• Re: Bye-Bye Dialup USA

    From kludge@kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) to comp.misc on Mon Aug 18 13:15:34 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
    In comp.misc, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    Further to that, 34 years ago puts their start in 1991, before CD-ROM
    drives became popular in PCs. I think they were giving out floppy disks
    for those first few years.

    Anybody remember seeing an AOL floppy?

    Definitely. Better than CDs because you could just wipe and reuse them.

    Except that they were the worst quality floppies and they failed after
    a while when you did that. I spent some interesting times recovering
    data for a project that used them.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From kludge@kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) to comp.misc on Mon Aug 18 13:19:23 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
    Someone with more US knowledge please correct me, but I think AOL dialup was >a service that ran over the top of your phone service, which you got from >your local phone company. That meant you could dial in from anywhere with a >phone connection.

    All dialup services were like this.

    I called with my modem over a phone line into Panix to get a shell prompt.
    I called with my modem into my machine at work to fix thing that broke.
    You could call from anywhere with a phone connection to anywhere else with
    a phone connectionn as long as you had a modem on either end.

    To move into broadband they couldn't have had a national service like they >did with dialup, they needed the phone company to install DSL modems or
    fiber in your particular area. That means it was (and remains) a very >piecemeal picture based on who offers service in your area. AOL wouldn't
    be bringing anything to the table for that beyond a brand name and access to >a small amount of non-internet content, and it wasn't worth doing that >piecemeal.

    AOL wasn't an ISP and they weren't selling end to end services. That was
    not their business model. They were a multi-user messaging service, and
    when they wanted to provide some other service, they bought companies that provided that service.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From kludge@kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) to comp.misc on Mon Aug 18 13:23:08 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    I've gotten is 36000 a handful of times, and usually I get 31.2 or 33.6
    - very difficult to get a V.90 connection anymore. They seem to have
    done some kind of concentration where they've cheaped out on their phone >lines, doesn't seem to be real T1s anymore.

    Try Panix. I think their pop network is all gone at this point but they
    have dialup lines in NYC and they keep them maintained. With the cost of
    long distance today there's little need for local POPs.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Eli the Bearded@*@eli.users.panix.com to comp.misc on Mon Aug 18 18:25:21 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    In comp.misc, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
    Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
    Definitely. Better than CDs because you could just wipe and reuse them.
    Except that they were the worst quality floppies and they failed after
    a while when you did that. I spent some interesting times recovering
    data for a project that used them.

    I did have the good sense to only use them as scratch disks, mostly for sneaker-net file transfer.

    Elijah
    ------
    certainly had non-zero failure rates
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From InterLinked@usenet@phreaknet.org to comp.misc on Mon Aug 18 15:52:10 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 8/18/2025 1:23 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    I've gotten is 36000 a handful of times, and usually I get 31.2 or 33.6
    - very difficult to get a V.90 connection anymore. They seem to have
    done some kind of concentration where they've cheaped out on their phone
    lines, doesn't seem to be real T1s anymore.

    Try Panix. I think their pop network is all gone at this point but they
    have dialup lines in NYC and they keep them maintained.

    I've already tested them. Panix just resells GlobalPOPs, plus they're considerably more expensive than other ISPs.

    I have yet to find an ISP that isn't reselling GlobalPOPs. There may not
    be any. Even AOL is reselling GlobalPOPs (until they stop next month).

    With the cost of
    long distance today there's little need for local POPs.

    I pay 5c a minute for long-distance, why would I use long-distance
    access numbers to get online?
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Rich@rich@example.invalid to comp.misc on Mon Aug 18 20:04:12 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    On 8/18/2025 1:23 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
    With the cost of long distance today there's little need for local
    POPs.

    I pay 5c a minute for long-distance, why would I use long-distance
    access numbers to get online?

    Scott's post implies he may have one of the more expensive local plans
    that offer's "free long distance" as part of the deal.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From InterLinked@usenet@phreaknet.org to comp.misc on Mon Aug 18 16:58:06 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 8/18/2025 4:04 PM, Rich wrote:
    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    On 8/18/2025 1:23 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
    With the cost of long distance today there's little need for local
    POPs.

    I pay 5c a minute for long-distance, why would I use long-distance
    access numbers to get online?

    Scott's post implies he may have one of the more expensive local plans
    that offer's "free long distance" as part of the deal.

    Verizon only has two such plans, and there is a huge price differential between a basic 1MR or 1FR and their feature plans. They can cost
    anywhere from $45-$55 more per month than paying per-minute. They only
    make sense if you make a *lot* of long-distance calls. And I know many
    folks that have no long-distance service at all.

    Of course, VoIP is cheap, under a cent per minute, but the quality does
    leave something to be desired.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.misc on Mon Aug 18 23:37:37 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 13:15:34 -0400 (EDT), Scott Dorsey wrote:

    Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

    In comp.misc, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    Anybody remember seeing an AOL floppy?

    Definitely. Better than CDs because you could just wipe and reuse them.

    Except that they were the worst quality floppies and they failed after a while when you did that. I spent some interesting times recovering data
    for a project that used them.

    If they were smart, they would have stored their data on those using
    erasure codes. These let you allow for a certain percentage (say 20%, if yourCOre feeling lucky) of the data blocks being bad, yet still being able
    to recover all the data.

    In fact, hasnrCOt there been some format designed along these lines for posting large files on Usenet, as multiple segments with some redundancy
    to allow for segment loss? I keep thinking rCLNZBrCY, but IrCOm not sure if thatrCOs quite right ...
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From kludge@kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) to comp.misc on Mon Aug 18 20:16:32 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    On 8/18/2025 1:23 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    I've gotten is 36000 a handful of times, and usually I get 31.2 or 33.6
    - very difficult to get a V.90 connection anymore. They seem to have
    done some kind of concentration where they've cheaped out on their phone >>> lines, doesn't seem to be real T1s anymore.

    Try Panix. I think their pop network is all gone at this point but they
    have dialup lines in NYC and they keep them maintained.

    I've already tested them. Panix just resells GlobalPOPs, plus they're >considerably more expensive than other ISPs.

    They have competent support people who are well worth paying $10/month for.
    I didn't realize they still resold GlobalPOPs at all; I thought they discontinued that a while ago. But they have their own incoming dialin
    numbers in 212.

    With the cost of
    long distance today there's little need for local POPs.

    I pay 5c a minute for long-distance, why would I use long-distance
    access numbers to get online?

    That's insane! Why do you pay so much?
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From InterLinked@usenet@phreaknet.org to comp.misc on Mon Aug 18 20:53:39 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 8/18/2025 8:16 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    On 8/18/2025 1:23 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    I've gotten is 36000 a handful of times, and usually I get 31.2 or 33.6 >>>> - very difficult to get a V.90 connection anymore. They seem to have
    done some kind of concentration where they've cheaped out on their phone >>>> lines, doesn't seem to be real T1s anymore.

    Try Panix. I think their pop network is all gone at this point but they >>> have dialup lines in NYC and they keep them maintained.

    I've already tested them. Panix just resells GlobalPOPs, plus they're
    considerably more expensive than other ISPs.

    They have competent support people who are well worth paying $10/month for.
    I didn't realize they still resold GlobalPOPs at all; I thought they discontinued that a while ago.

    Seems like everyone has done the opposite - get rid of their own access
    lines and just use GlobalPOPs.

    I don't like it as there's now a single point of failure/bottleneck.

    But they have their own incoming dialin
    numbers in 212.

    Interesting, so their NYC numbers aren't supposed to be GlobalPOPs?

    I just dialed the 212 number on their website and it connected at 31.2,
    and it's GlobalPOPs.

    Do you have a *specific* number that *isn't* GlobalPOPs?

    With the cost of
    long distance today there's little need for local POPs.

    I pay 5c a minute for long-distance, why would I use long-distance
    access numbers to get online?

    That's insane! Why do you pay so much?

    Because it's cheaper than upgrading to the unlimited plans. If you
    wouldn't pay more than that on the per-minute plan, it works out cheaper.

    Verizon has two per-minute long-distance plans, one that is $9 per month
    + 12c per minute and one that is $6 per month + 5c per minute (this is
    the plan I have). Who knows what incredible business logic is behind the
    first one.

    My total phone bill with tax and long-distance usually ranges from
    between $55 and $65 each month. If I had the unlimited plan, it would be
    over $100.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From kludge@kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) to comp.misc on Mon Aug 18 23:55:47 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    But they have their own incoming dialin
    numbers in 212.

    Interesting, so their NYC numbers aren't supposed to be GlobalPOPs?

    I just dialed the 212 number on their website and it connected at 31.2,
    and it's GlobalPOPs.

    Do you have a *specific* number that *isn't* GlobalPOPs?

    I don't know any of the numbers; I haven't used dialup for twenty years.
    But call their support line, they will know. The people on their support
    line actually know about their service.

    That's insane! Why do you pay so much?

    Because it's cheaper than upgrading to the unlimited plans. If you
    wouldn't pay more than that on the per-minute plan, it works out cheaper.

    Perhaps, but if you're using remote dialup, it might pay. Still, if you
    are paying more than two cents a minute within the US you mgith consider
    a different long distance provider.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Nyssa@Nyssa@logicalinsight.net to comp.misc on Tue Aug 19 08:21:57 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/16/2025 8:49 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/15/2025 8:54 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/14/2025 8:19 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    SH wrote:

    On 12/08/2025 13:08, Nyssa wrote:
    Rich wrote:

    Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
    In comp.misc, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    Further to that, 34 years ago puts their start
    in 1991, before CD-ROM drives became popular in
    PCs. I think they were giving out floppy disks
    for those first few years.

    Anybody remember seeing an AOL floppy?

    Definitely. Better than CDs because you could
    just wipe and reuse them.

    https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_1395721 >>>>>>>>>
    Which I did for many an AOL 3.5" floppy. Not for
    anything valuable, but for a "copy file X from
    computer Y to computer Z" use they worked just
    fine.

    The CDROM's were only useful to either join AOL
    (which was never going to happen) or to make
    garden scarecrows.

    I made coasters with them.

    Nyssa, who believe it or not is still on dialup
    (not AOL) and has been for almost 40 years (not the
    same ISPs)


    given the fastest dial up modems are 56 kilobits, it
    must feel really slow viewing websites that rely on
    broadband to fling audio or video or
    Java/SHockwave/Flash at you?

    And downloading software must have taken days?

    Plus my local (rural) phone lines are crap. I get
    ~43Kbps on average. It was better when I lived in the
    Big City.


    If I may ask, which ISP are you using?

    I've been doing some testing with several ISPs lately,
    all of whom seem to resell GlobalPOPs these days
    (including AOL it seems). The top speed I've gotten is
    36000 a handful of times, and usually I get 31.2 or
    33.6 - very difficult to get a V.90 connection
    anymore. They seem to have done some kind of
    concentration where they've cheaped out on their phone
    lines, doesn't seem to be real T1s anymore.

    There weren't many to choose from, and probably even
    fewer now.

    I'm using one called Dialup4Less based somewhere out in
    the Pactific Northwest. The price has doubled since I
    signed up, but still a MUCH better value for me than
    anything else offered around these parts.

    I tried a local access number in my area, and connected
    at 31.2. And sure enough, it appears to be resold
    GlobalPOPs. It doesn't look like Dialup4Less has their
    own dial-up infrastructure.

    Do you mind sharing the specific access number you are
    using, and what speeds you usually connect at? I wonder
    whether all of their access numbers are deficient, or
    just some of them.

    You can find a list of POPs on their website. I'm in the
    804 area code, if that helps.

    I pulled the list of access numbers from the site and
    pulled out all the ones in the 804 area code. There seem
    to be only five of them, and none of the numbers even
    works anymore (a lot of access number lists seem to
    include a fair number of stale numbers). Could you also
    share the prefix of the working number that you use?

    Here are the exchanges I've got in my dialup list
    for kppp:

    926
    451
    991
    518
    415

    I usually use the 991 ones since those are closest
    to me.

    HTH.

    Nyssa, who is not happy that it's raining again today
    since the grass needs mowing

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Nyssa@Nyssa@logicalinsight.net to comp.misc on Tue Aug 19 08:25:31 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    Scott Dorsey wrote:

    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    I've gotten is 36000 a handful of times, and usually I get
    31.2 or 33.6 - very difficult to get a V.90 connection
    anymore. They seem to have done some kind of concentration
    where they've cheaped out on their phone lines, doesn't
    seem to be real T1s anymore.

    Try Panix. I think their pop network is all gone at this
    point but they
    have dialup lines in NYC and they keep them maintained.
    With the cost of long distance today there's little need
    for local POPs. --scott

    The best price I can get for long distance service is
    2.5 cents/min. using a dial-around service. So, yes,
    local POPs are still important unless you only spend
    a few minutes online.

    Nyssa, who is frugal and spends about an hour or so a day
    online

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From InterLinked@usenet@phreaknet.org to comp.misc on Tue Aug 19 08:55:42 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 8/18/2025 11:55 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    But they have their own incoming dialin
    numbers in 212.

    Interesting, so their NYC numbers aren't supposed to be GlobalPOPs?

    I just dialed the 212 number on their website and it connected at 31.2,
    and it's GlobalPOPs.

    Do you have a *specific* number that *isn't* GlobalPOPs?

    I don't know any of the numbers; I haven't used dialup for twenty years.
    But call their support line, they will know. The people on their support line actually know about their service.

    For whatever reason, dial-up ISPs seem to be very hard to get a hold of.
    I've called several, and I always seem to get voicemail immediately.
    I'll keep trying Panix at different times of the day and see if I can
    get through.

    That's insane! Why do you pay so much?

    Because it's cheaper than upgrading to the unlimited plans. If you
    wouldn't pay more than that on the per-minute plan, it works out cheaper.

    Perhaps, but if you're using remote dialup, it might pay. Still, if you
    are paying more than two cents a minute within the US you mgith consider
    a different long distance provider.

    There aren't too many good options out there. I want quality
    long-distance service, not some cheap service that sounds like VoIP. MCI doesn't take new customers anymore. I don't think you can directly
    subscribe to MCI Worldcom either. There's AT&T, but that's $34.99 + tax
    for unlimited long distance, which again, doesn't make sense for a low
    volume of calls. I think their per-minute plans are even more than
    Verizon's. Their customer service is also far worse. $6 per month + 5c a minute still works out to be cheaper. It's a simple slope + y-intercept
    math equation.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From InterLinked@usenet@phreaknet.org to comp.misc on Tue Aug 19 08:56:55 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 8/19/2025 8:25 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    Scott Dorsey wrote:

    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    I've gotten is 36000 a handful of times, and usually I get
    31.2 or 33.6 - very difficult to get a V.90 connection
    anymore. They seem to have done some kind of concentration
    where they've cheaped out on their phone lines, doesn't
    seem to be real T1s anymore.

    Try Panix. I think their pop network is all gone at this
    point but they
    have dialup lines in NYC and they keep them maintained.
    With the cost of long distance today there's little need
    for local POPs. --scott

    The best price I can get for long distance service is
    2.5 cents/min. using a dial-around service. So, yes,
    local POPs are still important unless you only spend
    a few minutes online.

    That's honestly not that bad for a dial-around provider... usually they
    charge through the roof these days! Especially if it's quality. Mind
    sharing which carrier that is?
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Nyssa@Nyssa@logicalinsight.net to comp.misc on Tue Aug 19 10:15:09 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/19/2025 8:25 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    Scott Dorsey wrote:

    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    I've gotten is 36000 a handful of times, and usually I
    get 31.2 or 33.6 - very difficult to get a V.90
    connection anymore. They seem to have done some kind of
    concentration where they've cheaped out on their phone
    lines, doesn't seem to be real T1s anymore.

    Try Panix. I think their pop network is all gone at
    this point but they
    have dialup lines in NYC and they keep them maintained.
    With the cost of long distance today there's little need
    for local POPs. --scott

    The best price I can get for long distance service is
    2.5 cents/min. using a dial-around service. So, yes,
    local POPs are still important unless you only spend
    a few minutes online.

    That's honestly not that bad for a dial-around provider...
    usually they charge through the roof these days!
    Especially if it's quality. Mind sharing which carrier
    that is?

    OneSuite.com

    I've been a customer for over 20 years. Minimum $10
    to set up service.

    IIRC if you mention my email address (in the headers),
    I think I get a bonus $1 in my account, but I've never
    tried it and it may no longer be valid, but what the heck.

    My only gripe is that you need to make at least one
    call every 6 months or they cut you off (and keep the
    balance in your account). I begged once to be reinstated,
    and they said "one time only!" so now I have to remember
    to make at least one call even when I don't really need
    too.

    Nyssa, who has out of town and out of country friends,
    but we don't talk that often anymore

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From InterLinked@usenet@phreaknet.org to comp.misc on Tue Aug 19 17:15:03 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 8/19/2025 8:21 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/16/2025 8:49 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/15/2025 8:54 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/14/2025 8:19 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    SH wrote:

    On 12/08/2025 13:08, Nyssa wrote:
    Rich wrote:

    Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
    In comp.misc, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    Further to that, 34 years ago puts their start
    in 1991, before CD-ROM drives became popular in
    PCs. I think they were giving out floppy disks
    for those first few years.

    Anybody remember seeing an AOL floppy?

    Definitely. Better than CDs because you could
    just wipe and reuse them.

    https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_1395721 >>>>>>>>>>
    Which I did for many an AOL 3.5" floppy. Not for
    anything valuable, but for a "copy file X from
    computer Y to computer Z" use they worked just
    fine.

    The CDROM's were only useful to either join AOL
    (which was never going to happen) or to make
    garden scarecrows.

    I made coasters with them.

    Nyssa, who believe it or not is still on dialup
    (not AOL) and has been for almost 40 years (not the
    same ISPs)


    given the fastest dial up modems are 56 kilobits, it
    must feel really slow viewing websites that rely on
    broadband to fling audio or video or
    Java/SHockwave/Flash at you?

    And downloading software must have taken days?

    Plus my local (rural) phone lines are crap. I get
    ~43Kbps on average. It was better when I lived in the
    Big City.


    If I may ask, which ISP are you using?

    I've been doing some testing with several ISPs lately,
    all of whom seem to resell GlobalPOPs these days
    (including AOL it seems). The top speed I've gotten is
    36000 a handful of times, and usually I get 31.2 or
    33.6 - very difficult to get a V.90 connection
    anymore. They seem to have done some kind of
    concentration where they've cheaped out on their phone
    lines, doesn't seem to be real T1s anymore.

    There weren't many to choose from, and probably even
    fewer now.

    I'm using one called Dialup4Less based somewhere out in
    the Pactific Northwest. The price has doubled since I
    signed up, but still a MUCH better value for me than
    anything else offered around these parts.

    I tried a local access number in my area, and connected
    at 31.2. And sure enough, it appears to be resold
    GlobalPOPs. It doesn't look like Dialup4Less has their
    own dial-up infrastructure.

    Do you mind sharing the specific access number you are
    using, and what speeds you usually connect at? I wonder
    whether all of their access numbers are deficient, or
    just some of them.

    You can find a list of POPs on their website. I'm in the
    804 area code, if that helps.

    I pulled the list of access numbers from the site and
    pulled out all the ones in the 804 area code. There seem
    to be only five of them, and none of the numbers even
    works anymore (a lot of access number lists seem to
    include a fair number of stale numbers). Could you also
    share the prefix of the working number that you use?

    Here are the exchanges I've got in my dialup list
    for kppp:

    926
    451
    991
    518
    415

    I usually use the 991 ones since those are closest
    to me.

    HTH.

    Yes, although not in the way I was expecting... on their website[1],
    there are no numbers in any of these exchanges listed, with the
    exception of the last one - two numbers, 415-4055 and 415-4008. I
    wouldn't be surprised if those weren't the numbers in your list either.

    It seems the access numbers you are using are "delisted" for whatever
    reason.

    So, hate to be a pest, but could I ask you to share a couple of the
    *full* access numbers you are using - by private email if you like? I
    wonder if those are somehow on a different system than the numbers that
    are still listed.

    [1] https://www.dialup4less.com/locations.html
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From InterLinked@usenet@phreaknet.org to comp.misc on Tue Aug 19 17:20:33 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 8/19/2025 10:15 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/19/2025 8:25 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    Scott Dorsey wrote:

    InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote:
    I've gotten is 36000 a handful of times, and usually I
    get 31.2 or 33.6 - very difficult to get a V.90
    connection anymore. They seem to have done some kind of
    concentration where they've cheaped out on their phone
    lines, doesn't seem to be real T1s anymore.

    Try Panix. I think their pop network is all gone at
    this point but they
    have dialup lines in NYC and they keep them maintained.
    With the cost of long distance today there's little need
    for local POPs. --scott

    The best price I can get for long distance service is
    2.5 cents/min. using a dial-around service. So, yes,
    local POPs are still important unless you only spend
    a few minutes online.

    That's honestly not that bad for a dial-around provider...
    usually they charge through the roof these days!
    Especially if it's quality. Mind sharing which carrier
    that is?

    OneSuite.com

    I've been a customer for over 20 years. Minimum $10
    to set up service.

    IIRC if you mention my email address (in the headers),
    I think I get a bonus $1 in my account, but I've never
    tried it and it may no longer be valid, but what the heck.

    My only gripe is that you need to make at least one
    call every 6 months or they cut you off (and keep the
    balance in your account). I begged once to be reinstated,
    and they said "one time only!" so now I have to remember
    to make at least one call even when I don't really need
    too.

    Looks like they are "Feature Group A" only, it seems they don't support Feature Group D (101XXXX dial around codes), which might explain why
    they are cheaper - they don't have the interconnection overheads that
    Equal Access carriers do. Or maybe it's a lower-quality VoIP service. I operate a similar service myself for some users of mine without
    long-distance service.

    Since they don't support Equal Access, it doesn't look like there's a
    way to test the quality of the service out without signing up... with
    Feature Group D, you can place calls through any Equal Access carrier
    and as long as it doesn't answer, you won't be charged. At least, I've
    never been.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From InterLinked@usenet@phreaknet.org to comp.misc on Tue Aug 19 20:18:15 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 8/19/2025 5:15 PM, InterLinked wrote:
    On 8/19/2025 8:21 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/16/2025 8:49 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/15/2025 8:54 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/14/2025 8:19 AM, Nyssa wrote:
    SH wrote:

    On 12/08/2025 13:08, Nyssa wrote:
    Rich wrote:

    Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
    In comp.misc, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    Further to that, 34 years ago puts their start
    in 1991, before CD-ROM drives became popular in
    PCs. I think they were giving out floppy disks
    for those first few years.

    Anybody remember seeing an AOL floppy?

    Definitely. Better than CDs because you could
    just wipe and reuse them.

    https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_1395721 >>>>>>>>>>>
    Which I did for many an AOL 3.5" floppy.-a Not for
    anything valuable, but for a "copy file X from
    computer Y to computer Z" use they worked just
    fine.

    The CDROM's were only useful to either join AOL
    (which was never going to happen) or to make
    garden scarecrows.

    I made coasters with them.

    Nyssa, who believe it or not is still on dialup
    (not AOL) and has been for almost 40 years (not the
    same ISPs)


    given the fastest dial up modems are 56 kilobits, it
    must feel really slow viewing websites that rely on
    broadband to fling audio or video or
    Java/SHockwave/Flash at you?

    And downloading software must have taken days?

    Plus my local (rural) phone lines are crap. I get
    ~43Kbps on average. It was better when I lived in the
    Big City.


    If I may ask, which ISP are you using?

    I've been doing some testing with several ISPs lately,
    all of whom seem to resell GlobalPOPs these days
    (including AOL it seems). The top speed I've gotten is
    36000 a handful of times, and usually I get 31.2 or
    33.6 - very difficult to get a V.90 connection
    anymore. They seem to have done some kind of
    concentration where they've cheaped out on their phone
    lines, doesn't seem to be real T1s anymore.

    There weren't many to choose from, and probably even
    fewer now.

    I'm using one called Dialup4Less based somewhere out in
    the Pactific Northwest. The price has doubled since I
    signed up, but still a MUCH better value for me than
    anything else offered around these parts.

    I tried a local access number in my area, and connected
    at 31.2. And sure enough, it appears to be resold
    GlobalPOPs. It doesn't look like Dialup4Less has their
    own dial-up infrastructure.

    Do you mind sharing the specific access number you are
    using, and what speeds you usually connect at? I wonder
    whether all of their access numbers are deficient, or
    just some of them.

    You can find a list of POPs on their website. I'm in the
    804 area code, if that helps.

    I pulled the list of access numbers from the site and
    pulled out all the ones in the 804 area code. There seem
    to be only five of them, and none of the numbers even
    works anymore (a lot of access number lists seem to
    include a fair number of stale numbers). Could you also
    share the prefix of the working number that you use?

    Here are the exchanges I've got in my dialup list
    for kppp:

    926
    451
    991
    518
    415

    I usually use the 991 ones since those are closest
    to me.

    HTH.

    Yes, although not in the way I was expecting... on their website[1],
    there are no numbers in any of these exchanges listed, with the
    exception of the last one - two numbers, 415-4055 and 415-4008. I
    wouldn't be surprised if those weren't the numbers in your list either.

    It seems the access numbers you are using are "delisted" for whatever reason.

    I just spoke with someone at Dialup4Less. He said all the numbers listed
    on the website were the ones they have, and they only resell GlobalPOPs.
    No idea if that's true, he wasn't really all that helpful. But I don't
    think there's going to be any way to find out what these access numbers
    are from Dialup4Less.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.misc on Wed Aug 20 00:46:11 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 08:55:42 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    I want quality long-distance service, not some cheap service that sounds
    like VoIP.

    Surely it rCLsounds like VoIPrCY precisely because everybodyrCOs backhaul trunks
    are over VoIP now. Who is going to pay extra to have dedicated longhaul
    cables or microwave links that are only used for voice calls and nothing
    else? Nobody has the amount of voice traffic to justify that.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From InterLinked@usenet@phreaknet.org to comp.misc on Tue Aug 19 20:56:09 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 8/19/2025 8:46 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 08:55:42 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    I want quality long-distance service, not some cheap service that sounds
    like VoIP.

    Surely it rCLsounds like VoIPrCY precisely because everybodyrCOs backhaul trunks
    are over VoIP now. Who is going to pay extra to have dedicated longhaul cables or microwave links that are only used for voice calls and nothing else? Nobody has the amount of voice traffic to justify that.

    AT&T and Verizon/its subsidiaries seem to still have a decent TDM
    footprint. Verizon doesn't use it for FiOS Digital Voice, which is all
    IP, but they seem to still be using it for traditional long-distance.

    I've tested some cheap long-distance services that are cheap precisely
    because they're garbage quality (e.g. Excel, 5102), and can't even hold
    a 300 baud modem connection without corruption. I don't have that
    problem with Verizon Long Distance (6963). I've heard good things about
    MCI and MCI Worldcom as well.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.misc on Wed Aug 20 03:17:19 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 20:56:09 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    I've tested some cheap long-distance services that are cheap precisely because they're garbage quality (e.g. Excel, 5102), and can't even hold
    a 300 baud modem connection without corruption.

    The irony of carrying voice service over broadband IP-based backhaul, and
    then trying to implement a low-bandwidth IP service on top of that ...
    only in the USA??
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From InterLinked@usenet@phreaknet.org to comp.misc on Wed Aug 20 09:37:24 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 8/19/2025 11:17 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 20:56:09 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    I've tested some cheap long-distance services that are cheap precisely
    because they're garbage quality (e.g. Excel, 5102), and can't even hold
    a 300 baud modem connection without corruption.

    The irony of carrying voice service over broadband IP-based backhaul, and then trying to implement a low-bandwidth IP service on top of that ...
    only in the USA??

    There is a lot of stuff in the field that uses 300 baud modems for
    telemetry. Low-speed modem protocols without error correction also tend
    to be a decent quality test for voice connections.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.misc on Wed Aug 20 22:08:39 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 09:37:24 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/19/2025 11:17 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 20:56:09 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    I've tested some cheap long-distance services that are cheap
    precisely because they're garbage quality (e.g. Excel, 5102), and
    can't even hold a 300 baud modem connection without corruption.

    The irony of carrying voice service over broadband IP-based
    backhaul, and then trying to implement a low-bandwidth IP service
    on top of that ... only in the USA??

    There is a lot of stuff in the field that uses 300 baud modems for
    telemetry.

    I have a customer who does a lot of that, up and down the country.
    They use wireless connections (formerly 3G, now 4G) for that.

    Low-speed modem protocols without error correction also tend to be a
    decent quality test for voice connections.

    A more accurate test would surely involve actual voices.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From InterLinked@usenet@phreaknet.org to comp.misc on Wed Aug 20 18:44:40 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 8/20/2025 6:08 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
    On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 09:37:24 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/19/2025 11:17 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 20:56:09 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    I've tested some cheap long-distance services that are cheap
    precisely because they're garbage quality (e.g. Excel, 5102), and
    can't even hold a 300 baud modem connection without corruption.

    The irony of carrying voice service over broadband IP-based
    backhaul, and then trying to implement a low-bandwidth IP service
    on top of that ... only in the USA??

    There is a lot of stuff in the field that uses 300 baud modems for
    telemetry.

    I have a customer who does a lot of that, up and down the country.
    They use wireless connections (formerly 3G, now 4G) for that.

    Everything I deal with is on POTS lines.

    Low-speed modem protocols without error correction also tend to be a
    decent quality test for voice connections.

    A more accurate test would surely involve actual voices.

    It can be hard to test things like latency and compression purely from
    just voice. Bad or just-okay connections tend to be forgiving for voice
    but less so for data. That's why I find modems to be a good proxy for a quality test. DTMF/echo tests can be good for testing latency.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.misc on Thu Aug 21 21:48:14 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:44:40 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/20/2025 6:08 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 09:37:24 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    There is a lot of stuff in the field that uses 300 baud modems for
    telemetry.

    I have a customer who does a lot of that, up and down the country.
    They use wireless connections (formerly 3G, now 4G) for that.

    Everything I deal with is on POTS lines.

    Seems like an expensive and unwieldy way to do it. The remote sensors
    might need to go months between inspections. They need to, not only
    withstand the elements, but have an adequate power supply. A wireless
    data connection means they can make a connection, exchange data, and
    disconnect again, all within a fraction of the time (and power
    consumption) it takes to do a modem handshake.

    Low-speed modem protocols without error correction also tend to be
    a decent quality test for voice connections.

    A more accurate test would surely involve actual voices.

    It can be hard to test things like latency and compression purely
    from just voice.

    Sure it is. All you need is the right instrumentation and testing
    standards to measure that voice. You *do* have standards, donrCOt you?

    Bad or just-okay connections tend to be forgiving for voice but less
    so for data.

    Another reason not to use them.

    Here <https://www.sierrawireless.com/> is the sort of comms modules
    that customer is using.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From InterLinked@usenet@phreaknet.org to comp.misc on Thu Aug 21 18:34:28 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 8/21/2025 5:48 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
    On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 18:44:40 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/20/2025 6:08 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 09:37:24 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    There is a lot of stuff in the field that uses 300 baud modems for
    telemetry.

    I have a customer who does a lot of that, up and down the country.
    They use wireless connections (formerly 3G, now 4G) for that.

    Everything I deal with is on POTS lines.

    Seems like an expensive and unwieldy way to do it. The remote sensors
    might need to go months between inspections. They need to, not only
    withstand the elements, but have an adequate power supply. A wireless
    data connection means they can make a connection, exchange data, and disconnect again, all within a fraction of the time (and power
    consumption) it takes to do a modem handshake.

    I can't share more details about this, but telephone lines make
    infinitely more sense for this sort of thing, because they already have
    phone line connections so adding a modem to it is the natural thing to
    do and adds no cost overhead.

    And aside from that, that's how it's been done for the last thirty years
    at least, so I doubt it will change now.

    Low-speed modem protocols without error correction also tend to be
    a decent quality test for voice connections.

    A more accurate test would surely involve actual voices.

    It can be hard to test things like latency and compression purely
    from just voice.

    Sure it is. All you need is the right instrumentation and testing
    standards to measure that voice. You *do* have standards, donrCOt you?

    Bad or just-okay connections tend to be forgiving for voice but less
    so for data.

    Another reason not to use them.

    Here <https://www.sierrawireless.com/> is the sort of comms modules
    that customer is using.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to say - if you have a crummy phone connection, don't use it?

    I was referring to different tests that could be done to evaluate the suitability of a long-distance provider for voice usage. Some people
    care how their phone calls sound and want them to sound good, but I get
    that you might not be one of them.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.misc on Fri Aug 22 04:12:14 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 18:34:28 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    I was referring to different tests that could be done to evaluate the suitability of a long-distance provider for voice usage.

    I thought you were talking about data usage, not voice usage, which you
    said tended to be more rCLforgivingrCY.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From InterLinked@usenet@phreaknet.org to comp.misc on Fri Aug 22 09:23:57 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 8/22/2025 12:12 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
    On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 18:34:28 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    I was referring to different tests that could be done to evaluate the
    suitability of a long-distance provider for voice usage.

    I thought you were talking about data usage, not voice usage, which you
    said tended to be more rCLforgivingrCY.

    I'm talking about using data calls as a general test, whether using for
    data or voice. Because voice is more forgiving, it's lousy as a test
    mechanism - it's hard to objectively compare phone calls by ear (except
    maybe testing latency by DTMF response time) but data calls give you
    hard, well, *data* that can be used for comparison. A phone call that
    works better for data is most likely going to be better for voice, too.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to comp.misc on Fri Aug 22 22:22:20 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 09:23:57 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    On 8/22/2025 12:12 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 18:34:28 -0400, InterLinked wrote:

    I was referring to different tests that could be done to evaluate the
    suitability of a long-distance provider for voice usage.

    I thought you were talking about data usage, not voice usage, which you
    said tended to be more rCLforgivingrCY.

    I'm talking about using data calls as a general test, whether using for
    data or voice.

    Not sure why, given that data calls are really only a test of data transmission, and voice calls really only a test of voice.

    Because voice is more forgiving, it's lousy as a test
    mechanism ...

    Testing voice calls is done by ... actually making voice calls. Or rather, transmitting audio signals of various types and measuring the results. Ask
    any telephone engineer.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From jerk-o@jerk_o2002@yahoo.com to comp.misc on Sun Aug 31 18:36:23 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 08:11:54 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote
    US-based ISP America On-Line (AOL) will finally turn off its dialup
    Internet service at the end of September ending 34 years of operation.

    Does this mean the Eternal September will finally come to an end?
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From noreply@noreply@dirge.harmsk.com to comp.misc on Sun Aug 31 23:51:20 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 18:36:23 -0700, jerk-o <jerk_o2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
    Does this mean the Eternal September will finally come to an end?

    not likely, since the phrase "the eternal september" (popularized after its namesake usenet article was posted 1994-02-09 <2j9vhj$hms@whale.st.usm.edu>) reflected the consensus that the flood of mischief-makers was already never ending thirty-one years ago . . . operation eternal september, infiltration
    and occupation of usenet newsgroups (collectively known as the "troll farm") has thus continued with relentless attacks on active newsgroups to this day

    aol's new (in 1994) "usenet gateway" encouraged everyone to join in the fun
    and along with other isps usenet access via the internet became commonplace, but aol's historic contribution is indelible . . . freeware newsreaders and public (nntp) news servers also made usenet increasingly popular by the y2k, after which the signal-to-noise ratio tended to skyrocket, and googlegroups (after absorbing dejanews 2001-02-12) made it that much easier for everyone with a web browser to participate (but after around 2004-11-29, gg's "beta" made it progressively less reliable and more difficult to use for searching usenet archives), but by then usenet was mostly saturated with "troll farm" activity . . . even so, usenet was initially designed to withstand calamity
    so it has remained popular, mostly for its plain text and binary newsgroups that are unmoderated, so if you like the untamed wild west, usenet is ideal

    (using Tor Browser 14.5.6) https://duckduckgo.com/?q=america+online+shut&ia=web&assist=true
    AOL is shutting down its dial-up internet service after 30 years, with the >discontinuation set for the end of September 2025. This marks the end of an era
    for many users who experienced the early days of the internet through AOL's >services. Yahoo The Guardian
    AOL Shutting Down Dial-Up Internet Service
    Overview
    AOL, originally known as America Online, is discontinuing its dial-up internet >service after 30 years. This decision marks the end of an era for many users who
    experienced the early days of the internet through AOL's distinctive dial-up >connections.
    Key Details
    Shutdown Date: The dial-up service will officially cease operations on
    September 30, 2025.
    Historical Significance: AOL was a pioneer in providing internet access to
    millions of Americans, especially during the 1990s and early 2000s. At its
    peak, it had over 30 million subscribers.
    Decline of Dial-Up: The rise of broadband and wireless internet has led to a
    significant decline in dial-up users. As of 2023, only about 163,401
    households in the U.S. relied solely on dial-up, representing just over 0.13%
    of all internet subscriptions.
    Company Evolution
    Founding: AOL was founded in 1985 as Quantum Computer Services and rebranded
    in 1991. It became known for its iconic "You've got mail" notification.
    Ownership Changes: AOL has undergone several ownership changes, including a
    merger with Time Warner in 2000 and later acquisitions by Verizon and Apollo
    Global Management.
    Service Changes: In addition to shutting down dial-up, AOL has previously
    discontinued its Instant Messenger service in 2017 and continues to offer
    email and other online services.
    This shutdown reflects the broader trend of moving away from older internet >technologies as faster and more reliable options become the norm.
    Yahoo Wikipedia
    [end quoted "search assist"]

    (neodome's sporadic [s***] tag, sometimes it doesn't, but other times "spam") --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Marco Moock@mm@dorfdsl.de to comp.misc on Mon Sep 1 17:53:28 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 31.08.2025 18:36 Uhr jerk-o wrote:

    On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 08:11:54 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote
    US-based ISP America On-Line (AOL) will finally turn off its dialup >Internet service at the end of September ending 34 years of
    operation.

    Does this mean the Eternal September will finally come to an end?

    IIRC AOL already closed Usetnet access in the early 2000s.
    --
    kind regards
    Marco

    Send spam to 1756658183muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From candycanearter07@candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid to comp.misc on Tue Sep 2 21:50:04 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    jerk-o <jerk_o2002@yahoo.com> wrote at 01:36 this Monday (GMT):
    On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 08:11:54 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote
    US-based ISP America On-Line (AOL) will finally turn off its dialup >>Internet service at the end of September ending 34 years of operation.

    Does this mean the Eternal September will finally come to an end?


    Hopefully not, I'm using their server to post! :D
    --
    user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Anthk NM@anthk@disroot.org to comp.misc on Sun Nov 2 22:35:47 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 2025-08-14, Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> wrote:
    On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 08:11:54 -0000 (UTC)
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    US-based ISP America On-Line (AOL) will finally turn off its dialup
    Internet service at the end of September

    There are other dial-up providers beside AOL. That kind of connection
    is only good for email however and maybe Usenet. Impossible to surf
    the modern web. I remember when webpages strove to keep an individual
    page size below 30KB. Long ago.

    I used Gopher, Usenet and IRC with 2.7 KBPS. Some OPUS audio
    stations (16 KBPS) were usable with mplayer and streaming
    caching options.
    Mosh for SSH worked like a dream, too; and I could
    properly read some RSS feeds and web sites with lynx/links
    and some of them, with edbrowse. Nowadays with
    gemini (check comp.infosystems.gemini) and a proxy
    to the web I almost can read news at great speeds
    thru News Waffle at gemini://gemi.dev

    You could be surprised what could you do with
    constrained connections.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Anthk NM@anthk@disroot.org to comp.misc on Sun Nov 2 22:35:49 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.misc

    On 2025-08-16, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

    Retrograde <fungus@amongus.com.invalid> writes:

    On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 08:11:54 -0000 (UTC)
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    US-based ISP America On-Line (AOL) will finally turn off its dialup
    Internet service at the end of September

    There are other dial-up providers beside AOL. That kind of connection
    is only good for email however and maybe Usenet. Impossible to surf
    the modern web.

    There's a work-around that can help a little for site you visit often, assuming that useful info will render w/o js, assuming you have a
    resident web server on localhost and can write some perl code.

    Put a link on your home page on localhost to a cgi-bin script. (You
    *do* keep a home page on localhost, don't you? ;-) Cause that link to
    send the real URL as data.

    Create a cgi-bin perl script that reads the request from your bowser,
    then uses wget or similar to fetch the target page.

    The script reads in whatever is sent into a perl variable, then use
    regexps to elide all IMG and SCRIPT tags/blocks, elides STYLE and SVG
    blocks, elides and LINK tags the fetch or prefetch other data.

    Re-writing and anchor tags that point back to the remote host so that
    they point to the script instead (handing the script the real URL as
    data) is also good but a little more trouble.

    Script then sends the result of the editing process back to your
    browser.

    I've only been off dial-up for five years. This hack sped up several
    sites. I still use some of the scripts to get rid of unwanted STYLE
    and js.

    Useless, of course, for all-js social media sites but I don't do those anyway.

    I remember when webpages strove to keep an individual page size
    below 30KB. Long ago.

    Now some email has more than 30KB in headers, not to mention
    unwarranted HTML with huge STYLE blocks.


    Just get a Gemini client. Bombadillo/Amfora, Kristall, Lagrange (the easiest. Head to gemini://gemi.dev, enter to the News Waffle service.
    Input any news or blog URL, the full one, with a preceeding https://,
    such as https://arstechnica.com

    Say hello to bandwidth saves down to a 5% of the original.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2