A faster modem than 56K

[letterman@invalid.com]

In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out
with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out
with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I
know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these
days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure
would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like
that.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

I think they reached the limits already (dialup over the tele lines).
I'm on dialup too. And some of the tele lines can't even hande 56K.

letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out
> with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out
> with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I
> know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these
> days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure
> would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like
> that.

 

[Jeff Richards]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

Modems of much higher speeds than 56k have been available for many years,
but they won't work on the PSTN which has built-in features that effectively
mean 56k is the fastest modem you can use. The limitation isn't the modem -
it's the phone line.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
newsqbqr3paho0fuq7qsks3gjbgbjeubohd34@4ax.com...
> In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out
> with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out
> with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I
> know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these
> days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure
> would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like
> that.

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:54:16 +1100, "Jeff Richards"
<JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:

>Modems of much higher speeds than 56k have been available for many years,
>but they won't work on the PSTN which has built-in features that effectively
>mean 56k is the fastest modem you can use. The limitation isn't the modem -
>it's the phone line.

Thanks
You lost me on the "PSTN"
What's that?

I actually get 44K to 46K most of the time, out here in the country.
I've never gotten 56K.

When I spent a couple weeks in a city due to a sick relative, I hauled
an older computer there, and my 56K modem. I was not going to spend a
fortune for a couple weeks of service so I got a cheap one month
dialup connection. There I got 48.5 or 48.8 (something like that). I
have never gotten 56K anywhere. I just thought that it's normal to
never get the full speed of the modem. It's been a long time, but I
used to have a 28K, 14.4K, and as far back as a 1200 (my first modem
was a 1200 baud). I dont think I ever got the full rated speed of any
modem.

I'm sure glad I dont have a 1200 or 2400 anymore. I remember when it
took an hour just to download a small gif picture or a dos utility.
Thats before the internet. We used local BBSs back then.
So now I spend an hour downloading a 25 meg video on youtube or
something like that.

By the way, I found a trick for youtube vids. Dont watch them while
they download. I use Firefox with an addon called "download helper".
I just select one, and let download helper download it to my drive.
Having a flash blocker installed prevents them from loading. They
download much faster, and I use Applian FLV player to view them after
they download, or they can be previewed during the download with that
player. Better yet, I can save them, and must admit I have quite a
collection of them (around 1000).

 

[Don Phillipson]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:lrkqr397b2289n2dhcdbi5im4jp82ie63e@4ax.com...

> I actually get 44K to 46K most of the time, out here in the country. . . .
> So now I spend an hour downloading a 25 meg video on youtube or
> something like that.

The OP may have overlooked that cell phone coverage
now extends to much of rural N.America as well as all
Europe and thus enables wireless high speed Internet
(whether ISPs know it or not.) Several cities (e.g.
New York and Toronto) have noticed this, thus now
promise cheap high speed service by wireless everywhere
(whether or not ISPs yet deliver it.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

 

[Tim Slattery]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

letterman@invalid.com wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:54:16 +1100, "Jeff Richards"
><JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Modems of much higher speeds than 56k have been available for many years,
>>but they won't work on the PSTN which has built-in features that effectively
>>mean 56k is the fastest modem you can use. The limitation isn't the modem -
>>it's the phone line.
>
>Thanks
>You lost me on the "PSTN"
>What's that?

PSTN = Public Switched Telephone Network. In other words, normal phone
service.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)
Slattery_T@bls.gov
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:03:38 -0600, letterman@invalid.com put finger
to keyboard and composed:

>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:54:16 +1100, "Jeff Richards"
><JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Modems of much higher speeds than 56k have been available for many years,
>>but they won't work on the PSTN which has built-in features that effectively
>>mean 56k is the fastest modem you can use. The limitation isn't the modem -
>>it's the phone line.
>
>Thanks
>You lost me on the "PSTN"
>What's that?
>
>I actually get 44K to 46K most of the time, out here in the country.
>I've never gotten 56K.

Throughput is more important than connection speed. Higher speeds may
result in more errors which could then result in a lower throughput.

>When I spent a couple weeks in a city due to a sick relative, I hauled
>an older computer there, and my 56K modem. I was not going to spend a
>fortune for a couple weeks of service so I got a cheap one month
>dialup connection. There I got 48.5 or 48.8 (something like that). I
>have never gotten 56K anywhere. I just thought that it's normal to
>never get the full speed of the modem. It's been a long time, but I
>used to have a 28K, 14.4K, and as far back as a 1200 (my first modem
>was a 1200 baud). I dont think I ever got the full rated speed of any
>modem.

