http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/09/xmission-isp-customers-privacy-nsa
-Bill
I can happily state that XMission is my home ISP, with UTOPIA (city-involved fiber optic provider) as the local loop. (Really, who has 100/100 at home?)
I do hope the latest patches $network_vendor has sent Pete allows him to get IPv6 to me, though. 
Jima
Jima said: Really, who has 100/100 at home?
Oddly, those living in Grand Coulee, WA.
I went there once to setup corporate connectivity for a regional tire
store. They ordered the minimal drop, 50/50Mbs. One of the tire changers
there told me that he had 100/100 at home for $50/month.
This was a town without T-Mobile service. I had to haul out the butt set
and clip on to the business POTS lines to turn up the VPN.
Most of rural Central Washington has very good fiber connectivity. Forward
looking Public Utility Districts FTW!
Someone I know in Washington state has 100/100 at home and made the comment
to me a year ago that it was one of the slower speeds offered. I am not
sure who his ISP is however.
-Grant
http://www.nwi.net/ I'm thinking. Rides the county's fiber network. I
remember delivering them T1s from Seattle back in the day ('96ish). I sure
wish I could get some of that love.
Yet, here, where I live, only 47 road miles from New York City, I have a cable company who sells me metered (yes, METERED) DOCSIS, for nearly $100/month, 35/3. The limitation is like 100 GB/month or something (the equivalent of the amount of Netflix or AppleTV my kids watch in a weekend) No alternatives, no FiOS, no nothing. Well, I can get 3/.768 DSL if I please.
Someone, please help me.
Please.
He might have been talking about Condo Internet if he is in the Seattle area. They deliver 1Gig connections to your Condo/Apartment, if your in one of the buildings they service.
Also I wanted to mention that I have only seen,heard and experienced good things from Xmission. It is nice to see how they have been handling these issues.
Sincerely,
Mark
In Mountain View (the middle of Silicon Valley) the only choice i have is
overpriced Comcast w/ a 300 gig limit. I used to chew threw 300 gig in a
week when i was in school.
-Grant
and here i am in the icann-selected hotel for the icann conference, and they gave us a total of 500MB of metered usage. for our entire stay, not per day.
(should be better on the conference net).
maybe i should just check out and check in every day.
There are a few wireless providers that serve the Mountain View area..
-Mike
Founder
Ridge Wireless
www.ridgewireless.net
I know the guy that does Condo. He was a very good friend of a very good
friend of NANOG. Joe Wood (RIP) from Google, Flying Croc, and Wolfe. They
were just starting a CLEC in the Puget Sound area when Joe died.
Damn, I miss that bastard.
Well, I think Google has the right idea with providing Internet by floating
balloons. And the way that cell phone tech has been improving, we might all
have 10G in... 10 years or so?
If Google is providing it, it'll be monitored by our government but hey,
we'll have enough bandwidth to hang ourselves with 
I really wish more places would just start Internet co-ops.
Trust me, the 500MB limit (per day, and resettable if you go down to the front desk and request more) is the least of your worries:
% ping trantor.virtualized.org
....
Request timeout for icmp_seq 179
Request timeout for icmp_seq 180
Request timeout for icmp_seq 181
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=104 ttl=40 time=78594.936 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=64 ttl=40 time=119037.553 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=80 ttl=40 time=103268.363 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=80 ttl=40 time=103690.981 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=64 ttl=40 time=120196.719 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=64 ttl=40 time=120333.246 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=85 ttl=40 time=99395.502 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=105 ttl=40 time=79406.728 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 186
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=93 ttl=40 time=94822.040 ms
Request timeout for icmp_seq 188
Request timeout for icmp_seq 189
...
Regards,
-drc
You're on a continent with the second least amount of light pollution
of all of the continents on earth (iirc) and are somehow surprised
about bad net access? I would question the wisdom of planning a tech
conference there, but not the facility itself.
Nope.
