# Speeding up Dial-up connection



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

Is there any way of improving your dial up speed?
Although i use a 56k modem, i am able to connect at only 28.8 kbps or 31.2 kbps.
But others who use the same ISP are connecting at 50 k or 48k.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

A normal 56K connection speed is 44000 - 48000 bps. Some tweaks and setting changes might help, but if you have crappy phone lines in your area, it won't help much. Click the link below, then read the article on 56K tweaks and fixes.


----------



## Dr Dave (Apr 8, 2002)

My connection speed was anywhere from 18 to 22, and awhile back the phone company installed a nearby switching station, and new lines, now after all these years putting up with slow speeds it has jumped up to 52. So I would venture a guess that your not close to a switching station or have old lines or both.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

Being close to a switching station is important if you're using DSL, but not if you're using 56K dial-up. I've got a diving buddy who lives out in the sticks and miles away from any switching station, and his 56K dial-up is consistently in the 44000 - 48000 bps range. If the phone lines or wall jacks are bad, it'll slow down connection/throughput speeds.


----------



## EarthTech (Oct 27, 2003)

Invest in a satellite link


----------



## Telstar (Jun 20, 2003)

I suffered along with dial-up for two years...
two painful years of slow internet connections, downloads
and the frustration that goes along with it.

Finally I made an adjustment that greatly increased my speed....

I switched to Verizon DSL (1320/383Kbps). Cost of the upgrade....
an additional $8/mo (from $21.95/MSN dial-up to $29.95/Verizon DSL).

Look into it.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

Verizon DSL is very common in the Tampa Bay area. I believe they've increased their download speed from 1500 to 3000.


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

OK...
thanks for the information guys. 
Well, right now i am not planning to switch to a DSL Connection since its expensive where i live. Its about 70-80$ a month for a 256 kbps connection


----------



## Masterem (Jul 17, 2004)

that the same for me. on back on 56k because my cable internet bill was about 55 bucks a month.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

I have Roadrunner cable(384/5000) and it cost me $45.00 a month for Internet service. It's twice as expensive as 56K dial-up, but when I'm getting 100 - 110 times the speed of 56K dialup, it's worth the price. :up:


----------



## Spykee.32 (Sep 24, 2004)

Try adding some modem strings, such as AT&F or ATX which will put your modem to the default settings, and also lower the port speed to 57600 and that will improve your dialup speed


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

Dropping the port speed to 57600 is okay if you're having disconnects or connection problems, otherwise leave it at 115200.

Updating the modem driver can also help increase speed.


----------



## Spykee.32 (Sep 24, 2004)

Believe me i have done what i told you and that actually increases the connection speed on dialup. Try doing that and let us know whats the connection speed after that


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

ok.....
will do what spykee said n let u know


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

Nope.....
that hasnt improved my internt conenction speed.
now its connected at 29.2 kbps


----------



## Spykee.32 (Sep 24, 2004)

whats your windows version? 
Try adding a different modem string such as ATX (in caps) and lets see what happens, if this doesnt help then the number you are dialing could be on used by alot of members at the same time, try a different access local number.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

The condition of the phone lines is very important. Once, after moving to an old house, I couldn't connect at faster than 28.8. From the connections in the back of the machine, all through the house, and out to where the phone line comes in, I cleaned all connections, made sure that they were exposing fresh copper with a pen-knife, and replaced any old, corroded wiring. I got 56 (well, 50.6, but the point is the same) after that.

Any bad connections, and even other devices connected to the line elsewhere in the house, can make a big difference on dialup.

Tweakers rarely make much difference. The only one I found that worked at all was Modem Booster. It performs a series of connection tests on your line to make the settings optimal. It increased my speeds, as tested on CNET's and MSN's tests, by about 10%. But the problem with using optimizers is that they do very little and they don't allow Windows to adjust automatically to changing connection conditions, especially those which turn off MTU Discovery. The settings these tweakers make may be the best one day and not the next.


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

Spykee , i use Windows XP SP 1.
I just managed to get initstrings for my modem. I havent tried them yet. Also, my ISP has only 1 access number....

Elvandil, how exactly did you clean the wires?
I really have no idea how to do so.( im not a very technical person, lol)


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

I just tried out the initstrings i got. And now, im conecting at 115 kbps!
ANy idea why that is happening?
Atleast its better than the 28-32kbps i used to get lol......
Why is it connecting at 115 kbps on a 56k dial up connection?
But i dont think this has improved my browsing speed at all.......


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

You're *not* connecting at that speed. It's showing the 115200 port speed.

53000 bps is about the fastest that you can connect with 56K dial-up.


----------



## dugq (Jul 16, 2004)

Ro****h, whats the make and model of your modem, and whats the init string you used?

Like flavallee says, your seeing the port speed not the connection speed, but if you add an additional init string you should be able to force it to show the true speed.


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

Im using HSP56 MR modem.

This is the initstring i used.
AT&F&C1&D2&K3W1

Also, where can i get the latest drivers for the modem?
I searched on google but all i found was version 2.2 while i am already having version 2.4.


----------



## dugq (Jul 16, 2004)

Try changing the W1 at the end to W2, that should show you your true speed.

I have some good init strings for that modem, but they aren't on this PC, I will post them tomorrow.

One thing you can do for now, on the screen where you enter the init string, click on chage default prefrences and then change flow control to xonxoff

But, HSP modems really aren't much cop to be honest, they tend to have problems handling dodgy lines, have you tried any other modems?


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

i tried changing W1 to W2, but it is still showing the same old thing.

I had not tried using any other modem.

How do i know if my line is good or not?


----------



## dugq (Jul 16, 2004)

This

http://www.modemhelp.net/linenoise/pctel/pctel.shtml

will tell you how to test line quality

Some inits I've had luck with are

atn0s37=9

and

atn0s37=13s10=200

These work well with disconnections, not sure how they will work with speed problems, worth shot thugh


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

Is it possoble to use both initstrings together?


----------



## dugq (Jul 16, 2004)

Nope


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

I checked for line noise using tthe method you said.

On typing AT%L, i got 24, not a 3 digit number like said in the site.
On typing AT%Q, i got 0.

This means that i dont have a noise problem right?

I also tried the initstrings you gave. When i tried the first one, it got connected at 9.6 kbps. When i tried the second one, it connects at the old speed of 28-32k


----------



## dugq (Jul 16, 2004)

Doh, those strings are normally pretty good.

The Line-Noise things look ok.

When you were using

AT&F&C1&D2&K3W1

Was browsing and downloading any better, or did the connection speed just say that it was faster?

EDIT: I've just thought, I think I remember the first string lowering someones reported speed to 9.6, although there actual speed was higher. Try downloading something and see what the speeds you get are.


----------



## Spykee.32 (Sep 24, 2004)

try going to this website and do a speed test on it, http://toast.net/performance/ choose Text and Image for the test type and then select any free host and you are all set my friend, your result will come all the way at the top, on a blue bar. Tell us what happens


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

I tried the test.......
Here are the results.......it doesnt look too good..lol......I have attached the image.


----------



## Krako Mako (Feb 12, 2005)

I am in the same boat, only get 41.2 to 49.2. I am in an apartment complex. (It's soooo slow I can wash & dry a small load before the "Done" is done). I tried a Blaster Browser but I had problems getting it installed. I have MS Windows XP Pro and working of a Dell Inspiron 8200 Laptop. Honestly, it was sooooo slow I could not download Windows Streets & Trips. (Site came back and said "fugetrabowit".)


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

lol.....
your situation is still better than mine......i get 28-32k...........................


----------



## dugq (Jul 16, 2004)

Ro****h, have you contacted your phonecompany and asked them if there are any reasons why the connection is so slow, a line splitter for example

Al lumb, 41-49 is not particularly slow, it sounds to me more like a problem with spyware, you may want to download hijackthis and post a log in a new thread(in web and emal, or security). Hijack this is available from www.majorgreeks.com/download3155.html


----------



## Aderon (Jan 23, 2005)

I don't know about connections and all that (sorry) but, if you want to surf faster on the internet, this thread might be of use to you. It made my 56k friend feel like he was surfin the internet with cable.

http://forums.techguy.org/t337655.html

Just a thought.


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

aderon.........sadly.....i already use firefox........and its not of much use.
dugg....i tried talking to my ISP, they havent been of much help. Thats why i tried this forum.......


----------



## dugq (Jul 16, 2004)

I didnt mean the ISP, but your telephone company, they may know what is causing it. They can also tell you how far you are from your local exchange


----------



## Krako Mako (Feb 12, 2005)

Dugg - I loaded AD-Aware SE - Personal cause I felt I had spyware (But how would I know)? Do you still think Hijackthis is still better?


----------



## dugq (Jul 16, 2004)

Hi, 

Adaware and hijackthis are different programs. Adaware is mostly automated (it identifies what it thinks is spyware and then asks you to remove it), whereas hijackthis just shows anything in your system which could remotely be a problem, such as startup items and leaves it to the user to decide what is and is not spyware. Its best to use Adaware to start with (as well as other spyware removal programs such as spybot, spysweeper etc) and then use hijack this to get rid of the stuff thats been missed.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

That suggestion about the phone company is worth pursuing. They can do tests from their end on line quality, and for me at least, they spent a great deal of time checking out the line from the house all the way to the switching station. No charge. (But it was a hot day and the guy spent a lot of time in the cellar even though I told him that the situation was the same if I disconnected all the house phone wiring and connected my modem by itself to the incoming line.)

