I live in Orem and have Utopia fiber through Xmission. I get 15megabit up/down with one static IP for $44 month. My typical downloads from servers without rate limits are around 2 MBytes per second.
Xmission does have a 100gb/month quota on transfers, but the quota only counts against you 7am-midnight Mon thru Fri. Bandwidth within xmission's network also doesn't count against your quota. Xmission has many mirrors for a wide range of linux distros and other software. (I now update debian unstable at 2MBytes/sec :). Xmission also stays ahead on their capacity for uplinks. You can check out https://stats.xmission.com/routers/public/ to see their current pipes. From reading broadband reports, I saw some very negative comments about MStar indicating that during peak hours, actual download speeds would suffer (typical symptom of overselling their uplink pipes). I've never tried them myselfs, so I don't know if this is still true or not, but I've never had a problem with Xmission. Short story: I would highly recommend Xmission for an ISP. -daniel On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 20:01 -0700, jb wrote: > Is anyone else in Orem, where the Metronet (or something like that) > fiber network is going in? > > I'm just off Center Street, and they laid the cable last year. Comcast > cut both my TV and Internet rates (upgraded the service too) to keep me > with them, but I can still switch at any time. Now Xmission is offering > full fiber installation, and waiving all hookup fees for early adopters. > > I'm content with Comcast, but I'm wondering what kind of uptime and > bandwidth I can expect from a new service. (And I've heard nothing but > good things about Xmission.) > > -jb > > > > > Robert LeBlanc wrote: > > Actually it is XMissions fault. They said it was too expensive for them > > since they are based in SLC. iProvo has been accepting applications for > > providers since before the roll out. Just because only one company > > decided to do it at first does not mean it's a monopoly that was forced > > by the city. > > > > Robert > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> On Behalf Of Andrew McNabb > >> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:14 PM > >> To: BYU Unix Users Group > >> Subject: Re: [uug] iProvo stinks > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 07:01:01PM -0700, Robert LeBlanc wrote: > >> > >>> I was really bummed about XMission not picking up on iProvo. It > >>> > > would be > > > >>> nice to not have to worry about their transfer quotas though. > >>> > >>> > >> It's not XMission's fault. iProvo established a monopoly for the > >> > > first > > > >> few years of the system (I still don't get the benefit). > >> > >> -- > >> Andrew McNabb > >> http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/ > >> PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868 > >> > > > > -------------------- > > BYU Unix Users Group > > http://uug.byu.edu/ > > > > The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their > > author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list > > > > > > > -------------------- > BYU Unix Users Group > http://uug.byu.edu/ > > The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their > author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list > -- James D. Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
