undefined | Better HN

0 pointsb2126y ago0 comments

He did not say that, sorry.

0 comments

But he did say we wouldn't likely see speeds in excess of 64kbps. I save that article for decades, still have it somewhere in a filing cabinet, even though it's been scrubbed from the internet.

He was referencing the limitations of copper POTS, of course. But I still found it funny (if I recall correctly, it was printed side-by-side with his debunking of the 'you only need so much ram' quote).

hermitdev6y ago

64kbps was a limitation of old analog phone lines, which were pretty noisy and also also operated at a pretty low frequency (they only allowed up to a certain frequency, anything beyond was clipped on old analog lines). In practice, dont know that I saw anything beyond 56k. And you could only get that on a clean line, near a switching station. My self, not sure I ever saw much beyond 48k, maybe occasionally 52k, but dont think I ever saw a dialup connection hit the full 56k.

Higher speeds werent possible until moving to digital lines (64k for IDSN, single line, 128k for dual). DSL upped the anty, pushing to 1-3 Mbps in my area. Cable really pushed it when I could get 15 Mbps vs best available DSL in my area at around 3 Mbps.

Today, I have around 200 Mbps over cable (gigabit is available), best DSL in the area is still around 25 Mbps. Fiber is not available yet, but AT&T is running fiber, but 2 years in, still not an option and they haven't published pricing/speeds for the area.

Rerarom6y ago

My top dial-up speed was 46.6 kbps (not sure if kilobytes or kibibytes)

jazzyjackson6y ago

but he was alleged to !

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse