Re: ISP options
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 15:13 -0600, Steven Alligood wrote: > What on earth would make you believe that you are in any conceivable way > a peer to an Internet Service Provider? What on earth would make you believe that you are in any conceivable way smart enough to post to Plug? > I get tired of home users constantly griping that they cannot > constantly use their full bandwidth. I get tired of replies from morons constantly griping that someone is wrong when they're too dense to even understand what the person they're replying to was saying. -- "XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve your problem, you aren't using enough of it." - Chris Maden /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: ISP options
On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 15:13 -0600, Steven Alligood wrote: > > How is Rapidwave these days, anyone know? Do they understand that > > Internet nodes should be peers, not mere consumers? > What on earth would make you believe that you are in any conceivable way > a peer to an Internet Service Provider? Dude, go back and read that again. At no point did he say that node == ISP. He said node == node. In other words, his home system should be just as useful as my virtual private server with Linode, which should be just as useful as a server in BYU's datacenter. He's harking back to the good old days when important Internet nodes could be cobbled together with legos running under a grad student's desk. Sadly, today if you run a server at home you're a second class citizen compared to someone renting space in a datacenter. > Peers, on the other hand, share traffic and resources to the mutual > benefit of both parties, often for no monetary cost. Peer in the sense of equal, not Internet peering. Sheesh, lighten up. > At home, you are definitely a consumer. In a data center, you may one > day grow to be big enough that someone will consider you a peer. Some people would be more willing to accept the situation if ISPs were more transparent about limitations. Instead of claiming "unlimited bandwidth" publish their policies and let people decide for themselves how to spend their quota. My Web server doesn't need to push gigs of data and it never will. Neither will my email server. Why should I be relegated to some ghetto just because I'm using kilobytes a day instead of gigabytes? -- "XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve your problem, you aren't using enough of it." - Chris Maden /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: ISP options
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 04:03:05PM -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote: > > Most ISPs filter or mangle packets in ways they think will cause no > harm. They are sorely mistaken. There is always *something* that > breaks due to packet interference, but ISPs hear about only a fraction > of the issues that occur. I agree completely. Part of the problem with filtering/mangling is that it can cause problems that are weird enough that you don't really know who to blame. It can be terribly frustrating. -- Andrew McNabb http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/ PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868 /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: ISP options
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:40:32PM -0600, Dallin Jones wrote: > > If ISPs don't want customers to use massive amounts of bandwidth, they > > should set clear and fair policies. This would require striking the > > word "unlimited" from all marketing materials. > > Since when has "unlimited" ever meant unlimited. You have to remember > that there is always a little asterisk that has some caveat in it. Asterisks make things legal, not honest. As long as ISPs use the word "unlimited" (asterisk or no), my sympathies will always side with the customers. > Realistically would you buy bandwidth from a company on a per MB or GB > basis? I would much rather go with a company that sets fair but reasonable limits than one that uses arbitrary, variable, and non-disclosed limits. -- Andrew McNabb http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/ PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868 /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: ISP options
Steven Alligood wrote: > I get tired of home users constantly griping that they cannot constantly > use their full bandwidth. Let me clue you in. Bandwidth costs money. > Most ISPs are paying on the order of $10 - $50 per megabit. If you are > using your full bandwidth all the time, you are costing them between $80 > and $500 per month, not counting the infrastructure, support staff, > local loops charges, etc. In other words, they loose money on you. > That is not a viable business model. Bandwidth has little to do with the issue I'm talking about. I'm talking about receiving packets, unfiltered and unmangled, on a static IP address, at home. As a software developer, I spend my day solving puzzles. Time spent solving networking bugs is time lost solving meaningful puzzles. Any filtering or mangling of packets costs me hours of debugging on a regular basis. Most ISPs filter or mangle packets in ways they think will cause no harm. They are sorely mistaken. There is always *something* that breaks due to packet interference, but ISPs hear about only a fraction of the issues that occur. XMission does not filter or mangle in any way I've been able to detect. I'm feeling spoiled by XMission right now, regardless of the limited bandwidth of DSL. I'm willing to pay more money to get more bandwidth at home, but if that means packets get filtered and mangled, I'll stick with what I already have, thank you. Shane /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: ISP options
On Oct 27, 2009, at 3:29 PM, Andrew McNabb wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:13:31PM -0600, Steven Alligood wrote: >> >> Don't expect your ISP to smile and be happy that you are using more >> resources than you are paying for. Go put a server into a data >> center >> like Center7, Fibernet, or even Xmission, and pay the rack, power and >> bandwidth charges for what you actually use, and everyone will be >> more >> than happy to help you run whatever you want to run. Not true, try setting up a spam bot, or a porn site. There are lots of local datacenters that won't let you do that. But you are right, they are more willing to help you use large amounts of bandwidth. > > If you're paying for unlimited bandwidth, you can't possibly use more > resources than you are paying for. It's a syllogism or something. :) > > If ISPs don't want customers to use massive amounts of bandwidth, they > should set clear and fair policies. This would require striking the > word "unlimited" from all marketing materials. > Since when has "unlimited" ever meant unlimited. You have to remember that there is always a little asterisk that has some caveat in it. Webhosts do it all the time. Look at Blue Host, they offer "Unlimited" bandwidth and Unlimited disk space, but if you use more that their threshold allows, then you are moved to a server with all the other hogs, and all of a sudden your site is crawling slow. That's why I never trust anyone that says "unlimited" anything, AT&T is another example of that, my data plan is "Unlimited" but you better believe that they get after you when you use too much. Realistically would you buy bandwidth from a company on a per MB or GB basis? That's why people use the marketing with "Unlimited" in it. My bandwidth for my servers doesn't come as unlimited (as much as I would love that). I pay for each and every MB that I send and receive. It wouldn't surprise me if ISP start changing the way they charge... Our Internet bills will start to look like power as gas bills, all based on usage. Dallin Jones /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: ISP options
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:13:31PM -0600, Steven Alligood wrote: > > Don't expect your ISP to smile and be happy that you are using more > resources than you are paying for. Go put a server into a data center > like Center7, Fibernet, or even Xmission, and pay the rack, power and > bandwidth charges for what you actually use, and everyone will be more > than happy to help you run whatever you want to run. If you're paying for unlimited bandwidth, you can't possibly use more resources than you are paying for. It's a syllogism or something. :) If ISPs don't want customers to use massive amounts of bandwidth, they should set clear and fair policies. This would require striking the word "unlimited" from all marketing materials. As long as the ISPs are being childish, you can't expect much better from their customers. :) -- Andrew McNabb http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/ PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868 /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: ISP options
Steven Alligood wrote: > What on earth would make you believe that you are in any conceivable way > a peer to an Internet Service Provider? Not sure if you're deliberately trying to be funny here. Who said anything about "peering" as in ISPs. So peer-to-peer networking and file sharing is inconceivable? The internet was designed with the idea that each node on the internet was both a client and a server. Nodes, therefore, were intended to be peers to each other. Meaning that any one node can reach another node. Over the years ISPs have been eroding this original design, inserting layers of NAT between nodes, preventing them from acting in a peer-to-peer function. This breaks much of the original internet design. For example, FTP cannot work without help (obsoleted by sftp though). VoIP is similar disadvantaged, requiring STUN and other NAT traversal hacks.Recently I went to try out echolink (a HAM radio gateway system) only to find out that NAT'ed networks don't allow echo link to work, since it's a peer-to-peer system (make sense as it's an extension of ham radio). /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: ISP options
Wade Preston Shearer wrote: > On Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at 12:51PM, "Shane Hathaway" > wrote: > >> How is Rapidwave these days, anyone know? Do they understand that >> Internet nodes should be peers, not mere consumers? > > I am a satisfied Rapidwave customer. The only thing that they have > done recently that bothered me was redirecting me to a branded search > results screen for a domain that doesn't exist. So many ISPs, so few bullets. Shane /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: ISP options
How is Rapidwave these days, anyone know? Do they understand that Internet nodes should be peers, not mere consumers? What on earth would make you believe that you are in any conceivable way a peer to an Internet Service Provider? Customers pay roughly $40/month to have Internet traffic in the range of 0 bit/sec up to their cap (8-10 Mbit/sec), but if they use their bandwidth, they are only worth the money in the large grouping of customers that makes profits from the averaging of customer usage. Peers, on the other hand, share traffic and resources to the mutual benefit of both parties, often for no monetary cost. I get tired of home users constantly griping that they cannot constantly use their full bandwidth. Let me clue you in. Bandwidth costs money. Most ISPs are paying on the order of $10 - $50 per megabit. If you are using your full bandwidth all the time, you are costing them between $80 and $500 per month, not counting the infrastructure, support staff, local loops charges, etc. In other words, they loose money on you. That is not a viable business model. Don't expect your ISP to smile and be happy that you are using more resources than you are paying for. Go put a server into a data center like Center7, Fibernet, or even Xmission, and pay the rack, power and bandwidth charges for what you actually use, and everyone will be more than happy to help you run whatever you want to run. At home, you are definitely a consumer. In a data center, you may one day grow to be big enough that someone will consider you a peer. -Steve smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: ISP options
On Tue, October 27, 2009 2:00 pm, Wade Preston Shearer wrote: > On Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at 12:51PM, "Shane Hathaway" > > wrote: > >>How is Rapidwave these days, anyone know? Do they understand that >>Internet nodes should be peers, not mere consumers? > > I am a satisfied Rapidwave customer. The only thing that they have done > recently that > bothered me was redirecting me to a branded search results screen for a > domain that > doesn't exist. Ewww. NXDOMAIN interception is bad. Do they filter DNS queries, or can you just specify your own servers that behave properly? -- Matthew Walker Kydance Hosting & Consulting, Inc. - http://www.kydance.net/ PHP, Perl, and Web Development - Linux Server Administration /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: ISP options
On Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at 12:51PM, "Shane Hathaway" wrote: >How is Rapidwave these days, anyone know? Do they understand that >Internet nodes should be peers, not mere consumers? I am a satisfied Rapidwave customer. The only thing that they have done recently that bothered me was redirecting me to a branded search results screen for a domain that doesn't exist. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: ISP options
Alex Esplin wrote: > Yeah. It's a crying shame XMission can't get in on better service than > DSL in Provo. I'd switch to fiber in a heartbeat if I could get fiber > from XMission. FWIW, fiber to American Fork via XMission would easily save me a lot of money right now. Therefore I'd be willing to pay fairly. Fiber to American Fork via someone less clueful than XMission, OTOH, would cause me to *lose* money. Companies like Comcast treat me like an enemy for running servers, while XMission simply applies a generous bandwidth cap. How is Rapidwave these days, anyone know? Do they understand that Internet nodes should be peers, not mere consumers? Shane /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