Turned out in my case to be a light short due to intermittent moisture---a really hard thing to track down.


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

My phone company IS my ISP......


----------



## ishan (Jan 21, 2005)

Check this out... http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/1164/
I tried it out...and it seemed to work. Dont take it up all the way to 921600 bps though ... try with a smaller speed. I dont really know if it worked for me....I like to think it did


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

the tweak is for win 9x/me.........
would it work for xp???


----------



## ishan (Jan 21, 2005)

http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/280/


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

thx man......


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

These are the correct values for 98SE, ME, or XP for 56K dial-up:

MaxMSS - 1460

MaxMTU - 1500

DefaultReceiveWindow - 8760

(XP uses a DRW of 8192)


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

I just thought id ask this.....
I use 3 telephones + my internet connection on the same telephone line. All 3 of them use different wires , but are connected to the same socket.
Will this slow down speed?


----------



## dugq (Jul 16, 2004)

Easy way to find out, unplug them, and give it a go


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

Yeah
I was going to do that. But i thought id ask here first...lol......in a lazy mood.
Will try out n let you know what happens


----------



## silvershield (Jan 20, 2005)

what type of modem do you have?
try downloading the latest drivers and try this: www.majorgeeks.com/download2104.htm 
it will configure your modem settings to the best performance.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

It costs extra, but having a second phone line and phone number dedicated strictly to your computer is the way to go with 56K dial-up. But if you're going to spend the extra money to do that, you might as well switch to high-speed cable, if it's available.


----------



## ishan (Jan 21, 2005)

Not Found
The requested URL /download2104.htm was not found on this serve


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

Yeah, the URL silvershield gave doesnt work.
Flavallee, Having a dedicated line cost as much as DSL, so that doesnt help in my case, lol.


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

I just removed my old pctel modem n put in a Creative Modem Blaster.
Does anybody have good initstrings for it?
Also, does anyone know the latest version of the drivers? I am currently having 5.43.72.1


----------



## smash (Jan 31, 2005)

unplug all those other items and your speed will be ok [make sure all connections are good] 
man 3 things pluged in and your wondering?


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

I tried that
It hasnt made much difference in performance.


----------



## Spykee.32 (Sep 24, 2004)

If your modem has 2 ports make sure you only using one (the one that says LINE or has a picture of a Line) that means if you are using the other port to connect any other device such as FAX, other phone etc.. disconnected it for awhile and do some testing without it and lets see what happens, also see if the phone cord is not jacked up, try changing that cord to a new one, you can buy it at any store, .99 cent store, radioshack, etc.. Ohh and one other thing have you tried another access number or local number for your city. Sometimes your ISP has a limit on the connection speed and they wont tell you so you may consider your self changing to another ISP.


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

Sadly my ISP has only one access line and theres only one ISP where i live ...
I am only using one port.
And what does it mean when you asked if the phone cord is jacked up...?


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

Use as short a phone cord as you possibly can use between the wall jack and the computer case. Also, try to keep that phone cord away from the tangle of power cords. Leaving it that way can cause interference and negatively effect connection speed.


----------



## Roshith (Nov 28, 2004)

My phone cord is as short as it can be...theres about a metre or 2 extra.
Also, it isnt entangled with any power cord or anything..in fact...its pretty far from any power cord.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

Okay, good. I just wanted to make these suggestions to you, just in case there was a problem there. I've seen computers with 15' - 20' of phone line coiled up behind their computer and all wrapped up among the power cords.


----------



## shamoo (Apr 13, 2005)

#1 in your modem options ,set your port speed at 57600 if you have a 56k moden
#2 go into the advance seting where a command string(intial string) is loacated and add AT&FX Plus you can get a program called cablenut..I have done this and i am running my modem at full speed


----------



## bizziebill (Apr 5, 2005)

:up: Your connection speed has alot to do with how many others are using the network when you are.
Try connecting at an earlier hour once and find out.(Early AM)say 4:00am or 5:00am


----------



## kdd9 (Mar 25, 2005)

I found this the other day and wondered if I should get it for my sister, who has 56k dial-up: www.onspeed.com/en/ -- Thought I would ask here first. Do you think this would work for increasing 56k speed?


----------



## jakoval (Oct 28, 2001)

kdd9 said:


> I found this the other day and wondered if I should get it for my sister, who has 56k dial-up: www.onspeed.com/en/ -- Thought I would ask here first. Do you think this would work for increasing 56k speed?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/insideit/story/0,13270,1128097,00.html
http://www.netmag.co.uk/reviews/def...id=29087&subsectionid=497&subsubsectionid=168


----------



## kdd9 (Mar 25, 2005)

Good stuff jakoval. Thanks.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

KDD9:

53,000 bps is about the fastest speed you'll get with 56K dialup, no matter what you do.