Here's a trace to the same destination, from Cape Town:
woody$ ping trantor.virtualized.org
PING trantor.virtualized.org (199.48.134.42): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=0 ttl=241 time=228.552 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=1 ttl=241 time=241.209 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=2 ttl=241 time=243.835 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=3 ttl=241 time=316.949 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=4 ttl=241 time=283.197 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=5 ttl=241 time=229.341 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=6 ttl=241 time=242.710 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=7 ttl=241 time=307.105 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=8 ttl=241 time=330.387 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=9 ttl=241 time=244.312 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=10 ttl=241 time=231.485 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=11 ttl=241 time=241.859 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=12 ttl=241 time=249.606 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=13 ttl=241 time=250.695 ms
64 bytes from 199.48.134.42: icmp_seq=14 ttl=241 time=253.704 ms
^C
--- trantor.virtualized.org ping statistics ---
15 packets transmitted, 15 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 228.552/259.663/330.387/32.060 ms
b8f6b1147369:~ woody$
-Bill
Heh nice pic
Ok I've been wrong before.
You're on a continent with the second least amount of light pollution
of all of the continents on earth (iirc) and are somehow surprised
about bad net access?
Africa is not homogeneous.
I would question the wisdom of planning a tech
conference there, but not the facility itself.
Actually, I expect the bandwidth/latency at the conference venue itself is fine (has been so far, but the conference hasn't really started yet), even given the high-bandwidth requirements (streaming audio and video in parallel sessions and around 2000 attendees and a zillion wifi devices). ICANN has been doing this for a while in a bunch of different places (some significantly more challenging than Durban, ZA).
I suspect the problem is the (offsite) hotel that Mark and I are at was not really prepared for a full house of folks interested in viewing streams, downloading documents, etc. (despite attempts to inform the hotel of the impending tsunami). I imagine folks involved in setting up NANOG-related networks might be familiar with this sort of situation...
Regards,
-drc
I suspect the problem is the (offsite) hotel that Mark and I are at was not
really prepared for a full house of folks interested in viewing streams,
downloading documents, etc. (despite attempts to inform the hotel of the
impending tsunami). I imagine folks involved in setting up NANOG-related
networks might be familiar with this sort of situation...
I've talked to people who do conference arrangements, and no matter
what you tell the hotel, the hotel talks to their outsourced Internet
provider, who tells them it will be fine, which of course it will not
be. The hotel outsourcers also tend to have poorly trained staff who
think that the way to increase wifi capacity is to turn the power on
all of the APs up to 11.
The IETF deals with this problem by writing into the conference
agreement that their netops people will take over the hotel's network
for the duration of the meeting, and bring in their own adequate
backhaul. Dunno what ICANN does.
A whole lot of folks in Chattanooga...
https://epbfi.com/enroll/packages/#/fi-speed-internet-100
100Mb symmetric is $69/mo, 250Mb is $139, 1Gbit is $299
Largely Alcatel/Lucent GPON. Business rates considerably higher
They are one of our providers and we aren't "metered". I don't know how
they're handling domestic rates / quotas.
Jeff
I suspect the problem is the (offsite) hotel that Mark and I are at was not
really prepared for a full house of folks interested in viewing streams,
downloading documents, etc. (despite attempts to inform the hotel of the
impending tsunami). I imagine folks involved in setting up NANOG-related
networks might be familiar with this sort of situation...I've talked to people who do conference arrangements, and no matter
what you tell the hotel, the hotel talks to their outsourced Internet
provider, who tells them it will be fine, which of course it will not
be. The hotel outsourcers also tend to have poorly trained staff who
think that the way to increase wifi capacity is to turn the power on
all of the APs up to 11.
Simply put they were'nt designed and built to be operated with 100% concurrency. Short of some kind of exceptional contractual arrangement you shouldn't expect them to be different when you arrive then when the facility was contracted.
The IETF deals with this problem by writing into the conference
agreement that their netops people will take over the hotel's network
for the duration of the meeting, and bring in their own adequate
backhaul. Dunno what ICANN does.
Building a network for a week is expensive. it's gotten a lot simpler and cheaper but it's still relatively extrodinary. Taking over existing infrastructure operating it and putting it back is a new challenge everytime.