On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:02:16 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>> I'm not disputing the quality. We don't have cable at our cottage
>> because we're not there enough. We've got a nice 36 inch tv there
>> that's only about 6 years old and without the converter it's useless.
>> We're still waiting for our coupons but from what I understand they
>> won't cover the whole cost of the converter. Having to spend money to
>> make something work that's only 6 years old is bullshit.
>
>I think that I have been spoiled with a large screen LCD TV. We moved
>the old TV and satellite receiver to the guest room, and when I watch
>that one now I wonder how we ever got by on that setup. A few weeks
>before Christmas our neighbours invited us over to watch a DVD.They had
>an old 25 inch sceen, and sitting half way across the room I couldn't
>help but think what a small image it was, and their family room was so
>big that a large screen TV would fit nicely.
>
>After Christmas they invited us over to watch another DVD, but this time
>on their new 52" plasma and blue ray. It was not a blue ray disk, but
>even an ordinary DVD on that system looked pretty good.
>
>It's a bitch having to cope with standards, but we have the option of
>setting an standard or having a bunch of incompatible standards.
>European televisions used to have better resolution than NA TVs because
>they had more scan lines. They have more efficient electrical systems
>because they use a higher voltage than us. A hundred years ago we
>decided to standardize with 110 and 60 cycle AC. As things progress,
>standards change, and as long as it is an improvement, it's probably a
>good thing.

You're probably right but it still ****es me off.

Lou

Lou Decruss > wrote:

>I'm not disputing the quality. We don't have cable at our cottage
>because we're not there enough. We've got a nice 36 inch tv there
>that's only about 6 years old and without the converter it's useless.
>We're still waiting for our coupons but from what I understand they
>won't cover the whole cost of the converter. Having to spend money to
>make something work that's only 6 years old is bullshit.

The coupon will cover $20 of the cost of a $50 converter.
I agree it sucks that a TV that new might not already have
had the converter built in, but it's not that big of a cost item.

Furthermore, I am finding that a recently purchased converter
box actually gives you better DTV reception than a 3-year-old
TV with DTV built in.

Steve

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:42:11 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

>Lou Decruss > wrote:
>
>>I'm not disputing the quality. We don't have cable at our cottage
>>because we're not there enough. We've got a nice 36 inch tv there
>>that's only about 6 years old and without the converter it's useless.
>>We're still waiting for our coupons but from what I understand they
>>won't cover the whole cost of the converter. Having to spend money to
>>make something work that's only 6 years old is bullshit.
>
>The coupon will cover $20 of the cost of a $50 converter.
>I agree it sucks that a TV that new might not already have
>had the converter built in, but it's not that big of a cost item.

Yep. I paid almost 600 for the tv. Today for that money I could buy
a much nicer one but it's still a nice tv and 36 inch is a pretty nice
size for a cottage. I don't want to replace it.

>Furthermore, I am finding that a recently purchased converter
>box actually gives you better DTV reception than a 3-year-old
>TV with DTV built in.

I've seen them and they are nice. But I just want to whine on a
cooking group. We've got 2 coming and I'll probably be happy after
they're plugged in and working. But for now I just want to complain.
<g>

Lou

Jill wrote:

> order a converter box to convert your Analog to Digital.
>
> http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...our-analog-tv/

Actually, the converter box converts the digital signal to an analog signal,
not analog to digital.

Bob

Bob Terwilliger > wrote:

> Actually, the converter box converts the digital signal to an
> analog signal, not analog to digital.

Yes, but it converts an analog television into a digital
television.

:-)

S.

Steve Pope wrote:


> The coupon will cover $20 of the cost of a $50 converter.

$40.

<https://www.dtv2009.gov/AboutProgram.aspx>

Currently there's a waiting list, until more funds are available or
outstanding coupons expire.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

On 10 Jan 2009 02:10:40 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:
>
>
>> The coupon will cover $20 of the cost of a $50 converter.
>
>$40.
>
><https://www.dtv2009.gov/AboutProgram.aspx>
>
>Currently there's a waiting list, until more funds are available or
>outstanding coupons expire.

We were given a shipping date of the 16th for ours. I dunno what
that's all about cuz Louise is handling it. I'll believe it when they
get here.

Lou

On Fri 09 Jan 2009 06:09:06p, Arri London told us...

>
>
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 06:45:52p, Arri London told us...
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 01:54:31p, Janet Wilder told us...
>> >>
>> >> > George Shirley wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> We had fiber optic cable in Saudi Arabia twenty-three years ago
>> >> >> along with fiber optic telephones, burglar and fire alarms.
>> >> >> Advantage to moving into the 20th century over there, you get to
get
>> >> >> the latest stuff. Canadian Bell made billions of dollars
installing
>> >> >> all that glass.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> AT&T says they will get around to it one of these days. Hah!
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm served by AT&T, too. I have asked them about upgrading our
lines
>> >> > for DSL and they pretty much laughed at me. With de-regulation,
they
>> >> > don't want to pay for the infer structure and let other companies
be
>> >> > able to use what they paid for. We still have one of the few
>> >> > non-digital switching stations in the universe. Dial up is 19.9 at
>> >> > it's very fastest. I sometimes expect Lily Tomlin to answer the
phone
>> >> > when I dial
>> >> "O"
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Boy, do I understand that! In our previous house the only options
for
>> >> Internet access were either standard dial-up or DSL, both from the
same
>> >> provider, Qwest, as was our phone service. I had DSL, but both the
>> >> speed and quality sucked big time. My current broadband service
>> >> through Cox is equal to the network at my office. When I work from
>> >> home and connect to the network at work through a VPN connection, I
>> >> can't even tell that I'm not sitting at my desk at the office. Our
>> >> digital phone service, also through Cox, is superior to any that I've
>> >> ever had.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Wayne Boatwright
>> >
>> >
>> > We've got (Qwest) slow dialup too. Any upgrade would cost a lot for
us.
>> >
>>
>> Our Cox bundle for cable, broadband, and phone is $99/mo plus taxes.
>>
>>
>
> That's three times what we are paying now
>

But exactly what do you have now, and how fast is your internet connection?

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Friday, 01(I)/09(IX)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 2dys 4hrs 32mins
************************************************** **********************
'A gift of humanity is what I want for Christmas!!' - Opus
************************************************** **********************

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:14:28 -0600, Lou Decruss
> wrote:

>On 10 Jan 2009 02:10:40 GMT, "Default User" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>><https://www.dtv2009.gov/AboutProgram.aspx>
>>
>>Currently there's a waiting list, until more funds are available or
>>outstanding coupons expire.
>
>We were given a shipping date of the 16th for ours. I dunno what
>that's all about cuz Louise is handling it. I'll believe it when they
>get here.
>
What do they call a Luddite (local of course) that's seen the light?
I have *no* idea


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:52:23 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 03:25:16 -0600, "Gregory Morrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>Lemme tell ya, I pooh - poohed the whole digital TV thang until recently,
>>then a friend bought a new 42" Sony - yowzah! And a Blu-Ray DVD looks
>>incredible on HDTV, too...I'm hooked! The new TV technologies are so
>>superior to the old that there's not even any comparison, digital blows
>>analog awaaaaay...it's like comparing 78's to CD's
>
> I'm not disputing the quality. We don't have cable at our cottage
> because we're not there enough. We've got a nice 36 inch tv there
> that's only about 6 years old and without the converter it's useless.
> We're still waiting for our coupons but from what I understand they
> won't cover the whole cost of the converter. Having to spend money to
> make something work that's only 6 years old is bullshit.
>
> Lou

if you get the coupon, it's forty dollars towards a typical purchase of
about sixty.

your pal,
blake

fOn Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:42:11 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> Lou Decruss > wrote:
>
>>I'm not disputing the quality. We don't have cable at our cottage
>>because we're not there enough. We've got a nice 36 inch tv there
>>that's only about 6 years old and without the converter it's useless.
>>We're still waiting for our coupons but from what I understand they
>>won't cover the whole cost of the converter. Having to spend money to
>>make something work that's only 6 years old is bullshit.
>
> The coupon will cover $20 of the cost of a $50 converter.
> I agree it sucks that a TV that new might not already have
> had the converter built in, but it's not that big of a cost item.
>

mine was forty towards sixty.

your pal,
blake

In article > ,
says...
>
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
> > jmcquown wrote:
> >
> > > "Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:54:28 -0500, "jmcquown"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>"Chemiker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
> > >>>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
> > >>>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
> > >>>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
> > >>>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
> > >>>> Dish Network.
> > >>>>
> > >>>Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a
> > >>>converter box
> > >>>to convert your Analog to Digital.
> > >>>
> > >>>http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...to-give-money-
> > for-
> > >>>converting-your-analog-tv/
> > >>
> > >> I heard on the radio last night the funding for the coupons has
> > >> run out and they trying to figure out if they may extend the
> > >> changeover. The whole thing is stupid to begin with.
> > >>
> > >> Lou
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree, it's stupid to force people to go digital.
> >
> > You don't have to go digital, so there's no force; you can stop
> > watching television. If you choose to watch television, you can
> > use the technology that is in use.
> >
> > > It's not like analog television hasn't been the norm for the
> > last nearly 70 years.
> >
> > Do you hate power steering and power brakes, too? Non-power
> > steering and brakes were the norm for a long time, too.
> >
> > > I can only imagine government kow-towed to the cable
> > > and satellite TV lobby. Who else cares about how we receive
> > > television signals?
> >
> > Yeah! Imagine someone wanting a better signal! Bah!
>
>
> The present NTSC standard was established IIRC in August of 1941. A TV from
> that era (and there were a few around) would work today okay in receiving
> broadcasts, as would a tube - type set from today work okay back in 1941...
>
> Our color broadcast standard (the RCA electronic system was adopted in the
> early 50's, US color broadcasting began in late 1954... the first color sets
> were a thousand bux, equivalent to over 7K in today's money) is inferior to
> the PAL and SECAM European color broadcast standards that they adopted in
> the late 60's...heck, even the early European b/w TV broadcast standards
> were better than ours.
>
> So the US TV has lagged technologically for a long time, best to start anew.
> We badly lag in cellphone and broadband so at least we'll have somewhat
> decent TV quality...
>
> Lemme tell ya, I pooh - poohed the whole digital TV thang until recently,
> then a friend bought a new 42" Sony - yowzah! And a Blu-Ray DVD looks
> incredible on HDTV, too...I'm hooked! The new TV technologies are so
> superior to the old that there's not even any comparison, digital blows
> analog awaaaaay...it's like comparing 78's to CD's
>
>
> "Flat television sets that you can HANG on the WALL!" are one of the few
> futuristic Jetson - type things that has eventually come to
> fruition...atomic cars and vacation trips to the moon and food pills we can
> do without. Flat - screen HDTV's are one of the few things that someone
> from 50 years ago transported to today might truly be enthralled by...
>
>
>

When you think about it, a lot of sci-fi has become reality. Look at the
communicators on Star Trek. Don't our cell phones remind you of those a
bit?

As to pricing for HD sets, I'm seeing the 32 inch models now dropping
into the $300 to $400 range. The 42 inch models go for $500 to $800 now
too.

One thing that annoys me about all this new technology is the built in
DRM. Friend has a Dell Studio laptop with HDMI out, his Sony 32" set has
2 HDMI input ports.

The guide clearly says it will support 1024x768 but the reality is it
will only support 800x600.

But connecting his cable box via HDMI yields a much cleaner picture.

In article >,
says...
>
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
> > Gregory Morrow wrote:
> >
> > > "Flat television sets that you can HANG on the WALL!" are one of the
> > > few futuristic Jetson - type things that has eventually come to
> > > fruition...atomic cars and vacation trips to the moon and food pills
> > > we can do without. Flat - screen HDTV's are one of the few things
> > > that someone from 50 years ago transported to today might truly be
> > > enthralled by...
> >
> > Just like those old clunky monitors hogged my desk compared
> > to the flat ones these days, I don't need a new tv but I'll be
> > replacing mine in a couple three months just to have one that
> > doesn't take up so much room.
>
>
> I was in Best Buy the other evening and it was odd to see a grand total of
> _two_ CRT TV's on the shelf...and of course thin computer monitors have been
> the standard for a whiles now. CRT's look like really old technology now.
> There are lots of big tube TV's set out for the garbage guys to pick up...
>
> Getting back to useless trivia, there were two rival color TV systems in the
> early 50's, one developed by CBS and the other by RCA. Initially the CBS
> one was approved by the FCC but the powerful head of RCA, David Sarnoff,
> twisted some governmental arms and got his RCA standard adopted. The CBS
> system was apparently superior, but it was not "backwards compatible" with
> black - and - white TV. Sarnoff scared the FCC and the media, saying that
> every old b/w set would have to be junked and replaced with expensive new
> color sets in order to receive color programming...thus RCA "compatible
> color" became the norm, you could watch color programs on a b/w set...and
> color TV did not really take off for another decade.
>
> This move to digital has it's roots in that color brouhaha of 55 years
> ago..."what's old is new again", etc.
>
> ;-)
>
>
>

Not to mention what becomes of the spectrum allocated to terrestrial
television broadcast. There's some prime bands in there with very good
propagation characteristics.

From what I'm to gather the voice carriers are all over this but the FCC
wisely allocated some of the bandwidth for free public use.

That said, if you have an older TV set with manual tuner you'll be able
to pull in those signals. You'll just have to figure out the protocol to
demodulate the data stream.

In article > ,
says...
> Lou Decruss wrote:
>
> > I'm not disputing the quality. We don't have cable at our cottage
> > because we're not there enough. We've got a nice 36 inch tv there
> > that's only about 6 years old and without the converter it's useless.
> > We're still waiting for our coupons but from what I understand they
> > won't cover the whole cost of the converter. Having to spend money to
> > make something work that's only 6 years old is bullshit.
>
> I think that I have been spoiled with a large screen LCD TV. We moved
> the old TV and satellite receiver to the guest room, and when I watch
> that one now I wonder how we ever got by on that setup. A few weeks
> before Christmas our neighbours invited us over to watch a DVD.They had
> an old 25 inch sceen, and sitting half way across the room I couldn't
> help but think what a small image it was, and their family room was so
> big that a large screen TV would fit nicely.
>
> After Christmas they invited us over to watch another DVD, but this time
> on their new 52" plasma and blue ray. It was not a blue ray disk, but
> even an ordinary DVD on that system looked pretty good.
>
> It's a bitch having to cope with standards, but we have the option of
> setting an standard or having a bunch of incompatible standards.
> European televisions used to have better resolution than NA TVs because
> they had more scan lines. They have more efficient electrical systems
> because they use a higher voltage than us. A hundred years ago we
> decided to standardize with 110 and 60 cycle AC. As things progress,
> standards change, and as long as it is an improvement, it's probably a
> good thing.
>
>
>

Both laptops in this house do native 720p. No need to have cable,
satellite or otherwise.

Just give me a decent net connection and I'm good.

You wouldn't believe how much video is online now.

In article >,
says...
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:02:16 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >Lou Decruss wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not disputing the quality. We don't have cable at our cottage
> >> because we're not there enough. We've got a nice 36 inch tv there
> >> that's only about 6 years old and without the converter it's useless.
> >> We're still waiting for our coupons but from what I understand they
> >> won't cover the whole cost of the converter. Having to spend money to
> >> make something work that's only 6 years old is bullshit.
> >
> >I think that I have been spoiled with a large screen LCD TV. We moved
> >the old TV and satellite receiver to the guest room, and when I watch
> >that one now I wonder how we ever got by on that setup. A few weeks
> >before Christmas our neighbours invited us over to watch a DVD.They had
> >an old 25 inch sceen, and sitting half way across the room I couldn't
> >help but think what a small image it was, and their family room was so
> >big that a large screen TV would fit nicely.
> >
> >After Christmas they invited us over to watch another DVD, but this time
> >on their new 52" plasma and blue ray. It was not a blue ray disk, but
> >even an ordinary DVD on that system looked pretty good.
> >
> >It's a bitch having to cope with standards, but we have the option of
> >setting an standard or having a bunch of incompatible standards.
> >European televisions used to have better resolution than NA TVs because
> >they had more scan lines. They have more efficient electrical systems
> >because they use a higher voltage than us. A hundred years ago we
> >decided to standardize with 110 and 60 cycle AC. As things progress,
> >standards change, and as long as it is an improvement, it's probably a
> >good thing.
>
> You're probably right but it still ****es me off.
>
> Lou
>

Actually 110 @60Hz isn't necessarily what you get. If I measure the
incoming voltage to my place it's 125VAC.

In article >,
says...
> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> > In article 7>,
> > Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
> >
> >> Boy, do I understand that! In our previous house the only options
> >> for Internet access were either standard dial-up or DSL, both from
> >> the same provider, Qwest, as was our phone service.
> >
> > I'm in a subdivision that was started in 1999 and built out in 2002;
> > Qwest still doesn't have DSL here.
> >
>
> Have you looked into radio waves? The first service I had only required
> a small box that sat on the desk. Unfortunately the people running it
> didn't support it well and it was expensive for what I was getting.
>
> The electric co-op has a deal with a broadband service from one of the
> phone co-ops. You can get the service and they bill you on your electric
> bill. I have their Silver service whish is in the neighborhood of 500
> whatevers down and 250 whatevers up. It's not as fast as cable, but as
> fast as some DSL and is plenty fast for my needs. Costs me about $50/month.
>

Hmm, for $51.99 a month I get 25mpbs down/10mbps up through Cox.

In article >,
says...
> In article >,
> Janet Wilder > wrote:
>
> > >> Boy, do I understand that! In our previous house the only options
> > >> for Internet access were either standard dial-up or DSL, both from
> > >> the same provider, Qwest, as was our phone service.
> > >
> > > I'm in a subdivision that was started in 1999 and built out in
> > > 2002; Qwest still doesn't have DSL here.
> > >
> >
> > Have you looked into radio waves?
>
> Don't need to; my cable company is providing me with broadband. But if
> I had DSL, I could afford to get a "business" account and run my own
> mail server. Cox charges too much for that.
>
>

Contact me about that. You don't necessarily need to setup your own mail
server.

T wrote:

> In article > ,
> says...
> >
> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
> >
> > > jmcquown wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Lou Decruss" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:54:28 -0500, "jmcquown"
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>"Chemiker" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >>>> As many of you know, here in the US of A there is a mandatory
> > > >>>> conversion from analog to digital TV transmissions. Well, all
> > > >>>> the TV's in MY house are analog. One of my options is to
> > > >>>> abandon my current provider and subscribe with his
> > > >>>> main competitor. These are, of course, Direct TV and
> > > >>>> Dish Network.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>Or you could just go to the website, get a coupon and order a
> > > >>>converter box
> > > >>>to convert your Analog to Digital.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>http://www.instantgrant-search.com/g...to-give-money-
> > > for-
> > > >>>converting-your-analog-tv/
> > > >>
> > > >> I heard on the radio last night the funding for the coupons has
> > > >> run out and they trying to figure out if they may extend the
> > > >> changeover. The whole thing is stupid to begin with.
> > > >>
> > > >> Lou
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree, it's stupid to force people to go digital.
> > >
> > > You don't have to go digital, so there's no force; you can stop
> > > watching television. If you choose to watch television, you can
> > > use the technology that is in use.
> > >
> > > > It's not like analog television hasn't been the norm for the
> > > last nearly 70 years.
> > >
> > > Do you hate power steering and power brakes, too? Non-power
> > > steering and brakes were the norm for a long time, too.
> > >
> > > > I can only imagine government kow-towed to the cable
> > > > and satellite TV lobby. Who else cares about how we receive
> > > > television signals?
> > >
> > > Yeah! Imagine someone wanting a better signal! Bah!
> >
> >
> > The present NTSC standard was established IIRC in August of 1941. A TV
from
> > that era (and there were a few around) would work today okay in
receiving
> > broadcasts, as would a tube - type set from today work okay back in
1941...
> >
> > Our color broadcast standard (the RCA electronic system was adopted in
the
> > early 50's, US color broadcasting began in late 1954... the first color
sets
> > were a thousand bux, equivalent to over 7K in today's money) is inferior
to
> > the PAL and SECAM European color broadcast standards that they adopted
in
> > the late 60's...heck, even the early European b/w TV broadcast standards
> > were better than ours.
> >
> > So the US TV has lagged technologically for a long time, best to start
anew.
> > We badly lag in cellphone and broadband so at least we'll have somewhat
> > decent TV quality...
> >
> > Lemme tell ya, I pooh - poohed the whole digital TV thang until
recently,
> > then a friend bought a new 42" Sony - yowzah! And a Blu-Ray DVD looks
> > incredible on HDTV, too...I'm hooked! The new TV technologies are so
> > superior to the old that there's not even any comparison, digital blows
> > analog awaaaaay...it's like comparing 78's to CD's
> >
> >
> > "Flat television sets that you can HANG on the WALL!" are one of the few
> > futuristic Jetson - type things that has eventually come to
> > fruition...atomic cars and vacation trips to the moon and food pills we
can
> > do without. Flat - screen HDTV's are one of the few things that someone
> > from 50 years ago transported to today might truly be enthralled by...
> >
> >
> >
>
> When you think about it, a lot of sci-fi has become reality. Look at the
> communicators on Star Trek. Don't our cell phones remind you of those a
> bit?


Well, sure, but the idea of portable telephony has been around since
Motorola's WWII "handie - talkie", e.g. the Walkie - Talkie...someone from,
say, 1959, might be initially amazed by our cell phones but the idea would
not be totally alien to them, their minds would quickly grasp the concept of
modern cellphones, even the internet (computers existed back then). Now I
think that someone from a half - century ago *would* be amazed that Soviet
Communism fell (and peacefully) - and that we have a black President. These
are my "just - for - fun" speculations, naturally... ;-)

"Science FICTION becomes science FACT!"...it's fun to read prognostications
about the future from 50 or so years ago.


> As to pricing for HD sets, I'm seeing the 32 inch models now dropping
> into the $300 to $400 range. The 42 inch models go for $500 to $800 now
> too.


That friend's Sony IIRC she got for $800.00 - and they threw in a free TV
stand, too. She asked for a deal and she got it (from ABT Electronics here
in Glenview, north of Chicago, an electronics retailer that is apparently
doing very well despite the poor economy).


--
Best
Greg

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> On Fri 09 Jan 2009 06:09:06p, Arri London told us...
>
> >
> >
> > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 06:45:52p, Arri London told us...
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 01:54:31p, Janet Wilder told us...
> >> >>
> >> >> > George Shirley wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> We had fiber optic cable in Saudi Arabia twenty-three years ago
> >> >> >> along with fiber optic telephones, burglar and fire alarms.
> >> >> >> Advantage to moving into the 20th century over there, you get to
> get
> >> >> >> the latest stuff. Canadian Bell made billions of dollars
> installing
> >> >> >> all that glass.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> AT&T says they will get around to it one of these days. Hah!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm served by AT&T, too. I have asked them about upgrading our
> lines
> >> >> > for DSL and they pretty much laughed at me. With de-regulation,
> they
> >> >> > don't want to pay for the infer structure and let other companies
> be
> >> >> > able to use what they paid for. We still have one of the few
> >> >> > non-digital switching stations in the universe. Dial up is 19.9 at
> >> >> > it's very fastest. I sometimes expect Lily Tomlin to answer the
> phone
> >> >> > when I dial
> >> >> "O"
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Boy, do I understand that! In our previous house the only options
> for
> >> >> Internet access were either standard dial-up or DSL, both from the
> same
> >> >> provider, Qwest, as was our phone service. I had DSL, but both the
> >> >> speed and quality sucked big time. My current broadband service
> >> >> through Cox is equal to the network at my office. When I work from
> >> >> home and connect to the network at work through a VPN connection, I
> >> >> can't even tell that I'm not sitting at my desk at the office. Our
> >> >> digital phone service, also through Cox, is superior to any that I've
> >> >> ever had.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Wayne Boatwright
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > We've got (Qwest) slow dialup too. Any upgrade would cost a lot for
> us.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Our Cox bundle for cable, broadband, and phone is $99/mo plus taxes.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > That's three times what we are paying now
> >
>
> But exactly what do you have now, and how fast is your internet connection?
>
> --

Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.

On Sat 10 Jan 2009 04:46:48p, Arri London told us...

>
>
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>> On Fri 09 Jan 2009 06:09:06p, Arri London told us...
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 06:45:52p, Arri London told us...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu 08 Jan 2009 01:54:31p, Janet Wilder told us...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > George Shirley wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> We had fiber optic cable in Saudi Arabia twenty-three years
>> >> >> >> ago along with fiber optic telephones, burglar and fire
>> >> >> >> alarms. Advantage to moving into the 20th century over there,
>> >> >> >> you get to
>> get
>> >> >> >> the latest stuff. Canadian Bell made billions of dollars
>> installing
>> >> >> >> all that glass.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> AT&T says they will get around to it one of these days. Hah!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm served by AT&T, too. I have asked them about upgrading our
>> lines
>> >> >> > for DSL and they pretty much laughed at me. With de-regulation,
>> they
>> >> >> > don't want to pay for the infer structure and let other
>> >> >> > companies
>> be
>> >> >> > able to use what they paid for. We still have one of the few
>> >> >> > non-digital switching stations in the universe. Dial up is 19.9
>> >> >> > at it's very fastest. I sometimes expect Lily Tomlin to answer
>> >> >> > the
>> phone
>> >> >> > when I dial
>> >> >> "O"
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Boy, do I understand that! In our previous house the only
>> >> >> options
>> for
>> >> >> Internet access were either standard dial-up or DSL, both from
>> >> >> the
>> same
>> >> >> provider, Qwest, as was our phone service. I had DSL, but both
>> >> >> the speed and quality sucked big time. My current broadband
>> >> >> service through Cox is equal to the network at my office. When I
>> >> >> work from home and connect to the network at work through a VPN
>> >> >> connection, I can't even tell that I'm not sitting at my desk at
>> >> >> the office. Our digital phone service, also through Cox, is
>> >> >> superior to any that I've ever had.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Wayne Boatwright
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > We've got (Qwest) slow dialup too. Any upgrade would cost a lot
>> >> > for
>> us.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Our Cox bundle for cable, broadband, and phone is $99/mo plus taxes.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > That's three times what we are paying now
>> >
>>
>> But exactly what do you have now, and how fast is your internet
>> connection?
>>
>> --
>
> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>

Speed is expensive. I have a minimum of 20 Mbps, but I need it for the
work I do at home. If I didn't have high speed, I wouldn't be allowed to
work from home at all. Also, all services are digital.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Saturday, 01(I)/10(X)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 1dys 6hrs 13mins
************************************************** **********************
Almost went crazy. Would have been a real short trip.
************************************************** **********************

blake murphy > wrote:

>fOn Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:42:11 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

>> The coupon will cover $20 of the cost of a $50 converter.
>> I agree it sucks that a TV that new might not already have

>mine was forty towards sixty.

Ack, yes it is forty.

Steve

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> On Sat 10 Jan 2009 04:46:48p, Arri London told us...
>

<snippage>

> >> >
> >> > That's three times what we are paying now
> >> >
> >>
> >> But exactly what do you have now, and how fast is your internet
> >> connection?
> >>
> >> --
> >
> > Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
> >
>
> Speed is expensive. I have a minimum of 20 Mbps, but I need it for the
> work I do at home. If I didn't have high speed, I wouldn't be allowed to
> work from home at all. Also, all services are digital.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright


My ISP has been arguing with Qwest for years about the deliberate
slowing down of services to residential customers. They haven't got as
far as taking them to court but they'd probably lose. Qwest can afford
more lawyers. The PRC doesn't give a toss as long as someone pays the
taxes.

My normal editing work doesn't depend on that sort of speed; just the
disorganisational skills of the people who send me the work

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:46:48 -0700, Arri London >
wrote:

>Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.

Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
you're downloading something and how often is that?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:46:48 -0700, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>
> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
> you're downloading something and how often is that?

I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more. Up
until a few years ago, every new computer came with a 56K modem built
in. Now, with so many people having high speed connections, phone
modems are going the way of floppy drives and the dodo bird. New PCs
don't have them anymore, except as an option.

Many years back we bought a new Mac with a builtin 56K modem. Hot damn!
It was slower than the old external 33.6K. :-( I went poking through
the instructions, and it gave an easy way to configure to get 33.6K. It
was much faster, but more importantly, I didn't get disconnected every
few minutes. It was rock solid. When I connected at 56K, it took
forever to connect. First it would try 56K, and when that didn't work,
it would just keep slowing down until it could connect. I would get
somewhere between 41K and 44K. But after a few minutes I would get
disconnected. Our phone line just wouldn't support 56K. I didn't
bother calling the phone company. It was a voice line, they don't fix
data problems on a voice line.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:

> Many years back we bought a new Mac with a builtin 56K modem. Hot
> damn! It was slower than the old external 33.6K. :-( I went
> poking through the instructions, and it gave an easy way to configure
> to get 33.6K. It was much faster, but more importantly, I didn't get
> disconnected every few minutes. It was rock solid. When I connected
> at 56K, it took forever to connect. First it would try 56K, and when
> that didn't work, it would just keep slowing down until it could
> connect. I would get somewhere between 41K and 44K. But after a few
> minutes I would get disconnected. Our phone line just wouldn't
> support 56K. I didn't bother calling the phone company. It was a
> voice line, they don't fix data problems on a voice line.

Argh. I couldn't take dialup anymore. I'd be disconnected every
other minute sometimes. Finally, though I didn't want to drop this
local company, I had to. They told me it was probably my phone
line. I'm going to have my house rewired, just so I could still have
dialup? No. Went with cable and haven't looked back.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:.

> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > Many years back we bought a new Mac with a builtin 56K modem. Hot
> > damn! It was slower than the old external 33.6K. :-( I went
> > poking through the instructions, and it gave an easy way to configure
> > to get 33.6K. It was much faster, but more importantly, I didn't get
> > disconnected every few minutes. It was rock solid. When I connected
> > at 56K, it took forever to connect. First it would try 56K, and when
> > that didn't work, it would just keep slowing down until it could
> > connect. I would get somewhere between 41K and 44K. But after a few
> > minutes I would get disconnected. Our phone line just wouldn't
> > support 56K. I didn't bother calling the phone company. It was a
> > voice line, they don't fix data problems on a voice line.
>
> Argh. I couldn't take dialup anymore. I'd be disconnected every
> other minute sometimes. Finally, though I didn't want to drop this
> local company, I had to. They told me it was probably my phone
> line. I'm going to have my house rewired, just so I could still have
> dialup? No. Went with cable and haven't looked back.
>


Jeez, that lame "it's your phone line" excuse was what WebTV used to tell me
every time I called them with a problem, it was their stock answer, lol.
And that was over a decade ago now...


--
Best
Greg

In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > Many years back we bought a new Mac with a builtin 56K modem. Hot
> > damn! It was slower than the old external 33.6K. :-( I went
> > poking through the instructions, and it gave an easy way to configure
> > to get 33.6K. It was much faster, but more importantly, I didn't get
> > disconnected every few minutes. It was rock solid. When I connected
> > at 56K, it took forever to connect. First it would try 56K, and when
> > that didn't work, it would just keep slowing down until it could
> > connect. I would get somewhere between 41K and 44K. But after a few
> > minutes I would get disconnected. Our phone line just wouldn't
> > support 56K. I didn't bother calling the phone company. It was a
> > voice line, they don't fix data problems on a voice line.
>
> Argh. I couldn't take dialup anymore. I'd be disconnected every
> other minute sometimes. Finally, though I didn't want to drop this
> local company, I had to. They told me it was probably my phone
> line. I'm going to have my house rewired, just so I could still have
> dialup? No. Went with cable and haven't looked back.

Might have been for the best. Even if you rewired your house, that
doesn't mean the problem was there. Lots of times it's up in the wires.
And they won't fix those problems. If you complain, they'll run a voice
test. If the line passes, they're done.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:
>
>>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
>> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
>> you're downloading something and how often is that?
>
> I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.

I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to
watch the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went
to 1200, 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could get
a 56K (Fax modem) for $30.


> until a few years ago, every new computer came with a 56K modem built
> in. Now, with so many people having high speed connections, phone
> modems are going the way of floppy drives and the dodo bird. New PCs
> don't have them anymore, except as an option.

My system is 4 years old and it came without a floppy drive. What good
are they anyway? Neither the drives or the disks last more than a few
years. Now you can get memory sticks that can hold more data than some
people's hard drives, and they are cheap.

On Sun 11 Jan 2009 04:18:00p, Dave Smith told us...

> Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>>>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>>> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
>>> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
>>> you're downloading something and how often is that?
>>
>> I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
>
> I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to
> watch the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went
> to 1200, 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could get
> a 56K (Fax modem) for $30.
>
>
>> until a few years ago, every new computer came with a 56K modem built
>> in. Now, with so many people having high speed connections, phone
>> modems are going the way of floppy drives and the dodo bird. New PCs
>> don't have them anymore, except as an option.
>
> My system is 4 years old and it came without a floppy drive. What good
> are they anyway? Neither the drives or the disks last more than a few
> years. Now you can get memory sticks that can hold more data than some
> people's hard drives, and they are cheap.

My first modem was only 300 baud, built in to my Kaypro computer. Hell, I
could type faster. <g> I soon bought a 2400 baud external and paid
several hundred for it. This was pre-PC days. After buying my first PC, I
went through all the speed evolution. Had good 56K for a while before
going with DSL, now cable.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Sunday, 01(I)/11(XI)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 7hrs 15mins
************************************************** **********************
Indifference is the only sure defense. --Jody Powell
************************************************** **********************

On Jan 12, 10:18*am, Dave Smith
> wrote:
> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> >>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
> >> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. *Combined with tabbed
> >> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
> >> you're downloading something and how often is that?
>
> > I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
>
> I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to
> watch the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went
> to 1200, 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could get
> a 56K (Fax modem) *for $30.
>
> > until a few years ago, every new computer came with a 56K modem built
> > in. *Now, with so many people having high speed connections, phone
> > modems are going the way of floppy drives and the dodo bird. *New PCs
> > don't have them anymore, except as an option.
>
> My system is 4 years old and it came without a floppy drive. What good
> are they anyway? Neither the drives or the disks last more than a few
> years. Now you can get memory sticks that can hold more data than some
> people's hard drives, and they are cheap.

My computer is about ten years old now and I have 2-floppy drives.
I back up everything on floppy disc, including all my posts so they
are always on hand to be used.

You should see my floppy discs, they fill the kitchen.

I *always* have my computer on when I am cooking and my alarm clock is
set to US time so I don't miss anything.

And so that my SO doesn't try to use *my* computer, I have a rather
complicated password.
Anyway, girls should stick to their knitting (:

Call it a flashback to my special forces days when I needed to keep my
stuff secret.

--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

You will travel through the valley of rejection;
you will reside in the land of morning mists...and you will find your
home,
though it will not be where you left it.

In article > ,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
> >
> >>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
> >> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
> >> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
> >> you're downloading something and how often is that?
> >
> > I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
>
> I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to
> watch the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went
> to 1200, 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could get
> a 56K (Fax modem) for $30.


300, 1200, 2400, 14.4 33.6 and 56. For the first three, I didn't even
have a computer, just a dumb terminal.

I'm using DSL now.

> > until a few years ago, every new computer came with a 56K modem built
> > in. Now, with so many people having high speed connections, phone
> > modems are going the way of floppy drives and the dodo bird. New PCs
> > don't have them anymore, except as an option.
>
> My system is 4 years old and it came without a floppy drive. What good
> are they anyway? Neither the drives or the disks last more than a few
> years. Now you can get memory sticks that can hold more data than some
> people's hard drives, and they are cheap.

I remember when computers didn't have hard disks, and you booted and ran
from floppies.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Sun 11 Jan 2009 05:32:34p, Dan Abel told us...

> In article > ,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>> >> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
>> >> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
>> >> you're downloading something and how often is that?
>> >
>> > I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
>>
>> I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to
>> watch the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went
>> to 1200, 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could get
>> a 56K (Fax modem) for $30.
>
>
> 300, 1200, 2400, 14.4 33.6 and 56. For the first three, I didn't even
> have a computer, just a dumb terminal.
>
> I'm using DSL now.
>
>> > until a few years ago, every new computer came with a 56K modem built
>> > in. Now, with so many people having high speed connections, phone
>> > modems are going the way of floppy drives and the dodo bird. New PCs
>> > don't have them anymore, except as an option.
>>
>> My system is 4 years old and it came without a floppy drive. What good
>> are they anyway? Neither the drives or the disks last more than a few
>> years. Now you can get memory sticks that can hold more data than some
>> people's hard drives, and they are cheap.
>
> I remember when computers didn't have hard disks, and you booted and ran
> from floppies.
>

My first computer (not a PC) had a 10MB hard drive and a 5-1/4" floppy.
Boy did I pay dear for that hard drive. :-)

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Sunday, 01(I)/11(XI)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 6hrs 12mins
************************************************** **********************
I'm not paranoid! Which of my enemies told you this?
************************************************** **********************

Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

>On Sun 11 Jan 2009 04:18:00p, Dave Smith told us...

>> My first modem was 600 baud....

>My first modem was only 300 baud [..]

And I used to use Quaker Oats boxes connected by twine.

Steve

On Sun 11 Jan 2009 05:52:50p, Steve Pope told us...

> Wayne Boatwright > wrote:
>
>>On Sun 11 Jan 2009 04:18:00p, Dave Smith told us...
>
>>> My first modem was 600 baud....
>
>>My first modem was only 300 baud [..]
>
> And I used to use Quaker Oats boxes connected by twine.
>
> Steve
>

My first radio was a crystal set with a cat's whisker.

--
Wayne Boatwright
(correct the spelling of "geemail" to reply)
************************************************** **********************
Date: Sunday, 01(I)/11(XI)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Countdown till Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
1wks 5hrs 48mins
************************************************** **********************
'They sicken of the calm who know the storm.' - Dorothy Parker
************************************************** **********************

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:46:48 -0700, Arri London >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>>
>> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back.

<snip>

> I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.

I don't think you can, short of the Goodwill thrift store. I browse the
modem section at Fry's occasionally, and haven't seen anything under 56k
for years and years -- perhaps a decade.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups -
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>
> My first computer (not a PC) had a 10MB hard drive and a 5-1/4" floppy.
> Boy did I pay dear for that hard drive. :-)


My first computer was a Coco 3 from Radio Crap. My first PC was an XT,
and I was the envy of my computer geek friends with a 20 Meg hard drive
that cost $430. Now you can get a a brand new computer with 20 gigs for
less than that.

Gregory Morrow wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:.

>> Argh. I couldn't take dialup anymore. I'd be disconnected every other
>> minute sometimes. Finally, though I didn't want to drop this local
>> company, I had to. They told me it was probably my phone line. I'm
>> going to have my house rewired, just so I could still have dialup? No.
>> Went with cable and haven't looked back.
>>
>>
>
> Jeez, that lame "it's your phone line" excuse was what WebTV used to tell
> me every time I called them with a problem, it was their stock answer,
> lol. And that was over a decade ago now...

On the other hand, whatever it took to wean you from WebTV was a Good
Thing.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups -
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

Dave Smith wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
>>
>>>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>>> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
>>> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
>>> you're downloading something and how often is that?
>>
>> I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
>
> I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to watch
> the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went to 1200,
> 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could get a 56K (Fax
> modem) for $30.

And there was also 14.4 and 28.8 in there.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups -
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> My first modem was only 300 baud, built in to my Kaypro computer. Hell, I
> could type faster. <g> I soon bought a 2400 baud external and paid
> several hundred for it. This was pre-PC days. After buying my first PC,
> I went through all the speed evolution. Had good 56K for a while before
> going with DSL, now cable.

I have a 1200 baud Hayes SmartModem on the shelf as a museum piece.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups -
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sun 11 Jan 2009 04:18:00p, Dave Smith told us...
>
>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>>> Dialup at 26.4, included in the monthly phone bill.
>>>> Spring for a 56K modem and you won't look back. Combined with tabbed
>>>> browsing, the only time you won't know you're on broadband is when
>>>> you're downloading something and how often is that?
>>> I don't know if you can even buy anything slower than 56K any more.
>> I haven't seen any slower than 56K for years. It was interesting to
>> watch the evolution. My first modem was 600 baud.... $250. Then I went
>> to 1200, 2400, and then to 56.... $250 each time. Later on you could get
>> a 56K (Fax modem) for $30.
>>
>>
>>> until a few years ago, every new computer came with a 56K modem built
>>> in. Now, with so many people having high speed connections, phone
>>> modems are going the way of floppy drives and the dodo bird. New PCs
>>> don't have them anymore, except as an option.
>> My system is 4 years old and it came without a floppy drive. What good
>> are they anyway? Neither the drives or the disks last more than a few
>> years. Now you can get memory sticks that can hold more data than some
>> people's hard drives, and they are cheap.
>
> My first modem was only 300 baud, built in to my Kaypro computer. Hell, I
> could type faster. <g> I soon bought a 2400 baud external and paid
> several hundred for it. This was pre-PC days. After buying my first PC, I
> went through all the speed evolution. Had good 56K for a while before
> going with DSL, now cable.
>
Yup, had a 300 baud modem on my Osborne One, bought in 1982,later
upgraded to 1200, then moved to an XT pc with 36K, then up to 56K. Every
since that ISP folded I have been on DSL. I do miss that old Osborne
though, handy to tote around, looked like a portable sewing machine.
Used 5.25 inch floppies, two of them, 90K each. I could swap floppies on
the fly and get a good bit of work done. So much easier with today's
computers.