Modem combining

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Modem combining

I have an isa and a pci modem installed (No conflicts)

I use the pci modem because it has the modem on hold feature,

I have one line. Is it possible to connect those two modem together?

I want the pci modem as the one the will connect and disconnect from
my isp

I don’t want my isp mad at me for doing this.



Greg R

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

From: "GregRo" <webworm11@lycosy.com>

| Modem combining
|
| I have an isa and a pci modem installed (No conflicts)
|
| I use the pci modem because it has the modem on hold feature,
|
| I have one line. Is it possible to connect those two modem together?
|
| I want the pci modem as the one the will connect and disconnect from
| my isp
|
| I don’t want my isp mad at me for doing this.
|
| Greg R
|

No.

You would have to get a modem that support "shot gunning" and the ISP must support it as
well to bond two dial-up connections into one virtual connection.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 09:47:54 -0400, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

>From: "GregRo" <webworm11@lycosy.com>
>
>| Modem combining
>|
>| I have an isa and a pci modem installed (No conflicts)
>|
>| I use the pci modem because it has the modem on hold feature,
>|
>| I have one line. Is it possible to connect those two modem together?
>|
>| I want the pci modem as the one the will connect and disconnect from
>| my isp
>|
>| I don’t want my isp mad at me for doing this.
>|
>| Greg R
>|
>
>No.
>
>You would have to get a modem that support "shot gunning" and the ISP must support it as
>well to bond two dial-up connections into one virtual connection.


According to what I read you would need two phone lines and it does
not matter if you isp supports it.

I have also read there is other type of combining modem with just a
single connection using software.

I read you can still do that even if your modem does not support shot
gunning.

However, there are no instructions on the web.

Greg Ro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

From: "Greg Ro" <webworm12@yes.lycs.com>

| On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 09:47:54 -0400, "David H. Lipman"
| <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
|
>> From: "GregRo" <webworm11@lycosy.com>
>>
>|> Modem combining
>|>
>|> I have an isa and a pci modem installed (No conflicts)
>|>
>|> I use the pci modem because it has the modem on hold feature,
>|>
>|> I have one line. Is it possible to connect those two modem together?
>|>
>|> I want the pci modem as the one the will connect and disconnect from
>|> my isp
>|>
>|> I don’t want my isp mad at me for doing this.
>|>
>|> Greg R
>|>
>> No.
>>
>> You would have to get a modem that support "shot gunning" and the ISP must support it as
>> well to bond two dial-up connections into one virtual connection.
|
| According to what I read you would need two phone lines and it does
| not matter if you isp supports it.
|
| I have also read there is other type of combining modem with just a
| single connection using software.
|
| I read you can still do that even if your modem does not support shot
| gunning.
|
| However, there are no instructions on the web.
|
| Greg Ro
|

The ISP *must* support DUN bonding !

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:05:54 -0400, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

>
>The ISP *must* support DUN bonding !

Not from what I read on the WEB!


Greg Ro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Greg Ro" <webworm12@yes.lycs.com> wrote in message
news:Oiz8AA5qFHA.3736@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:07:05 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"

> Actual no offense Gary but I would not believe something's in the news
> groups either including Microsoft. Look at how many people hate Carey
> and are always correcting him/her and this person is supposedly a mvp.
> I always search google before I post a question.

As I said, there's *lots* of mis-information out there. And while your
examples below appear to be mostly accurate, you seem to have missed the
gotchas that are involved. Your references are somewhat suspect--I don't
know who wrote them, nor do they provide any authoratative
references--and/or simply don't support your thesis.

> http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Modem-HOWTO-16.html

I presume you're referring to what that page calls "modem teaming", since
"modem bonding" requires that the ISP uses MP+ technology.. I don't see
sufficient explanation there to warrant your claims. It's a Linux support
site, and the only real reference to Modem Teaming is to ask if it can be
done on Linux.

> http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,11960,00.asp
> Windows 98 combines the separate connections into a single,
> higher-performance connection. All you need are at least two modems
> and two free phone lines

This article, while getting closer, mentions nothing about the requirement
for the ISP to suppport the arrangement. Even going by the scant description
provided, from what I can tell it requires the ISP to permit multiple logons
to the same account. Most dial-up accounts offer no such thing.

> http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/thread15694.html
> There are actually two technologies which will do this; one is called
> "modem bonding" and the other is called "modem teaming". Modem bonding
> needs to be supported by your particular ISP; modem teaming does not,
> but it does require special software. The following article gives a
> brief description of each technology; a Google search for the terms
> will give you much more info:
> http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010101/login/main1.htm

Same complaint as above: Unless the ISP supports MP+ technology, the
procedure requires the use of two separate dial-up logins. Unless your ISP
supports multiple simultaneous logins, this method requires two ISP
accounts.

> Another site said you could do that with two modems into one modem and
> use only one phone line and your isp does not have to support it. I
> think linux could only do this.

You lost me. Two modems into one? How does that work? Again, you provide no
link so that I might see what it says for myself. I assume you mean
connecting two modems to the same telephone line and then using some
software method to make them pretend to be one. I'm not only not sure how
that would be done, I question whether the ISP side would serve up the data
to that setup any faster than it would serve it up to a single modem. The
data flow *is* throttled on the sender end, you know, and line quality has a
significant impact, also. I simply don't see how this would work.

I, too, have Googled the issue, and what I find are lots of warnings that
ISPs must support whatever arrangement you try. You asked your original
query with the specific note that you don't want your ISP to get mad, and
then when we tell you that the ISP *must* support the arrangement, you
argue. You asked a good question, you got a good answer.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 23:12:09 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"
<grystnews@mvps.org> wrote:


>> http://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/thread15694.html
>> There are actually two technologies which will do this; one is called
>> "modem bonding" and the other is called "modem teaming". Modem bonding
>> needs to be supported by your particular ISP; modem teaming does not,
>> but it does require special software. The following article gives a
>> brief description of each technology; a Google search for the terms
>> will give you much more info: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010101/login/main1.htm

>
>Same complaint as above: Unless the ISP supports MP+ technology, the
>procedure requires the use of two separate dial-up logins. Unless your ISP
>supports multiple simultaneous logins, this method requires two ISP
>accounts.

Actual Gary, it say's modem teaming does not require it be supported
by your isp. Unless, they mean only Linux can do this.


You do agree if you have two phone and two isp you can use modem
teaming without the requirement of the isp. (This is not feasible it
would be cheaper to get dsl)


Greg Ro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

From: "Greg Ro" <webworm12@yes.lycs.com>


|
| Actual Gary, it say's modem teaming does not require it be supported
| by your isp. Unless, they mean only Linux can do this.
|
| You do agree if you have two phone and two isp you can use modem
| teaming without the requirement of the isp. (This is not feasible it
| would be cheaper to get dsl)
|
| Greg Ro

You would not be able to do it with two ISP DUN connections without a hardware device. One
that most likely that does not exist. See my last reply....

Give it up and just get Broadband.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:22:23 -0500, Greg Ro <webworm12@yes.lycs.com>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

>Another site said you could do that with two modems into one modem and
>use only one phone line and your isp does not have to support it. I
>think linux could only do this.

That's not possible and even if it were you would not be able to
exceed a combined downstream throughput of 56Kbps, FCC regulations
notwithstanding.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

From: "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au>


|
| That's not possible and even if it were you would not be able to
| exceed a combined downstream throughput of 56Kbps, FCC regulations
| notwithstanding.
|
| - Franc Zabkar
| --
| Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

US FCC Regulations are for one POTS line. Not for two POTS lines having a bonded PPP DUN
connection.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:14:19 +1000, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:22:23 -0500, Greg Ro <webworm12@yes.lycs.com>
>put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>Another site said you could do that with two modems into one modem and
>>use only one phone line and your isp does not have to support it. I
>>think linux could only do this.
>
>That's not possible and even if it were you would not be able to
>exceed a combined downstream throughput of 56Kbps, FCC regulations
>notwithstanding.
>
>
>- Franc Zabkar
That beside the point. For your information. One time I download a
file that normally takes 10 minutes and it downloaded it in 2 minutes
Nothing was wrong with that file. I have no download managers and
the ie and firefox cache are always clean


Greg Ro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:20:11 -0500, Greg Ro <webworm12@yes.lycs.com>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:14:19 +1000, Franc Zabkar
><fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:22:23 -0500, Greg Ro <webworm12@yes.lycs.com>
>>put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>
>>>Another site said you could do that with two modems into one modem and
>>>use only one phone line and your isp does not have to support it. I
>>>think linux could only do this.
>>
>>That's not possible and even if it were you would not be able to
>>exceed a combined downstream throughput of 56Kbps, FCC regulations
>>notwithstanding.
>>
>>
>>- Franc Zabkar
>That beside the point. For your information. One time I download a
>file that normally takes 10 minutes ...

How big was the file? What was the file type? What kind of connection
did/do you have? Were you using an external or internal modem? If
internal modem, was it "hard" or "soft" or controllerless?

> ... and it downloaded it in 2 minutes
>Nothing was wrong with that file. I have no download managers and
>the ie and firefox cache are always clean

Dial-up modems perform V.44 or V.42bis or MNP5 data compression. You
must have been downloading a highly compressible file. Typical
compression ratios for text files are 2:1 for V.42bis and 3:1 (?) for
V.44.

Here are the results of a series of controlled tests:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.modems/msg/977f0be0d12ba0b7?dmode=source&hl=en

Here's another one for V.44:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.modems/msg/527f06d21d0073d1?dmode=source&hl=en

External serial (non-USB) modems will have a throughput which is
limited by the port rate, eg 11.5 kBytes/sec for a 115200bps port, or
23 KB/s for a 230400bps port. That's about 2 or 4 times the typical
modem-to-modem speed.

To see the maximum throughput that your system is capable of, create
an "infinitely" compressible file consisting of 1 million repetitions
of the letter "A". Then ftp it to and from your own web space.
Alternatively, email it to yourself, but be aware that email uses MIME
which adds some overhead.

This post shows what is possible with a "synthetic" file using an
internal controllerless modem, ie one that is not throttled by a real
COM port:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.modems/msg/50bdb262d218cf2b?dmode=source&hl=en

You may be able to achieve even better compression, for compressible
files, if you enable software compression in the Server Types box in
your DUN connectoid. Be aware that not all ISPs support it.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:30:08 -0400, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>From: "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@optussnet.com.au>
>
>
>|
>| That's not possible and even if it were you would not be able to
>| exceed a combined downstream throughput of 56Kbps, FCC regulations
>| notwithstanding.
>|
>| - Franc Zabkar
>| --
>| Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
>
>US FCC Regulations are for one POTS line. Not for two POTS lines having a bonded PPP DUN
>connection.

Understood. That's why I specifically isolated the following statement
which you chose to omit:

"Another site said you could do that with two modems into one modem
and use only ***one*** phone line and your isp does not have to
support it."


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 10:00:25 +1000, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:20:11 -0500, Greg Ro <webworm12@yes.lycs.com>
>put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:14:19 +1000, Franc Zabkar
>><fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:22:23 -0500, Greg Ro <webworm12@yes.lycs.com>
>>>put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>>
>>>>Another site said you could do that with two modems into one modem and
>>>>use only one phone line and your isp does not have to support it. I
>>>>think linux could only do this.
>>>
>>>That's not possible and even if it were you would not be able to
>>>exceed a combined downstream throughput of 56Kbps, FCC regulations
>>>notwithstanding.
>>>
>>>
>>>- Franc Zabkar
>>That beside the point. For your information. One time I download a
>>file that normally takes 10 minutes ...
>
>How big was the file? What was the file type? What kind of connection
>did/do you have? Were you using an external or internal modem? If
>internal modem, was it "hard" or "soft" or controllerless?
>
>> ... and it downloaded it in 2 minutes
>>Nothing was wrong with that file. I have no download managers and
>>the ie and firefox cache are always clean
>
>Dial-up modems perform V.44 or V.42bis or MNP5 data compression. You
>must have been downloading a highly compressible file. Typical
>compression ratios for text files are 2:1 for V.42bis and 3:1 (?) for
>V.44.
>
>Here are the results of a series of controlled tests:
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.modems/msg/977f0be0d12ba0b7?dmode=source&hl=en
>
>Here's another one for V.44:
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.modems/msg/527f06d21d0073d1?dmode=source&hl=en
>
>External serial (non-USB) modems will have a throughput which is
>limited by the port rate, eg 11.5 kBytes/sec for a 115200bps port, or
>23 KB/s for a 230400bps port. That's about 2 or 4 times the typical
>modem-to-modem speed.
>
>To see the maximum throughput that your system is capable of, create
>an "infinitely" compressible file consisting of 1 million repetitions
>of the letter "A". Then ftp it to and from your own web space.
>Alternatively, email it to yourself, but be aware that email uses MIME
>which adds some overhead.
>
>This post shows what is possible with a "synthetic" file using an
>internal controllerless modem, ie one that is not throttled by a real
>COM port:
>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.modems/msg/50bdb262d218cf2b?dmode=source&hl=en
>
>You may be able to achieve even better compression, for compressible
>files, if you enable software compression in the Server Types box in
>your DUN connectoid. Be aware that not all ISPs support it.
>
>
>- Franc Zabkar

I bet my isp was doing a test to support the compression of .exe or
..zip file in the near future. To shrink the download times. I happen
to download it at the time they were testing out the new type of
compression. Yes I know .exe and .zip can only be compressed so
much. There is always newer technology to even compress them more.
Maybe one day you could download a live cd with-in 1 hour on dial-up.

This may be far fetched. I could of got crosswired with a dsl line
using dial-up. My phone company has dsl. I don't know if that
possible. I don't use my phone company isp either.



Greg Ro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Pssst... Snip, snip...

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User

"Greg Ro" <webworm12@yes.lycs.com> wrote in message
news:e1q4iOprFHA.4044@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I bet my isp was doing a test to support the compression of .exe or
> .zip file in the near future. To shrink the download times. I happen
> to download it at the time they were testing out the new type of
> compression. Yes I know .exe and .zip can only be compressed so
> much. There is always newer technology to even compress them more.
> Maybe one day you could download a live cd with-in 1 hour on dial-up.
>
> This may be far fetched. I could of got crosswired with a dsl line
> using dial-up. My phone company has dsl. I don't know if that
> possible. I don't use my phone company isp either.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:26:01 -0500, Greg Ro <webworm12@yes.lycs.com>
put finger to keyboard and composed:

>I bet my isp was doing a test to support the compression of .exe or
>.zip file in the near future. To shrink the download times. I happen
>to download it at the time they were testing out the new type of
>compression. Yes I know .exe and .zip can only be compressed so
>much. There is always newer technology to even compress them more.

If it exists, we'd all be using it. A better explanation is that you
misread your results. In any case, if your ISP were unilaterally
testing a new type of compression, then which software on your side
would understand how to decompress the data? Alternatively, if the
data were in the form of a self extracting exe file, then this would
imply that your ISP interfered with a file that you downloaded from
some other website. Clearly this is not feasible either.

>Maybe one day you could download a live cd with-in 1 hour on dial-up.

Dial-up will be dead before then.

>This may be far fetched. I could of got crosswired with a dsl line
>using dial-up.

DSL and dialup are like oil and water.

>My phone company has dsl. I don't know if that
>possible. I don't use my phone company isp either.

If your dialup line were crossed with a DSL line, the modem would
probably disconnect or at least drop back to a much lower speed. In
any case, your dialup IP address would be different to any IP address
serviced by the DSL line, so you would not be able to transfer any
data.


-- Franc Zabkar

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

From: "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net>


|
| If your dialup line were crossed with a DSL line, the modem would
| probably disconnect or at least drop back to a much lower speed. In
| any case, your dialup IP address would be different to any IP address
| serviced by the DSL line, so you would not be able to transfer any
| data.
|
| -- Franc Zabkar
|
| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

As long as DSL micro-filters atre installed there is no problem doing DUN connections with a
v.90/v.92 DUN modem

If a micro-filter is unloaded, that is connected to a POTS line but not connected to an
analogue device, then there will be problems trying to make a DUN connection.

I have Verizon ADSL and I know from both testing and experience.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I think Franc was pointing out the ridiculousness of Greg's suggestion that
perhaps he "happened upon" a DSL connection via Dial-up by accident.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:On$s7PCsFHA.2996@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> From: "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net>
>
>
> |
> | If your dialup line were crossed with a DSL line, the modem would
> | probably disconnect or at least drop back to a much lower speed. In
> | any case, your dialup IP address would be different to any IP address
> | serviced by the DSL line, so you would not be able to transfer any
> | data.
> |
> | -- Franc Zabkar
> |
> | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
>
> As long as DSL micro-filters atre installed there is no problem doing DUN
> connections with a
> v.90/v.92 DUN modem
>
> If a micro-filter is unloaded, that is connected to a POTS line but not
> connected to an
> analogue device, then there will be problems trying to make a DUN
> connection.
>
> I have Verizon ADSL and I know from both testing and experience.
>
> --
> Dave
> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

From: "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org>

| I think Franc was pointing out the ridiculousness of Greg's suggestion that
| perhaps he "happened upon" a DSL connection via Dial-up by accident.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User

Oh for sure ;-) More than ridiculous... It's impossible. One must be specifically setup at
the CO with a DSLAM and the user must have a DSL modem.

I just wanted to add that DUN and DSL can co-exist and to express the condition where it
could be disrupted.

In addition, Franc's assertion about compression was right on target.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 21:08:18 -0400, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>From: "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net>
>
>
>|
>| If your dialup line were crossed with a DSL line, the modem would
>| probably disconnect or at least drop back to a much lower speed. In
>| any case, your dialup IP address would be different to any IP address
>| serviced by the DSL line, so you would not be able to transfer any
>| data.
>|
>| -- Franc Zabkar
>|
>| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
>
>As long as DSL micro-filters atre installed there is no problem doing DUN connections with a
>v.90/v.92 DUN modem
>
>If a micro-filter is unloaded, that is connected to a POTS line but not connected to an
>analogue device, then there will be problems trying to make a DUN connection.

I tried calling my old ISP using HyperTerminal, the first time with a
terminated filter attached to a phone in another room, and the second
time with the same filter unterminated. On both occasions I achieved
46667bps which was my connect speed before switching to ADSL. I know
it's not a good test, but I no longer have a dialup account. BTW, my
ADSL modem was connected but powered off during testing.

>I have Verizon ADSL and I know from both testing and experience.

OK, maybe I should have said "if your dialup line were crossed with
someone else's POTS/voice line". In the past my own line has been
crossed with another subscriber. On that occasion I could hear my 56K
modem speedshifting and retraining, especially when the other party
was talking. IME crosstalk is an impairment which modems don't seem to
handle very well, nor should they be expected to.


-- Franc Zabkar

Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.