Re: Talk Digest, Vol 20, Issue 15

What free DNS servers? I am not so much interested in free as alternative.
George

At 06:22 PM 4/19/2005, you wrote:

>as much as i hate to support "the man" i have to disagree.  i had
>qwest DSL (the 1.5m down, 784 up, $60/mo service) in seattle for
>almost three years with nary an outtage or issue, and C.S. folks were
>always helpful to me.  Now i'm paying even less ($30/mo) for Verizon
>(same down, up is a little less) and am equally happy with their
>service and support.  Again, i don't want to like them but they
>haven't given me any reason not to. ;)
>
>my only complaint with both has been the ISP provider, MSN.  they have
>the worst DNS servers i've ever encountered, both in latency and
>propagation times.  i've stopped using them completely and am donating
>to and using a free DNS service i found on google instead, with
>ridiculously better results.
>
>
>On 4/19/05, [email protected]
><[email protected]> wrote:
> > Send Talk mailing list submissions to
> >         [email protected]
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >         http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >         [email protected]
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >         [email protected]
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Talk digest..."
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. Re: Talk Digest, Vol 20, Issue 13 (Franklin S Werren)
> >    2. RE: OT: QWest experiences??? (Jared B. Reimer)
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:52:22 -0400
> > From: "Franklin S Werren" <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: Talk Digest, Vol 20, Issue 13
> > To: "SeattleWireless Talk List" <[email protected]>
> > Message-ID: <018c01c544f7$c6808710$65c8a8c0@delllaptop2600>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
> >         reply-type=original
> >
> > As far as ISP's goes, I agree, Support your local INDEPENDENT ISP
> > The Telco in my area SUCKS.... They are so bad I built a dedicated
> > wireless backbone from my sisters home to my shop.... so I got a commercial
> > cable
> > modem for hi-speed when my Telco chased out the 2 other ISP's delevering
> > ADSL in my area... I still use my ISP's mail server and there co-lo's 
> for my
> > webservers. My Dial Up ISP is so easy to work with it is not funny.....
> >
> > Also not all ISP's are the same... That Telco that chased out the competing
> > ISP's in my area also cost me big buck several years ago...
> > http://users.adelphia.net/~franksradio/
> >
> > Franklin S. Werren  www.bagpipes.net   www.chautauqualake.net
> >
> > My 2 cents: Never get caught between an ISP and a telco in a pissing 
> match!!
> >                    The customer looses every time!!!
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "ChrisNGne" <[email protected]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:55 AM
> > Subject: RE: Talk Digest, Vol 20, Issue 13
> >
> > > Right on Jared!  Support a local ISP, there are literally hundreds to
> > > choose
> > > from.  I work at an ISP in Olympia, unfortuanately have Comcast at home,
> > > and
> > > everything Jared says is dead on.  Dejan, I strongly recommend you stick
> > > with a local ISP that has the flexibility and know how to give you what
> > > you
> > > want and provide you with quality support.  I've spent years working with
> > > Qwest and I can attest to the quality of their ATM network, but their
> > > customer service has been lacking in my experience.  Please, remember to
> > > look deeper than the bottom line before you make your decision.
> > >
> > > -Christopher Hunt
> > > ReachONE Internet
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> > > [email protected]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 6:32 AM
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Talk Digest, Vol 20, Issue 13
> > >
> > > Send Talk mailing list submissions to
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> > > "Re: Contents of Talk digest..."
> > >
> > >
> > > Today's Topics:
> > >
> > >   1. RE: VoIP public payphones (Casey Halverson)
> > >   2. OT: QWest experiences??? (Dejan Nikic)
> > >   3. Re: OT: QWest experiences??? (Devine Madness)
> > >   4. Re: OT: QWest experiences??? (Jared B. Reimer)
> > >   5. RE: Qwest experiences??? (Ken Meyer)
> > >   6. RE: QWest experiences??? (Casey Halverson)
> > >   7. Re: OT: QWest experiences??? (Steve Herber)
> > >   8. Re: OT: QWest experiences??? (Jared B. Reimer)
> > >   9. Re: OT: QWest experiences??? (Dejan Nikic)
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:35:11 -0700
> > > From: "Casey Halverson" <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: RE: VoIP public payphones
> > > To: "SeattleWireless Talk List" <[email protected]>
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > >
> > > What if you were to contact a telecom company that does payphones, and
> > > offer
> > > them the space, as well as the PSTN link/backhaul?
