[Stats and report on 56K]
<<<Silicon Investor Gang 51.567%>>>
Barry --
You're joking. It would be interesting to know what percentage this thread represents.
At any rate, here's an article on 56K in today's WSJ. I've clipped some of the pertinent paragraphs. For full text:
wsj.com@4.cgi?mfmuse/text/wsjie/data/SB858203836594274000.djm/&NVP=&template=news-search.tmpl&form=news-search.html&dbname=wsjie%2Findex&dbname=autowire%2Findex&words=us+robotics&any-all=AND&maxitems=30&HI=30
The author states it could be a year before standards are set. Another window closes.
Speaking of windows closing, has anyone heard if the T1/E1 committee met and if so, what went on?
Pat
<<<
The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition -- March 13, 1997
Faster Modem Connections Are Off to a Slow, Rocky Start
By WALTER S. MOSSBERG
THERE'S NOTHING more frustrating about using the Internet than slow connection speeds. Members of the techno-elite may cruise cyberspace with special high-speed phone lines. But the rest of us are limited to modems that connect to the Net at a pokey top rate of 28.8 kilobits per second, or kbps, which just isn't fast enough to view graphical Web pages without lots of delays.
So it was very exciting when the leading modem makers announced last year that they had found a way to nearly double the common top speed of dial-up modems to a maximum of 56 kbps. Previously, it had been thought that modem speeds couldn't exceed 33.6 kbps, because of the limited capacity of most home phone lines. . . .
The good news is that I found this X2 modem to be significantly faster than standard models. The bad news is that, like most of the hyped technologies in the computer business, this new modem doesn't measure up to its advance billing, in key respects.
First of all, the promised 56 kbps is something of an overstatement. U.S. Robotics concedes that an old FCC regulation limits the legal maximum speed to 53 kbps. And the new technology only can achieve that higher speed in one direction: from the Internet to your PC. Things you transmit from your PC back to the Internet are still limited to 28.8 kbps. This isn't as bad as it sounds, because most of the bulky material is flowing into your PC, not out of it. But if you are uploading big files, such as Web pages, the new modems don't help.
SECOND, IN MY TESTS I never got a connection that came close to the promised maximum speed, or even broke 50 kbps. In around 60 log-ons to three different access providers, in three different regions, at various times of day, I never got a connection faster than 48 kbps -- and that occurred only twice. The fastest I could usually get was 46.6 kbps, and the average was about 42.6 kbps, whether I was dialing into X2-compatible numbers at America Online, or EarthLink, an Internet access provider, or at a U.S. Robotics test site.
. . .
Third, you can't get any speed increase unless you have an account with an on-line service or access provider whose own modems have been upgraded to be compatible with the 56K technology. . . .
For instance, AOL, the country's leading Internet access provider, has set up X2 phone numbers in only five cities plus an extra-cost toll-free number. . . .
FINALLY, THIS IS all made much more complicated by the fact that the X2 standard is one of two competing technologies for achieving 56K dial-up connections. Another group of modem makers and Internet access providers is using a standard devised by Rockwell, called "K56flex."
The two technologies are incompatible. So, if you have a U.S. Robotics modem, you can't get 56K service from an on-line service or access provider that has adopted the Rockwell standard, and vice versa. If you try, you'll be connected at no more than 33.6 kbps.
I tried to test the first of the Rockwell-based modems to hit the stores: a model from Motorola. But, after first agreeing to lend me a modem to test, Motorola changed its mind and said that, amazingly, it had none to spare.
A Motorola spokeswoman said a parts shortage had hampered production, and all the test models had been shipped to a trade show. In addition, she conceded, there were no phone numbers I could dial into that supported the Motorola 56K modem. . . .
If you don't have a local 56K number to use, I suggest you wait for a new modem until more 56K service is available and the conflicting standards are clarified by international standards bodies, ****which could take a year.**** Life in the fast lane isn't simple.
>>>> |
