NetZero

before you start tracking electrons through copper, simply try other access
numbers even if they dont seem to be in the right area. if they arent long
distance, try them. if that doesnt work, go to the earthlink (or msn, or
any other major provider) site and look up their dial up numbers. they're
all tied into the same physical providers and often you can get a better
connection to the same server via someone elses dial up number. you still
connect the same and all, you just put their phone number in the box for the
dialer.

is it legal? i dunno. dont care either <g> in any case try other netzero
numbers first. when ive had dial up i was always flipping between numbers
to find a good connection and it changed from day to day...

randy

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For some reason, my Internet connection in Bedford is half the speed it
used to
> be: 28.8 instead of 56K. Right now, no DSL from anyone. No cable, either,
yet.
> Satellite, yes. But I'm truly not up for a $600 equipment investment, plus
a
> monthly dish access charge of at least $40.
>
> I ran across a thing called NetZero, and am considering their "high speed"
dial
> up. Supposedly 5 times as fast as my current speed, which is still lousy,
> but...
>
> Is anyone using this service? If so, what kind of results have you had,
how
> happy are you with it, does it make NG access easy or difficult?
>
> Charlie Self
> "If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he
gave
> it to." Dorothy Parker
>
>
>

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > Cheap wire is not twisted and is
> > susceptible to line noise which will result in slower negotiated speeds
> > between modems as well as more retries on packet transmission. These
days
> > one should spend the little extra and use twisted pair for all home
phone
> > wiring.
> >
> Amen. I remember back in the days when directly connected CRTs
> would run 9600 on an RS232 line to a minicomputer as long as it
> wasn't over 50-100 feet or so. We bought 1000' of shielded,
> twisted pair and, just for the heck of it, ran a terminal
> through the whole 1000' (which was still wrapped around its
> spool). Worked fine :-).
>
> Wire, connectors, soldering, etc., quality DO make a difference!
>

Likewise - many years ago, when I was a tech, I had a hospital for a
customer and they ran an RS232C line 1500 feet using twisted pair and never
dropped a bit. Like you said, every manufacturer was holding to the spec of
50 feet, but they didn't bother reading the spec - they just installed the
wire and presto.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

xrongor wrote:

>>it isn't an inside wiring issue. a knowledgeable tech from
>>a DSL provider explained to me years ago that one of the
>>phone line pairs is hooked up in a different manner to the
>>phone system, but I must say that I can't recall the
>>technical details.
>
>
> how can you say this, yet not realize its an inside wiring problem?
>
> randy
>
>
>
because the guy at the DSL provider knew from my description
that there is a common problem with some phone lines as they
are connected to the system. wish I could recall the
details. there are two pairs and one of the pairs can be
connected "differently", but like I said 3 times already, I
forget the terms he used to describe HOW it's connected that
causes the top speed to be 28.8 or less. shoot me for
forgetting, but it's been about 4 years since I talked to
the guy.

for those who continue to insist it is an "inside" problem,
let me mention that ALL (that's right, ALL of the inside
wiring) was bypassed to check the speed of the connection
right where the wiring comes up from underground to a point
about 15" above the ground, on the outside wall of my
garage. so can we put that notion to bed, once and for all?
thank you...


dave

In article <[email protected]>, Charlie Self
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Supposedly 5 times as fast as my current speed, which is still lousy,
> but...

Look for the words "up to"... which includes "nought".

I'd ask whoever owns the copper coming into your house to do a line
check first, then check the copper inside the house.

djb

In article <[email protected]>,
xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
>> it isn't an inside wiring issue. a knowledgeable tech from
>> a DSL provider explained to me years ago that one of the
>> phone line pairs is hooked up in a different manner to the
>> phone system, but I must say that I can't recall the
>> technical details.
>
>how can you say this, yet not realize its an inside wiring problem?
>

Because he _knows_ what he is talking about. <grin>

Because it is *NOT* an inside wiring problem.

He has two _different_ phone lines ( each with their _own_ phone number).

One is on a bare copper pair, all the way back to the C.O. -- on *that*
line, he can get 56k. Heck, if the distance was short enough, he could
even get DSL over it.

The other line goes through a 'pair gain' device, where it is *multiplexed*
with other phone lines, *before* it gets to the C.O. Then, at the C.O.,
it is split back out to the original "lines", and connected to the switch.
On *THIS* kind of a physical connection, you are _lucky_ if you can get 28.8k.
a top speed of 19.2, or 14.4 is *not* uncommon. (Note: you _cannot_ run DSL
over this kind of a connection.)

To get a modem connection speed above 33.6k (or 28.8k, if your modem doesn't
do 33.6), there must be _exactly_*ONE*_ analog/digital conversion stage in
the _entire_ circuit from your modem to *their* pseudo-modem. *IF* there
are two, or more, such conversions, then it is simply *not* possible to get
a connection speed faster than 33.6k.

On 23 Jun 2004 16:10:56 GMT, Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> For some reason, my Internet connection in Bedford is half the speed it used to
> be: 28.8 instead of 56K. Right now, no DSL from anyone. No cable, either, yet.
> Satellite, yes. But I'm truly not up for a $600 equipment investment, plus a
> monthly dish access charge of at least $40.

Satellite gives you good speed, once the connection is made. Speed of light
and distance to geosynchronous satellites dictates that you'll have at
least a second of lag before anything you request gets to you. Not a problem
for downloading big files, but for something like a webpage made up of
dozens or hundreds of individual objects, can get painfully slow.

> I ran across a thing called NetZero, and am considering their "high speed" dial
> up. Supposedly 5 times as fast as my current speed, which is still lousy,
> but...

From what I've read, they get this speedup by re-sampling the images on
the pages before sending them to you, making them lower resolution and
therefore faster. Some of the other "5 times faster" is probably
in the V92 modem protocol's compression, which has been out for rather
a long time. One might argue that that compression isn't fair to
compare to "ordinary" as everyone's using it.

> Is anyone using this service? If so, what kind of results have you had, how
> happy are you with it, does it make NG access easy or difficult?

Once you're on the net, connecting to a usenet server isn't a biggie.
I use a free one out of Germany which I am extremely happy with.
No binary groups, but for me that's a non-issue.

One of the disadvantages of living in "God's country" is that it's
almost always a dial-up situation. I'm fortunate to have a friend
close to my house who sells software, so he has a T1 feed to his
house, which I then relay over to mine (just over a mile) to get
a _very_ nice network feed. This isn't likely to be the case
for many folks, though.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:50:14 -0500, Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:
> But just so we're clear on the
> "5 times faster" thing, the way they supposedly achieve that is that
> NetZero's servers cache web content so that, for instance, when you're going
> to www.nra.org, you don't actually have to get all the way to the NRA web
> servers to retrieve the information, because it's likely already cached at
> one of NetZero's servers.

Hm, if that's how they're calculating it, then it's even more iffy
than I thought. Any ISP is going to be on a very fat pipe compared to
a dialup user. The time lag saved by caching the data in a local proxy
server is minimal - they do it mainly to decrease having to re-fetch
the same object dozens or thousands of times a day. Makes sense from
a bandwidth usage standpoint, but only buys a tiny fraction of the total
time compared to a bandwidth download of the same object.

> Now, if you do a lot of downloads, you're
> screwed, because those will come down at the same, slow rate as before.

Yes; there's only so much data that can go down the line at one time,
no matter how you look at it. The garden hose won't put out the
forest fire.

> Regarding your current connection, have you tried other 56K numbers to dial
> up, assuming there are any? For completeness, I should also point out that
> the connection speed that is reported is only the initial speed that was
> negotiated between your modem and the ISP's equipment. Both ends are
> constantly negotiating the best speed that they can get. For an additional
> helping of completeness, you never got 56K. The best you can do, in theory,
> is 53K, because that is what the speed over an analog line is limited to, by
> law, though I'm not sure if I ever saw a reported connection speed over 48K.

I saw a 52K connection just last night on dialup, it was the first time
I saw anything over 50. May have been a change in how it's reported,
though.

> In any case, 28.8K is dreadfully slow and I hope you get it fixed, because I
> sure couldn't deal with it.

I'm spoiled by my home connection, that's for sure. I get to someone's
house where they have dialup, and if their system needs work, it's
actually almost always quicker to drive it over to my place, install
a NIC, and use my feed to go get the patches or drivers or whatever.
Then, I play in the shop while the stuff is downloading, so it's
a win-win.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:28:25 -0400, George <george@least> wrote:
> They also seem to block your PC's
> cached page from loading. You know how the framework seems to pop right up,
> then fill with changing data?

That makes sense in this context. The html comes in from the server, the
.css is cached, and the elements within it need to be fetched for you.

> At the department we have DSL which is slower than my non-cache dialup for
> browsing, because it has the world's clunkiest DNS. Daughter had cable at
> her apartment which was slower in browsing mode than the wireless from the
> University, which she could get at the NW corner of her living room.

If she'd build a cantenna (google is your friend) she could probably get
it from her entire apartment.

> There's a lot of stuff involved, connection speed being but one.

I had an interesting discussion with the folks from Go'mez yesterday,
regarding just this. The first time their testing software fetches
our page, most of the delay was the DNS lookup. Second time, that
dropped to a couple milliseconds, and it was more ssl and
download than anything else. A non-caching DNS server could make life
miserable, or if the connection isn't set to "keep-alive". Lots of
tuning can be done out there, but at the end of the day, a phone line
can only move so many bits per second.

If you wanted to do a cacheing proxy server in-house, there's always
Squid in the Linux/Unix/BSD/Mac world, or AllegroSurf in the windows
world. Putting the cache and proxy in-house makes sense if you have
more than a couple of machines on the home network. AS can even
prefetch pages for you, so it's downloading _before_ you click on
the link.

Dave Hinz

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> The best you can do, in theory,
> is 53K, because that is what the speed over an analog line is limited to, by
> law, though I'm not sure if I ever saw a reported connection speed over 48K.
>
Mine shows as 49333 some of the time, 48000 some of the time.

But Charlie might want to see if the phone company's been doing
any work on his lines lately. They've screwed up mine once or
twice.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> it isn't an inside wiring issue. a knowledgeable tech from
> a DSL provider explained to me years ago that one of the
> phone line pairs is hooked up in a different manner to the
> phone system, but I must say that I can't recall the
> technical details. suffice it to say, the phone company
> doesn't guarantee a fast connection using modems, so my
> complaints to them resulting in no repair to the slow line.
>
Agreed - they just say it's voice grade and tough luck. But if
I mention the problem to a maintenance guy while he's out for
something else, he'll usually switch the pairs or "change the
loading", whatever that means. Maybe impedance?

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Cheap wire is not twisted and is
> susceptible to line noise which will result in slower negotiated speeds
> between modems as well as more retries on packet transmission. These days
> one should spend the little extra and use twisted pair for all home phone
> wiring.
>
Amen. I remember back in the days when directly connected CRTs
would run 9600 on an RS232 line to a minicomputer as long as it
wasn't over 50-100 feet or so. We bought 1000' of shielded,
twisted pair and, just for the heck of it, ran a terminal
through the whole 1000' (which was still wrapped around its
spool). Worked fine :-).

Wire, connectors, soldering, etc., quality DO make a difference!

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:22:10 -0700, AArDvarK <[email protected]> wrote:
> NetZero is not literally "5x" faster, the software, which you rent for
> an extra $5 a month, simply pre-fetches the pages of all links you see
> on any webpage you are on, straight into your RAM. If not enough
> RAM then cashed onto your hard disc which you must clean yourself.

Ah, see, if I'm going to do that, I'll give 40 bucks to rhinosoft.com
and install AllegroSurf. Gives you prefetch, cache management,
and blocks popups, without installing spyware on your system and
without telling you it's one thing when it's really another.

Disclaimer: I know the guy who sells AllegroSurf.

> Ah, see, if I'm going to do that, I'll give 40 bucks to rhinosoft.com
> and install AllegroSurf. Gives you prefetch, cache management,
> and blocks popups, without installing spyware on your system and
> without telling you it's one thing when it's really another.
>
> Disclaimer: I know the guy who sells AllegroSurf.
>

And another dillusion about netzero on the "5x" faster thing is it makes one
think that also means the speeds of software downloading, nope. same as
56k and slower. I got cable.

Alex

Right answer. You get a degraded page, and as "popup blocking" is normally
included, the two combine for a bit fuzzier but faster load of a new page.
Balance this against competing in a limited bandwidth for the proxy, and
note how slowly the _second_ page loads. I'm thinking of canceling my free
trial, because it doesn't really do much. They also seem to block your PC's
cached page from loading. You know how the framework seems to pop right up,
then fill with changing data?

At the department we have DSL which is slower than my non-cache dialup for
browsing, because it has the world's clunkiest DNS. Daughter had cable at
her apartment which was slower in browsing mode than the wireless from the
University, which she could get at the NW corner of her living room.

There's a lot of stuff involved, connection speed being but one.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> From what I've read, they get this speedup by re-sampling the images on
> the pages before sending them to you, making them lower resolution and
> therefore faster. Some of the other "5 times faster" is probably
> in the V92 modem protocol's compression, which has been out for rather
> a long time. One might argue that that compression isn't fair to
> compare to "ordinary" as everyone's using it.
>

Hi Charlie...
First thing I'd do is call the phone company. A while back, my dialup slowed
to a crawl... I called the local Ma Bell, and the repaired the line, and
viola! Back up to speed (which is a 50K crawl when one has wideband wireless
at the office and is SPOILED!).
Tom
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For some reason, my Internet connection in Bedford is half the speed it
used to
> be: 28.8 instead of 56K. Right now, no DSL from anyone. No cable, either,
yet.
<snip>

Thankfully, moot, as she GRADUATED this May. I was looking forward to one
less "turning for tuition" as a way to get a Powermatic 3520, until she was
admitted to graduate program a couple hundred further away....

