View Full Version : Why dont 56k modems give 56kbps?

04-22-2002, 09:44 AM
I might be asking something really,reall silly/elementry here but why 56k modems give only 5-6 kbps dl at max even u dont have anythign else working other than the dl.
Why dont they give the full 56 kb per second speed?

04-22-2002, 09:58 AM
its your phone line ! they vary enourmously.
(i used to get 28, when i had a 28 modem...when i got a 56 modem i now get 41/42.....)

i get consistently 41/42, my brother only gets around 32(hehe he may as well use a 28 modem!!!), my dad gets the best connection at about 48. i don't know anybody who gets a full 56.

phone lines are crappy in the UK, does anyone else get the full 56 ???

04-22-2002, 11:28 AM
I get a 52K every once in a while. Yesterday, i got a 1.2K lol (I promptly disconnected and dialed again). I think it has more to do with the capacity of the isp than your own phone line. I have about 3 different isp's i use and each gives different rates

04-22-2002, 11:32 AM
I solved that problem by getting DSL :D


04-22-2002, 11:47 AM
Yeah, if you get a really slow speed (28k) and a lot of often disconnects then I reccomend checking your phone line. My phone line was really staticy so I checked it out, I found ou that the plug was all corroded, so I dipped it in some coke to disolve the corrosion and I was back up to 42k

04-22-2002, 12:07 PM
If you think they are crappy in the UK you should see them in Sweden.
I was lucky if i got 10Kb's.
So i solved it like Prelude and bought DSL.

04-22-2002, 01:28 PM
Watch your numbers:

A 56K modem is giving you 56 Kilo BITS per second. This translates to a maximum of ~7 Kilo BYTES per second, which is shown in browsers like IE. So an average rate of 5-6KB is quite ok.

Oh, and get DSL :p

04-22-2002, 01:57 PM
I really hate when they express the speed in kiloBITS.
There is no point in that, just to make it look higher. Cheap!!! :mad:

04-23-2002, 02:54 AM
A few people have gotten DSL. Wouldn't cable (which I have) be better unless you wanted to download/upload at MASSIVE speeds, which normal users wouldn't need to, due to the large cost involved?

04-23-2002, 07:34 AM
The Cable/xDSL argument would tend to depend more upon price and availability. Digital Subscriber Lines run over standard copper phone cables, so with a DSL enabled exchange providers can offer broadband to a large area with reasonable implementation costs. Cable requires just that, a specific cable that may or may not be available in all area's. Cable can be more or less expensive than DSL, it can also be faster or slower depending on the particular type of DSL that is in use.

And AFAIK the representation in Kilobits per second is a progression from representation of transfer capability in Baud which happened in most places at the progression between 1200 baud modem's and 2400bps ones. It simply made sense at the time to represent data transfer in that way.

04-23-2002, 09:01 PM
Depending on how your OS reads the speeds you may have to divide by 9 or 10 (instead of 8) to take into account the error checking.

56K modems also only upload at 36K. In Aust our lines are only rated to 36K. Guarranteed ~20K under the DDSO.

Here the teleco will 'pair gain' your line if you want two phone lines. That is they divide your existing line in half and sell it to you at twice the price. This of course divides your net speed roughly in half.

We won't mention their xDSL offering capped at 300Mb/month. (Au$0.18/Mb there after or Au$110/CD). My dialup account has 350Mb.

My house in a state capital, within ten Km of the CBD, is classified a 'remote area' for broadband access. Will not get cable or xDSL 'for a very long time' as I am on a RIM. Even MS has told them to lift their game. (why would MS care?)

Optus cable is by far the best value in Aus. Highest customer satisfaction. Just not as widely available as xDSL.

04-24-2002, 03:47 AM
Minus 30% of that speed for message overhead and then you get to almost the max speed you can get, and then most likely your provider only has a lower speed modem which bumps it down even further.

04-24-2002, 04:52 AM
why can't I start a new thread?

04-24-2002, 04:53 AM
it says no forum specified

04-24-2002, 04:54 AM
sorry about all this posting

will it let me post this long post?

I think the highest I have got at home is 9kbps

Anyway, sorry about interrupting this thread but why can't I post a new thread anywhere (I've tried on this foruma nd on the C++ programming forum). Do I have to do something special?

04-24-2002, 06:32 AM
Quentin, go to the forums main page and click 'New Thread'. If any error message appears, please post it.

04-24-2002, 08:15 AM
i do know how to use a forum ya know

It says No forum specified in an error box and I have emailed the webmaster like it says but got no response