Light bulb, thy doom is near!

Page 3 of 4  
wrote:

The 56kb was not a federal regulation it was simply the limitation of one channel of a T-1 line (actually 64kb) minus the overhead necessary to move data on it. That limit still exists on a dial up line. You do quite a bit better with ADSL but that is a different breed of cat and the data is not moving through the switched network. It gets split out before you get to the switching equipment.
I have been away from the ATM business for 20 years but I would be surprised if they are still running on SDLC lines. I would expect them to be on the network with the rest of the bank system and going out in their broad band traffic. I really don't know for sure tho. I just threw away a couple of old bisync modems a while ago because I couldn't get a bite on Ebay. I also had a 9600 BPS modem that was either bisync or async. All of them could either be leased or dialup.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:32:27 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

No, there is/was an FCC regulation disallowing 56K (53K max for V.92). The 56K "limit" isn't T-1 speed (1.5Mb) limited, rather audio channel limited (8kHz x 16b).

Depends on the ATM, I'm sure. The ATM at the QuickieMart (I'm sure the vast majority of them) are dialup. At one time they were 1200bps, but they could easily be 2400bps, now. The issue is connect speed, so the lines can be turned around quickly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:39:14 -0600, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

That is the whole T-1 and you can rent one but a dial up line only gets one channel or 64kb of that. The 56kb is really only coming towards you, Upload is still V.34 speeds.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:46:50 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Sure, but that's not the point. T-1 is a _result_ of the 8Kx16b voice channel, not the other way around. The V.92 speed limit is caused by the limitations in the voice channel.

True, (53K max down) for V.92. There are other modulation schemes that balance it more. It doesn't matter much anymore because data over voice is pretty much dead. Where it isn't, speed doesn't matter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, the "original" modems were 110bps, or in the case of IBM, 134.5bps.

53K bps, due to power levels, thus cross-talk, required for the extra symbols needed to get to 56K bps.

Right. The line negotiations (those buzzes and beeps at the beginning) for the simpler modems save more line time than the few bits transmitted, cost. I would imagine the number of 56K modems in use is quite small.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 17, 10:38am, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Damn, you guys are dragging me through times I had long since tried to forget. I had an online service company back in the mid 70's that I used to run order entry inventory and accounting services with. Had one client that wanted to run multiple users in different cities over the communications lines. I did some of the first experiments with multiplexing multiple 1200 baud lines over 19.2, and 56k modems using mini-computers. Worked pretty well until ma-bell decided to reconfigure how they billed for their leased lines. When they went from point to point billing as the crow flies to point to exchange to exchange to point billing they killed me. Communications costs went up from 500% to 1000% overnight. Multiplexing helped some but the costs of the equipment were so high back then that I eventually sold the software to my customers, helped them setup their own systems and closed down.
It was a time when the cost of the computers was coming down very fast while the communications costs skyrocketed. As a result I was able to setup my clients with their own systems including the software and have them break even and in some cases save money within 12 months. My clients bought all of my equipment and I was able to shut down the business after 8 years with all my debts on my equipment paid off. Can't say the same about a lot of other service companies of that time period.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Sorry. ;-)

Adtran in Huntsville, AL made a pile of money in those days, building all sorts of widgets to combine links. Evidently there's still money to be made because they're still at it and have gotten quite big.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 17, 7:25pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

That doesn't look too sorry to me. The times weren't too bad though. It was really pretty good times to be on the cutting edge of an emerging technology. Much more exciting than today with advances being made at breakneck speed.

The amount of data being transferred was miniscule by today's standards but even with the advances in bandwidth the amount of data has still maintained the lead and they will always be playing catchup.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Sorry. ;-) ;-)

Advances are still being made, just not there.

Not so sure about that. At least the best Internet speeds are outstripping the content (I'm still stuck <768K). OTOH, disk space has outstripped everything else in the computer. It's past the point where hard disks might just as well be write-once. I've had a 500MB external (two, including the backup) for over four years. It's not close to being full (though I'll likely replace them soon).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:19:54 -0600, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

^G dammit!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Seems to me to be a fuss about very little. They might be a little harder to find and who knows about the price, but even standard 100 watt bulbs are not going to disappear from the market -- at least for the next couple of years -- since Canada has pushed back its phase-out date. Just order what you want on line or arrange to buy some in Canada.
And, if you look, you can find virtually any type of electric light bulb that's ever been made including replicas of Edison's carbon filament lamps. It's always been true in lighting that no new light source has ever completely replaced any of the older sources. Whale oil is a bit hard to find these days, but candles are cheap and plentiful as are gas and kerosene lanterns. Just buy what you want.
But, who wants to use 100 watt bulbs that burn out frequently, fail when jiggled, are hot enough to burn skin and suck energy? I changed to CFLs 7 years ago for table and floor lamps. They work fine and there have been no failures and no problems -- even with the CFL 3-way in the reading light. I use some reflector halogen and a couple of rough-service incandescents in the garage door openers and there is no planned or even proposed legislation to get rid of those.
So, go ahead, argue the politics although why you do that on alt.home.repair is beyond me. But, from a home repair/lighting standpoint, I don't see that much will change come 2012.
Tomsic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm in the process of building a still to manufacture black market, 100w lightbulbs during the bulb prohibition.
They will be called Moonshiner 100s.
The bulbs will be made in my USA still, and sent to a foreign country to be placed inside of full bottles of imported whiskey, where they will be well hidden. After you drink the contents of the bottle, you'll be able to see your way well enough to remove your head from the toilet when you sober up.
This is called American progress!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I bought a case of 100 100-Watt bulbs this summer. Those should last several years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

100 light bulbs would last me the rest of my life. Lighting is not a significant part of my energy usage. We have task lighting where we need it and motion detected lighting when we are walking around. Most of the time the house is pretty dark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lighting is about 12% of a home's energy use, so it doesn't stand out on the electric bill. But, as we've seen, energy prices are rising and that's not likely to change anytime soon. So, those stocks of 100 watt bulbs get increasingly expensive to operate every time one is put into a socket. Already, in most places, it's cheaper to toss them than to use them.
Tomsic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since the ones thrown away use no electricity, you're right, even if tautological. For those of us who actually like to see, we'll just keep screwing them in, thanks. Reminder to self: Order another 100 100W bulbs from 1000bulbs.com.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I might believe that 12% number for those house that you can see from space at night. It sounds awful high for my house. I don't really have any 100 watt bulbs here. I do have CFLs where they make sense but sometimes I just want an incandescent.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

What you WANT is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, if the EPA says it is so then it is the gospel truth and you better believe it.
I think I am going to puke on that statement.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It would have been nice of you to consider the full statement. EPA's number was only one of several estimates that I saw -- all in the same 10-15% range, so the EPA is probably right. Yes, I get it that you don't like the EPA, but why turn every statement that refers to the EPA, even when correct, into a biased political rant?
Tomsic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.