From: usenet@phreaknet.org   
      
   On 8/20/2025 6:08 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   > On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 09:37:24 -0400, InterLinked wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 8/19/2025 11:17 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro 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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)