Watch the gray box while a file is downloading. If the throughput speed is between 5.0 - 6.0 Kb/s, that's pretty much normal.

ISP's that claim to increase 56k dialup speed as much as 5 times more are *not* increasing the speed any. What they do is cache the websites you go to and display them at a lower resolution and without some of the "eye candy". This allows them to load faster and give you the impression that the speed is faster.


----------



## bizziebill (Apr 5, 2005)

flavallee said:


> KDD9:
> 
> 53,000 bps is about the fastest speed you'll get with 56K dialup, no matter what you do.
> 
> ...


100% correct. It's just another way for them to make money.


----------



## XL Guru (Aug 30, 2003)

>> 100% correct. It's just another way for them to make money.

Well they just made some more. I couldn't *be* more fed up with the kids whining about broadband, but the idea of being "always-on" turns me off, so I just signed up for this. I'm not tech-minded but will share what I can.

(i) my dial-up >9/10 connects at 52 kbps, pretty good for starters I understand.
(ii) I had to configure manually for FireFox, the instructions were easy. Autoconfiguring F-F "will" feature in version 4.
(iii) After some browsing I ended up with the Image Quality vs Acceleration set to Excellent vs Medium. I wouldn't describe the image quality as excellent by any stretch, then again I just upped from 14" CRT to 17" TFT so that may not be helping.
(iv) In an hour of medium-intensive browsing, it says "Estimated Time Savings 10 Minutes 7 Seconds". So £2 a month to save several hours would *seem* a small price to pay.

I'll have everyone here give it a go, if we decide it's not worth it & go for a refund, I'll update on how that pans out.

Rgds,
Andy


----------



## XL Guru (Aug 30, 2003)

>> ISP's that claim to increase 56k dialup speed as much as 5 times more
>> are not increasing the speed any.

This ignores a feature the prog advertises -- email acceleration.

As a test (OE6 on XP at 52 kbps), I mailed myself a 1.4 meg file. While there was no difference in send time, it took (a) 3¼ minutes to arrive with ONSPEED (b) 11 minutes to arrive without it.

Rgds,
Andy


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

One thing you can try is to add some extra initialization commands for 56K dial-up (Start->CP->Phones&Modem Options->Modem->Properties->Advanced):

I have added the following to control min-max connection speed: &U30&N39

Also, just for kicks, if you want to speed-up tone dialing add: S11=40 which will decrease the time between tones when your modem dials.

I have also added S10=255 which has something to do with decreasing the likelyhood of being disconnected? (I forget exactly what it means, but I haven't experienced any disconnects lately).

-- Tom


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

*S11=50* speeds up the dialing sequence.

*S10=50* keeps the connection active for up to 5 seconds and helps prevent a disconnect, if a glitch in the connection occurs during that time.

(It's been about 3 years since I used 56K dial-up, so hopefully I worded it right)


----------



## Telstar (Jun 20, 2003)

. 


Speeding up a Dial-up connection is, simply stated: oxymoronic.


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

flavallee said:


> *S11=50* speeds up the dialing sequence.
> 
> *S10=50* keeps the connection active for up to 5 seconds and helps prevent a disconnect, if a glitch in the connection occurs during that time.
> 
> (It's been about 3 years since I used 56K dial-up, so hopefully I worded it right)


S11=40 speeds up the dialing sequence just a tad more. As I understand it, the lower the number, the less delay between tones in the dialing sequence - I think the number represents milliseconds between tones. I don't know what the minimum for S11 is that an analog modem will tolerate.

For S10, as I understand it, the larger the number, the greater the buffer of time available to keep the connection alive instead of just disconnecting by default when a glitch occurs if the value is 0.

-- Tom


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

That's a pretty good job of explaining it.


----------



## iaavagent (Jan 11, 2004)

I have learned as has been reported that Your ISP can slow you down. 
I use to connect on 2 putes at above 45,and then when I switched to another ISP I went down to 28.8 on both putes. 
No matter what I added or did, it stay the same or dropped. This ISP offers a web accelerator at an extra charge and I think they purposively keep you low to entice you to upgrade to the accelerator. 
It was a cheap ISP and I guess you get what you pay for! 
At $4.95 a month I guess I can't/should'nt complain.


----------



## Tommy Meehan (Apr 7, 2004)

I took the toast.net/performance test last night on my home laptop. It's an IBM 380ED running Win98SE with 56K dial-up modem. I was amazed to discover my average throughput was about 110-120K. Not too bad. 

