this cant be for real..................(can it) ?
http://www.arteragroup.com/html/artera_ ... _turbo.htm
400 Kbps over a 56k modem ???
I have no idea what they're "doing" but the analog modems are already at the limit what can be done via compression.
I won't say right away it's nonsense, IBM afterall managed to bring out servers with a new technology that doubles the RAM (2GB RAM = 4GB memory) ... a thing that was promised for ages and never worked till recently.
"with 2 dial-up lines and Artera Turbo, an effective speed of 480 kbps was achieved"
hmmm, they don't say they used a "MODEM", just that they used 2 dial-up lines ...
56K Modems use a very small frequency band, the same as POTS (your telephone), on the copperlines, this is from 0-4KHz. It took a lot of work to get todays almost 56kbps over only 4KHz bandwidth. This is done via compression and this technology pretty much hit the wall at the current speeds.
This allows to run over regular telco equipment since it is within the POTS frequency band.
ISDN with its 64-128kbps speed uses a much wider frequency band, 0-130KHz. This is a lot more bandwidth per K/s compared to 56K but also requires an extra line AFAIK (I never had ISDN but it's big here in Europe).
ADSL can run over your existing POTS line by using the frequency band above POTS (4KHz and up), not requiring an extra digital line like ISDN (we can also get ADSL over ISDN here). ADSL requires extra equipment at the Telco CO / ILEC.
This all said, I don't see right now how they can provide 200kbps (400kbps on 2 lines) without needing additional equipment at the CO/ILEC running over POTS lines where 56kbps has been the absolute max for some time. I have no idea how they could squeze 200kbps into only 4KHz of POTS ... this is what would interest me.
hmmm
"When benchmarked, Artera Turbo delivered the following speed improvements: with 2 dial-up lines and Artera Turbo, an effective speed of 480 kbps was achieved, thus outperforming a 400 kbps SDSL line. The speed of a 400 kbps SDSL line with Artera Turbo performed at 670 kbps and a cable modem running at 650 kbps was increased to 980 kbps."
Or do they want to say that this is some sort of data compression that allows to speed up your existing equipment? At least that's what the part with the increased speeds of SDSL and cable is suggesting.
Too little info, some "benchmarks" without further details, that's too little to draw any conclusion.
I hope they can actually deliver their TURBO, it would be a great relief for those who're out of DSL reach.
Hmmm, ping and latency would be something to keep an eye on once they release more facts (very important from the gamers perpective).
'nuff said, lets wait and see what they deliver.
I won't say right away it's nonsense, IBM afterall managed to bring out servers with a new technology that doubles the RAM (2GB RAM = 4GB memory) ... a thing that was promised for ages and never worked till recently.
"with 2 dial-up lines and Artera Turbo, an effective speed of 480 kbps was achieved"
hmmm, they don't say they used a "MODEM", just that they used 2 dial-up lines ...
56K Modems use a very small frequency band, the same as POTS (your telephone), on the copperlines, this is from 0-4KHz. It took a lot of work to get todays almost 56kbps over only 4KHz bandwidth. This is done via compression and this technology pretty much hit the wall at the current speeds.
This allows to run over regular telco equipment since it is within the POTS frequency band.
ISDN with its 64-128kbps speed uses a much wider frequency band, 0-130KHz. This is a lot more bandwidth per K/s compared to 56K but also requires an extra line AFAIK (I never had ISDN but it's big here in Europe).
ADSL can run over your existing POTS line by using the frequency band above POTS (4KHz and up), not requiring an extra digital line like ISDN (we can also get ADSL over ISDN here). ADSL requires extra equipment at the Telco CO / ILEC.
This all said, I don't see right now how they can provide 200kbps (400kbps on 2 lines) without needing additional equipment at the CO/ILEC running over POTS lines where 56kbps has been the absolute max for some time. I have no idea how they could squeze 200kbps into only 4KHz of POTS ... this is what would interest me.
hmmm
"When benchmarked, Artera Turbo delivered the following speed improvements: with 2 dial-up lines and Artera Turbo, an effective speed of 480 kbps was achieved, thus outperforming a 400 kbps SDSL line. The speed of a 400 kbps SDSL line with Artera Turbo performed at 670 kbps and a cable modem running at 650 kbps was increased to 980 kbps."
Or do they want to say that this is some sort of data compression that allows to speed up your existing equipment? At least that's what the part with the increased speeds of SDSL and cable is suggesting.
