On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Jeroen van Aart <jer...@mompl.net> wrote:
> On 02/09/2013 07:55 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: >> When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations >> that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under >> 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be >> breaking up your ssh sessions? > > Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low > latency in a hotel. > > For many reasons: > > - internet connectivity at a hotel is just another free amenity like after > shyave or a hair net, be glad you can at least check your email :-) > This argument fails when compared to my real world observations. In general, my experience has been that the hotels that offer wifi as a free amenity have relatively uncomplicated systems, you get a password (if one is required at all) when you check in or when you ask for it and it just works. In contrast, the more expensive hotels that charge have elaborate systems designed to make sure they can capture that revenue and that nobody gets on without paying. These systems are often poorly implemented, poorly managed and extremely prone to various forms of failure resulting in a loss of connectivity. The people at the other end of the phone when one calls about such problems tend to think nothing of rebooting WAPs, etc. in order to try and "shotgun" the user's problem, creating a multitude of additional failures for all the other users. > - a hotel room is (should be) used for sleeping, having sex, watching the tv > idly, not for work (except emergencies and the likes), even when you're on a > work trip. Use an actual office for work. > This is a rather arrogant value judgment for you to think that you have a right to inflict on everyone else. > - such internet connectivity doesn't exist to begin with for the average > consumer in the USA > I'm not sure I go quite that far, but, yes, it is not uncommon for people to have less than this level of connectivity in their residential environments in the US. > Granted if a hotel markets itself as a business hotel in a business area it > should include at least half decent internet connectivity, otherwise forget > it and be glad you can spend some time away from the hedonistic attractions > of "the net". Yet my experience has been that to a large extent, the reverse is true. I am more likely to get better internet connectivity from a low-budget tourist motel in a tourist area than from a "business hotel" in a business area. Hilton owned properties are among the worst in this respect and my recent experience at the Hilton LAX has confirmed that they haven't gotten any better. Owen
