DSL

how does someone achieve THIS level of speeds with simple phone lines?

Christ, the wires just don't seem capable of such.

also, does anyone else's company make claims of speeds this high?

i am curious, whats the norm for DSL connections nowadays?

8Mbit/s has been achieved in the US i believe (1MB/s) and 4Mbit/s can be bought down here in the UK for an extorsionate rate.

/me dreams the day fiber optic cables become the standard.

Wild Card said:
/me dreams the day fiber optic cables become the standard.

if they would just stop wasting time on those forking cell towers, we'd have them already :rolleyes:

i swear, if i hear one more braindead talking on his phone in the s**tter, i'm gonna scream..

In Britain you have to be within 5km of a telephone exchange if you want dsl (signal degradation i assume)

OMG! I had no idea speeds like that were possible over standard copper :eek: I don't know much about the technology behind DSL though.

I typicaly aproach 1 mbps, but nothing higher.

My college has in the past done 400Kb/s which was great except we can't download .EXE files and we don't have winzip

DSL uses a digital signal, standard telephone stuff uses an analog signal. Same line, totally different thing.I think 56k converts analog to digital and back again, thus its suckiness.

I love my DSL here. The download is great, but more importantly the upload is about 25kB/s, about twice what I got on cable, so I can actually host a decent small game server. Helps on those bittorrents, too.

[b][size=16]http://speedtest.dslreports.com
[/b][/size]
216 kbps - up
1235 kbps - down

[edit] okay, second time I had this problem- if I end a post with a smiley, part (or all) of the post, other than the smiley, gets deleted

</B>

I can get upwards of 800kb/s when downloading files. :eek:

yeah. you wouldn't believe how much of your phone line is actually wasted on a telephone. The telephone only needs, I think, the upper two lines (theres 7-9 total, I can't remember which). DSL uses the bottom 2, which I guess are insanly fast lol (Using the ideas stated earlier). However, normal DIAL up was slow, not just because of the conversions, but because it also used the same 2 lines the telephone uses, thus the blockage, I'm sure the faster dial-ups used maybe one line that wasn't he telephone and such, but I doubt it. My cable connect OWNs the DSL in this area. Lets see . . . Comcast or Verizon . . . gee as much as comcast sucks, Verizon sucks more lol. Not to mention I had cable before comcast bought the lines, back then it was AT&T in all it's uncapped glory for half the price I'm paying for it capped now. Comcast blows ass. They're charging more money for nothing! Seriously, they haven't even changed thier domain for their DNS Servers, it still comes up at attbi . . . (configure the ip address manually or check to see what it is to find out) and that's annoying as hell, why exactly are they charging more money? because at&t already wired the entire state lol

Dammit, I just wish I made more money . . . I'd get a damn T1 and be done with it (Or tap into my colleges line :biggrin: )

By the way, they technically have fiber optic internet . . . you know digital phone service? those are optic lines, those same companies sometimes offer DSL . . . which run through those lines, however it probably goes just as fast as other DSL is meant to go, but it's fiber optics lol

My speed is rather average for my area:
1571kb/s (download)
232kb/s (upload)

i dunno how many wires are buried underground destined to reach your home, but i do know, from the box buried outside your home TO your home, only 4 wires are used, of those 4 wires, only 2 make it inside your home, both analog phone and DSL signal use the same 2 wires..

this is how it is here, in my home, i realize other countries, or even states may vary, but here its 2 wires.... period.

No, I was talking about in a single phone line, there are 7-9 wires, well you could call them frequencies.
You're thinking too big Orph lol.

/me gots 10.0Mbps

Crono said:
No, I was talking about in a single phone line, there are 7-9 wires, well you could call them frequencies.
You're thinking too big Orph lol.

attribute my responses to my everlasting state of confusion bud..

also, since my education limits me to the visual world, i see 2 lines, not several frequencies

also, this is my report.. in spite of my bit torrent download currently running at 5 upload and 7 download.. i am not shutting it off just to see my real report..

::: Download Stats :::
Connection is: 1164 Kbps about 1.2 Mbps (tested with 579 KB)
Download Speed is: 142 KB/sec
Auth Code: 2017461 (validate a http://www.testmy.net)
Bottom Line: 21 times faster than 56K you can download 1MB in 7.21 second(s)
Validation Link :: http://testmy.net/cgi-bin/auth_check.cgi?ta=&top=&num=2017461&kbps=1164&gen=gen&a=6.85714285714286&b=0.571428571428571&c=1145.14285714286

Vash said:
/me gots 10.0Mbps

no you don't, that the false report winXP gives

you have to click on an outside link to be measured

I dont know if this is good but is 100Mbps any good?

omegaslayer4777 said:
I dont know if this is good but is 100Mbps any good?

1Mbps is good

10Mbps is great

100Mbps is inaccurate that would be a t-4 at least i bet

Oh how orph. loves to crush my dreams

Orpheus said:

omegaslayer4777 said:
I dont know if this is good but is 100Mbps any good?

1Mbps is good

10Mbps is great

100Mbps is inaccurate that would be a t-4 at least i bet

Wow thats great i only have DSL i guess its because not many people have it around here off in the moutains of santa cruz. I guess it makes sense, because im downloading UT2004 at 600-900 kb/sec. (no rubbing of noses intended)

Cable here.

My highest downloadrate ever was like 1,3 MB/s for the Jedi Academy demo :razz:

My connection would be faster, but I'm going through a router and a hub.

DSL connection doesn't get bogged down by the amount of people who use it . . . it's your phone line . . . they're so many hardlines that it doesn't matter anymore. Now cable, since it's comcast in my area, has been capped, so they can guarantee a certain amount of speed.

My cable goes about 2.3 (as opposed to it's current 1.5) without the router, but then I wouldn't have my beautiful hardware firewall :biggrin:

I feel like am rambling again . . .

i successfully downloaded the taboo file in 3 hours 23 minutes.. the file was 1.4 gigs..

i dunno how that breaks down, but i was in shock watching it arrive so fast.

i am content with dsl, and hope never to use any other form again, assuming nothing better arrives at the same price.

my dsl cost me $26.95 a month, unlimited

1mbps = Good DSL
10mbps = Insane DSL/Commercial Line
100mbps = That's the network speed, foo'
My school has a fiber-optic network and a T3 connection, not bad at all :smile:
Screw fiber optic though, have you guys heard of the exploitation of one of the more interesting properties of electrons? When you wobble a nucleus, all of it's electrons wobble at the exact same instant, as long as the electron still considers itself to be part of the atom to which the nucleus belongs. Now, the actual physics of this is beyond me, but you can move this electron as far away from the nucleus as you wish and still get instant movement from the electron when the nucleus moves. This has been tested over huge distances, and is in the process of being developed as a form of communication - some claim that it is already used for extremely high-up military communication lines, although I personally believe it is still in R&D. Once it IS finished, all other forms of communication will basically be rendered obsolete; this one will not actually have a speed, being instant - the only time taken is that of your hard-drive writing the data that it is receiving from the connection...I really can't wait for this to happen :smile:

PS: For the hell of it, the first time I heard of this it was literally

Isn't that the so-called "quantum entanglement" effect? Or has my grasp of popular science been greased again?

Anyway, I rather suspect it would/will have more dramatic applications than fast game downloads. Indeed, if it really did work, it would be a form of faster-than-light travel (well, information transmission).

Apparently:

<CENTER>Your line speed:



6365.1 Kbps



780 K bytes/sec </CENTER>
<CENTER> </CENTER>
<DIV align=left>Is that good then?</I></DIV>

Refresh it a few times and see if you can beat 14000kbps :wink:

I have the same response to Gollum's and sde's posts . . . . .

Jesus Christ, dude!

Gollum, I hate you, your connection is too fast lol. (I don't really hate you . . . or do I?)

sde, that's nuts! but . . . I wonder what stops the electrons from attaching to other atoms . . . odd.

to these guys, with the insanely high connections, does it stay like that? i mean, if you download a 700 meg movie, (or incert a file of your chosing) does it stay so high?

Gollum said:
Apparently:

<CENTER>Your line speed:

6365.1 Kbps

780 K bytes/sec </CENTER>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<DIV align=left>Is that good then?</I></DIV>

mike, where did you get these figures from

http://specials.zdnet.co.uk/misc/band-test/speedtest500.html

Found that from following Jinx's link. The American servers were all busy, so I went to one of the British ones.

Downloads from external (non-university) websites have been up to 1.6 MB/second, although it can get much lower if the server is rubbish. Rarely get lower than 100k/second.

Your line speed:



1018.5 Kbps



124.8 K bytes/sec

this with 2 bit torrents and kazaa on.. i suppose its good, considering its in th UK

I have a big pet peeve with speeds of transfer...mainly that everyone says "oh yeah, I get 2MBps etc. download" Yes, if you find the right server, having the ability to download that fast is one thing, having a server that allows downloads at those speeds is another. My cable is able (now that's a nice rhyme) to go 10MBps, but the fastest I've seen it go off a single download was 1.7MBps which is from the Steam network interestingly. Now bandwidth wise I was actually using about 5Mbps at the time. That's a special case though, same with a lot of stuff, it's all relevant to where you get your stuff, some files on Kazaa or eMule have a transfer of 0.1kbps whereas the same file (from the right location) can be around 150+kpbs.

WEll not to brag or anything but i have 2 1.5 mb dsl lines hooked together in a hot box giving me 3 mb's of download from sbc for 52 a month...... and it does run prity fast thru phone lines :biggrin:

When I uploaded the 1.4meg zip file of CL beta it took about 15mins on 56kbaud

Universities here have rediculous connections to JANET which is a government funded education backbone. It uses multiple lines, I think ours gets 660 megabit down, don't know about up. But bare in mind that that connection is shared between potentially thousands of users. When I lived in university accomodation, we were capped at 10 megabit download and you could always max out your own connection (only by downloading a few things at once, not many servers will let you donwload from them at over a meg a second).

My connection would be faster, but I'm going through a router and a hub. [...] My cable goes about 2.3 (as opposed to it's current 1.5) without the router, but then I wouldn't have my beautiful hardware firewall

Err.. what kind of harware firewall takes a third of the download bandwidth!? A (switching) hub should make no difference other than to add 1 or 2 ms to ping times (unless it is at full load - seems unlikely when it is simply connecting people to the internet). Perhaps if your router is losing you so much bandwidth you should consider a standalone software one.

If you are on cable and are using a 'surfboard' modem, it is possible to change the firmware and remove the ISP imposed bandwidth cap. Not that it's recommended, I don't think they would let you keep your connection if they caught you! :smile:

Wild Card said:
/me dreams the day fiber optic cables become the standard.

Me too... I have 56k and it sucks, and worst of all... if someone calls us while I'm online I get disconnected and that sucks so hard.

Jeff, the router is spliting the line between four computers, then one it gets to mine it's being split again by a hub . . . simple as that, the performance speed isn't very noticable taking that without the router my computer would actually see pop ups and be swarmed with random messages popping up on my screen via instant messaging programs. Believe me I'm going as fast as I possibly can right now without going out and actually getting a network switch to replace the hub upstairs. Also, my ISP is a big bunch of bastards. I want to be able to use the other computers on my network over the LAN not the internet, so naturally I would get a router. Because if I use a hub each computer tries to log in on it's own on the DNS servers at my ISP, and they called and bitched about it, even though it was their fault our router stopped working (They changed their settings on the servers without telling anyone). And for the same reason I can't use a switch (even though its faster) because I want to have a LAN, not just split up the internet connection :smile:

Don't worry I'm happy with it . . . for now.

Oh, just for those who don't know, the difference between a router and a hub is that a hub has no ability to assign it's own IP addresses. A router does. Routers usually have hardware firewalls built in as well. And sorry, I don't want a software firewall, they're a pain in the ass and not worth the effort. I want to be able to use my computer while it's being protected lol. Most software firewalls are way too overpowering, even on lower settings.

Oh, I also based those numbers on a comparison with my line and a friends (who has the same ISP). and the same thing happened with his, is was goin' 2.3 then dropped to about 1.5 once him and his room mate invested in a router.
It was really funny at first though, because his room mate kept saying something was wrong with the network, because they couldn't share files, on examination I found that . . . they had a switch lol.

People are funny :biggrin:

[EDIT]
To directly answer your question Jeff (Realised I never really gave an answer), none, the router does though, because the lines are split instead of duplicated (even if the duplication is emulated it's still faster).
[/EDIT]

We use a router with firewall and small switch built in, and another switching hub, it doesn't make any difference to the speed at all. I understand the concept of using a router and what it lets you do.

Most software firewalls are way too overpowering

I'm not talking about software firewalls, and yes they suck. I meant use a machine in place of the router, with 2 NICs, and router software installed on it, so that you can have more control over the connection. If the same thing happened to two people, perhaps the ISP is deliberately limiting people who are using routers. Not really much you can do about that I don't think... perhaps if you are very clever with TCP/IP, and used a dedicated router machine, you could alter the outgoing packet headers on the WAN side to not look like routed ones, but that probably wouldn't be worth the effort.

Yeah, like I said Comcast is a bunch of bastards lol.

I know they've capped my access, as they have with everyone, and they say they encourage routers, but then why do they always ask if I'd like to pay 5 bucks more for a permanent IP (5 bucks per computer while using a hub that is). So, I'm sure they're doing something to delimit routers, but, this is only a netspeed test from my computer I haven't really tried from others on the network.

Hey, I might not know 100% of the ins and outs of networking and such, but at least I'm not like some people I know . . . oh God . . .
Anyway, I think it would be way too much effort to use a seperate Hardware firewall then some sort of other switching device (not a switch of course). Not to mention, I already own the router, and I wasn't complaining, I was stating a differenece it speed. Maybe my router has some feature I'm unaware of. I honestly don't really care lol. I'm not really a hardware guy if you get what I mean (Not meaning I'm inept, but it's just not what I enjoy).