> > >
> > > While my knowledge is limited in regards to payphones, I am certain they
> > > can
> > > handle a POTS handoff (which is what you'd be giving them).  The only
> > > trick
> > > there would be accounting.
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: [email protected]
> > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tyler van
> > >> Houwelingen
> > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 9:20 AM
> > >> To: SeattleWireless Talk List
> > >> Subject: Re: VoIP public payphones
> > >>
> > >> how would you go about setting it up?  the only problem I see is the
> > >> collection of payments, especially coins.  I guess maybe I could
> > >> convert an
> > >> existing pay phone?   It would be easier just to setup a free
> > >> phone, but
> > >> that would create some issues as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:11:30 -0700
> > > From: Dejan Nikic <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: OT: QWest experiences???
> > > To: SeattleWireless Talk List <[email protected]>
> > > Message-ID: <1113880290.13894.1.camel@localhost>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain
> > >
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > I'm on Speakeasy's DSL line now and I'm thinking of switching to QWEST
> > > mostly due to their higher upload speed (896k).  I'm wondering what your
> > > experiences with them are and do you acctually get this speed or 
> something
> > > much lover like 256k or so?  Also how are their uptimes and such.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 3
> > > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:55:24 -0700
> > > From: Devine Madness <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: OT: QWest experiences???
> > > To: SeattleWireless Talk List <[email protected]>
> > > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> > >
> > > You get what you pay for, I personally hate dealing with qwest for
> > > anything,
> > > but I can't say that I have heard any horror stories per say, but I know
> > > many who have the same opinion about qwest. I would read the fine print
> > > about what they are promising.
> > >
> > > walmart pricing gets you walmart quality.
> > >
> > > On Apr 18, 2005, at 8:11 PM, Dejan Nikic wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hey,
> > >>
> > >> I'm on Speakeasy's DSL line now and I'm thinking of switching to QWEST
> > >> mostly due to their higher upload speed (896k).  I'm wondering what
> > >> your experiences with them are and do you acctually get this speed or
> > >> something much lover like 256k or so?  Also how are their uptimes and
> > >> such.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Talk mailing list
> > >> [email protected]
> > >> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 4
> > > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:02:54 -0700
> > > From: "Jared B. Reimer" <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: OT: QWest experiences???
> > > To: SeattleWireless Talk List <[email protected]>
> > > Message-ID: <p06210251be8a324d88a1@[192.168.0.100]>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> > >
> > > FWIW, we (oz.net) have thousands of customers using Qwest DSL and it is a
> > > very good thing for the overwhelming majority.  Very fast and extremely
> > > reliable in my experience.  Just make sure you don't sign on with MSN -
> > > pick
> > > an independent ISP (there are many to choose from) and deal with Qwest as
> > > little as humanly possible.  FYI, Qwest is reportedly going to offer a
> > > high-speed DSL product (up to 5 or 7 Mbps
> > > downstream) in the next month or two at a sub-$40/mo price-point 
> exclusive
> > > of ISP charges - this should be interesting to see.  (Of course, YMMV
> > > depending on loop length & quality...) -- Jared
> > >
> > >
> > > At 8:55 PM -0700 4/18/05, Devine Madness wrote:
> > >>You get what you pay for, I personally hate dealing with qwest for
> > >>anything, but I can't say that I have heard any horror stories per say,
> > >>but I know many who have the same opinion about qwest. I would read the
> > >>fine print about what they are promising.
> > >>
> > >>walmart pricing gets you walmart quality.