One thing I would credit it to is advice received right here. Last year when I got a virus that overwhelmed my Norton AVP - it really *****-slapped the crap outa my Miss Norton (in fact the AVP was one of the first things to become disabled) - I turned to the security forum for help with a HiJack This log in hand. Long story short-

As we got into the fine-tuning of my machine several people said my startup list looked way too bloated. With stuff MS and AOL (heh) automatically load but which I never use. I unchecked a whole bunch of stuff and have only noticed they're gone because of the much smoother faster response time I get from my aging machine. 

It's something to consider anyway. Tommy


----------



## grampy (Jul 12, 2003)

Can recommend Onspeed,on my present BT Anytime package it comes for free as long as I stay with BT.The real modem speed is about 36kb but the compression with Onspeed makes it appear as if it were 150-200Kb with most pages.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

It's not possible for 56K dial-up to have a connection speed faster than about 53000 bps or to have a throughput speed faster than about 6.2 Kb/sec. By reducing the resolution and eliminating some of the graphics on websites, they load faster and give the impression of more speed.


----------



## BigDaveinNJ (Jun 9, 2000)

I may be way off base here, but also doesn't the DNS look-up process factor into the equation, at least as far as the TIME element is concerned?

Often... I will visit a site, and it will do NOTHING for about 10 or more seconds while the status bar says LOOKING FOR HOST or remote server... then, once it "finds it" the page will load fairly rapidly.

Maybe it's just an illusion, but I find that both OPERA and FIREFOX "seem" faster that IE on my dial-up connection. I presume some of this has to do with the cache and the like but again, it does seem somewhat faster.

For instance... often with Opera of Firefox, if I hit the back button, BOOM, the page is there about 80% of the time. Using IE, many times it will take anywhere from 2 to 5 seconds to load all in.... even though I just left it a minute or so ago.

So.... Do you guys think DNS look-up is a factor at all? And... do you agree with me about Firefox and Opera being faster than IE?

Thank You

DAVID


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

flavallee said:


> It's not possible for 56K dial-up to have a connection speed faster than about 53000 bps or to have a throughput speed faster than about 6.2 Kb/sec. By reducing the resolution and eliminating some of the graphics on websites, they load faster and give the impression of more speed.


The highest baud rate I have experienced connecting on dial-up to my ISP was at 53,300bps which is roughly what flavallee said (about 53000). Throughput speed depends on available network bandwidth, so it varies according to what is available when you are interacting with it along with everyone else.

-- Tom


----------



## Tommy Meehan (Apr 7, 2004)

flavallee said:


> It's not possible for 56K dial-up to have a connection speed faster than about 53000 bps or to have a throughput speed faster than about 6.2 Kb/sec.


You posted this comment without specifically referencing it to any message but I'm guessing it was in response to my earlier post that the performance tests I took showed my 56k modem throughput speed at about 110-120K. When you say it's not possible are you saying the test results - I found the link in this thread btw - were inaccurate or that I'm a liar? I'd like to know more.

Btw if you _weren't_ referring to me....what? Just forget it, I guess. Tommy


----------



## Tommy Meehan (Apr 7, 2004)

Here's my results downloading the text file with 56K modem on the toast.net/performance test-

Loaded 340,781 bytes in 21.91 seconds from Yahoo! server.

33.6K Modem: 34-54K
56K Modem: 70-90K
ISDN/I-DSL: 220-260K
Your throughput:	124* K
Cable/ADSL: 229-950K
T1: 1078-1300K

Loaded 340,781 bytes in 16.64 seconds from 1&1 server.

33.6K Modem: 34-54K
56K Modem: 70-90K
ISDN/I-DSL: 220-260K
Your throughput:	164* K
Cable/ADSL: 229-950K
T1: 1078-1300K


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Tommy Meehan said:


> Here's my results downloading the text file with 56K modem on the toast.net/performance test-
> 
> Loaded 340,781 bytes in 21.91 seconds from Yahoo! server.
> 
> ...


With a 56k dial-up modem, the question to ask is what do these results indicate?

1) Is Accelerator software being used? Probably.
2) Is the modem 16550 hardware support setting turned on, or not? Probably.
3) Does the test itself use compression of the bytes prior to and after sending - i.e. at both ends of the transport interface, or not? Don't know.
4) Again throughput at any particular point in time is dependent on the network load on the total network bandwidth available, so what was the network load during the test? Results will scale with the load. Varies.

Sometimes when I am downloading a particular piece of software, the transfer rate at the very beginning hits roughly 49KB, but scales down quickly into the less than 10KB range, usually settling in at 5.6KB, sometimes less, sometimes more for the duration, and it may vary higher or lower also as the available network bandwidth allocations change according to load.

