Hi:

Is it possible to obtain a 56 Mbps connection using 1,000 dial-modems
with a 1,000 different telephone ports and numbers?

Each line gives a max of 56 Kbps, so if 1,000 are used, could this
give a max of 56 Mbps?


Thanks,

Radium

On 23 Apr 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.modems, in article
<1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.c om>, Radium wrote:

Followup-To: set - to give some chance that a response will be seen.


No. Look at your computer, and tell us how many modems you can
install in it. Five? Ten? How many can your operating system
work with? 4? 16? 64? 192? How much do you think Pacific Bell
is going to shove it to you for those lines, compared to how much
it would cost to get your own wideband satellite link from Hughes
or Pan Am?

See RFC1990, which you can find using the search engine you posted
from. In practice, I've seen a thirtytwo port Cylades card with 32
modems used, but the results were less than satisfactory.

1990 The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP). K. Sklower, B. Lloyd, G.
McGregor, D. Carr, T. Coradetti. August 1996. (Format: TXT=53271
bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1717) (Status: DRAFT STANDARD)

You are spewing to a lot of microslop newsgroups, which leads one to
suspect you are using windoze of some version. You'd probably need
a special driver to handle this, much like the Diamond shotgun modems
(which combined two modems into a single entity) from a couple of
years ago.

This all assumes you would be bonding connections to a single ISP.
Trying to dial in to multiple ISPs is possible, but requires that
each connection be a separate one - thus the chance of aggregating
bandwidth is nearly nil.

You are much better of sticking with your cable provider.

Old guy

Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> said in news:1177378238.361891.73650
@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

You fucking dumb ass.

Rectum Burrrrrrrn

On Apr 23, 6:30 pm, Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. For several reasons.

1 megabit =1024 kilobits (not 1000)

FCC limits so called 56K modems to only 53K, and often line conditions
limit speeds to 40k, or much less. People in rural areas often must
suffer with 28.8 or less, because of crappy phone lines.

It would be hideously impractical, Requiring specialized hardware AND
software.

It would be way cheaper to get cable internet access.

Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1177378238.361891.73650@y5g2000hsa.googlegrou ps.com:

Can't believe anyone took this question seriously. Even *I* can
tell the guy is a fucking troll.

--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

On Apr 23, 8:17 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:

Well, the theoretical limit for USB is 127, with cascading hubs. I
think that would suck, though, even if you could get windows to play
nice with all those devices. It would use more bandwidth than usb 2
could handle. Several times more.

There are also 8 port pci serial cards, with a crazy 8 headed cable,
each end connects to a different serial device (ie, external modem). 8
x 2-6 pci slots = a lot of modems.

I know you can get at least 4 modems to actually work independently in
an ordinary PC. (Poor man's modem server)

<paulmd@efn.org> wrote in message
news:1177385424.734594.247600@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
line speed and throughput should be measured in the context of information
theory. they use 1 megabit = 1,000,000 bits.

in a download meter, it would make more sense to use binary megabytes i.e.
mebibytes.

<paulmd@efn.org> wrote in message
news:1177385424.734594.247600@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
modems use compression e.g. v.44. two modems with Multilink should burst to
300 kbps on certain material.

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns991C97AB1B12thanexit@66.250.146.158...
And what's worse, someone giving a reasonable response to a stupid question,
or someone who just likes to bitch?

....and 56k modems were regulated to 53k. Also, There is no easy way to
amalgamate all the connections into a single stream. Just put two 100mbit
network cards in a PC. It won't let you download at 200mbit. It will let you
have two 100mbit streams though.

"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in message
news:mVkXh.121595$DE1.37097@pd7urf2no...
even if they weren't regulated, signal to noise and bandwidth limits the
speed. (Shannon theorem.)

i think the bonding and multilink PPP techniques require the help of the
ISP. you should be able to use a load balancer with 2 DSL lines fairly
easily.

there are downloader programs that use threading and mirrors (like
Getright).

multilink or load balancing 56k would only make sense somewhere that had no
DSL, no cable, no satellite ...

They were capable of 56k, given perfect conditions.

But you couldn't use BOTH streams to double the speed of a single download.

Actually, I've got a dual WAN router here and two cable modems. Still, my
fastest download for a single file is only 7mBit (the speed of one
connection).

On 23 Apr 2007 18:30:38 -0700, Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com>
wrote:


Quit jerking off and get a girlfriend.

On Apr 24, 3:24 am, "Noozer" <dont.s...@me.here> wrote:
You can never tell in advance who's a troll, and who actually just
wants an answer to a wild thought they had. It is an interesting
question, in theory.

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:fm8s239m1ravnnv4b2958mm0daip5mfac0@4ax.com...
trolling Usenet is a distant second to sex. a very sad distant second.

anyone have $300 to get this guy laid?

On 24 Apr 2007 09:09:48 -0700, "paulmd@efn.org"
<paulmd@efn.org> wrote:


I believe you can, if given prior evidence.

Either way, a "wild thought" would still be researched prior
to public scrutiny.

"paulmd@efn.org" wrote:
Besides which 56k modems usually have compression techniques added,
so they can process communications at well over 56k.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline.net



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"paulmd@efn.org" <paulmd@efn.org> wrote in
news:1177430988.571457.266060@u32g2000prd.googlegr oups.com:

1) Not "in advance", I read the question!

2) In theory, exactly. And not THAT interesting, IMHO. And
anyone who knows the difference between a modem and a graphics
card knows it can't be done.

3) NO ONE would ever attempt to try it in real life if nothing
else because of the cost.

4) Ergo: troll.


--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in
news:63ks231useg19ln7ml1gdm5cabjufksquc@4ax.com:

Not bad, a new definition of a geek with nothing better to do!

--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:462E51B4.C1DDE988@yahoo.com:

AFAIK, ALL modems except the earliest models ever (300 baud
etc.) use compression to achieve their "rated speeds", and no 56
modem can process anything at a faster speed than 53 or 56 (I
don't know which is correct - see thread - and they're
practically the same anyway).
And it achieves that speed by compression. AFAIK, it's just a
14.4 or 28.8 (my knowledge fails me here) modem with much better
compression algorithms and some newer components.

--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.

"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in
news:mVkXh.121595$DE1.37097@pd7urf2no:

VERY good question. AFAIAC, there are about 4 billion too many
people in the world as it is.

<SNIP>


--
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.