Slashdot Mirror


100mbps Fiber Service To Your Door

BitHive writes "With all the talk on /. about the last mile, it looks like people in Mason County, WA may get what I've wanted for years--a 100mbps fiber connection straight to their home. The ISP, DONOBi claims the personal account is 'unlimited,' but since they don't allow servers, and have a business account which is capped at 5Gb/month ($3/Gb addtl), I think we can guess at what their idea of 'unlimited' is. Their service offerings can be found here. Is anyone on this service or knows something they can report?"

342 comments

  1. $100 monthly point-to-point by davinciII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since I doubt the actual internet connection speed will be 100mbps, this seems like an amazing option for businesses with multiple locations in the city.

    Imagine a 100MBit connection between your offices for only $100 a month?

    1. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by vasqzr · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Did you see the 5GB cap?

      We suck 10GB a month down our cable modem, I'd hate to see what we do between offices.

      Can this new service carry voice+data?

    2. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by Bonker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Uhm, yeah, but $3 a GB overrun isn't exactly a lot.

      Think about it. If you have a gigabyte of traffic *every* day, every month, you're out about $100-$120 including the regular fee every month... not that bad for the kind of service these guys are offering.

      Frankly, I'd be a lot more concerned about the 'no servers' rule than the cost.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    3. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw the cap. It seems to only be for the business hosting.

      Point to point looks like it has no cap. Same with the personal useage.

    4. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      As long as it's done right, then there would be no problems implementing voice/data and video over it. Odds are they are going to supply a circuit, and you do whatever you want with it. There doesn't seem to be a cap for the local access, so a lan extension would not be unheard of. Of course, you'll probably have to pony up for some decent routers.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    5. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article doesn't make this very clear IMO - the personal account is unlimited bandwidth but not for server use. The business account has unlimited uses (web servers, internet radio, etc.) but limited bandwidth (5GB/Month + $3 per GB thereafter).

      As the parent post said, after paying for the extra $3 per gig it's still a very reasonable price for 100Mbit fiber and you CAN run a server on the paid bandwidth package.

    6. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pay more than $10 for extra 2 GB so that seams to me a very reasonable price...

    7. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by crandall · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know I'm jumping on this one a little late, but I have a 100mbit fiber connection to my apartment, and it only costs me 50$CAN per month. That's about 32$ to you americans.

      It's unlimited, they let me run servers and whatever else I want. It's a pipe set up for the condo complex I live in, in downtown Toronto.

      Name your favorite distro, and I can download it in a minute or two. If their pipe is big enough.

    8. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surewest Broadband, used to be WinFirst, does actually run a 100Mbps fibre connection to your house, but caps speed at 10Mbps. The price is $50/month.

      http://www.surewestbroadband.com/

      I'm sure 100Mbps is possible at a reasonable price.

    9. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Before you all get excited over stuff like this, I have to tell you that the biggest business in Mason County is the QFC grocery store in the middle of town, an possibly the all but-shut-down-by-tree-huggers sawmill. This is no silicon B-To-B mecha. It's a cow town with 2 roads in and 2 out. The big passtime for kids here is not hacking, it's painting thier high school name on the train bridge.

      I tried to picture a business with 'multiple locations in the city' and I almost spilled my soda laughing. ;-)

    10. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by Idaho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously people shouldn't be allowed to really use that 100 MBit constantly (it's just the top speed, not the avg. throughput).

      But...a 5 GB cap? We sometimes download that within a day using our slow 512/64 cable modem! Not all the time, ofcourse, but I think 500 MB - 1 GB on average a day (sharing the connection with a few people) is not extreme...is it?

      Imagine having 100 MBit and then getting a DDoS, or just installing some new Linux distro from FTP...at 100 MBit, you can reach that monthly 5 GB limit in just over 8 minutes!

      I think something like 100 GB/month would be a lot more reasonable (though still pretty much on the low side). 250 GB would be great...

      --
      Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
    11. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by FAngel · · Score: 1

      The point to point connections do not have a bandwidth cap!

    12. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I would imagine you are not running servers on the 512/64 cable. 64 would be really really lame for a server.

      hmmmm, so maybe to replace your cable connection you would use the non commercial plan. Try re-reading the non commercial plan again.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    13. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you have a gigabyte of traffic *every* day..."