> > >>
> > >>On Apr 18, 2005, at 8:11 PM, Dejan Nikic wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Hey,
> > >>>
> > >>>I'm on Speakeasy's DSL line now and I'm thinking of switching to QWEST
> > >>>mostly due to their higher upload speed (896k).  I'm wondering what
> > >>>your experiences with them are and do you acctually get this speed or
> > >>>something much lover like 256k or so?  Also how are their uptimes and
> > >>>such.
> > >>>
> > >>>Thank you.
> > >>>
> > >>>_______________________________________________
> > >>>Talk mailing list
> > >>>[email protected]
> > >>>http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>Talk mailing list
> > >>[email protected]
> > >>http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jared B. Reimer <[email protected]>
> > > The River Internet Access Co.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 5
> > > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:21:33 -0700
> > > From: "Ken Meyer" <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: RE: Qwest experiences???
> > > To: "SeattleWireless Talk List" <[email protected]>
> > > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > >
> > > Well, if you are using Speakeasy, you may hop on Covad's network at 
> the CO
> > > (are they still using Covad?) instead of on Qwest's, but it seems to me
> > > that
> > > the ugliness is more likely to be in the so called "local loop", between
> > > you
> > > and the CO, which is Qwest either way, is it not?  As far as dealing with
> > > morons is concerned, find a good one at the head end and ask for his/her
> > > name.
> > >
> > > How's zat?
> > >
> > > Ken Meyer
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Dejan Nikic
> > > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 8:12 PM
> > > To: SeattleWireless Talk List
> > >
> > > Subject: OT: QWest experiences???
> > >
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > I'm on Speakeasy's DSL line now and I'm thinking of switching to QWEST
> > > mostly due to their higher upload speed (896k).  I'm wondering what your
> > > experiences with them are and do you acctually get this speed or
> > > something much lover like 256k or so?  Also how are their uptimes and
> > > such.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Talk mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 6
> > > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:43:48 -0700
> > > From: "Casey Halverson" <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: RE: QWest experiences???
> > > To: "SeattleWireless Talk List" <[email protected]>
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <[email protected]>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > >
> > > I have qwest.net DSL.
> > >
> > > I ordered the 1.5 meg service, and my line is actually provisioned at
> > > 1536Kbps / 1024Kbps.  They pretty much give you whatever upload speed
> > > your loop can handle.
> > >
> > > You can take that $28 loop to your own DSL provider, or qwest.net.
> > > Qwest.net is dirt cheap.  Over the last couple of years, my ISP rate has
> > > ranged from 6.99 to 8.99/mo.
> > >
> > > I can do full rate upload and download.  Uptimes are very good, although
> > > I am not particular fond of my actiontec modem.  It's a POS.
> > >
> > > You could say stupid crap like "you get what you pay for", but then we
> > > all realize that the LEC can totally undercut everybody, because they
> > > can.  They own all the infrastructure, DSLAMs, and even their own
> > > backbone.  ATM cells are ATM cells ... and it really doesn't matter if
> > > they go to oz.net or qwest.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email protected]
> > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dejan Nikic
> > > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 8:12 PM
> > > To: SeattleWireless Talk List
> > > Subject: OT: QWest experiences???
> > >
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > I'm on Speakeasy's DSL line now and I'm thinking of switching to QWEST
> > > mostly due to their higher upload speed (896k).  I'm wondering what your
> > > experiences with them are and do you acctually get this speed or
> > > something much lover like 256k or so?  Also how are their uptimes and
> > > such.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Talk mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 7
> > > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
> > > From: Steve Herber <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: OT: QWest experiences???
