seamusTX wrote:jimlongley wrote:Sorry, just had to get in the thinly disguised personal attack.

Whatever happened to that "an armed society is a polite society" canard?
And how did this thread turn into a discussion of communication terminology?
- Jim
I think someone should study thread drift, there seems to be some sort of curve involved, but I'll bet it could be expressed in algebraic notation.
On another note, according to Nyquist and Shannon, a standard telephone line will support 2400 bauds. A baud is a signal element per second, and there may be more than one bit per signal element. Back in the day, a bit might be exactly related to a baud, but once the number of bits per second got to the number of bauds, in order to go faster, it became necessary to find a way to put more then one bit in each signal element.
Without getting even shallowly into the subject, think of a telephone line as a two dimensional square, and the signal that is passing through it does not fill the whole space. A telephone conversation is just so, while a 2400 bauds signal actually fills the space, but not all of it at the same time.
Along comes Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM) and two signals at a time are sent, in one signal element, and 4800bps results, and then more QAM schemes result in 9600bps, and more, until we finally reach (supposedly) 56kbps. At 56k, the number of bits per baud has reached a theoretical maximum as well as one of those limits that are built in.
At 56k the bit rate is right at the DS0 level of the North American Digital Heirarchy and that means that breaking that (analog) signal up for transport and the digital network causes error problems in some absolutely normal circum stances.
Cable TV and Fiber Optic networks use QAM schemes that enable even higher bit rates, but that's a really stretchy thread drift.
And besides, I'm retired from that stuff.
[/class]