300 Baud to DSL & Cable – How things have changed in 30 years…

by admin on August 31, 2010

Post image for 300 Baud to DSL & Cable – How things have changed in 30 years…

I remember days and night just sitting there staring at an old 13″ black and white television. It was tuned to channel 3.

With a little box in the back of the TV that once connected my ColecoVision I now had something that offered me real power. It was a wire that was connected on the other side to my Commodore 64.

To this day I remember tirelessly sitting there, staring and watching the counts roll while people uploaded and download files from my BBS, then known as Sesame Street. I was the Cookie Monster and I ran the West Coast HQ for RAD – aka Rowdy American Distributors. By that time I was running at 1200 and 2400 baud – a screaming fast connection literally 4 to 8 times faster than my original 300 baud modem.

And today – I got to thinking – what would the internet be like at 300 baud? What would it be like to surf the web at those speeds?

Well, I can remember the web at 9,600, 19,200, 38.4 and 57.6 – the days of dial-up. I can even remember the day I had my @Home broadband connection turned on. HOLY S)(*#)!!!! (That’s Smokes for the easily offended!)

But how old and gray would we be if things didn’t speed up to where they have today – for us lucky enough to have broadband at home and work.

So I sat down today, built a trusty little spreadsheet and figured it out… Just for FUN! Let’s look and see what it’d take to load today’s Top 10 websites….

#1 – Google – 13,029 bytes
300 Baud: 42 seconds (even with it’s sparse home page content)
DSL/Cable/T1: 0.1 seconds

#2 – Facebook – 139,408 bytes
300 Baud: 7 minutes, 33 seconds
DSL/Cable/T1: 8 seconds

#3 – YouTube – 133,593 bytes (not including video pre-load content)
300 Baud: 7 minutes, 16 seconds
DSL/Cable/T1:

#4 – Yahoo! – 164,850 bytes
300 Baud: 8.9 minutes
DSL/Cable/T1: 12 seconds

#5 Live.com – 4,930 bytes
300 Baud: 16 seconds
DSL/Cable/T1: 0.00551 seconds

#6 – Baidu.com – 2,289 bytes (the smallest home page we could find)
300 Baud: 13 seconds – BLAZING FAST!
DSL/Cable/T1: 0.00151 seconds

#7 – Wikipedia.org – 96,783 bytes
300 Baud: 5 minutes, 15 seconds
DSL/Cable/T1: 5 seconds

#8 – Blogger.com – 75,688 bytes
300 Baud: 4 minutes, 6 seconds
DSL/Cable/T1 Baud: 3 seconds

#9 – MSN – 242,614 bytes
300 Baud: 13 minutes, 12 seconds
DSL/Cable/T1: 6.2 seconds

#10 – Twitter – 314,403 bytes
300 Baud: 17 minutes, 3 seconds
DSL/Cable/T1: 11 seconds

This Page – 819,794 bytes
300 Baud: FORGET IT!
DSL/Cable/T1: 21 seconds

I guess it’s time for me to optimize some things… ;)

But really… What’s the moral of this story?

Quit complaining when you think the internet is running slow. Think about how it could be… Appreciate that you aren’t turning old and gray waiting a half an hour for CNN’s home page to load. And video? Forget about it!

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Blaise October 18, 2011 at 7:19 pm

This only accentuates your point and I hate being pedantic, but…
300 baud modems operated at 300bps – it’s not always true that baud=bps, but I’m pretty sure that it was for the v.21 protocol. So I don’t believe that 13kB (such as your Google example) could have been transmitted in 42 seconds on a 300 baud modem.
13KB = 8*13kb= 210,000 bits.
210,000b/300bps = 700 seconds or nearly 12 minutes! ( and that’s actually a lower bound)

Moreover DSL, Cable and T1 are far from equal. While T1 refers to a specific bit rate (1.544Mbps), DSL and Cable vary widely; but in any case a common consumer grade cable connection has download rates at least 10 times the T1 rate.
T1 would download the 210,000 bits in 210,000b/1544000bps=.13 seconds, which is close to your estimate, but a reasonable cable connection would reduce that to something like .01 seconds.

Why the first modems were 300 baud is a funny story in itself.

admin October 19, 2011 at 7:55 am

Hi Blaise… And I don’t think my Westridge was full duplex either. Do tell the story of the 300 baud modem. I’d love to hear it.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: