but uses your > phone line for uploading (hence 56K max upload). However, I have heard > rumors of a newer satellite internet that also supports high-speed > uploads. > > But, be careful, some satellite ISPs limit downloads to so many Meg (or > Gig) per month, and, if exceed, then restrict you back to 56K service for > the rest of the month. Check the fine-print before signing any contract. > > Plan B: Is there is nearby town with a Starbucks, Panera Bread, or > similar? They often offer free wireless internet for customers. In my > travels in the Eastern US I have found some pretty rural-looking places > with wireless internet. > > Plan C: Many libraries offer internet service, and often provide the PCs, > too. Use a USB pen drive to transfer files. > > Plan D: Lobby your state's public utility commission to get cable TV > providers to extend service into your area. Nearly all cable TV companies > also offer high-speed internet over the same cable. As for DSL, even when > I lived about 2 miles from Hartford, CT, I could not get DSL. The > land-line phone companies seem to only want to wire DSL in very densely > populated areas, since they have to upgrade the wires. Cable, on the > other hand, automatically seems to support high-speed internet. > > <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message > news:oqbqr3paho0fuq7qsks3gjbgbjeubohd34@4ax.com... >> In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out >> with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out >> with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I >> know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these >> days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure >> would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like >> that. > >
Guest mm Posted February 24, 2008 Posted February 24, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:19:20 GMT, John Dulak <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote: >mm wrote: > >> The first of the pages above had a link at the bottom Wifi Hot Spot >> List, http://www.wi-fihotspotlist.com/ >> >> >> Sometimes my brother has no internet, so I entered his address and 1 >> mile and got 3 Starbucks. The Starbucks don't charge, do they? > ><SNIP> > >mm: > >It is a mixed bag as to who charges and who does not. I don't >personally know what Starbucks policy is. It may even vary from store >to store. I do know "Panera" resturants and "Caribou" coffee shops >that have WiFi Access do not charge for it and that you CAN sit Thanks. I bought a car adapter last night, to plug into the cigarette lighter, so I guess I'm going to go try this during the trip. >outside and get a connection. I can even sit in my living room and get >2-4 unencrypted WiFi connections from neighbors who never bother to >encrypt or don't even realize they are broadcasting a WIFi signal!! Everyone but two around me encrypt, and those two I guess use MAC filtering. There was one unprotected account 3 months ago -- very useful when I only had one evening to load my computer before an important trip -- but they must have decided to be, or figured out how to be, cautious. > >BTW these are just local WiFi hotspots. WISPs are a bit different. >They use radio to provide service to a MUCH wider area that WiFi >(802.11) can cover. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_internet_service_provider Thanks. > >HTH & GL > >John If you are inclined to email me for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
Guest John John Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K One problem with satellite internet is that you still need another form of internet access anyway. You can't uplink to the satellite, when you surf and click on links, search, send email and what not the instructions that you send have to get to or be relayed to a server so that your requests can be processed. Once received by the processing server the requests can be sent to a large, powerful uplink station that will send the instructions to the satellite to pass the requested information back to you, you can't communicate directly with the satellite. It can be an expensive part of satellite internet, how you communicate with servers to process your requests and how much that part of the package costs depends on what sort of deal the satellite ISP has with other carriers or what other technology it has invested in to supply the uplink from sparsely populated areas. This second form of internet access may be completely transparent and unknown to the user but it is needed and it is there in one form or another. That is also why getting very large files from satellite internet is very fast, mouse clicks travel very quickly to the relay servers, but trying to upload or send very large files to others can be very slow, depending on what technology is used to contact the land based servers. John Lil' Dave wrote: > Cable and DSL service both seem to have some dense population threshold > before running lines to provide service. My TV reception is from satellite > here in the sticks. I don't like alot about current satellite internet > packages and their prices. >
Guest John John Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K PS. You can uplink without another form but that requires that bigger, more expensive hardware be installed and the costs go up considerably. That is usually only used by commercial users, the monthly access fees for these commercial packages around here usually start at about $200/month plus hardware costs. Most home owners around here simply pay the cheaper $20-30/month for telephone internet and about $80 for the satellite portion of the package. John John John wrote: > One problem with satellite internet is that you still need another form > of internet access anyway. You can't uplink to the satellite, when you > surf and click on links, search, send email and what not the > instructions that you send have to get to or be relayed to a server so > that your requests can be processed. Once received by the processing > server the requests can be sent to a large, powerful uplink station that > will send the instructions to the satellite to pass the requested > information back to you, you can't communicate directly with the > satellite. It can be an expensive part of satellite internet, how you > communicate with servers to process your requests and how much that part > of the package costs depends on what sort of deal the satellite ISP has > with other carriers or what other technology it has invested in to > supply the uplink from sparsely populated areas. This second form of > internet access may be completely transparent and unknown to the user > but it is needed and it is there in one form or another. That is also > why getting very large files from satellite internet is very fast, mouse > clicks travel very quickly to the relay servers, but trying to upload or > send very large files to others can be very slow, depending on what > technology is used to contact the land based servers. > > John > > Lil' Dave wrote: > >> Cable and DSL service both seem to have some dense population >> threshold before running lines to provide service. My TV reception is >> from satellite here in the sticks. I don't like alot about current >> satellite internet packages and their prices. >>
