33.6 Access Hardware and ISP's

[s***@gmail.com]

I've seen references in this newsgroup and various print media that
the maximum bandwidth feasible on standard (Non-ISDN) phone lines is
33.6. I'm currently planning to upgrade my old 14.4 internal to a
1. Will I be likely to experience noticeable increase in speed of
loading webpages, usenet retrieval, FTP, etc...or is the ISP and other
ends' connect speed likely to be the limiting factor irrespective of
my modem's max.? (I'm on Netcom, "ix" account via Win 95 TCP/IP)
2. What exactly is the difference between a 28.8 modem that also
specifies "V.34" versus one that does not?
3. Is it expected that 33.6 modems and acceptance of this as a new
standard (or at least capability) by ISP's is likely in the next year
or so?

Unlikely. Look into faster speeds with DSL (AT&T) or broadband (Comcast), or fiber (AT&T).

[David Arnstein]

Steve,

Are you feeling nostalgic for 1995?

[roy]

1995 returns!

Post by s***@gmail.com

I've seen references in this newsgroup and various print media that
the maximum bandwidth feasible on standard (Non-ISDN) phone lines is
33.6. I'm currently planning to upgrade my old 14.4 internal to a
1. Will I be likely to experience noticeable increase in speed of
loading webpages, usenet retrieval, FTP, etc...or is the ISP and other
ends' connect speed likely to be the limiting factor irrespective of
my modem's max.? (I'm on Netcom, "ix" account via Win 95 TCP/IP)
2. What exactly is the difference between a 28.8 modem that also
specifies "V.34" versus one that does not?
3. Is it expected that 33.6 modems and acceptance of this as a new
standard (or at least capability) by ISP's is likely in the next year
or so?

Unlikely. Look into faster speeds with DSL (AT&T) or broadband (Comcast), or fiber (AT&T).

[poldy]

Post by roy
1995 returns!

Post by s***@gmail.com

I've seen references in this newsgroup and various print media that
the maximum bandwidth feasible on standard (Non-ISDN) phone lines is
33.6. I'm currently planning to upgrade my old 14.4 internal to a
1. Will I be likely to experience noticeable increase in speed of
loading webpages, usenet retrieval, FTP, etc...or is the ISP and other
ends' connect speed likely to be the limiting factor irrespective of
my modem's max.? (I'm on Netcom, "ix" account via Win 95 TCP/IP)
2. What exactly is the difference between a 28.8 modem that also
specifies "V.34" versus one that does not?
3. Is it expected that 33.6 modems and acceptance of this as a new
standard (or at least capability) by ISP's is likely in the next year
or so?

Unlikely. Look into faster speeds with DSL (AT&T) or broadband
(Comcast), or fiber (AT&T).

One thing I would say though is that back in the day, a 56.6 modem
wasn't too bad for surfing. In contrast, these days websites are so
loaded up that if you get only a 3G or 4G (but not LTE) signal, your
smart phones struggle with a lot of web sites.

Speed tests can show over 1 Mbps but it can be a painful experience.

All the gains in bandwidth but it gets clogged up with stuff. And
that's even using ad blockers.

[roy]

Post by poldy
...
One thing I would say though is that back in the day, a 56.6 modem
wasn't too bad for surfing. In contrast, these days websites are so
loaded up that if you get only a 3G or 4G (but not LTE) signal, your
smart phones struggle with a lot of web sites.
Speed tests can show over 1 Mbps but it can be a painful experience.
All the gains in bandwidth but it gets clogged up with stuff. And
that's even using ad blockers.

Its all related to Parkinson;s Law and its corollaries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law

A computer corollary

Data expands to fill the space available for storage

Same goes for bandwidth

I think that in 1995 I was replacing the chips in my Sportster modems
for 33.6 up from 14.4.

[David Kaye]

All the gains in bandwidth but it gets clogged up with stuff. And that's
even using ad blockers.

It's gotten to be horrible. On Windows browsers a right click will bring up
the floating menu and a selection of "View Page Source", showing the actual
HTML, JavaScript and whatnot that were used to create the page. And that's
just the stuff that is displayed. There are lots of pointers to other
locations for recurring JavaScript, RSS (style sheets), and the like. It's
no wonder that most browsers tend to gag on websites these days. Even a
site as innocuous looking at Google's main page, is loaded to the gills with
code.

[Julian Macassey]

Post by David Kaye

All the gains in bandwidth but it gets clogged up with stuff. And that's
even using ad blockers.

It's gotten to be horrible. On Windows browsers a right click will bring up
the floating menu and a selection of "View Page Source", showing the actual
HTML, JavaScript and whatnot that were used to create the page. And that's
just the stuff that is displayed. There are lots of pointers to other
locations for recurring JavaScript, RSS (style sheets), and the like. It's
no wonder that most browsers tend to gag on websites these days. Even a
site as innocuous looking at Google's main page, is loaded to the gills with
code.

Back in the days, before the goggle monster decided its
slogan should be "Don't be evil, that's our job", people would
point to the google.com home page as an example of how to build a
simple page with minimum cruft that loaded quickly.

I miss those days.

[b***@MIX.COM]

Post by Julian Macassey
Back in the days, before the goggle monster decided its
slogan should be "Don't be evil, that's our job", people would
point to the google.com home page as an example of how to build a
simple page with minimum cruft that loaded quickly.
I miss those days.

Here's my site - no cruft, no script, no style sheets, no ... It
used to validate fine, no problemo, but now I get lots of warnings
to use CSS, et cetera. No thanks...

http://MIX.ORG

The two ads are software that's particularly decent - I don't charge
for them.

Billy Y..

[Julian Macassey]

Post by b***@MIX.COM

Post by Julian Macassey
Back in the days, before the goggle monster decided its
slogan should be "Don't be evil, that's our job", people would
point to the google.com home page as an example of how to build a
simple page with minimum cruft that loaded quickly.
I miss those days.

Here's my site - no cruft, no script, no style sheets, no ... It
used to validate fine, no problemo, but now I get lots of warnings
to use CSS, et cetera. No thanks...
http://MIX.ORG

Simple, light, does the job.

Thanks.

[n***@sbcglobal.net]

Post by David Kaye

All the gains in bandwidth but it gets clogged up with stuff. And that's
even using ad blockers.

It's gotten to be horrible. On Windows browsers a right click will bring up
the floating menu and a selection of "View Page Source", showing the actual
HTML, JavaScript and whatnot that were used to create the page. And that's
just the stuff that is displayed. There are lots of pointers to other
locations for recurring JavaScript, RSS (style sheets), and the like. It's
no wonder that most browsers tend to gag on websites these days. Even a
site as innocuous looking at Google's main page, is loaded to the gills with
code.

Not to mention how ads from overtaxed ad servers slow things down too. That's why so many use ad blockers and some sites are waking up and selling just space on the site as content rather than relying on some remote ad service.