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:28:25 -0400, George <george@least> wrote:
>
> > At the department we have DSL which is slower than my non-cache dialup
for
> > browsing, because it has the world's clunkiest DNS. Daughter had cable
at
> > her apartment which was slower in browsing mode than the wireless from
the
> > University, which she could get at the NW corner of her living room.
>
> If she'd build a cantenna (google is your friend) she could probably get
> it from her entire apartment.
>

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For some reason, my Internet connection in Bedford is half the speed it
used to
> be: 28.8 instead of 56K. Right now, no DSL from anyone. No cable, either,
yet.
> Satellite, yes. But I'm truly not up for a $600 equipment investment, plus
a
> monthly dish access charge of at least $40.
>
> I ran across a thing called NetZero, and am considering their "high speed"
dial
> up. Supposedly 5 times as fast as my current speed, which is still lousy,
> but...
>
> Is anyone using this service? If so, what kind of results have you had,
how
> happy are you with it, does it make NG access easy or difficult?
>
> Charlie Self
> "If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he
gave
> it to." Dorothy Parker

I'm not using it, nor would I ever unless, God forbid, I move out of range
of cable (which I have now) or at least DSL. But just so we're clear on the
"5 times faster" thing, the way they supposedly achieve that is that
NetZero's servers cache web content so that, for instance, when you're going
to www.nra.org, you don't actually have to get all the way to the NRA web
servers to retrieve the information, because it's likely already cached at
one of NetZero's servers. Now, if you do a lot of downloads, you're
screwed, because those will come down at the same, slow rate as before.

Regarding your current connection, have you tried other 56K numbers to dial
up, assuming there are any? For completeness, I should also point out that
the connection speed that is reported is only the initial speed that was
negotiated between your modem and the ISP's equipment. Both ends are
constantly negotiating the best speed that they can get. For an additional
helping of completeness, you never got 56K. The best you can do, in theory,
is 53K, because that is what the speed over an analog line is limited to, by
law, though I'm not sure if I ever saw a reported connection speed over 48K.
In any case, 28.8K is dreadfully slow and I hope you get it fixed, because I
sure couldn't deal with it.

todd

In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> it isn't an inside wiring issue. a knowledgeable tech from
>> a DSL provider explained to me years ago that one of the
>> phone line pairs is hooked up in a different manner to the
>> phone system, but I must say that I can't recall the
>> technical details. suffice it to say, the phone company
>> doesn't guarantee a fast connection using modems, so my
>> complaints to them resulting in no repair to the slow line.
>>
>Agreed - they just say it's voice grade and tough luck. But if
>I mention the problem to a maintenance guy while he's out for
>something else, he'll usually switch the pairs or "change the
>loading", whatever that means. Maybe impedance?

Well, 'yes and no'. <grin>

Long runs of wire have significant 'distributed capacitance', just from
the proximity of the two wires to each other.

One can counter-act the effect of that capacitance, by hanging some 'coils'
(known technically, oddly enough, as "loading coils") on the pair, so that
the inductance 'cancels' the effect of the capacitance.

For optimum signal clarity, the amount of inductance supplied by the coils
has to match the capacitance -- obviously. Too much of _either_ one results
in degraded audio. "How much" is 'just right' depends on several things;
mostly the _length_ of the wire run, but, in addition, the -size- of the
wire, the construction of the wire, and what it runs through/next to --
just to name a few of the factors.

Smaller coils, installed at more frequent positions down the length of the
wire, do a better job of keeping the signal clean than do a smaller number
of larger-inductance coils installed farther apart.

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:50:14 -0500, Todd Fatheree
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> But just so we're clear on the
>> "5 times faster" thing, the way they supposedly achieve that is that
>> NetZero's servers cache web content so that, for instance, when you're going
>> to www.nra.org, you don't actually have to get all the way to the NRA web
>> servers to retrieve the information, because it's likely already cached at
>> one of NetZero's servers.
>
>Hm, if that's how they're calculating it, then it's even more iffy
>than I thought.

That's only part of it. They also _compress_ images -- with some consequent
loss of color-depth/detail/resolution; thus the 'compressed' image downloads
'faster'.

> Any ISP is going to be on a very fat pipe compared to
>a dialup user. The time lag saved by caching the data in a local proxy
>server is minimal - they do it mainly to decrease having to re-fetch
>the same object dozens or thousands of times a day. Makes sense from
>a bandwidth usage standpoint, but only buys a tiny fraction of the total
>time compared to a bandwidth download of the same object.
>
>> Now, if you do a lot of downloads, you're
>> screwed, because those will come down at the same, slow rate as before.
>
>Yes; there's only so much data that can go down the line at one time,
>no matter how you look at it. The garden hose won't put out the
>forest fire.
>
>> Regarding your current connection, have you tried other 56K numbers to dial
>> up, assuming there are any? For completeness, I should also point out that
>> the connection speed that is reported is only the initial speed that was
>> negotiated between your modem and the ISP's equipment. Both ends are
>> constantly negotiating the best speed that they can get. For an additional
>> helping of completeness, you never got 56K. The best you can do, in theory,
>> is 53K, because that is what the speed over an analog line is limited to, by
>> law, though I'm not sure if I ever saw a reported connection speed over 48K.
>
>I saw a 52K connection just last night on dialup, it was the first time
>I saw anything over 50. May have been a change in how it's reported,
>though.

That is "just about" perfect. The absolute maximum you can get over a '56k'
connection is 52,5000 bit/sec. [limited to 15/16 of the 56,000bit/sec it is
'theoretically capable' of developing -- because of long-time restrictions (in
the actual _laws_, no less -- to ensure inter-operability of various gear) on
the total amount of audio signal that can be put onto the line.]

This 52,500 bits/sec is often rounded up to 53k, when reported only in kilobits
per second. *Anything* that claims a _connection_ speed of '56kbit/sec' is
telling lies.

>> In any case, 28.8K is dreadfully slow and I hope you get it fixed, because I
>> sure couldn't deal with it.
>
>I'm spoiled by my home connection, that's for sure. I get to someone's
>house where they have dialup, and if their system needs work, it's
>actually almost always quicker to drive it over to my place, install
>a NIC, and use my feed to go get the patches or drivers or whatever.
>Then, I play in the shop while the stuff is downloading, so it's
>a win-win.
>
>Dave Hinz

patriarch < wrote:

> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>Todd Fatheree wrote:
>> The best you can do, in theory,
>>
>>>is 53K, because that is what the speed over an analog line is limited
>>>to, by law, though I'm not sure if I ever saw a reported connection
>>>speed over 48K. In any case, 28.8K is dreadfully slow and I hope you
>>>get it fixed, because I sure couldn't deal with it.
>>>
>>>todd
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I've got one line in my house that nearly always connects at
>>49.3 Another line can't do better than 28.8
>>
>>dave
>>
>
>
> THAT sounds like an inside wiring issue, if they are the same telephone
> number. How's the voice quality?
>
> Patriarch
it isn't an inside wiring issue. a knowledgeable tech from
a DSL provider explained to me years ago that one of the
phone line pairs is hooked up in a different manner to the
phone system, but I must say that I can't recall the
technical details. suffice it to say, the phone company
doesn't guarantee a fast connection using modems, so my
complaints to them resulting in no repair to the slow line.
I'm sure if there are any telecommunications pros here,
they could explain it to you (and refresh my memory).

dave

Todd Fatheree wrote:
The best you can do, in theory,
> is 53K, because that is what the speed over an analog line is limited to, by
> law, though I'm not sure if I ever saw a reported connection speed over 48K.
> In any case, 28.8K is dreadfully slow and I hope you get it fixed, because I
> sure couldn't deal with it.
>
> todd
>
>
I've got one line in my house that nearly always connects at
49.3 Another line can't do better than 28.8

dave

NetZero is not literally "5x" faster, the software, which you rent for
an extra $5 a month, simply pre-fetches the pages of all links you see
on any webpage you are on, straight into your RAM. If not enough
RAM then cashed onto your hard disc which you must clean yourself.
But for surfing it is better than regular dial-up. I would do it for the
cost of it. Satallite however is slower than regular DSL but far faster
than any dial-up. You may want a V.92 type dial-up modem, with it
you can place internet "on hold" wild recieving a 'phone call, yet
remain dialed-up, and NetZero provides that service which would
be a specific number(s) in your area.

Alex

Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>it isn't an inside wiring issue. a knowledgeable tech from
>>>a DSL provider explained to me years ago that one of the
>>>phone line pairs is hooked up in a different manner to the
>>>phone system, but I must say that I can't recall the
>>>technical details.
>>
>>how can you say this, yet not realize its an inside wiring problem?
>>
>
>
> Because he _knows_ what he is talking about. <grin>
>
> Because it is *NOT* an inside wiring problem.
>
> He has two _different_ phone lines ( each with their _own_ phone number).
>
> One is on a bare copper pair, all the way back to the C.O. -- on *that*
> line, he can get 56k. Heck, if the distance was short enough, he could
> even get DSL over it.
>
> The other line goes through a 'pair gain' device, where it is *multiplexed*
> with other phone lines, *before* it gets to the C.O. Then, at the C.O.,
> it is split back out to the original "lines", and connected to the switch.
> On *THIS* kind of a physical connection, you are _lucky_ if you can get 28.8k.
> a top speed of 19.2, or 14.4 is *not* uncommon. (Note: you _cannot_ run DSL
> over this kind of a connection.)
>
> To get a modem connection speed above 33.6k (or 28.8k, if your modem doesn't
> do 33.6), there must be _exactly_*ONE*_ analog/digital conversion stage in
> the _entire_ circuit from your modem to *their* pseudo-modem. *IF* there
> are two, or more, such conversions, then it is simply *not* possible to get
> a connection speed faster than 33.6k.
>
I think that's the term the tech used, Robert--multiplexed.
Thanks for the explanation!

dave

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> xrongor wrote:
>
> >>it isn't an inside wiring issue. a knowledgeable tech from
> >>a DSL provider explained to me years ago that one of the
> >>phone line pairs is hooked up in a different manner to the
> >>phone system, but I must say that I can't recall the
> >>technical details.
> >
> >
> > how can you say this, yet not realize its an inside wiring problem?
> >
> > randy
> >
> >
> >
> because the guy at the DSL provider knew from my description
> that there is a common problem with some phone lines as they
> are connected to the system. wish I could recall the
> details. there are two pairs and one of the pairs can be
> connected "differently", but like I said 3 times already, I
> forget the terms he used to describe HOW it's connected that
> causes the top speed to be 28.8 or less. shoot me for
> forgetting, but it's been about 4 years since I talked to
> the guy.
>
> for those who continue to insist it is an "inside" problem,
> let me mention that ALL (that's right, ALL of the inside
> wiring) was bypassed to check the speed of the connection
> right where the wiring comes up from underground to a point
> about 15" above the ground, on the outside wall of my
> garage. so can we put that notion to bed, once and for all?

just for the sake of argument, did you use the same phone cord you were
using before? if you tried it it right where it comes to the house, with
two different phone cords, with all the rest of the house wiring
disconnected and only the one connection going to the modem, i think you can
be sure its not inside. if you only used one phone cord i think that cord
is still suspect..

randy

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:UOCCc.769$S%[email protected]...
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > xrongor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>>it isn't an inside wiring issue. a knowledgeable tech from
> >>>a DSL provider explained to me years ago that one of the
> >>>phone line pairs is hooked up in a different manner to the
> >>>phone system, but I must say that I can't recall the
> >>>technical details.
> >>
> >>how can you say this, yet not realize its an inside wiring problem?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Because he _knows_ what he is talking about. <grin>
> >
> > Because it is *NOT* an inside wiring problem.
> >
> > He has two _different_ phone lines ( each with their _own_ phone
number).
> >
> > One is on a bare copper pair, all the way back to the C.O. -- on *that*
> > line, he can get 56k. Heck, if the distance was short enough, he could
> > even get DSL over it.
> >
> > The other line goes through a 'pair gain' device, where it is
*multiplexed*
> > with other phone lines, *before* it gets to the C.O. Then, at the C.O.,
> > it is split back out to the original "lines", and connected to the
switch.
> > On *THIS* kind of a physical connection, you are _lucky_ if you can get
28.8k.
> > a top speed of 19.2, or 14.4 is *not* uncommon. (Note: you _cannot_ run
DSL
> > over this kind of a connection.)
> >
> > To get a modem connection speed above 33.6k (or 28.8k, if your modem
doesn't
> > do 33.6), there must be _exactly_*ONE*_ analog/digital conversion stage
in
> > the _entire_ circuit from your modem to *their* pseudo-modem. *IF*
there
> > are two, or more, such conversions, then it is simply *not* possible to
get
> > a connection speed faster than 33.6k.
> >
> I think that's the term the tech used, Robert--multiplexed.
> Thanks for the explanation!


ok, this makes sense. you didnt say you had a multiplexer.

randy

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Todd Fatheree wrote:
> The best you can do, in theory,
>> is 53K, because that is what the speed over an analog line is limited
>> to, by law, though I'm not sure if I ever saw a reported connection
>> speed over 48K. In any case, 28.8K is dreadfully slow and I hope you
>> get it fixed, because I sure couldn't deal with it.
>>
>> todd
>>
>>
> I've got one line in my house that nearly always connects at
> 49.3 Another line can't do better than 28.8
>
> dave
>

THAT sounds like an inside wiring issue, if they are the same telephone
number. How's the voice quality?

Patriarch

[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> For some reason, my Internet connection in Bedford is half the speed
> it used to be: 28.8 instead of 56K. Right now, no DSL from anyone. No
> cable, either, yet. Satellite, yes. But I'm truly not up for a $600
> equipment investment, plus a monthly dish access charge of at least
> $40.
>
> I ran across a thing called NetZero, and am considering their "high
> speed" dial up. Supposedly 5 times as fast as my current speed, which
> is still lousy, but...
>
> Is anyone using this service? If so, what kind of results have you
> had, how happy are you with it, does it make NG access easy or
> difficult?

Charlie,

I would stay away from Juno/NetZero if I were you. They install a required
toolbar on your browser which includes spyware....yes, even the paid
version has a forced toolbar at the top of your browser, and they force you
to change your search page to theirs. You will find yourself rebooting more
frequently than usual if you run their software.