Guest Rick Chauvin Posted March 1, 2008 Posted March 1, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K John Have you used, and does this include Hughesnet? http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/layoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589]] I see their D/U ratio is 5 to 1 and so no matter, since 128 to 200 Kbps is not very fast uploading anyway, nonetheless I guess its upload is faster than dialup but not by much @ 3 to 4x dialup, where their download however is 15 to 25x's faster than dialup which its 1 to 1.5 Mbps is somewhat respectable considering satellite - and at this point in time is about the best there is for satellite internet for those who are just out of physical reach of DSL or Cable or any of the local WiFi internet spots, which is most cases will blow that away.. My house connection is max at 500 Kbits/ps (translates to 65 KBytes/ps) which is not very good comparatively @ only 4x dialup, but it's the only game in my town.. ..at the moment anyway - I can't wait for better, and haven't sprung for Hughesnet since it's pricey with not very much bandwidth capability considering, although it would be better than what I have now.. Rick
Guest John John Posted March 2, 2008 Posted March 2, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K No, I'm in Canada, I don't think they operate here. The last time I looked into satellite internet was about 2 years ago and at that time for a "reasonably" priced home package the only thing available was the Bell Expressvue satellite for the download link and telco ground lines for the uplink, the monthly package was in the $80-100/month range. Another TV satellite company (Star Choice) told me they were considering offering high speed internet but I don't think that they followed through and ever offered the service, today I'm not sure which satellite service is available here. I know that commercial operations (like my GM dealer) have it and they have told me that it is pretty pricey, but other than that there aren't many home installations because of the high cost. John Rick Chauvin wrote: > John > > Have you used, and does this include Hughesnet? > http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/layoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589]] > I see their D/U ratio is 5 to 1 and so no matter, since 128 to 200 Kbps is > not very fast uploading anyway, nonetheless I guess its upload is faster > than dialup but not by much @ 3 to 4x dialup, where their download however > is 15 to 25x's faster than dialup which its 1 to 1.5 Mbps is somewhat > respectable considering satellite - and at this point in time is about the > best there is for satellite internet for those who are just out of physical > reach of DSL or Cable or any of the local WiFi internet spots, which is > most cases will blow that away.. > > My house connection is max at 500 Kbits/ps (translates to 65 KBytes/ps) > which is not very good comparatively @ only 4x dialup, but it's the only > game in my town.. ..at the moment anyway - I can't wait for better, and > haven't sprung for Hughesnet since it's pricey with not very much bandwidth > capability considering, although it would be better than what I have now.. > > Rick > > >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted March 2, 2008 Posted March 2, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K I was gonna say, it sounds like the equipment you're referring to is obsolete. HughesNet does not require any other connection than the satellite modem itself. Yes, you can get HughesNet in Canada. See http://www.hughesnet.com. At left you'll notice a "To HughesNet outside us/Canada/Puerto Rico," and yes, that means that the main offering includes those countries. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:uaIpfPGfIHA.4312@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > No, I'm in Canada, I don't think they operate here. The last time I > looked into satellite internet was about 2 years ago and at that time for > a "reasonably" priced home package the only thing available was the Bell > Expressvue satellite for the download link and telco ground lines for the > uplink, the monthly package was in the $80-100/month range. Another TV > satellite company (Star Choice) told me they were considering offering > high speed internet but I don't think that they followed through and ever > offered the service, today I'm not sure which satellite service is > available here. I know that commercial operations (like my GM dealer) > have it and they have told me that it is pretty pricey, but other than > that there aren't many home installations because of the high cost. > > John > > Rick Chauvin wrote: > >> John >> >> Have you used, and does this include Hughesnet? >> http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/Rooms/DisplayPages/layoutInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589]] >> I see their D/U ratio is 5 to 1 and so no matter, since 128 to 200 Kbps >> is >> not very fast uploading anyway, nonetheless I guess its upload is faster >> than dialup but not by much @ 3 to 4x dialup, where their download >> however >> is 15 to 25x's faster than dialup which its 1 to 1.5 Mbps is somewhat >> respectable considering satellite - and at this point in time is about >> the >> best there is for satellite internet for those who are just out of >> physical >> reach of DSL or Cable or any of the local WiFi internet spots, which is >> most cases will blow that away.. >> >> My house connection is max at 500 Kbits/ps (translates to 65 KBytes/ps) >> which is not very good comparatively @ only 4x dialup, but it's the only >> game in my town.. ..at the moment anyway - I can't wait for better, and >> haven't sprung for Hughesnet since it's pricey with not very much >> bandwidth >> capability considering, although it would be better than what I have >> now.. >> >> Rick >> >>
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Re: A faster modem than 56K On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:48:54 -0500, "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote: ><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message >news:lrkqr397b2289n2dhcdbi5im4jp82ie63e@4ax.com... > >> I actually get 44K to 46K most of the time, out here in the country. . . . >> So now I spend an hour downloading a 25 meg video on youtube or >> something like that. > >The OP may have overlooked that cell phone coverage >now extends to much of rural N.America as well as all >Europe and thus enables wireless high speed Internet >(whether ISPs know it or not.) Several cities (e.g. >New York and Toronto) have noticed this, thus now >promise cheap high speed service by wireless everywhere >(whether or not ISPs yet deliver it.) With my eyes getting bad from old age, I cant even set my 17inch monitor with a resolution over 600X800, and you want me to look at a 2 inch screen on a phone....... No thanks. I also hate to even think what the cost would be if I stayed online for several hours a day, which I normally do in winter weather.
Recommended Posts