3 ms·

Just to be clear, most of these ISPs have a "business" or "pro" version for an extra (exorbitant) fee with marginally higher up/down bandwidth that let you run

by eksith 13y ago

Just to be clear, most of these ISPs have a "business" or "pro" version for an extra (exorbitant) fee with marginally higher up/down bandwidth that let you run a server. I've yet to come across a decent provider package that lets me host a server with at least 99% uptime. FiOS seems to go down like clockwork in the mid mornings for the past 2 months or so and that kept me from even attempting to run a server from home. I mean, what's the point? Besides that pretty much every provider has their variation on server bans. I think Optimum just says "servers" are prohibited whereas Verizon goes into a bit more detail "Web, FTP, SMTP" etc...

aspensmonster 13y ago
In Austin, the business offerings are actually slower than the consumer offerings. They run over the exact same cables too, in TWC's case at least. Your (fewer) packets just get priority over others in the event of congestion. I utilized TWCBC for a year. 100 dollar installation and 150 dollars a month for 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, and one static IP. I could have spent an extra 100 dollars (edit: monthly) and upgraded to 20 Mbps down, and a whopping 2 Mbps up. Now, I get 21 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up on ATT Uverse (an apples to oranges technical comparison, I am aware, though TWC's consumer cable offerings were similar) for a third of that price, and can push and pull far more packets than TWCBC ever was willing to deliver. This really has nothing to do with "network management," the go to catch-all that every ISP --including Google now, it seems-- trots out every time network neutrality comes up. This has everything to do with ensuring that old-school business models are propped up that expect captive, consuming audiences, rather than adhering to the decentralized model of independent nodes on the network.
- eksith 13y ago
  That's terrible! I'd have thought that Austin would have had far more options than that considering how many tech companies and startups there are. I guess we're all sorely lacking real competition and it seems Google isn't there either.
  - vonmoltke 13y ago
    I live in a fairly dense suburban section of Dallas a mere 3 miles from TI's headquarters, yet I cannot get DSL at my house[1] because I am too far from a CO. When we moved in (2008), the only only internet options were Time-Warner cable or a T1 line, which is what I went for. U-verse only rolled out about two years ago. Granted its not Austin, but what you say should apply here as well. I would also like to point out that, back in 2008, TWC refused to sell me business-class service because I wasn't a business. Even if I formed one, the only business-class service they would run to our house was their basic "Teleworker" service. [1] This may not be completely true, as AT&T claims they can provide it. I don't know how they can when others cannot, but their website may only be claiming that based on straight-line distance from the CO rather than loop length.

by eksith 13y ago

aspensmonster 13y ago

In Austin, the business offerings are actually slower than the consumer offerings. They run over the exact same cables too, in TWC's case at least. Your (fewer) packets just get priority over others in the event of congestion. I utilized TWCBC for a year. 100 dollar installation and 150 dollars a month for 10 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, and one static IP. I could have spent an extra 100 dollars (edit: monthly) and upgraded to 20 Mbps down, and a whopping 2 Mbps up. Now, I get 21 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up on ATT Uverse (an apples to oranges technical comparison, I am aware, though TWC's consumer cable offerings were similar) for a third of that price, and can push and pull far more packets than TWCBC ever was willing to deliver. This really has nothing to do with "network management," the go to catch-all that every ISP --including Google now, it seems-- trots out every time network neutrality comes up. This has everything to do with ensuring that old-school business models are propped up that expect captive, consuming audiences, rather than adhering to the decentralized model of independent nodes on the network.

eksith 13y ago
That's terrible! I'd have thought that Austin would have had far more options than that considering how many tech companies and startups there are. I guess we're all sorely lacking real competition and it seems Google isn't there either.
- vonmoltke 13y ago
  I live in a fairly dense suburban section of Dallas a mere 3 miles from TI's headquarters, yet I cannot get DSL at my house[1] because I am too far from a CO. When we moved in (2008), the only only internet options were Time-Warner cable or a T1 line, which is what I went for. U-verse only rolled out about two years ago. Granted its not Austin, but what you say should apply here as well. I would also like to point out that, back in 2008, TWC refused to sell me business-class service because I wasn't a business. Even if I formed one, the only business-class service they would run to our house was their basic "Teleworker" service. [1] This may not be completely true, as AT&T claims they can provide it. I don't know how they can when others cannot, but their website may only be claiming that based on straight-line distance from the CO rather than loop length.