Run the test at: http://webservices.cnet.com/Bandwidth/ and compare the results with toast.net/performance tests.

Another question to ask is what protocol is being used for the test, e.g. ftp which typically is not accelerated, or tcp, or udp? Run tests, if at all possible, with different protocols to help understand the variances between the protocols. For all tests of this nature, especially within a protocol, it is important to treat each test result as a single data point, and collect data points over time so that they may be understood on a chart/graph plot and different tests compared to one another.

-- Tom


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

T_M:

My reply was in reference to post #77.

Also, do keep your startup list as small as possible because it'll make your computer run better and faster.


----------



## Tommy Meehan (Apr 7, 2004)

The question I want to ask is how do they compute the throughput speed? The fastest download time was about 20,480 bps - if my math is correct - which is well under half the theoretical top speed of 53000 bps for a 56K modem as posted by flavallee.

One thing I noticed while taking the test was when I had a Word file open - in order to copy the data - my throughtput speed dropped drastically. To a score of about 25-30K. When I closed the file and did the same test my score shot back up to 110+. Tommy


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Tommy Meehan said:


> The question I want to ask is how do they compute the throughput speed? The fastest download time was about 20,480 bps - if my math is correct - which is well under half the theoretical top speed of 53000 bps for a 56K modem as posted by flavallee.
> 
> One thing I noticed while taking the test was when I had a Word file open - in order to copy the data - my throughtput speed dropped drastically. To a score of about 25-30K. When I closed the file and did the same test my score shot back up to 110+. Tommy


Taking the data from your previous post:
340,781 bytes downloaded in 21.91 sec => 2,726,248 bits downloaded/21.91sec=> 124,429.4 bps=>15,553.67 bytes/sec or 15.2KB

340,781 bytes downloaded in 21.91 sec => 2,726,248 bits
downloaded/16.64 sec=> 163,837 bps=>20,479.63 bytes/sec or about 20KB

So, your 20,480 is not in bps units, but KB units whereas the maximum connection speed over dial-up is about 53.3Kbps.

They are reporting throughput in terms of bps which for computer networks is the unit to describe bandwidth or nominal capabity, not KB which is commonly done to indicate transfer rate by various software download managers.

The fact is that 163837bps is 3+ times the maximum connection speed, so how do they do that - i.e. compression, use of accelerator, perhaps a different protocol - lots of variables aside from available network bandwidth.

Hope this helps,

-- Tom


----------



## moree007 (May 17, 2005)

I have the EXACT same connection problem as Ro****h,
I have two computers. One computer is a Toshiba satellite laptop. The other is a Compaq Presario desktop. I used the same cable and phone jack for both computers (disconnecting one computer when the other was being in use). I noticed my connection speed on my Toshiba was 45 kbps. The Compaq connection speed is 26.4 kbps. 
I called and talked to senior technician at my service provider. They tried every trouble shooting method they could think of. They had me change Extra initialization commands: to several different strings. (I also tried every string mentioned in this forum, so far.) The technician then said to contact Hewlette Packard for Compaq support. They told me a possiblitly was the amount of RAM my machine had or that my modem was bad. 
It is highly unlikely the problem is not enough RAM since my Compaq has 512 MB of RAM installed, and very few programs installed. I tried replacing the Compaq modem with a new 56K modem. This did not resolve the problem either. I still get a connection speed of 26.4 kbps. I did try one of the strings you suggested, and like Ro****h, it displayed the port speed being 115 kbps. It didn't seem to run any faster than when 26.4 kbps was displayed.
I then called the service provider once again. After troubleshooting his heart out, he concluded that the computer was responsible for slowing the modem connection speed. He said two possible other solutions were to reinstall the operating system, or purchase an external modem.

WILL ANYONE BE ABLE TO SOLVE THIS BAFFLING MYSTERY???


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

moree007 said:


> I have the EXACT same connection problem as Ro****h,
> I have two computers. One computer is a Toshiba satellite laptop. The other is a Compaq Presario desktop. I used the same cable and phone jack for both computers (disconnecting one computer when the other was being in use). I noticed my connection speed on my Toshiba was 45 kbps. The Compaq connection speed is 26.4 kbps.
> I called and talked to senior technician at my service provider. They tried every trouble shooting method they could think of. They had me change Extra initialization commands: to several different strings. (I also tried every string mentioned in this forum, so far.) The technician then said to contact Hewlette Packard for Compaq support. They told me a possiblitly was the amount of RAM my machine had or that my modem was bad.
> It is highly unlikely the problem is not enough RAM since my Compaq has 512 MB of RAM installed, and very few programs installed. I tried replacing the Compaq modem with a new 56K modem. This did not resolve the problem either. I still get a connection speed of 26.4 kbps. I did try one of the strings you suggested, and like Ro****h, it displayed the port speed being 115 kbps. It didn't seem to run any faster than when 26.4 kbps was displayed.
> ...


Try the following:
Start->Control Panel->System->Hardware->Modems and then right-click on your modem entry and select Properties and then the Advanced tab

Insert the following string in Extra Initializations:

S10=255S11=40&U30&N39

The &U30&N39 sets a minimum-maximum connect speed to between 45-57kbps

This should have the effect of eliminating the modem negotiations that set your modem connect speed to ~26kbps

-- Tom


----------



## moree007 (May 17, 2005)

Hi Tom.
Thanks for your response. I entered the string S10=255S11=40&U30&N39 and when I try to dial up it gives the following error message:

Error 692: There was a hardware failure in the modem (or other connecting device).


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

moree007 said:


> Hi Tom.
> Thanks for your response. I entered the string S10=255S11=40&U30&N39 and when I try to dial up it gives the following error message:
> 
> Error 692: There was a hardware failure in the modem (or other connecting device).


Does your Compaq have a 56k modem or a 28.8 modem? At this point, take out the initialization string for &u30&n39 part.

What kind of modem is installed?

Visit the modem mfg website and determine its maximum connect speed.

-- Tom


----------



## Telstar (Jun 20, 2003)

flavallee said:


> *It's not possible for 56K dial-up to have a connection speed faster than about 53000 bps or to have a throughput speed faster than about 6.2 Kb/sec. By reducing the resolution and eliminating some of the graphics on websites, they load faster and give the impression of more speed.*


Did anyone take the time to read this?

90 Replies and 4,321 Views later on the subject of
*Speeding up Dial-up connection*
and nothing is going to change this reality.
It is what it is...Dialup @ 56K = 53000 bps.
Any tweaking that might be done creating any increase in
speed will be so insignificant and indiscernible as not to be realized.

Let me know if there's a way to increase 56K to 112K and you'll make
me a believer. Anything less is just not worth the time.

You can certainly slow it down but you're not going to increase it.

Live with it or get yourself a DSL connection.

Don't mean to be harsh...just bein' real.

Yea, I've been there. MSN Dialup for two years before deciding
to spend an extra $8 per month for Verizon DSL.
Why did I wait so long?


----------



## golddust (Jan 2, 2005)

I've found the best thing I could do to 'speed up' my dial-up connection was switch to Firefox. The amount of 'hesitation' has dropped dramatically. That alone seems like getting a speed increase.


----------



## jakoval (Oct 28, 2001)

Telstar said:


> ...Live with it or get yourself a DSL connection.
> 
> Don't mean to be harsh...just bein' real...


 LOL - spoken like a city boy! 

The rest of your post has some validity, but you have to realize that some folks don't have access to highspeed, even at a mere $8/mo extra.

For example, I live about 12 miles (as the cable lies, not as the crow flies) from the nearest town with DSL and cable and Population density averages about 2-3 households per mile, so there's no way anyone's gonna run either of those services out here, and we're just out of range of the closest transmitter for wireless. So, my options are to spend major bucks (that I have better uses for  ) on a satellite installation, move into town (YUK! :down: ) or do what I can to optimize my dialup connection.


----------



## Telstar (Jun 20, 2003)

jakoval said:


> you have to realize that some folks don't have access to highspeed, even at a mere $8/mo extra.


Thank you for your comments *jakoval*. :up:

Yes, I realized when composing my reply that there exists a particular demography
that falls into the category you mention and I apologize to those folks if my
comments seemed cold and insensitive. That was not my intent.

However, I had in mind that area of users who have dialup and are simply
stubbonly holding on to it in hopes of squeezing more out of it and will
eventually, as I did, make the upgrade to a faster service.

Economics was a big factor also in why I waited two years. When I 
relocated and ended up with Verizon as my phone carrier I could not
resist their offer to move from MSN as my ISP at $21.95/mo to Verizon's
DSL service at $29.95/mo.
In my case at least, it is money well-spent.

Spending many hours connected to the Internet can be a very frustrating 
experience when hampered by a miserably slow connection speed and in 
many cases joy can be found by "taking the plunge" at what could be a minimal
increase in investment if, as you stated, a local service is available.

Telstar


----------



## SkyHi (Apr 29, 2005)

flavallee said:


> KDD9:
> 
> 53,000 bps is about the fastest speed you'll get with 56K dialup, no matter what you do.
> 
> ...


Or, they will just have compressed files, and their program will uncompress them, therefore you have to transfer less packets.

-SkyHi


----------



## SkyHi (Apr 29, 2005)

BigDaveinNJ said:


> I may be way off base here, but also doesn't the DNS look-up process factor into the equation, at least as far as the TIME element is concerned?
> 
> Often... I will visit a site, and it will do NOTHING for about 10 or more seconds while the status bar says LOOKING FOR HOST or remote server... then, once it "finds it" the page will load fairly rapidly.
> 
> ...


I know in IE, you can input the IPs of websites, so you don't have to do the DNS.

-SkyHi


----------



## robison157c (Apr 11, 2005)

It could be your modem. I have 2 computers (Not Networked). Both plug into the some phone jack from about the same distance. (I know, you can't connect both at the same time) One computer has a U.S. Robotics Modem and the other has a PCT el. The Robotics cost me about $60.00 new and is a fine modem. The other was $5.00 with a $5.00 rebate. The Robotics never connects faster than 45,333 while the free modem constantly connects at 52k and is not troubled with dropouts or any other problems as far as I can tell. So go figure. I don't know what the difference is. The only dif is the Robotics plugs into an ISA jack and the other is in a PCI jack; but I don't think that would cause the difference in speed.


----------



## mopower440 (Feb 25, 2002)

everyone with problems needs to go to this site: http://modemsite.com/56k/index.asp
and order the v.92 56k agere controllerless modem he sells for 19.95..It was the best thing i ever did for my slow setup, it connects at 53,333 80% of the time and is lightning fast. The guy running the site swears by this modem and i figured i couldnt go wrong with it for only 19.99, and i love it!! I dont know much about this stuff, but i remember that this particular modem doesnt use the computers cpu or whatever, so it makes it that much better. I really had a hard time beleiving that it would be better than one of those us robotics modems, but it sure is, it also comes with modem on hold software that actually works unlike most other modems with that software. Check out his site for loads of info also. If you order the modem, make sure you get the right one because i think they sell 2 different ones..


----------



## ti-gris (Apr 23, 2005)

Hi all:
I read this whole thread as it reminded me of 5 years ago when I had a Dial-up connection. But since this service had just started, the speed wasnt that bad. . With time it got worse and worse, Called the ISP (who is also the Phone Co.) and was told "get ADSL. So went to ADSL...worked great...for two years, now its not much faster than Dial-Up. So, back to the ISP/phone co. and I argued: the number of customers surely had increased; how many were on the same line; how far was the central office? how was the quality of the line? even the phone was noisy! I knew that two copper wires can carry 247 customers; the theoritical location between the customer and C.O. is a maximum of 18,000 feet (5,460 meters) and at that distance your far from getting the top speed; how many bridge taps; etc. I tested the line directly from the Phone Co. with a DB meter and it was all over the place, cant remember how many dbm. 
All this to say that ADSL is perhaps not the answer...but rather the quality of service. And before you go onto ADSL read: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/dsl1.htm

Paul


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

Saying *56K dial-up* is almost as bad as saying *America On-Line*. One of these days, we all will hopefully be on high-speed broadband.


----------



## jgarrity (Jun 7, 2005)

Big problem in our area is line-sharing or signal combining. I will NEVER get above 28800 in this house (and VERY rarely get above 21600) because of the way the phone company routed lines years ago, combining different geographical areas and combining the signal, then splitting later. I believe 2 comb/split is the max to hold a 56K(nominal) connection. I can take my computer to my mothers house, 400 ft away and get 49000 minimum every time. Her line is connected to a newer set of lines, with minimal comb/splitting (until the are grows).
You'll probably find the standard answer from the phone company is the standard "You are using a data device on a voice(analog) designed line and we are not responsible in maintaining or troubleshooting any type of data rate problems"
BUT-it never hurts to try, the absolute worst they can do is nothing (unless they charge you for a service call).

Of course it's still a little better then the "SUPER FAST" 1200baud when we used Q-Link!!


----------



## HotShot725 (Jun 28, 2005)

There isn't much you can do with speeding up a dial up connection because it mostly depends on the isp your using at the current time. Although you can speed up your connection a bit but it won't increase that much. Any small significant boost can help though. Just a tip never ever use a automatic program because it just takes up space on your drive and can't be of much help anyways!! take a hint. I sure there guides on the net for such things just use though not no autommatic handler crap B.S.


----------



## whodo36 (Apr 23, 2004)

JGarrity is describing a "pair gain" method. Used to make a fake 2 line connection out of 1 line. Many old party line areas had this done to give customers private lines. If you have a pair gain connection, your bandwidth will be half of a "real" 1 line connection.


----------



## piping_hot69 (Jul 2, 2005)

ok can i just get an answer to this
I am on dialup but just one thing i don't get when its 56k but say on camfrog should i still be able to speak on the microphone in a room without laggin? and is something that can be done about this?


----------

