lol...exactly. It is fun (sometimes) when confronted by the "IT guy" that claims they have zero tolerance for downtime.
We say ok, you need to place your operation inside a telco hotel or you'll need to bring in power from two separate grids, build out fully redundant HVAC, fire suppression, fiber, UPS, generators and redundant microwave paths (from us of course) for starters. <grin> Then they come off cloud nine and start thinking realistically. Best, Brad -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] anyone see this? You know, this really is the answer. Two different isp's I've had the customers over the years, that want 10- 9's because their business depends upon the internet, but then they don't want to pay an extra 30 - 40.00 per month to get it. John Scrivner wrote: > I tell them the fiber is down. I guess I could go broke trying to be > more fault tolerant. Please understand I appreciate your feedback but > understand that my service area does not have a single fault tolerant > broadband solution. If people want fault tolerance here then the option > is to buy two broadband connections from two providers and have an > auto-fail over router. I promote this to people who want fault tolerant > connectivity. If/when we roll out our 12 county AWS based broadband / > cell network we will be multi-homed. Until then the economics of this > would make us broke. I am not exaggerating. > Scriv > > > Matt Liotta wrote: > >> Sure it is more costly than being single-homed, but being multi-homed >> is pretty important. If your single provider goes down what do you >> tell your customers? >> >> -Matt >> >> John Scrivner wrote: >> >>> Maybe it is very costly to do? Charter Pipeline service in my market >>> is not multi-homed either. Neither am I at this point. I used to be >>> multi-homed in the days when 2 T1s did the job. It is not easy to >>> swing redundant fiber runs in a town that is 75 miles from the >>> nearest telco-hotel. When I get multi-homed fibers here then I will >>> probably do that through a mini-telco-hotel facility here and make >>> that place a new business opportunity in itself. >>> Scriv >>> >>> >>> Matt Liotta wrote: >>> >>>> It does make you wonder why the ISP in question wasn't multi-homed. >>>> >>>> -Matt >>>> >>>> Tim Wolfe wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank The good Lord above that I never signed the TelCove contract >>>>> for bandwidth last year!. I mean, you really have no idea what the >>>>> local provider was doing wrong, but to turn off a school district >>>>> and fire CO on that system, COME ON!. You can bet the lawsuits from >>>>> the school district alone will make Level 3 think twice about doing >>>>> this again?. If you have an offending server, the stupid thing has >>>>> an IP address, Block it!. I would hope that Level 3 has enough >>>>> smarts to do this?. Even a little guy like me knows how to block an >>>>> offending IP address, and I am stupid, LOL! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Matt Liotta wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> http://gigaom.com/2007/03/14/why-did-level-3-turn-off-a-rural-isp/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
