> Two months ago I was advised to upgrade to V.92 because it's more stable
> than V.90. Then I read of other advantages: quicker connections, faster
> uploads, and sometimes faster downloads.
In a nutshell that's correct. V.92 does permit quicker handshaking, the
_maximum_ upload speed is raised to 48 kbps from 33.6 kbps, and because
V.44 compression is better than V.42bis, in theory uncompressed files may
also download faster.
> My ISP says V.92 would have no advantage except the ability to take
> phone calls. Is that true?
Practically for most phone lines, I suspect your ISP is correct. But
the added advantage of taking and making calls while you're online is
huge, and that alone would be sufficient incentive for me to use an
ISP that supported V.92, if I had to use a dialup connection.
Beverly

Signature
Many a smale maketh a grate -- Geoffrey Chaucer
Choreboy - 23 Mar 2005 20:33 GMT
> > Two months ago I was advised to upgrade to V.92 because it's more stable
> > than V.90. Then I read of other advantages: quicker connections, faster
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Practically for most phone lines, I suspect your ISP is correct.
The quick connect is supposed to work regardless of connection qualtiy.
The modem remembers what's negotiated when you dial a number. If you
dial the number again and the line seems to have the same
characteristics, it skips the negotiations.
I've read that in tests of actual phone lines, V.92 downloaded 60%
faster than V.90.
How about stability? I read in this forum that a V.92 connection is
less likely to disconnect?
One thing bothers me about my new modem. It takes 20 seconds to hang
up. I don't know why it's necessary. My old modem had a script that
would hang it up in two seconds or so. When I go offline, I probably
want to put my computer to sleep and go do something. I don't want to
wait 20 seconds.
Choreboy