--
Bill

[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

<snip>
>
> One can counter-act the effect of that capacitance, by hanging some
> 'coils' (known technically, oddly enough, as "loading coils") on the
> pair, so that the inductance 'cancels' the effect of the capacitance.
>
<snip>

And among other things, these loading coils need to be removed in order for
DSL to work. Necessary, generally speaking, but not sufficient. Distance
has to be right. No 'bridge taps'. No other equipment in the lines, often
used to solve other problems.

Getting DSL to work in the first place took a lot of very talented
engineers.

And some of them are pretty good woodworkers (he says, trying to bring some
topicality to the thread again.)

Hope the cable modem works well for you, Dave.

Patriarch

it also changes with time. the protocol allows for it to keep trying to go
as fast as it can. but wont update your dialer window. that reports the
speed you connected at and doesnt change.

randy

> I saw a 52K connection just last night on dialup, it was the first time
> I saw anything over 50. May have been a change in how it's reported,
> though.

Charlie,

Despite your earlier negative comments today (a real big thanks for that)
I'll offer some possible help. Call Verizon and have them check the line.
Because it worked before doesn't mean a thing and things change in 2-1/2
years. It could be a simple matter of them applying some sealing-current on
your local loop to help dry out the connections or replacing some loading
coils that may have gone bad. With that much deterioration, I would also
suspect that a lightning protector may have gone bad right at the house
interface or corrosion on some of the terminal connections.

Also, check the settings of your computer setup for the modem. For $15 you
can buy a cheap WinModem to verify against. If you had a different computer
2-1/2 years ago and it had a modem in an ISA slot or was external, then it
was most likely a modem with it's own controller on-board and did not use
the main CPU for processing data. The "real" modems also have better line
conditioning features built in and hence cost around $80 to $100 nowadays.

Anything else connected to this line> Did you add an extension and reverse
the wires perhaps? You can get the polarity checker at Radio Shack - used
to cost around $5. Add any filters to the phone line for your fax
machine/answering machine? Same type service as before or have you added
features such as Caller ID, Call Waiting, etc.?

So are things really the same now as they were before? Modem has changed
probably from an ISA slot modem to a PCI slot or even a built-in WinModem
and you're seeing the effects.


Bob S.


"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For some reason, my Internet connection in Bedford is half the speed it
used to
> be: 28.8 instead of 56K. Right now, no DSL from anyone. No cable, either,
yet.
> Satellite, yes. But I'm truly not up for a $600 equipment investment, plus
a
> monthly dish access charge of at least $40.
>
> I ran across a thing called NetZero, and am considering their "high speed"
dial
> up. Supposedly 5 times as fast as my current speed, which is still lousy,
> but...
>
> Is anyone using this service? If so, what kind of results have you had,
how
> happy are you with it, does it make NG access easy or difficult?
>
> Charlie Self
> "If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he
gave
> it to." Dorothy Parker
>
>
>

After finding out Juno was the PITS I tried NetZero only to find it
was the same thing with another name. Had a BITCH of a time getting
cancelled! After mentioning BBB gal on the phone reluctantly agreed
to let me cancel.

On 23 Jun 2004 16:10:56 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:

>For some reason, my Internet connection in Bedford is half the speed it used to
>be: 28.8 instead of 56K. Right now, no DSL from anyone. No cable, either, yet.
>Satellite, yes. But I'm truly not up for a $600 equipment investment, plus a
>monthly dish access charge of at least $40.
>
>I ran across a thing called NetZero, and am considering their "high speed" dial
>up. Supposedly 5 times as fast as my current speed, which is still lousy,
>but...
>
>Is anyone using this service? If so, what kind of results have you had, how
>happy are you with it, does it make NG access easy or difficult?
>
>Charlie Self
>"If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave
>it to." Dorothy Parker
>
>

Charlie Self wrote:


> I ran across a thing called NetZero, and am considering their "high speed" dial
> up. Supposedly 5 times as fast as my current speed, which is still lousy,
> but...
>
> Is anyone using this service? If so, what kind of results have you had, how
> happy are you with it, does it make NG access easy or difficult?
>
> Charlie Self



you GOTTA be kidding!!

Just "ran" across a "thing called NetZero"?

Don't be peeking at my posts, or any posts that respond to
me ole Charlie!!

LOL!


dave

> it isn't an inside wiring issue. a knowledgeable tech from
> a DSL provider explained to me years ago that one of the
> phone line pairs is hooked up in a different manner to the
> phone system, but I must say that I can't recall the
> technical details.

how can you say this, yet not realize its an inside wiring problem?

randy

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> patriarch < wrote:
>
> > Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >
> >>Todd Fatheree wrote:
> >> The best you can do, in theory,
> >>
> >>>is 53K, because that is what the speed over an analog line is limited
> >>>to, by law, though I'm not sure if I ever saw a reported connection
> >>>speed over 48K. In any case, 28.8K is dreadfully slow and I hope you
> >>>get it fixed, because I sure couldn't deal with it.
> >>>
> >>>todd
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I've got one line in my house that nearly always connects at
> >>49.3 Another line can't do better than 28.8
> >>
> >>dave
> >>
> >
> >
> > THAT sounds like an inside wiring issue, if they are the same telephone
> > number. How's the voice quality?
> >
> > Patriarch
> it isn't an inside wiring issue. a knowledgeable tech from
> a DSL provider explained to me years ago that one of the
> phone line pairs is hooked up in a different manner to the
> phone system, but I must say that I can't recall the
> technical details. suffice it to say, the phone company
> doesn't guarantee a fast connection using modems, so my
> complaints to them resulting in no repair to the slow line.
> I'm sure if there are any telecommunications pros here,
> they could explain it to you (and refresh my memory).
>
> dave
>

If the homeowner has only one phone line coming into the house, and
extension jacks throughout the house, and some locations experience slower
connects, then it is indeed an inside wiring issue. The problem can be
caused by a number of factors including...

- polarity reversal (the red and green switched at the jack)
- cheap wire - this is very common. Most folks just use cheap Radio
Shack wire to run their extension jacks and they run them like they would an
electrical outlet (in parallel). Cheap wire is not twisted and is
susceptible to line noise which will result in slower negotiated speeds
between modems as well as more retries on packet transmission. These days
one should spend the little extra and use twisted pair for all home phone
wiring. It's not uncommon for people with two line phones in their homes to
hear cross talk between the phone lines with cheap wire.
- cheap RJ11 jacks - junk jacks will build up an oxide coating on the
pins which results in poor signal - the problems are obvious.

The telephone companies all use structured wiring schemes so all of their
connections between the Central Office and your residential network access
are hooked up in a consistent manner. It would be possible, but most
unlikely for the phone company to have hooked up any of your home lines in
anything but a structured manner.

Still, it comes down to the simple observation - if one location in your
home works well and another does not, then it's your in home wiring that is
at fault.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > The best you can do, in theory,
> > is 53K, because that is what the speed over an analog line is limited
to, by
> > law, though I'm not sure if I ever saw a reported connection speed over
48K.
> >
> Mine shows as 49333 some of the time, 48000 some of the time.
>
> But Charlie might want to see if the phone company's been doing
> any work on his lines lately. They've screwed up mine once or
> twice.
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Around here, if you're getting 14.4 (that would be gun-in-the-mouth
territory for me - figuratively speaking), SBC supposedly won't do anything.
Back to Charlie...the phone company is always mucking around in the CO for
one thing or another and is constantly messing up other lines. I'd say it's
at least worth a call.

todd

"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> For some reason, my Internet connection in Bedford is half the speed it
used to
> be: 28.8 instead of 56K. Right now, no DSL from anyone. No cable, either,
yet.
> Satellite, yes. But I'm truly not up for a $600 equipment investment, plus
a
> monthly dish access charge of at least $40.
>
> I ran across a thing called NetZero, and am considering their "high speed"
dial
> up. Supposedly 5 times as fast as my current speed, which is still lousy,
> but...
>
> Is anyone using this service? If so, what kind of results have you had,
how
> happy are you with it, does it make NG access easy or difficult?
>

There have been lots of comments and replies to your original post Charlie -
one from me included, but as I re-read your original post I have come up
with the precise answer to your question. No. There - that was simple.
The 5X speed up that the ISP's tout is strictly related to web surfing and
as you've probably read in the other posts, is done with some trickery and
there is a slight cost you pay for that as a user. What it categorically
does not do is speed up your internet connection. That's a laws of physics
thing and there's no getting around it.

If you can only connect at 14.4 or 28.8 today, then it's because of some
problem which has been addressed by other posts. It could be a phone
company problem, your house wiring, corrosion in your jacks, mice eating
through insulation on your wires creating noise but perhaps not a direct
short,... lots of things. This is where you need to focus. The problem
could be inside your computer as well. It would pay to double check your
configurations. Remember - this is the world of Windoze....

The 5X speed up deals will not help or affect your newsgroup activities
however. Newsgroups are not cached like web pages are by the ISP's so each
of your requests to the server for an article or for a download will still
be handled the same way under the 5X offering as it is under your current
service. It comes down to the fact that the 5X speed up is not really a
transmission speed up but a lessening of the protocols, negotiations and
accesses that the ISP's servers have to go through in order to bring you a
requested web page.

HTH

--

-Mike-
[email protected]