Your speeds are good. I wouldn't expect any better. Having said that,
the reported connection speed may be optimistic and may fall during
your dialup session.

What happens is that, during the initial "training" phase, your modem
and your ISP's modem probe the phone line to determine its quality.
These are the sounds you hear before a connection is established. The
modems then agree on an upload and download speed which they believe
will result in an error free connection. If errors begin to
accumulate, then the modems will fallback to a slightly lower speed.
If the line stays error free, then they may try to upshift to the next
highest speed. If the line gets really bad, then they may give up
altogether and retrain, which means that they will reassess line
conditions just as they did during the initial connection phase. You
will notice a ~20 second pause while this is happening.

Here are some links from an excellent resource:

Information your modem can tell you about your connection:
http://modemsite.com/56k/diag.asp

How many 56k owners are getting what connect speeds:
http://modemsite.com/56k/what56.asp

Monitoring & Determining Throughput:
http://modemsite.com/56k/x2-thru.asp

Troubleshooting:
http://modemsite.com/56k/trouble.asp

Windows 98 has an inbuilt throughput monitoring utility called System
Monitor. You don't need any third party utility such as Net Medic.

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

 

[John Dulak]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

Don Phillipson wrote:
> <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:lrkqr397b2289n2dhcdbi5im4jp82ie63e@4ax.com...
>
>> I actually get 44K to 46K most of the time, out here in the country. . . .
>> So now I spend an hour downloading a 25 meg video on youtube or
>> something like that.
>
> The OP may have overlooked that cell phone coverage
> now extends to much of rural N.America as well as all
> Europe and thus enables wireless high speed Internet
> (whether ISPs know it or not.) Several cities (e.g.
> New York and Toronto) have noticed this, thus now
> promise cheap high speed service by wireless everywhere
> (whether or not ISPs yet deliver it.)
>

Don:

Also known as "WISP" :

http://www.high-speed-internet-access-guide.com/wireless/

http://www.bbwexchange.com/wisps/

John

--
\\\||///
------------------o000----(o)(o)----000o----------------
----------------------------()--------------------------
'' Madness takes its toll - Please have exact change. ''

John Dulak - Gnomeway Services - http://tinyurl.com/2qs6o6

 

[MEB]

Re: A faster modem than 56K



<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
newsqbqr3paho0fuq7qsks3gjbgbjeubohd34@4ax.com...
| In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out
| with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out
| with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I
| know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these
| days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure
| would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like
| that.

There was another option. Using two phone lines and "shotgun" style
technology {Creative's name for it} [two modems and software or a modem that
handled two lines] one can/could split the accessing between the two V90
lines, creating one access point and almost twice the speed. The issue with
this was that the ISP had to ALLOW and support this feature.

--

MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
_________

 

[Lil' Dave]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
newsqbqr3paho0fuq7qsks3gjbgbjeubohd34@4ax.com...
> In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out
> with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out
> with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I
> know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these
> days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure
> would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like
> that.

Your ISP would have to support such a faster modem service (112K) if such
was available. Don't see that happening.

Same boat here. 56K USR external modem. Best I can do is 52K, more likely
48K. Rural area. Satellite provided internet is available at 80 a month
basic service here plus very hefty installation fee. I'm still choking on
that. I'll wait till something happens out here like cable.

--
Dave

 

[Rick Chauvin]

Re: A faster modem than 56K



"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
news:OfLCs8QdIHA.4220@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

[...]

> Same boat here. 56K USR external modem. Best I can do is 52K, more
> likely 48K. Rural area. Satellite provided internet is available at 80
> a month basic service here plus very hefty installation fee. I'm still
> choking on that. I'll wait till something happens out here like cable.

You mean Hughesnet right..
http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/R...tInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589]]

Rick

>
> --
> Dave

 

[Bob Harris]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

If you have a clear view of the south-western sky you might be able to get
satellite internet. That is normally fast for downloading, but uses your
phone line for uploading (hence 56K max upload). However, I have heard
rumors of a newer satellite internet that also supports high-speed uploads.

But, be careful, some satellite ISPs limit downloads to so many Meg (or Gig)
per month, and, if exceed, then restrict you back to 56K service for the
rest of the month. Check the fine-print before signing any contract.

Plan B: Is there is nearby town with a Starbucks, Panera Bread, or similar?
They often offer free wireless internet for customers. In my travels in the
Eastern US I have found some pretty rural-looking places with wireless
internet.

Plan C: Many libraries offer internet service, and often provide the PCs,
too. Use a USB pen drive to transfer files.

Plan D: Lobby your state's public utility commission to get cable TV
providers to extend service into your area. Nearly all cable TV companies
also offer high-speed internet over the same cable. As for DSL, even when I
lived about 2 miles from Hartford, CT, I could not get DSL. The land-line
phone companies seem to only want to wire DSL in very densely populated
areas, since they have to upgrade the wires. Cable, on the other hand,
automatically seems to support high-speed internet.

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
newsqbqr3paho0fuq7qsks3gjbgbjeubohd34@4ax.com...
> In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out
> with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out
> with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I
> know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these
> days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure
> would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like
> that.

 

[MEB]

Re: A faster modem than 56K



"Bob Harris" <rharris270[SPAM]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23iLKobodIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| If you have a clear view of the south-western sky you might be able to get
| satellite internet. That is normally fast for downloading, but uses your
| phone line for uploading (hence 56K max upload). However, I have heard
| rumors of a newer satellite internet that also supports high-speed
uploads.
|
| But, be careful, some satellite ISPs limit downloads to so many Meg (or
Gig)
| per month, and, if exceed, then restrict you back to 56K service for the
| rest of the month. Check the fine-print before signing any contract.
|
| Plan B: Is there is nearby town with a Starbucks, Panera Bread, or
similar?
| They often offer free wireless internet for customers. In my travels in
the
| Eastern US I have found some pretty rural-looking places with wireless
| internet.
|
| Plan C: Many libraries offer internet service, and often provide the PCs,
| too. Use a USB pen drive to transfer files.
|
| Plan D: Lobby your state's public utility commission to get cable TV
| providers to extend service into your area. Nearly all cable TV companies
| also offer high-speed internet over the same cable. As for DSL, even when
I
| lived about 2 miles from Hartford, CT, I could not get DSL. The land-line
| phone companies seem to only want to wire DSL in very densely populated
| areas, since they have to upgrade the wires. Cable, on the other hand,
| automatically seems to support high-speed internet.

Along those lines: many state's governments are now contemplating free [or
almost free] {wireless} access. If one checks the State Government site for
your state, you may find plans for such posted there. [example; Ohio {see
governor's Office} has instituted an initiative for free public access, when
it might be accomplished or whether it will, might be demonstrative of
government verses corporations / capitialism.]. This may be part of why the
TV signal/transmission bands (and several others) are being cleared [also
think other federal activities].

As for cable, that style [though shielded] WAS the original networking wire
used [ Thick v. Thin net]. With the upgraded cable/tv lives [which are
shielded] it was only a matter of WHEN they got around to offerring
Internet, particularly after the main lines went fiber.

--

MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
_________


|
| <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
| newsqbqr3paho0fuq7qsks3gjbgbjeubohd34@4ax.com...
| > In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out
| > with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out
| > with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I
| > know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these
| > days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure
| > would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like
| > that.
|
|

 

[mm]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:36:37 GMT, John Dulak <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote:

>Don Phillipson wrote:
>> <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:lrkqr397b2289n2dhcdbi5im4jp82ie63e@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I actually get 44K to 46K most of the time, out here in the country. . . .
>>> So now I spend an hour downloading a 25 meg video on youtube or
>>> something like that.
>>
>> The OP may have overlooked that cell phone coverage
>> now extends to much of rural N.America as well as all
>> Europe and thus enables wireless high speed Internet
>> (whether ISPs know it or not.) Several cities (e.g.
>> New York and Toronto) have noticed this, thus now
>> promise cheap high speed service by wireless everywhere
>> (whether or not ISPs yet deliver it.)
>>
>
>Don:
>
>Also known as "WISP" :
>
>http://www.high-speed-internet-access-guide.com/wireless/
>
>http://www.bbwexchange.com/wisps/
>
>John

Very interesting

The first of the pages above had a link at the bottom Wifi Hot Spot
List, http://www.wi-fihotspotlist.com/


Sometimes my brother has no internet, so I entered his address and 1
mile and got 3 Starbucks. The Starbucks don't charge, do they? You
don't have to have subscribed to a national WISP? You use their
subscription. (Do they have to pay extra for letting everyone use
their ISP?) The chart says that all 3 have T-mobile Wireless. Is
that just for information. because surely the customers have to ha

I entered his address and 10 miles and got a long list, including a
lot of Starbucks and a few Ginkoes, and a few hotels. I know Ginkos
charges. The hotels probably charge too, right? I've been to hotels
outside the US just for the purpose of getting my email, and you have
to pay a reasonable charge if you aren't staying there.

But I got the impression that at the Gatwick Hilton, wi-fi was free on
the first floor, because most of the people there were staying at the
hotel or at least eating in the dining room (I was there because my
plane left 3 hours late and I missed my connection and British Air
gave me a "day room" to take a nap. I asked at the desk about
internet, so I could tell the people meeting me that I wouldn't be on
time, and they gave me a room in the business wing, whhere iirc it was
15 dollars to use the internet via a wire, a cable. They didn't tell
me about the lobby, and there were no signs. When it was too late,
someone who didn't work there told me.) It didn't have a bathtub
either, only a shower. Some of their rooms have tubs, and I guess
that's what I shoudl have asked for.


Now I don't have to subsribe to a WISP to use Starbucks, right? AS
long as I buy some 4 dollar coffee, I can sit there for quite a while.
(I'm actually more interested in driving from Baltimore to Dallas, and
using the internet along the way.) Can I buy a coffee and sit in my
car and use the net?


But looking in my area, I find that there are four hotspots listed at
Baltimore-Washington Airport. Even though I don't travel much at all,
I could really use these when waiting for a plane, now that we have to
get there, what, 2 hours early. They are all Boingo. Since I don't
pay fees to Boingo, does that mean I can't use them? (There maybe be
plugin internet too, but those might all be busy, and certainly not
close to the gate. )

Thanks a lot for any help.

If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM

 

[mm]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:21:51 -0500, "Rick Chauvin"
<justask@nospamz.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
>news:OfLCs8QdIHA.4220@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl
>
>[...]
>
>> Same boat here. 56K USR external modem. Best I can do is 52K, more
>> likely 48K. Rural area. Satellite provided internet is available at 80
>> a month basic service here plus very hefty installation fee. I'm still
>> choking on that. I'll wait till something happens out here like cable.
>
>You mean Hughesnet right..
>http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/R...tInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589]]

Well, the cheap version of this is only 60 a month. The expensive
version is 80 dollars. Maybe there was no cheap version last Dave
checked, or maybe it doesn't exist where he is, but this second choice
seems unlikely.

And the two lines, two modems seems good if the ISP will do it.
Although maybe not any cheaper than 60 or 80.

>Rick
>
>>
>> --
>> Dave
>


If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM

 

[John Dulak]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

mm wrote:

> The first of the pages above had a link at the bottom Wifi Hot Spot
> List, http://www.wi-fihotspotlist.com/
>
>
> Sometimes my brother has no internet, so I entered his address and 1
> mile and got 3 Starbucks. The Starbucks don't charge, do they?

<SNIP>

mm:

It is a mixed bag as to who charges and who does not. I don't
personally know what Starbucks policy is. It may even vary from store
to store. I do know "Panera" resturants and "Caribou" coffee shops
that have WiFi Access do not charge for it and that you CAN sit
outside and get a connection. I can even sit in my living room and get
2-4 unencrypted WiFi connections from neighbors who never bother to
encrypt or don't even realize they are broadcasting a WIFi signal!!

BTW these are just local WiFi hotspots. WISPs are a bit different.
They use radio to provide service to a MUCH wider area that WiFi
(802.11) can cover.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_internet_service_provider

HTH & GL

John


--
\\\||///
------------------o000----(o)(o)----000o----------------
----------------------------()--------------------------
'' Madness takes its toll - Please have exact change. ''

John Dulak - Gnomeway Services - http://tinyurl.com/2qs6o6

 

[Lil' Dave]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:2722s39dctd7848tqo3d7q4teilvjp1pjs@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:21:51 -0500, "Rick Chauvin"
> <justask@nospamz.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message
>>news:OfLCs8QdIHA.4220@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> Same boat here. 56K USR external modem. Best I can do is 52K, more
>>> likely 48K. Rural area. Satellite provided internet is available at 80
>>> a month basic service here plus very hefty installation fee. I'm still
>>> choking on that. I'll wait till something happens out here like cable.
>>
>>You mean Hughesnet right..
>>http://go.gethughesnet.com/HUGHES/R...tInitial?Container=com.webridge.entity.Entity[OID[71A9F5B422ABCE4886D9492F66B5B589]]
>
> Well, the cheap version of this is only 60 a month. The expensive
> version is 80 dollars. Maybe there was no cheap version last Dave
> checked, or maybe it doesn't exist where he is, but this second choice
> seems unlikely.
>
> And the two lines, two modems seems good if the ISP will do it.
> Although maybe not any cheaper than 60 or 80.
>

It was 80 more than year ago. Yes, its 60 now for basic service. Doesn't
include maintenance service if needed, that I consider part of any basic
package. They nickel and dime you to death for anything more. (phone
company business model).

Dave

 

[Lil' Dave]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

Cable and DSL service both seem to have some dense population threshold
before running lines to provide service. My TV reception is from satellite
here in the sticks. I don't like alot about current satellite internet
packages and their prices.

--
Dave
"Bob Harris" <rharris270[SPAM]@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23iLKobodIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If you have a clear view of the south-western sky you might be able to get
> satellite internet. That is normally fast for downloading, but uses your
> phone line for uploading (hence 56K max upload). However, I have heard
> rumors of a newer satellite internet that also supports high-speed
> uploads.
>
> But, be careful, some satellite ISPs limit downloads to so many Meg (or
> Gig) per month, and, if exceed, then restrict you back to 56K service for
> the rest of the month. Check the fine-print before signing any contract.
>
> Plan B: Is there is nearby town with a Starbucks, Panera Bread, or
> similar? They often offer free wireless internet for customers. In my
> travels in the Eastern US I have found some pretty rural-looking places
> with wireless internet.
>
> Plan C: Many libraries offer internet service, and often provide the PCs,
> too. Use a USB pen drive to transfer files.
>
> Plan D: Lobby your state's public utility commission to get cable TV
> providers to extend service into your area. Nearly all cable TV companies
> also offer high-speed internet over the same cable. As for DSL, even when
> I lived about 2 miles from Hartford, CT, I could not get DSL. The
> land-line phone companies seem to only want to wire DSL in very densely
> populated areas, since they have to upgrade the wires. Cable, on the
> other hand, automatically seems to support high-speed internet.
>
> <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
> newsqbqr3paho0fuq7qsks3gjbgbjeubohd34@4ax.com...
>> In the 80's and 90's it seemed like every couple years they came out
>> with a faster modem. I think it's nearly 10 years since they came out
>> with the 56K. Are they ever going to make something faster? Yeah, I
>> know most people are on DSL or some other high speed connection these
>> days, but I live in a rural area and dialup is all I can get. It sure
>> would be nice if they came out with a 112K modem or something like
>> that.
>
>

 

[mm]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:19:20 GMT, John Dulak <Johnd@Boogus.com> wrote:

>mm wrote:
>
>> The first of the pages above had a link at the bottom Wifi Hot Spot
>> List, http://www.wi-fihotspotlist.com/
>>
>>
>> Sometimes my brother has no internet, so I entered his address and 1
>> mile and got 3 Starbucks. The Starbucks don't charge, do they?
>
><SNIP>
>
>mm:
>
>It is a mixed bag as to who charges and who does not. I don't
>personally know what Starbucks policy is. It may even vary from store
>to store. I do know "Panera" resturants and "Caribou" coffee shops
>that have WiFi Access do not charge for it and that you CAN sit

Thanks. I bought a car adapter last night, to plug into the cigarette
lighter, so I guess I'm going to go try this during the trip.

>outside and get a connection. I can even sit in my living room and get
>2-4 unencrypted WiFi connections from neighbors who never bother to
>encrypt or don't even realize they are broadcasting a WIFi signal!!

Everyone but two around me encrypt, and those two I guess use MAC
filtering. There was one unprotected account 3 months ago -- very
useful when I only had one evening to load my computer before an
important trip -- but they must have decided to be, or figured out
how to be, cautious.
>
>BTW these are just local WiFi hotspots. WISPs are a bit different.
>They use radio to provide service to a MUCH wider area that WiFi
>(802.11) can cover.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_internet_service_provider

Thanks.
>
>HTH & GL
>
>John


If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM

 

[John John]

Re: A faster modem than 56K

One problem with satellite internet is that you still need another form
of internet access anyway. You can't uplink to the satellite, when you
surf and click on links, search, send email and what not the
instructions that you send have to get to or be relayed to a server so
that your requests can be processed. Once received by the processing
server the requests can be sent to a large, powerful uplink station that
will send the instructions to the satellite to pass the requested
information back to you, you can't communicate directly with the
satellite. It can be an expensive part of satellite internet, how you
communicate with servers to process your requests and how much that part
of the package costs depends on what sort of deal the satellite ISP has
with other carriers or what other technology it has invested in to
supply the uplink from sparsely populated areas. This second form of
internet access may be completely transparent and unknown to the user
but it is needed and it is there in one form or another. That is also
why getting very large files from satellite internet is very fast, mouse
clicks travel very quickly to the relay servers, but trying to upload or
send very large files to others can be very slow, depending on what
technology is used to contact the land based servers.

John

Lil' Dave wrote:

> Cable and DSL service both seem to have some dense population threshold
> before running lines to provide service. My TV reception is from satellite
> here in the sticks. I don't like alot about current satellite internet
> packages and their prices.
>