Yes, this is true IFF the data you are xmiting is uncompressed and enough   
data for the modem to find the data to compress.  On web pages, the raw   
HTML document should, theoretically, come across at a rate higher that   
2.88K/s, maybe 6-7K/s.  The GIFs and JPGs for the page will creep in at   
2.88K/s and typically not much faster.  So assuming at least 95% of the   
time loading a page is graphics, the rate seems to be quickly approaching   
just 2.88K/sec.

Thus the lore of load balancing.  Besides, I can have two phone lines,   
put my own machine in at a local ISP provider site, rent of having the   
machine there, for much less that having a dedicated 57k line.

John's approximate work sheet for 2-28.8 Internet hookup:
One time charge:
 2 used 486DX-33, 4Megs, 40Meg HD     $800
 4 28.8 Modems @ $120     $480
 2 Installation of phone lines    $100
Monthly Reoccurring charges:
 2 Phone Lines @ $20 each (SouthWestern Bell) $40
 1 Rental space and line usage (I know the guy) $140

57k line:
One time charge:
 Install of local loop     $430
 General Install costs     $750
 1 CISCO 2501/IP      $1985
 1 CRAY 3081 57k DSU/CSU     $625
Monthly Reoccurring charges:
 port charge       $1000
 Equipment rental(if I don't by CSU/DSU, router) $389
 local loop charge      $184

I realize many of these charges could be reduced here and there, but note   
below my 28.8 based system.

Someone wrote that a pure 57K line will be faster than two 28.8s, and I   
basically aggress, because the overhead of software and the synching of   
two modems are going to take their toll on overall performance.   
  However, the price/performance point make two 28.8s much more realistic   
for most people.

As your were saying about seeing rates much higher on a 28.8 than a 57K   
line, just imaging the rates of uncompressed data over two 28.8s...   
effective data rate (after compression) on a 28.8-> ~60k/sec * 2modems =   
120kbits/sec = Cheep thrill!

Now, if I had ISDN with compression...

jam
PS. My little k denotes kilobits and big K denotes Kilobytes.


 ----------
From:  Scott Reynolds[SMTP:scottr@Plexus.COM]
Sent:  Tuesday, March 19, 1996 4:45 PM
To:  Robert Shady
Cc:  Amir Y. Rosenblatt; JohnAM
Subject:  Re: I remember seeing something about using PPP in parallel

On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Robert Shady wrote:

> As long as your not expecting to get the look & feel of a 56k leased   
line
> by bonding two 28.8k modems together, then it should be possibly.. But
> keep in mind, a 56k leased line will be MUCH quicker than two bonded
> 28.8k analog modem lines..

... in some circumstances, at least.  I'm currently seeing up to 6KB/s
transferring text over a single V.34 modem, PPP w/VJ enabled.  That's
better than our 56K leased line ever did.

Not that this should be construed as empirical evidence.  I'm just saying   

it's worth a try.

:-)