[olug] Internet Access

Tue Dec 14 15:08:20 UTC 2004

Ahhhh,  choices, choices, something I didn't have to deal with moving just
north of Elkhorn last year.  Its was simple all I could get out here was
Satellite or Wireless ISP service.  I opted for the wireless and its been
great. Satelite has latency issues that have to do with shooting the signal
up to the satelite then back down to the ground station then over to the
Isp's network out to the internet.  When doing fast action online-gaming
latency will kill you.

Honestly if you want to look into wireless check our Microlnk.net,  they
bought wispair.net last year (that was who I got service through)  and they
are actually doing a really good job now.  The speed connection is
advertised at 256K up/down, however almost all the time Im getting 850 -
900K  up/down.  I think 256K is what they garuantee.  Anyway is appears as
fast as the DSL I use to have through Qwest.  They don't do any kind of port
blocking either.  

Trent

Trent Melcher
Network/System Administrator
Startouch International LTD.

-----Original Message-----
From: olug-bounces at olug.org [mailto:olug-bounces at olug.org] On Behalf Of Jake
Churchill
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 8:41 AM
To: Omaha Linux User Group
Subject: Re: [olug] Internet Access

I live on north 108th street and I am probably closer to Cox than you but
they have the same service as far west as Valley so it is amplified at key
points.  Also, the Cox architecture is a multi-ring network. 
There's one large ring around the city and several smaller rings powered by
each node.  That is all fiber.  It is not until you get into specific
neighborhoods that you get to actual cable so there should not be any loss
since fiber takes like 40 miles to notice any loss at all.

About servers, I used to work for cox and they only scanned ports 1-100 for
server activity.  I've been running ftp servers and web servers on different
ports for about 2 years and they have never known.  Yes, you have to do the
initial setup and change the port number, but how hard is that really?

As far as 1.0 MBps downloads, that is common for me also.  I download a lot
of bittorrents and at about any time of the day I can think of I've seen
them going that fast.  I used to live closer to cox and my roomate had it
downloading faster than that.  The upload speed is really the only downfall
I see but I download much more than I upload.

Jake

On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 07:00, Nathan D.Rotschafer wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Excellent word usage so late at night!  But seriously, for me the
> initial benefit was simple.  Upload bandwidth for my ip phone at home.  
> Then I figured out I could host stuff from my house on standard ports 
> with that upload speed and that made it so much the better.  The I 
> figured out they didn't care...bonus #3.  The cost factor never really 
> played into it for me but was added bonus #4.  As you move further west 
> it seems the slower your cox speeds go (more and more people in 
> suburbia are mindlessly hooking their windows computers up to the 
> internet because it is the "next great thing" and their kids want it).  
> I challenge someone around here to beat the speed of my qwest cable 
> modem (downloads a 1MB/sec and yes that is megabytes NOT megabits).  
> Even downloads over 1.5Mbits/sec when I had my apartment with cox 
> seemed rare.  And bonus #5 that you don't realize till you have 
> it...stability.  I used to laugh at people with cox service how it 
> would go down in a storm...meanwhile I'm sitting in my apartment with 
> UPSes and a stable connection to the internet that never and I mean 
> NEVER dropped in 9 months and satellite TV that was only out 1 time 
> (forget that cable smoke and mirrors about how it always goes out)
> 
> Nathan D. Rotschafer
> Home: (402) 778-NATE
> Cell: (402) 216-9270
> email: nrotschafer at geniussystems.net
> PGP Key: http://www.geniussystems.net/keys.htm
> 
> On Dec 14, 2004, at 12:42 AM, Robert A. Jacobs wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 23:42, Jake Churchill wrote:
> >> See, it's $40 for Cox and you get 4Mbps download and 512Kbps 
> >> upload.
> >>
> >
> > Technically, you get *up to* 4Mbps download and *up to* 512Kps 
> > upload. If the pipe is saturated, you won't get near those values 
> > and depending on how many of your neighbors are sharing your pipe 
> > *and* what they are doing, you may be getting far less than you 
> > think.  That's the point Trent made earlier.
> >
> > The other salient point is Nate's:  Cox's AUP states that you can't 
> > run any servers...no web servers...no mail servers...no anything.  
> > While you can probably get around it by launching your servers on 
> > non-standard ports, Cox is within their rights to kick you off their 
> > service if you run servers (the fact that they choose to turn their 
> > heads the other way
> > *right now* does not obviate the fact that they can, at any point,
> > choose not to turn their heads).
> >
> > Running servers is typically a non-issue in the DSL world and is the
> > one
> > thing that keeps me interested in this possibility.  The fact that it 
> > is
> > cheaper is also a bonus.
> >
> > -robert.a.jacobs
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OLUG mailing list
> > OLUG at olug.org
> > http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
> 
> iD8DBQFBvuPR6+7m4ujx2RURAnGqAJ9zgOmfPByA5MjDb+cK+C7l8rdgxQCdEZaw
> cUaswOY5ylj4ZevNQppxKPg=
> =1Jkw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug
_______________________________________________
OLUG mailing list
OLUG at olug.org
http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug