I just put a cheap ($14 shipped from Newegg) modem in my computer with the KT2-Combo L board and the 2500+ processor. The fastest I have ever been able to connect at my house with any modem was 28.8 Kbs. The 56K V.90 modem I replaced could only do 26.6 kbs. I put in the V.92 modem and got the drivers installed. I connected and checked the connection speed. It was 115.2 kbs! I didn't know that was possible. I though it was just misreading it but download speeds reflect the high speed. I lose my connection fairly easily (3 times in an hour and a half) but I've connected several times including this morning after the computer was off all night and it's always 115.2 kbs.

How is this possible???

I don't want to touch any setting on my computer for fear I'll irretrievably lose this if it's a fluke. Anyone know the least invasive way to clone my current system and settings so I can go back to this if I lose it. I've been using Drive Image but it's not always reliable and I still have to install it and it's pretty invasive to the system. I'm afraid the installation or cloning process mught change something (I know it's unlikely). I'm running w2k, is the built in backup capable of doing a real clone to another partition and does it do a good job?

Sorry to disappoint you but...

You may be connecting a little faster, not at 115 though, that is the connection between the modem and your machine, not the modem and the rest of the world.

I don't quite understand what you mean. The stated connection speed does not indicate your actual internet connection? It has always seemed to correlate with how fast webpages opened and files downloaded. When I would connect at 49-52 kbs on dial up at the office it seemed to run about twice as fast as my 26.6 kbs connection at home. This connection seems at least 4 times as fast as my old one. Opening MSN homepage with this went from about 20-30 seconds to 4-6 seconds. Downloading files used to pretty rapidly settle down to 1-2 kbs after a few seconds with the old modem. The file I downloaded this morning started at about 26 kbs and stayed at about 7-8 kbs throughout.

Can you explain further?

"Connected at" has sooo often been misunderstood - but the heart of it lies with whether it relates to DTE or DCE (http://curt.vee90.net/modems.html#toofast) speeds.

Even 56K can't be reached by 56K "dial-up" modems due to limitations of the telephone lines and its equipment.

Sometimes one can actually download data faster at lower "connected at" speeds because when information is downloaded just once, but without errors, it is better than being downloaded faster but needing much of it to be resent more than once, because the transfers are garbled. Etc, etc, etc.

I believe the only way it is possible that you are getting what you think you are getting is if you have the option through your ISP of connecting on 2 lines at the same time, thus doubling the speed. The truth is that it is difficult for a 56K modem to even make 56K. I know my DSL modem always reads as running at 640K, but it is actually running somewhere closer to 256K. I can't explain why the difference is occurring with your readings, but I would be real amazed if it turns out you are actually getting the speed you think you are....

I remember when I had the same experience. I thought, HOLY CR*P!

But, turns out that most software based modems will give this as the connection speed, when in fact as MJC pointed out, it's only the connection between the system and the modem. Drat.

BTW - although your "connected at" 115.2 looks nice (BUT IS FALSE) the reason for your improvement is almost certainly for two reasons.

(1) You are running with more up to date drivers than before and (2) your new modem has the latest protocols in addition to V92. These include improved data compression, which of itself allows for more raw data to be transferred for the same communication transfer speed (unless that is that the data had already been compressed in such as compressed zip files).

ISPs using two lines simultaneously relates, as far as I am aware, only to ISDN (also know as high speed digital lines). These would require a "digital modem" and although "fastish" do not compare with broadband. One would suppose that you would know if you had subscribed to such telecom provision.

PS
Finally another general point is that modern software modems running on a fast CPU are not nearly as problematic as older software modems running on slower CPUs and many MODERN cheap software modems work very well indeed; (just one proviso though - this nearly only relates to Windows - DOS and Linux are a different ballgame).

Here is one option to speed things up with conventional modems and phone lines bonded together: Here... (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,6787,00.asp) and here is another article (http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,11960,00.asp) and here is a more detailed article... (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,7416,00.asp)

I wonder if anyone has any positive feedback of "bonding" two dialup modems. It looks pretty hellish to me and anytime I've installed more than one modem simultaneously onto a pc it has always created problems requiring that one of them be disabled or uninstalled.

Thanks for the replies guys. I didn't think it was possible. I don't know then what I am actually connected at. I will just enjoy the big improvement in speed over my old modem, regardless of what the connection speed actually is.

I had an older modem that gave me the same readings. I was also disappointed by the team members here too. :( Freakin meanies all of you!!!

I kept the modem for awhile but... realized the Blue Meanies were correct. ;)

Dr Dan,
The "settling in at 6-7Bps is approximately 54 to 55kbps of a dial-up with good phone lines. The 'B' being bytes, the 'b' being baud.

Get broadband, there is no lower case b involved anymore.

I pay for a broadband connection at work, that's all I can justify. This new modem is quite a bit faster than the old one though so I can't complain too much. I agree these guys are spoilsports about the 115.2 kbs! ;)

For those that care about such things (baud is not actually identical to bps (http://www.cnet.com/Resources/Info/Glossary/Terms/baud.html)).

;)