> > > To: "Jared B. Reimer" <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: SeattleWireless Talk List <[email protected]>
> > > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> > >
> > > What would the ISP charges be, from oz.net, to support this new 
> high-speed
> > > Qwest product?  I have been a very satisfied 256/256 Qwest/oz.net DSL
> > > customer for ages and have been considering a speed upgrade.  This sound
> > > like a real winner If the total price is not too high.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steve Herber [email protected] work: 206-221-7262
> > > Security Engineer, UW Medicine, IT Services home: 425-454-2399
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Jared B. Reimer wrote:
> > >
> > >> FWIW, we (oz.net) have thousands of customers using Qwest DSL and it
> > >> is a very good thing for the overwhelming majority.  Very fast and
> > >> extremely reliable in my experience.  Just make sure you don't sign
> > >> on with MSN - pick an independent ISP (there are many to choose from)
> > >> and deal with Qwest as little as humanly possible.  FYI, Qwest is
> > >> reportedly going to offer a high-speed DSL product (up to 5 or 7 Mbps
> > >> downstream) in the next month or two at a sub-$40/mo price-point
> > >> exclusive of ISP charges - this should be interesting to see.  (Of
> > >> course, YMMV depending on loop length & quality...) -- Jared
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> At 8:55 PM -0700 4/18/05, Devine Madness wrote:
> > >> >You get what you pay for, I personally hate dealing with qwest for
> > >> >anything, but I can't say that I have heard any horror stories per
> > >> >say, but I know many who have the same opinion about qwest. I would
> > >> >read the fine print about what they are promising.
> > >> >
> > >> >walmart pricing gets you walmart quality.
> > >> >
> > >> >On Apr 18, 2005, at 8:11 PM, Dejan Nikic wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>Hey,
> > >> >>
> > >> >>I'm on Speakeasy's DSL line now and I'm thinking of switching to QWEST
> > >> >>mostly due to their higher upload speed (896k).  I'm wondering what
> > >> >>your
> > >> >>experiences with them are and do you acctually get this speed or
> > >> >>something much lover like 256k or so?  Also how are their uptimes and
> > >> >>such.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Thank you.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>_______________________________________________
> > >> >>Talk mailing list
> > >> >>[email protected]
> > >> >>http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >_______________________________________________
> > >> >Talk mailing list
> > >> >[email protected]
> > >> >http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 8
> > > Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:23:46 -0700
> > > From: "Jared B. Reimer" <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: OT: QWest experiences???
> > > To: Steve Herber <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: SeattleWireless Talk List <[email protected]>
> > > Message-ID: <p06210202be8ab16bffdb@[192.168.0.100]>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> > >
> > > At 11:31 PM -0700 4/18/05, Steve Herber wrote:
> > >>What would the ISP charges be, from oz.net, to support this new 
> high-speed
> > >>Qwest product?  I have been a very satisfied 256/256 Qwest/oz.net DSL
> > >>customer for ages and have been considering a speed upgrade.  This sound
> > >>like a real winner If the total price is not too high.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think most independent ISPs charge about the same for access these
> > > days, which is to say around $20, exclusive of the DSL loop itself.
> > > (Pricing is typically on the ISP's website, e.g. www.oz.net in our
> > > case.  We don't charge more for the 1.5Mbps product; I don't think
> > > most others do, either.)  Typically, the big variables in pricing are
> > > (1) quality of customer service and (2) quality of network.
> > > Speakeasy, for example, has built a great business by emphasizing
> > > those two points and charging a reasonable premium for it.
> > >
> > > From my point of view, one key reason to avoid the Qwest+MSN combo
> > > meal is that they take ownership of your DSL line, making it
> > > impossible to switch ISPs without physically disconnecting the DSL
> > > circuit and ordering a new one.  This process can take days, and
> > > reportedly up to two weeks, during which time you are without access.
> > > By contrast, if you use an independent ISP and are not happy with the
> > > service, you can typically call Qwest and switch service providers
> > > with only a trivial amount of downtime as they swing your PVC to a
> > > different ISP.
> > >
> > > Someone recently remarked that 'ATM cells are ATM cells' and implied
> > > that the ISP portion of the service isn't really relevant.  I need to
> > > clarify this point, as it is not as simple as it may appear.  First
> > > of all, the ISP has to choose how much bandwidth to provision to the
> > > downstream user on the ATM side.  It is not a flat rate service -
> > > ISPs are given the option (by Qwest) to buy as much or as little as
> > > we'd like, in 3 Mbps increments.  Likewise, the ISP you use has a
> > > choice of upstream transit providers, some of which are great and
> > > some of which are less than great.  Again, they have to make a
> > > business decision as to which transit providers they use, and how
> > > much they oversubscribe that bandwidth, as well.
> > >
> > > Frankly, those two issues alone have as much or more to do with the
> > > real-world performance you'll see as the speed your DSL modem
> > > connects to the DSLAM at -- if the ISP is massively oversubscribed on
> > > either side of the network, you may not be able to get anywhere near
> > > the speeds you are expecting.  Other ISP-related issues such as DNS
> > > server performance and local content caching (e.g. Akamai) can also
> > > make a big difference in terms of your actual experience.
> > >
> > > Consider the cable modem scenario, where the network is massively
> > > oversubscribed, the ISP has zero incentive to improve it (because
> > > there is no meaningful competition in many of those markets), and the
> > > connection itself is shared amongst hundreds of users, any one of
> > > whom can effectively monopolize it if they behave badly.  This is why
> > > the advertising by Comcast and others is so terribly misleading -
> > > they imply that DSL is slower, but fail to footnote the fact that the
> > > maximum possible speeds they are promoting are not ones you will
> > > receive at the times you want them most.
> > >
> > > -- Jared
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jared B. Reimer <[email protected]>
> > > The River Internet Access Co.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 9
> > > Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:31:50 -0700
> > > From: Dejan Nikic <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: OT: QWest experiences???
> > > To: SeattleWireless Talk List <[email protected]>
> > > Message-ID: <1113917510.14227.1.camel@localhost>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain
> > >
> > > Well I was thinking of going with QWest.net deal since they are only
> > > $9.99 and I don't need all the extra features (e-mail, webspace, ...)
> > > all I need is a static IP and I'm ready to go.  Only problem I have so
> > > far is that the downtime will be at least a week to switch and the fact
> > > that I need to purchase a new modem.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 06:23 -0700, Jared B. Reimer wrote:
> > >> At 11:31 PM -0700 4/18/05, Steve Herber wrote:
> > >> >What would the ISP charges be, from oz.net, to support this new
> > > high-speed
> > >> >Qwest product?  I have been a very satisfied 256/256 Qwest/oz.net DSL
> > >> >customer for ages and have been considering a speed upgrade.  This 
> sound
> > >> >like a real winner If the total price is not too high.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I think most independent ISPs charge about the same for access these
> > >> days, which is to say around $20, exclusive of the DSL loop itself.
> > >> (Pricing is typically on the ISP's website, e.g. www.oz.net in our
> > >> case.  We don't charge more for the 1.5Mbps product; I don't think
> > >> most others do, either.)  Typically, the big variables in pricing are
> > >> (1) quality of customer service and (2) quality of network.
> > >> Speakeasy, for example, has built a great business by emphasizing
> > >> those two points and charging a reasonable premium for it.
> > >>
> > >>  From my point of view, one key reason to avoid the Qwest+MSN combo
> > >> meal is that they take ownership of your DSL line, making it
> > >> impossible to switch ISPs without physically disconnecting the DSL
> > >> circuit and ordering a new one.  This process can take days, and
> > >> reportedly up to two weeks, during which time you are without access.
> > >> By contrast, if you use an independent ISP and are not happy with the
> > >> service, you can typically call Qwest and switch service providers
> > >> with only a trivial amount of downtime as they swing your PVC to a
> > >> different ISP.
> > >>
> > >> Someone recently remarked that 'ATM cells are ATM cells' and implied
> > >> that the ISP portion of the service isn't really relevant.  I need to
> > >> clarify this point, as it is not as simple as it may appear.  First
> > >> of all, the ISP has to choose how much bandwidth to provision to the
> > >> downstream user on the ATM side.  It is not a flat rate service -
> > >> ISPs are given the option (by Qwest) to buy as much or as little as
> > >> we'd like, in 3 Mbps increments.  Likewise, the ISP you use has a
> > >> choice of upstream transit providers, some of which are great and
> > >> some of which are less than great.  Again, they have to make a
> > >> business decision as to which transit providers they use, and how
> > >> much they oversubscribe that bandwidth, as well.
> > >>
> > >> Frankly, those two issues alone have as much or more to do with the
> > >> real-world performance you'll see as the speed your DSL modem
> > >> connects to the DSLAM at -- if the ISP is massively oversubscribed on
> > >> either side of the network, you may not be able to get anywhere near
> > >> the speeds you are expecting.  Other ISP-related issues such as DNS
> > >> server performance and local content caching (e.g. Akamai) can also
> > >> make a big difference in terms of your actual experience.
> > >>
> > >> Consider the cable modem scenario, where the network is massively
> > >> oversubscribed, the ISP has zero incentive to improve it (because
> > >> there is no meaningful competition in many of those markets), and the
> > >> connection itself is shared amongst hundreds of users, any one of
> > >> whom can effectively monopolize it if they behave badly.  This is why
> > >> the advertising by Comcast and others is so terribly misleading -
> > >> they imply that DSL is slower, but fail to footnote the fact that the
> > >> maximum possible speeds they are promoting are not ones you will
> > >> receive at the times you want them most.
> > >>
> > >> -- Jared
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Talk mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > >
> > >
> > > End of Talk Digest, Vol 20, Issue 13
> > > ************************************
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Talk mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.17 - Release Date: 4/19/2005
> > >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.17 - Release Date: 4/19/2005
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 09:06:08 -0700
> > From: "Jared B. Reimer" <[email protected]>
> > Subject: RE: OT: QWest experiences???
> > To: [email protected],   SeattleWireless Talk List
> >         <[email protected]>
> > Message-ID: <p06210205be8ad8aeccbd@[192.168.0.100]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
> >
> > >  I wonder if anyone has published a table
> > >of the capabilities of various good, local ISP's, such as Oz, Blarg,
> > >Drizzle, Zipcon, 2Alpha and others.
> >
> > I know the Puget Sound Business Journal publishes a list once a year,
> > but sadly they do not check the validity of the data and as such,
> > some of it is grossly inaccurate.
> >
> > Aside from that, I'm not really aware of one.  The UW CS department
> > used to have a page dedicated to the topic but I think it has not
> > been updated in a very long time.
> >
> > Might be a worthy addition to the Seattle Wireless web, esp. denoting
> > which ISPs are WiFi friendly and which have restrictive terms of
> > service that deny you the right to use your connection as you see
> > fit...
> >
> > >  Would Oz be willing to share that
> > >information?
> >
> > Of course.  Email me off-list with any specific questions and I'll
> > gladly provide it.
> >
> > >   Another aspect that I have wondered about is where the servers
> > >are kept. and what the backup, redundancy, UPS, etc. situation is.
> >
> > These are very good questions to be asking.  It is difficult and
> > expensive to build high-availability networks and server farms.  Many
> > ISPs have historically not been able to do this due to the cost.  It
> > has only been in recent years that it has become pretty much the
> > industry standard amongst independent ISPs.  Redundant power,
> > cooling, servers, storage, routing, switching, transit, load
> > balancing, etc. are all essential at this point (from my point of
> > view) as customers are very unforgiving about downtime.
> >
> > >  Does the
> > >hardware usually reside in some hosting service somewhere?
> >
> > Most of the WA ISPs I know keep their server farms in the downtown
> > Seattle carrier hotel.  Some keep their servers off-site (e.g. at
> > their offices) and others may use off-site colocation facilities.
> >
> > >   There is a tier
> > >of ISP's, such as (I think) SeaNET, Olympus, etc. who charge more than the
> > >average, and the only rationale that I see is that they may have
> > >"industrial-strength" facilities, at least some of whose aspects could be
> > >more important for businesses that can't afford ANY outages (at least ones
> > >that don't take down their competition as well).
> >
> > I don't know anything about the two you've mentioned, but would
> > encourage you to ask the sorts of questions you have been asking of
> > ISPs you are considering using, especially if your Internet
> > connection is used for business purposes.  There are big differences
> > in how things are built and operated behind the scenes.
> >
> > >Note that they also ding you more if you want to run servers, which is
> > >aggravating since it seems that this only requires 30 seconds at the
> > >keyboard to unblock a port or several.
> >
> > This isn't the issue.  The issue has been twofold: first, folks
> > running servers tend to consume a lot more bandwidth than the average
> > user.  Second, a lot of folks sadly set up insecure mail systems
> > which often simply relay mail to the ISP's server.  This is a
> > spammer's dream come true and every ISP's nightmare.
> >
> > Many ISPs now filter port 25 in particular.  Some do not do any
> > filtering.  (We are in the latter category, for purely philosophical
> > reasons, but I can certainly see the argument for the former..  The
> > question really becomes 'should we protect our users from themselves'
> > and if so, 'where do we draw the line?'  It's a slippery slope, and
> > one I'd personally prefer not to slide down.)
> >
> > What I personally find most despicable is when ISPs like Verizon use
> > this kind of a security issue as an excuse to force you in to their
> > marketing programs.  Verizon.net, for example, will prevent you from
> > using anything but a Verizon.net email address on their network.
> > (They will not allow you to, for example, send mail as
> > [email protected] from a Verizon.net DSL connection.)  This is
> > nothing more than a marketing ploy; their argument that it is somehow
> > a matter of security is simply nonsense.  I am amazed that their
> > customers tolerate it.
> >
> > >By the way, what is the implication of "Pro" services.  Is that linked to
> > >Qwest's "Pro" service, and what does this buy for you?  "Guaranteed"
> > >bandwidth?  Faster repair service?  Ego-stroking?
> >
> > I'd say it has more to do with perception than reality, personally,
> > but I suspect that Qwest would tell you something different.  On the
> > ISP's end of things, the PVCs look and behave the same.  There may be
> > subtle differences on the Qwest side that I am not aware of.
> >
> > >Although I have great distain for Comcast in general, it seems to me that
> > >the definition of "ADSL" is that, "...we don't promise anything", so 
> granted
> > >that what you say about loops is true, maybe it's not much different with
> > >Qwest or any of the others offering ADSL, where it may be the broken-down
> > >plant, rather than the traffic, that limits you, but you still have no 
> right
> > >to having it fixed.
> >
> > I think the biggest differences between DSL and cable modem service
> > are choice of ISP (which leads to competition, lower prices,
> > innovation, better service, etc.) and performance (because you aren't
> > sharing the last mile connection with the entire city).  It's pretty
> > much a no-brainer.  It is true that the ILECs have historically tried
> > to paint DSL in a "best effort" or "non-business-grade" light as they
> > were afraid of cannibalizing their very lucrative T1 & frame relay
> > business.  They have more recently realized that if they don't eat
> > their own lunch, someone else will, and have made great strides in
> > this regard.  That said, DSL has its own set of technical limitations
> > (relating to loop length and quality, mostly) and isn't perfect --
> > but in my experience, once it works, it's pretty much dead reliable
> > and fades in to the background, much as electrical service does.
> > YMMV.
> >
> > -- Jared
> >
> > --
> > Jared B. Reimer <[email protected]>
> > The River Internet Access Co.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >
> > End of Talk Digest, Vol 20, Issue 15
> > ************************************
> >
>_______________________________________________
>Talk mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.17 - Release Date: 4/19/2005
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.17 - Release Date: 4/19/2005


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.17 - Release Date: 4/19/2005




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.17 - Release Date: 4/19/2005

_______________________________________________
Talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk