[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Adsl - Linux vs. Win9x
- To: Ely Levy <elylevy(at-nospam)cs.huji.ac.il>
- Subject: Re: Adsl - Linux vs. Win9x
- From: Uri Bruck <bruck(at-nospam)actcom.co.il>
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 21:29:52 +0200 (EET)
- cc: ILUG <linux-il(at-nospam)linux.org.il>
- Delivered-To: linux.org.il-linux-il@linux.org.il
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96-heb-2.07.1010324210718.29435A-100000@accend.actcom.co.il>
- Sender: linux-il-bounce(at-nospam)cs.huji.ac.il
http://www.zdnet.com/zdhelp/stories/main/0,5594,2570300-1,00.html
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Uri Bruck wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Ely Levy wrote:
>
> > No one talked about the v.90 that complitly diffrent issue.
> > a lot related to old phone lines. btw I bet this artical isn't that new.
> It isn't new, I wrote that in my original mail. I know that v.90 is not
> ADSL, my point was, as I wrote in my original mail, and is still quoted
> below, is that back when that was written we were hearnig exactly the same
> complaints we are hearing today, as if supposedly, only in Israel we don't
> get the high speed connectionthat everyone else is , supposedly, getting.
>
> When that was written, that was considered "high speed" - nowadays, ADSL
> is considered high speed. Different eras, different techonologies, same
> complaints, same amount of realism.
>
> Thanks
> Uri
>
> >
> >
> > Ely Levy
> > System group
> > Hebrew University
> > Jerusalem Israel
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Uri Bruck wrote:
> >
> > |
> > |
> > | Just to add something here. I've been hearing the story of "only in Israel
> > | we get such low speed where the rest of the world has great high speed
> > | internet" for years now. First it was with the 28s, then 33, then 56s
> > |
> > | So I think this quote from Jim Seymour (PC magazine), even though it was
> > | written almost two years ago, is apt:
> > |
> > | "
> > | First, V.90 is not magic, and those legendary 56K connections are as
> > | elusive as ever. (Actually, of course, they're limited to 53 Kbps onthe
> > | receiving side, thanksto an irrelevant government regulation limiting 56K
> > | devices to 53 Kbps. Irrelevant? Sure: Just as I've never seen a 33.6-Kbps
> > | connection outside a closed-loop test in a lab, I've never seen a 56-Kbps
> > | connection, nor even a 53-Kbps link, away from the test bench. Welcome to
> > | the real world.)
> >|
> > | My experience with 56K modems--both x2 (3Com/U.S. Robotics) and K56flex
> > | (Rockwell and the rest of the modem universe)--is that if you get into
> > | the mid-30s Kbps range, you're doing pretty well. Get into the low-40s
> > | Kbps range and you're having a Good Modem Day indeed.
> > | "
> > |
> > | ..not only in Israel
> > |
> > | and some participants in this thread might like to read a bit what Dvorak
> > | has to say about lots of small ISPsstateside.
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > | On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, guy keren wrote:
> > |
> > | >
> > | > for a slight comparison - in 1996, a fiber-optic T1 link to the states
> > | > cost about 1,000,000$ per year. a satellite link cost around 750,000$.
> > |> at those days you could fit approximately 200 concurrent users on such a
> > | > link to give them their full bandwidth (of an 28.8kbps modem).
> > | > these days, you can buy such links at a price of (approximately) 100,000$
> > | > or 200,000$ a year (i might be wrong by a factorof 2, btw). so the price
> > | > was reduced by a factor of 5 or 10. at the same time, the bandwidth users
> > | > take has grown significantly - many business users using frame relay and
> > | > sifranet links. regular modems download at approx. 40kbps (assuming a
> > | > 57.6kbpsmodem manages to make a connection on at that speed due to
> > | > various line condition problems). many users use ISDN (64kbps). some use
> > | > dual isdn (128kbps), and a few use ADSL and cable modems. so you can't put
> > | > 200 users on a T1 link now - you can put much less then that (probably 100
> > | > or less, to get a satisfactory speed).
> > |
> > |
> > | =================================================================
> > | To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
> > | the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
> > | echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il
> > |
> > |
> >
>
>
> =================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
> the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
> echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il
>
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il