alt Hacker NewsI'd be curious if anyone has actually used a setup like this as a fallback for when their fiber goes down. The latency would be brutal, but a few kbps beats no bps
Replies
Jeff mentioned in his video that just loading the front page of CNN would take something like an hour and a half (20+ MB).
33.6Kbps is not practical for much on the modern Internet in 2026. As mentioned in a sibling comment, Starlink (even in standby mode) would be much better. lite.cnn.com would load in about 10 seconds which is pretty good, but there's not much else like it left anymore.
What's amazing is how great the Internet in the 1990s managed to be despite these limitations. Just like with RAM and disk space, developers back then had to be very mindful of bandwidth - today's devs (and agents) have the luxury of paying much less attention to that.
The way this is set up is using your normal fiber internet as the backbone, so if the fiber goes down, the dialup does, too.
It would be funny as a project but there's better low speed backup options like a starlink dish on standby mode (500kbps)
I pulled out a WRT54G the other day and set it to a 56K limit. A netbook running ubuntu(ish) took several days to complete an apt-get update. But when I connected my laptop with 50 browser tabs, the tabs themselves consumed 100% of the bandwidth with background traffic (despite my ad blocker) and no other network services worked at all.
Unless you've tuned your system for it, dial-up modem speeds are functionally equivalent to "no connection at all".