Modem combining

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
19 answers Last reply
More about modem combining
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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
    >
    >
  18. 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
  19. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Internet Service Providers PCI Connection Modem Windows