>
>
> TIA

> Okay,
>
> This may seem like a lame question but...
>
> Is ANYONE doing any research to increase the performance of a
> "dial-up" modem beyond the so-called 56kbps limit?
>
> TIA

>   Your question suggest you don't yet know the basic science
> nor the reason why these limits exist.  In simplest times, the
> naive complained that copper wire was a speed limiting
> factor.  They were wrong.  Speed limiting factor for modems
> (on POTS systems) is the switching computer inside the telco's
> toll station.  The fundamental science was defined by Claude
> Shannon in the Bell Labs in 1948 (back when the Labs were run
> by people who had science backgrounds).  To you, this means
> that 56K will be the best speed theoretically possible without
> completely changing hardware in that switching station
> computer.
>
>  BTW, what made 56K modems able to do up to 53K?  Eliminate
> only some hardware in the switching computer - an A/D
> converter.
>
>   Of course Clayton Christensen defined the underlying concept
> in his book Innovator's Dilemma.  Disruptive innovations
> simply change your question to be myopic and irrelevant.
> British Telephone was demonstrating DSL in 1981.  IOW long
> before even 56K existed the telephone switching computer was
> being obsoleted by a disruptive technology.  That means
> scrapping the entire $multi-million computer that most
> switching stations only replaced in the 1980s and 1990s.  You
> can see why Baby Bells so feared broadband and why Congress
> had to pass the 1996 Communications Act to force them to
> innovate.
>
>   Isenberg best defined this in his AT&T Bell Labs paper about
> the 'Smart and Dumb' networks.  The Dumb network being a
> superior solution.  But again, AT&T so routinely stifled
> innovation that Isenberg could not even put that paper on his
> own web site.  You can find it through  http://www.isen.com .
> IOW that 'easy to read' paper may better demonstrate why your
> 56K modem question is about promoting obsolete technology.
>
>   I can't say enough about the concepts promoted by both
> Isenberg and Christensen.  Concepts that too many computer
> users still don't appreciate.  But underlying your original
> question are technical limits defined by Shannon's epic paper
> "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".  So understated and
> yet so revolutionary to digital communication.
>
> rdlebreton wrote:
>
>>Okay,
>>
>>This may seem like a lame question but...
>>
>>Is ANYONE doing any research to increase the performance of a
>>"dial-up" modem beyond the so-called 56kbps limit?
>>
>>TIA

> I recall that for a long time 1200 baud modems were considered the
> maximum speed theoretically possible, then 2.4, 14.4, 28.8 and then 56k.
> It is somewhat off-point to talk about central-office equipment since
> dialup modems are POTS devices; only the ISP's CO gear needed upgrading
> to support 56K, not the end users'.  Did Shannon actually say that 56k
> was the best POTS could do?  Speeds have gone up as compression and
> modulations schemes have been improved (and the cost of implementing
> them has gone down.)
>
> I agree that there's not much incentive to up POTS modem speed with DSL
> now available though I'd guess that lots of work is always being done on
> better modulation and compression schemes for all sorts of wired,
> wireless and optical communications.
>
> w_tom wrote:
>
> >   Your question suggest you don't yet know the basic science
> > nor the reason why these limits exist.  In simplest times, the
> > naive complained that copper wire was a speed limiting
> > factor.  They were wrong.  Speed limiting factor for modems
> > (on POTS systems) is the switching computer inside the telco's
> > toll station.  The fundamental science was defined by Claude
> > Shannon in the Bell Labs in 1948 (back when the Labs were run
> > by people who had science backgrounds).  To you, this means
> > that 56K will be the best speed theoretically possible without
> > completely changing hardware in that switching station
> > computer.
> >
> >  BTW, what made 56K modems able to do up to 53K?  Eliminate
> > only some hardware in the switching computer - an A/D
> > converter.
> >
> >   Of course Clayton Christensen defined the underlying concept
> > in his book Innovator's Dilemma.  Disruptive innovations
> > simply change your question to be myopic and irrelevant.
> > British Telephone was demonstrating DSL in 1981.  IOW long
> > before even 56K existed the telephone switching computer was
> > being obsoleted by a disruptive technology.  That means
> > scrapping the entire $multi-million computer that most
> > switching stations only replaced in the 1980s and 1990s.  You
> > can see why Baby Bells so feared broadband and why Congress
> > had to pass the 1996 Communications Act to force them to
> > innovate.
> >
> >   Isenberg best defined this in his AT&T Bell Labs paper about
> > the 'Smart and Dumb' networks.  The Dumb network being a
> > superior solution.  But again, AT&T so routinely stifled
> > innovation that Isenberg could not even put that paper on his
> > own web site.  You can find it through  http://www.isen.com .
> > IOW that 'easy to read' paper may better demonstrate why your
> > 56K modem question is about promoting obsolete technology.
> >
> >   I can't say enough about the concepts promoted by both
> > Isenberg and Christensen.  Concepts that too many computer
> > users still don't appreciate.  But underlying your original
> > question are technical limits defined by Shannon's epic paper
> > "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".  So understated and
> > yet so revolutionary to digital communication.
> >
> > rdlebreton wrote:
> >
> >>Okay,
> >>
> >>This may seem like a lame question but...
> >>
> >>Is ANYONE doing any research to increase the performance of a
> >>"dial-up" modem beyond the so-called 56kbps limit?
> >>
> >>TIA