Too little info, some "benchmarks" without further details, that's too little to draw any conclusion.
I hope they can actually deliver their TURBO, it would be a great relief for those who're out of DSL reach.
Hmmm, ping and latency would be something to keep an eye on once they release more facts (very important from the gamers perpective).
'nuff said, lets wait and see what they deliver.
True, modem speed advanced all the times .... starting back in the days at something like 1200 BAUD (or 1.2kbps) and slowly advancing with some steps inbetween to 9.6kbps ... then came 14.4kbps and after some time 28.8kbps followed by 33.6kbps and finally ending at 56kbps, a speed you rarely get close to, many max out at 48kbps or low 50kbps connections, depending on line conditions.
The latest standard, V.92 (V.90 is the 56K standard with 56k downstream and 33.6k upstream), was released sometime mid 2001 and this does not increase the downstream, that remains at a theoretical max of 56k, it "only" upped the 33.6k upstream speed to 48k.
So no REAL speedincrease ... they mainly offer some new features like a quicker dial-in compared to V.90 modems or modem-on-hold in connection with call-waiting and some more.
V.90 was introduced in february 1998 and even before that we had already the K56flex and X2 "semi"standards for some time.
V.34 with 28.8k was introduced in september 1994 and sometime later they upped the speed to 33.6k ... so we saw some small steps from 28.8k to 33.6k to 56k every 2-3 years.
I still want to see how this company manages to increase speed on POTS lines without further equipment at the ILECs 4 times over what was the max for the past 4 years.
- POTS is only 0-4KHz and that is very little bandwidth to transfer information.
- ISDN required an extra digital line if I'm not mistaken and only gets 128k max.
- ADSL with speeds of 256k and up requires extra equipment at the ILECs to use the bandwidth above the 0-4KHz (POTS).
So I'm really interested how they wanna get 200k on a regular POTS line without equipment at the ILECs.
The latest standard, V.92 (V.90 is the 56K standard with 56k downstream and 33.6k upstream), was released sometime mid 2001 and this does not increase the downstream, that remains at a theoretical max of 56k, it "only" upped the 33.6k upstream speed to 48k.
So no REAL speedincrease ... they mainly offer some new features like a quicker dial-in compared to V.90 modems or modem-on-hold in connection with call-waiting and some more.
V.90 was introduced in february 1998 and even before that we had already the K56flex and X2 "semi"standards for some time.
V.34 with 28.8k was introduced in september 1994 and sometime later they upped the speed to 33.6k ... so we saw some small steps from 28.8k to 33.6k to 56k every 2-3 years.
I still want to see how this company manages to increase speed on POTS lines without further equipment at the ILECs 4 times over what was the max for the past 4 years.
- POTS is only 0-4KHz and that is very little bandwidth to transfer information.
- ISDN required an extra digital line if I'm not mistaken and only gets 128k max.
- ADSL with speeds of 256k and up requires extra equipment at the ILECs to use the bandwidth above the 0-4KHz (POTS).
So I'm really interested how they wanna get 200k on a regular POTS line without equipment at the ILECs.
Doc:
FWIW : ISDN requires two B's and a D channel as I recall. the D is 16K. the B's are 64K for total of 128K and they always worked at the rated speed. I ran two ISDN's from my house for 5 years, and had a number of customers running it: never saw anything below 128K during that time and many of them were in the boondocks
FWIW : ISDN requires two B's and a D channel as I recall. the D is 16K. the B's are 64K for total of 128K and they always worked at the rated speed. I ran two ISDN's from my house for 5 years, and had a number of customers running it: never saw anything below 128K during that time and many of them were in the boondocks
don't forget... in the US, generally the D channel isn't separate (unlike Europe) but instead uses the bandwidth in one of the B's therefore effectively cutting a small portion of the 128kbps bandwidth off
<a href="http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/user_summary.php?s=&u=38801" target=_blank><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~techgod723/pics/godaddy.gif"></a>
Hmm . I hadn't heard that.
I haven't seen any sign of that in N California... and all sources I've dealt with indicate the channel was seperate. but..... I was probably listening to the providers most of the time. Sort of the way I belived the IKON Office Solutions sales reps and recommended the big time color printer we currently have. The support just sucks.
I haven't seen any sign of that in N California... and all sources I've dealt with indicate the channel was seperate. but..... I was probably listening to the providers most of the time. Sort of the way I belived the IKON Office Solutions sales reps and recommended the big time color printer we currently have. The support just sucks.