Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/retro-analog-dial-up-modem-question.20541/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Retro analog dial-up modem question

Xebec

Well-known member
For those with analog experience/exposure —

Analog dial-up modems ended up at about 33.6 kbps bi-directional speed on pure analog phone lines, and ultimately 56 / 48 kbps (down/up) on hybrid connections (digital connection on the “ISP” end).

With 20+ years of advances in modulation and other techs, is there any technology or technique today that could allow higher speeds over the same line connections (“POTS”) that these analog modems operated?
 
DSL uses the same copper POTs twisted pair. I think that can do 100 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up. The main limit as I remember it is the typical distance to the DSLAM (the line card that muxes it into something faster. DSLAMs were typically located in exchanges so 1-2km of copper sets the top end for speed.
 
DSL uses the same copper POTs twisted pair. I think that can do 100 Mbps down and 10 Mbps up. The main limit as I remember it is the typical distance to the DSLAM (the line card that muxes it into something faster. DSLAMs were typically located in exchanges so 1-2km of copper sets the top end for speed.

In addition to the DSL technology, the old T1 (1.54 Mbps) and T3 (44.736 Mbps) standards can also achieve higher speed over the copper wires.
 
In addition to the DSL technology, the old T1 (1.54 Mbps) and T3 (44.736 Mbps) standards can also achieve higher speed over the copper wires.
T1 used high quality lines, not shared with others. There was often a high cost to getting it installed because they pulled a new line. ISDN was around for a while with 128k and even 256k, running on ordinary lines. My household got its first taste of "always on" internet with ISDN around 1995. It was not just faster and symmetrical, but it was a surprising change in behavior when you did not need to dial in.
DSL was more modern modulation technology than either T1 or ISDN, with full use of DSP not simply equalization. It ran a lot faster for homes, though with slow upload speeds. A lot of cable modems are like that due to several generations of DOCSIM that depended on a trick to go upstream below a filter that kept everything downstream running above 50MHz, so the upstream was not only at a lower bandwidth with more interference, but it was also shared at the first distribution box.

So, DSL is definitely the answer to Xebec's question and over 25 years old in field deployments.
 
In addition to the DSL technology, the old T1 (1.54 Mbps) and T3 (44.736 Mbps) standards can also achieve higher speed over the copper wires.
Thanks and understood - Let me reframe a little -- I'm curious if faster speeds would be possible with today's tech, within the FULL restriction set of a POTS analog voice connection. IIRC POTs voice is limited to 300-3400 hz frequencies. (Unless DLS or T1+ can work within this span of frequencies solely?).

Full context - could I direct dial a neighbors house and enjoy a "faster than 33.6 kbps / 56K" connection over traditional POTs copper?
 
Last edited:
Full context - could I direct dial a neighbors house and enjoy a "faster than 33.6 kbps / 56K" connection over traditional POTs copper?
I believe fastest speed of POTs copper would be dependent on the local wire quality and distance from your houses to the local switching building. Alternatively, do you have line-of-sight between your homes?
 
Thanks and understood - Let me reframe a little -- I'm curious if faster speeds would be possible with today's tech, within the FULL restriction set of a POTS analog voice connection. IIRC POTs voice is limited to 300-3400 hz frequencies. (Unless DLS or T1+ can work within this span of frequencies solely?).

Full context - could I direct dial a neighbors house and enjoy a "faster than 33.6 kbps / 56K" connection over traditional POTs copper?


"could I direct dial a neighbors house and enjoy a "faster than 33.6 kbps / 56K" connection over traditional POTs copper?"

Probably not. The telephone switching system, like the Lucent/Nokia 5ESS, will block or ignore whatever it can't support. Another common scenario today is that at certain point of the "phone" or the "wire" connection between you and your neighbor, it is converted to digital and transmitted via fiber optic cables and related equipments. There is no pure home run copper wire between you and your counterpart.
 
Full context - could I direct dial a neighbors house and enjoy a "faster than 33.6 kbps / 56K" connection over traditional POTs copper?
For the old telephone copper, upgrading the electronics probably won't help. The frequency on those wires is so slow that the DSP algorithms on them became effectively perfect years ago.

When you say"dial a neighbor" are you meaning just a free choice of anyone in your neighborhood, not a dedicated line to one neighbor? The phone company is not set up to do more than DSL, connected through the nearest switch, which does not care whether they are near or far. Every home has to go through a DSL modem before it reaches the switch and those treat all the inputs pretty much equal.

But a dedicated link, as others have suggested, use WiFi. So people have experimented with adding directional antennas to WiFi and achieved multiple kilometer range.
 
T1 used high quality lines, not shared with others. There was often a high cost to getting it installed because they pulled a new line. ISDN was around for a while with 128k and even 256k, running on ordinary lines. My household got its first taste of "always on" internet with ISDN around 1995. It was not just faster and symmetrical, but it was a surprising change in behavior when you did not need to dial in.
DSL was more modern modulation technology than either T1 or ISDN, with full use of DSP not simply equalization. It ran a lot faster for homes, though with slow upload speeds. A lot of cable modems are like that due to several generations of DOCSIM that depended on a trick to go upstream below a filter that kept everything downstream running above 50MHz, so the upstream was not only at a lower bandwidth with more interference, but it was also shared at the first distribution box.

So, DSL is definitely the answer to Xebec's question and over 25 years old in field deployments.
A tidbit on DSL in the last mile. T1/T3 may go for many kilometres. DSL, while originally envisioned to go the same, only went for a few KMs to DSLAM, often in the same building. DSL had very poor survivability crossing any analog landline hardware, but analog phone boxes mostly went extinct in the 200X anyway.

If you have a landline, it's mostly digital these days. The digital box will be either in the telecom closet in the building, or on the phone pole somewhere. So, it made little sense to provide DSL, and not digitise the phone switch boxes at the same time.

The real reason DSL held on for so long at all is that phone companies were almost forcefully subscribing everyone onto DSL just to keep landline subscribers around, because they knew 3G will destroy the landline service. So people just had to pay for a landline they did not use anyway, and phone companies made tons, and tons of completely free money on those landlines which sat unused. The ISP guy I know tells that a double digit of any phone company income is just unused connections, which people get for "free" with an apartment, or an office.

But a decade passed, and people realised the absurdity of the situation: you have massive amounts of fibre coming to the building, or neighbourhood, but then you turn it into low grade copper, just to use an over the top copper modem over it, that does every DSP trick in existence to pull SNR. And then, you again turn it into fiber, or UTP5 ethernet. So, expensive DSLAMs and modems flew out of the window.
 
Last edited:
The real reason DSL held on for so long at all is that phone companies were almost forcefully subscribing everyone onto DSL just to keep landline subscribers around, because they knew 3G will destroy the landline service.
And yet there's a stubborn minority of people who continue to demand POTs service for safety reasons - mainly that the exchanges provide both connectivity and DC POWER to the handsets, so the phones work in a power outage. I know that in our neighborhood, AT&T wants to clear the POTS copper runs in favor of running direct fiber through the conduits, but they can't due to the PUC holding due to the concerns of the few.
 
Back
Top