      *gigabyte*?? Seems the article says "Gb", which is usually used to indicate gigabit, with "GB" (big B) meaning gigabyte. Since we're talking transfer rates I'm sure they mean bit not byte.

      As you know a gigabit is rather small, only 125 megabyte, which would be very easy to transfer several times over every day, so multiply that "$100-$120" by 8 to get a rough estimate. A 5Gb/month cap is very very small, only 625 megabytes a month, I download that almost daily on cable.

      Frankly I think the deal sucks, and the true "unlimited" bandwidth of cable modem or DSL is much better. I mean it's like driving: would you rather drive around at 60mph for free (only paying gas), or be limited to only driving 200 miles a month at unlimited speeds?

    14. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      At home I pay £15 a month for up to a gigabyte a day (averaged over a few days, not capped). $3 a GB isn't the worst I've seen, but it's not that great. If you ever actually use that bandwidth you can go through the monthly 5 GB in under 10 minutes!

    15. Re:$100 monthly point-to-point by ted_nugent · · Score: 1

      Sounds great until you get to page 4 of the AUP, which states they prohibit servers. I rarely do host anything at home, but I like to know that I can.

      --

      Free the West Memphis Three!

  2. Well... by SpanishInquisition · · Score: 4, Funny

    The mail system was the best way to deliver high quality porn to your house, but now with this..

    --
    Je t'aime Stéphanie
    1. Re:Well... by kesuki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The post office still is.
      Where else can you sent 4.7 GB of porn for the cost of a stamp? that's 37.6 Gbit per 37 cents. $3 for 1 gigabit is not nearly as cost effective. Over 300 times more expensive than the post office, True, you can send a CD-rom in a minute with 100mbit/second and the post office has a latency issue of usually 2-3 days.
      I really wonder if broadband technology can ever get to a point where it's cheaper than post for sending porn/warez/etc...

      BTW, yes, you can send a DVD-r for the one ounce postage rate, as long as it complies with postal regulations when it's shipped. the weight of a single optical disk in a basic optical disc mailer is exactly one ounce, and complies with postal regulations. Of course it's not as well protetected, and could become fragmented or delaminated in shipping...

      I'm willing to bet they force any high bandwith users over to the capped limit, because really how do they prove that you are or aren't running a server? or what a server is? Isn't gnutella really based on a http server? does that mean you'll get switched over to capped bandwith if you go on gnutella and they detect a lot of http traffic?

      and the 5 gbit cap isn't very much at all.. that's only a single 650 MBbyte CD-rom. $18 a minute for internet access... 50 seconds a month provided and we call that cheap.. (it is 100mbit internet access afterall.)

      Now the point to point link deal is really good, because you just pay the flat $100 a month, no per bandwith charges, because you're running over a dedicated private link and the data isn't going over the internet.
      Speaking as an experienced cable mode user, 8 gb per month is nothing at all to utilize... that's without even trying. and under a restrictive under 1 megabit downstream cap.
      At $112 per DVD I don't think the fact that you can get one in under 7 minutes makes up for it.
      hmm... 37 cents? or $112? nope, the post office STILL wins hands down.

    2. Re:Well... by Digital11 · · Score: 1

      $112 per DVD?!?!? are you smoking crack? $3/gb (over the 5gb limit) is not $112... I'm betting you're counting the cost of the service with that as well, but you're still way off. Plus, you could download a heck of a lot more than 1 DVD a month and it would still cost way less than $112.

      --
      I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    3. Re:Well... by pediddle · · Score: 1

      You make some interesting points, but you should get your GByte/Gbit math straight -- some of your comparisons are off by a factor of 8!

    4. Re:Well... by kesuki · · Score: 1

      The webpage for that particular provider was using gigabits when I first viewed them. They were not using gigabytes, but now I see they are.
      "100 Mbps Connection Speed - up to 5 Gb Monthly Traffic*
      5 eMail boxes
      * Additional Bandwidth sold @ $3.00 / Gb"


      I still have the page bufffer open and could take a screen shot for any doubters as to the lowercase b's. So the factor of 8 pricing difficulty was due to a misleading webpage. Obviously they got feedback about that and fixed it.

      I also searched through my post trying to figure out where I made a mistake, and could only find two minor ones. the service is 100 megabit (12.5 MB/second) 60 seconds in a minute = 750 Megabytes per minute. So 50 seconds is 625 MB, not 650, only off by 25 MB. secondly I wasn't using 1024 as a base for converting Giga to mega.... so 5 gigabit is 640 MB.
      I also realize that I didn't include anything except the cost of transport. That was intentional, because theen you have to get into the messy details like the monthly costs associated with the internet access, or the blank dvd costs, and possibly into the costs of a second internet connection, if you are sending to a remote location that you also have to pay the internet bills for. not to mention the costs of the computers, and the electricity they use, and the limitations that hardware can place on how well you can utilize the bandwith etc.
      Also, keep in mind the post office is a public corperation, they are supposed to make a profit, while ensuring a reliable and stable mail delivery service.

  3. Hurrah! by JanusFury · · Score: 5, Funny

    Getting fiber to my door is cool, but when will they get it to my living room? I don't have a plug for my computer at the door :(

    --
    using namespace slashdot;
    troll::post();
    1. Re:Hurrah! by Mirus+Nex · · Score: 1

      I do! It's for a future security camera, but hey, it could be modified...

    2. Re:Hurrah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even to the door, just the side of the buiding.

      This charge is to bring the fiber-optic cable from the street to the side of the building ONLY. $75.00
      ($175)

  4. Slashdot? by Malicious · · Score: 0, Redundant

    But what are they hosted on?
    Commence /. effect.

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    1. Re:Slashdot? by Orestesx · · Score: 1

      Nice Sig. I am superman.

  5. fiber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    i get enough fiber as it i...excuse me i have to go to the bathroom.

    1. Re:fiber? by algernon7 · · Score: 1

      Where's the '+ 1 corny' mod when I need it?

  6. Servers by nightsweat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    How many popular sites have servers that could handle the load from a decent sized community of 100Mbps?

    Not complaining, just pointing out that YMMV.

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
    1. Re:Servers by Pxtl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thats what I was thinking. Really, the best use of this technology would be a medium-low end private server.

      I am perpetually frustrated by the consumer ISP's industry's belief that all their little users must be good little consumers and not actually use their service for anything but browsing the web and e-mail. I find that most ISP's don't even have functioning DNS servers, which means that most IRC servers (and similar old systems) will reject you from logging on.

      What bothers me most is the "no servers" policy. I am paying for the bandwidth - why cant I use it as I choose. Also, what if I want to be more of a server then a user? Why can't I get a better system for uppipe and trade-off my download amount? All the standard gear (DSL, Cable) gets several megabits per second but peaks at 200kb/s. Why is it if I just want to run a medium-sized UT server I have to fork over for a "business" account? Your average leech will have about the same strain on their servers, and yet those of us who actually want to contribute to the internet have very few options as consumers, besides paying for corporate-level accounts that we dont want.

    2. Re:Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Umm, let's see, just about all of them. The fact is that the server can specify per connection throttles. If the bandwidth is available, then you see faster speed, if not, then you get a much smaller piece of the pie. It is the number of connections, not the BW of the client. Maybe if you spent your 20 second wait to try for first post productively, it would have occurred to you.

      I mean, how often do you get full bandwidth from a site even from a cable modem?!

    3. Re:Servers by Big+Mark · · Score: 1

      Everyone on 100mbps. All connections get served within fractions of a second. All that will happen will be that for your connection to start getting served you might have to wait a wee while for the connection to be initiated but once its there it'll be delivered instantaneously.

    4. Re:Servers by madgeorge · · Score: 1
      I work for a hosting company, and 100 Mbps isn't huge. Nice, clean code can handle up to 100 Mbps without even sweating too much. (I've seen servers running up to 75 Mbps sustained and using under 5 percent server resources on average.) Database driven sites CAN put a hurting on your procesor, depending on the complexity of your ASP/PHP/poison-of-choice, but how many people are going to host a commerce site out of their home? It's not what the service is intended for, anyway. And as someone else mentioned, the real limit is the 5GB cap they have on total throughput.

      --madgeorge

    5. Re:Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does this same asinine crap get posted to every story even remotely about ISPs? The only reason you're able to get cheap connectivity is because the average ISP customer only uses a few megabytes of traffic per day. You are not paying for the bandwidth. You and 20 other people are paying for the bandwidth so that when you want to use a lot of bandwidth for a short period of time, it's available. When you want to want use lots of bandwidth for long periods of time, the ISP kicks your freeloading ass to the curb because it's cheaper to lose you as a customer than to lose the other 20 people that were supposed to be sharing that bandwidth. If you really want to use the bandwidth as you choose, get the dedicated service so you aren't supposed to be sharing it with anyone. You DO want corporate level service, you just don't want to pay what the service is actually worth.

    6. Re:Servers by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Funny

      "ISP's industry's belief that all their little users must be good little consumers and not actually use their service for anything but browsing the web and e-mail."

      Hmmm, kind of interesting that isp's also are in the webserving bussiness. Whats that Pxtl? You want your own server? Sure, for an extra $30 a month we can give you a website with 30 megs of disk space.

    7. Re:Servers by Shishak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I am paying for the bandwidth - why cant I use it as I choose"

      You honestly think that $39.95/month 'pays' for a 100mbps Internet feed? The current going rate for el cheapo national ISPs is about $75/meg in 100 meg chunks so you are talking about $7500/month. Decent backbones (i.e. WCOM, Sprint, ATT ...) charge $200+/meg/month.

      This cost per meg doesn't even cover the loop to get the bandwidth to the ISP router. Forget about the cost of delivering the 100 meg to your house. Now assuming your ISP buys the cheap stuff ($75/meg) and is selling you 100 megs for $39.95/month they are overcommitting about 200:1. If you did use your full bandwidth you would piss off 199 other customers. At 200:1 they STILL aren't making a profit.

      If you actually paid for what you used I'm sure the providers would have no problem allowing you to use it.

      Get real people, the Internet is EXPENSIVE to operate and maintain. throw all the spammers in jail and the price would drop some I'm sure.

      --
      Now I hope and pray that I will But today I am still, just a bill
    8. Re:Servers by madgeorge · · Score: 1
      Err... ok I misread the parent post. I read it from the perspective of someone hosting a server on the fiber network. You can do that (with their business acct), and take advantage of 100 Mbps from your server pretty easily. But you'll probably end up paying a ton of overage at the end of the month if your site turns out to be the next Onion, Homestar Runner, or Slashdot.

      --madgeorge

    9. Re:Servers by mdielmann · · Score: 4, Informative

      Note that forking over for a business account here will cost you...exactly the same as the personal account.

      Translation: 'For $40/mo, you can have all the surfing, etc. you can handle, OR you can have all the servers and crap you want with a 5 GB/mo cap. If you choose option 2, we'll be happy to sell you more throughput at $3/GB.'

      So, I think they agree with you. IF you pay for your bandwidth, THEN you can use all you want. Otherwise, you're stuck with surfing really* fast.

      * Depending on site/route conditions, etc.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    10. Re:Servers by Xerithane · · Score: 2, Informative

      You honestly think that $39.95/month 'pays' for a 100mbps Internet feed? The current going rate for el cheapo national ISPs is about $75/meg in 100 meg chunks so you are talking about $7500/month. Decent backbones (i.e. WCOM, Sprint, ATT ...) charge $200+/meg/month.

      You are officially outdated here. This is not 1992. Bandwidth is plentiful, and cheap. The pipes are bigger, maintenance costs are the same. I have personally priced out getting my own trunk and I can gaurantee you that it isn't that much through Sprint. Try about $350 for a dedicated T1 (not counting telco charges) with no bandwidth cap. In case you failed to noticed, backbones transfer huge amounts of data, and are no where near capacity.

      I can get 300GB of bandwidth at a datacenter for $100/mo.

      Now, assuming the fiber to the home is similar to Ashland, Oregons product it's a large ethernet network over the city. It has several ISPs that relay the traffic to the fiber backbone.

      Get real people, the Internet is EXPENSIVE to operate and maintain. throw all the spammers in jail and the price would drop some I'm sure.

      Wow. Could you please just disconnect yourself, now. You are about as clueless as they come. You are the same type of people who were ranting about the Skyline being brought to the US market and costing over $60K because that's what it costs to buy one in Japan, ship it over, switch the steering wheel to the left side, pay taxes on it, and perform the rest of the street legal modifications.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    11. Re:Servers by Algan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know what? I would gladly pay $100 for a decent, reliable 1 meg up/down connection that won't restrict my usage in any way... problem is I don't know where to get it.

      --
      If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
    12. Re:Servers by gasgesgos · · Score: 1

      "** Not to be used for: Business Networks, Web server Hosting, Mail Servers, or Resale."

      WEB SERVER HOSTING, the word web seems to be missed by everyone. It's NOT a "no servers" policy, it's a "no http server" policy. There's a world of difference...

    13. Re:Servers by xeoron · · Score: 1

      Earthlink allows ADSL customers to place a server on their ADSL. If I am wrong, Earthlink has not told me they changed their policy; and I have had a Roxen server running on my broadband connection for approx 2 years now.

    14. Re:Servers by shepd · · Score: 1

      Why is it always the consumers fault when a company underprices its services?
      If the service costs $1e+06 a month, then CHARGE THAT.
      It isn't the user's problem if the company providing the service can't price it properly.
      The whole argument sounds a lot like those arguments against ticket scalpers.
      Next thing you know people will tell me it's wrong of me to go to future shop and take advantage of their $10 printer sale by buying them all and selling them for $20. Tough cookies.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    15. Re:Servers by spicyjeff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, USA laid fiber to the curb a few years back and provides reasonable transfer rates and pricing including some "allowing" servers. Check out some of the details here.

      At the time it was first being rolled out I was working for a small business in the town and oversaw the our connection, which was fiber to the door. Speeds on the town network were up to 100Mbps while anything outside the network was capped at 1.5Mbps for $50 a month.

    16. Re:Servers by leviramsey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've posted this before. If I were to start a DSL ISP, here's the pricing structure I'd use, for both residential and business use (extra support and bandwidth guarantees would cost extra, and most certainly be purchased by businesses). No restrictions (beyond banning DoS attacks (including being a bot), spam, open relaying, and such; if you are disconnected for those activities, you owe $250) and no ports are blocked. We'll even adjust reverse DNS if you ask, at no charge.

      • Tier One: 192kbps down, 48kbps up; unlimited downloads, 50MB/month uploads (uploads to hosts not going through our border routers are unlimited). Base price: $29/month. Extra uploads: $10/50MB or portion thereof. 192kbps SDSL for $39/month. Priority routing for an extra $10/month.
      • Tier Two: 768kbps down, 256kbps up; 500MB/month uploads. Base price: $49/month. Extra uploads: $15/500MB or portion thereof. 768kbps SDSL for $65/month. Priority routing: $10/month.
      • Tier Three: 1536kbps down, 768kbps up; 2GB/month uploads. Base price: $89/month. Extra uploads: $15/GB or portion thereof. 1536kbps SDSL for $115/month. Priority routing: $15/month.
      • Tier Four: 3072kbps down, 2048kbps up; 5GB/month uploads. Base prices: $169/month. Extra uploads: $10/GB or portion thereof. 3072kbps SDSL for $225/month. Priority routing: $30/month.
    17. Re:Servers by Shagg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I am paying for the bandwidth - why cant I use it as I choose"

      You honestly think that $39.95/month 'pays' for a 100mbps Internet feed? The current going rate for el cheapo national ISPs is about $75/meg in 100 meg chunks so you are talking about $7500/month. Decent backbones (i.e. WCOM, Sprint, ATT ...) charge $200+/meg/month.

      This cost per meg doesn't even cover the loop to get the bandwidth to the ISP router. Forget about the cost of delivering the 100 meg to your house. Now assuming your ISP buys the cheap stuff ($75/meg) and is selling you 100 megs for $39.95/month they are overcommitting about 200:1. If you did use your full bandwidth you would piss off 199 other customers. At 200:1 they STILL aren't making a profit.


      All of the above is absolutely true, but it has nothing to do with not allowing users to run their own servers. If a user is hogging a significant amount of bandwidth and causing degredations in service to others, then I agree that the ISP should charge them more or cap their usage. But again, that has nothing to do with running servers. You can just as easily hog the bandwidth downloading data as you can serving data.

      What you decide to do with your share of the bandwidth feed should be entirely up to you. Do they really believe that running your own secure mail server with 5 email addresses, or running a web server so that Grandma can see pictures of her grandkids online, is going to use more bandwidth than users who download ISOs and/or porn all day long? The policy and reasons for that policy as stated make no sense.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    18. Re:Servers by digitalsushi · · Score: 1

      I am paying for the bandwidth

      Kinda, but you're prolly paying more like 1/8 of the bandwidth in reality. If 8 random people rent a basketball court together, what happens when one of them wants to lay down basketball court sized paper and paint basketball court sized murals? Shouldn't he have to get his own court instead?

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    19. Re:Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run my own mail server, and used to keep getting nasty letters from my ISP. I finally blocked there machine running the port scan in my firewall. Problem solved.

    20. Re:Servers by Mournblade · · Score: 1

      Please start your ISP so that I can sign up for the Tier 3 service. It's much cheaper than the $225/month my company is paying to covad for the 384KB SDSL connection at my house.

    21. Re:Servers by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Actualy the cheap stuff is 30 a month for a 100 meg commit and good bandwidth is under a hundred and if anybody quotes you over 200 for IP bandiwth not delivered in the US on a 200 Meg commitiment laugh at them as even Sprint, AT&T and UUNet can get down to that level (traditionaly the highest priced providers) Now if your an ISP that in a lit city say any of the top 13 NFL cites (Dont ask me why but thats where providers nearly allways are but I dont watch football anyway) Even here is Connecticut you can get most providers from Stamford or Hartford and backhaul yourself.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    22. Re:Servers by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 1

      no longer would it be a slashdotting - it would end up being an Elm Streeting...

      Or if some script kiddie lived in the 'hood - a billying...

    23. Re:Servers by srichman · · Score: 1
      Try about $350 for a dedicated T1 (not counting telco charges) with no bandwidth cap.
      I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here. A T1 is 1.5 mpbs. The article and the post you're replying to are talking about 100 mpbs. $350 * 100 mpbs / 1.5 mpbs = $23k/month, which is significantly more than the $7500/month that was quoted in the post you're replying to.
      I can get 300GB of bandwidth at a datacenter for $100/mo.
      This is where I realize that this post is a troll, and feel silly responding to it...
    24. Re:Servers by tupps · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the reason for the policy is to force people to the business account. The reason is to make people pay more money for the service. The old thing of the more you pay the more you get.

      --
      Go out and get sailing!
    25. Re:Servers by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      quote from their rates page:Not to be used for: Business Networks, Web server Hosting, Mail Servers, or Resale

      So you can host other types of servers, including your UT server. Just not http, smtp or pop3 servers.

    26. Re:Servers by andrew_0812 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. My cable access which just 2 months ago was consistantly 1.4 - 2.0 MB is now running about 600KB because of people sitting at home running Kazaa all day long. Why should the ISP happily allow that, but I risk loosing my only source of broadband access if I decide to have a FTP server so that I might access my home network from work? How much traffic will that cause? Gimme a break.

    27. Re:Servers by spRed · · Score: 1

      Try about $350 for a dedicated T1

      Wha? I pay $150 for a quarter rack of space, and $200 per 256kbits/sec ($700 for a full T1) of pipe.
      Granted, there is a premium b/c it is at a hosting facility on eight different backbones with garunteed 100% uptime (where they define 'up' as less than 100% packet loss, but in reality it is always up).

      Are you saying I got a raw deal? The premium name-brand folks wanted $800+ for the same thing (asking price, of course, not what they would really settle for).

      --
      .sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
    28. Re:Servers by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here. A T1 is 1.5 mpbs. The article and the post you're replying to are talking about 100 mpbs. $350 * 100 mpbs / 1.5 mpbs = $23k/month, which is significantly more than the $7500/month that was quoted in the post you're replying to.

      Sorry, I should have clarified this. T1s are largely archaic/obsolete technologies for doing data transfers and are primarily used for doing voice calls (24 channels.) What he did say was off base, in that he was going off of T1 pricing. This is why I put it in comparison with leasing from a datacenter that uses OC48s and modern communication. I apologize for the confusion, I re-read it and my point was very muttled.

      This is where I realize that this post is a troll, and feel silly responding to it...

      If you feel it's a troll, than you are also sorely outdated.

      Here is the first site that came up searching "300GB bandwidth" on Google, and it's at $99 a month.
      https://secure.burst.net/orders/nocster/1. shtml

      Now I will accept your apology for calling me a troll. I'm trying to educate a mass of idiots who think that bandwidth is still in some mythical shortage. And yes, that was trollish, I'm aware.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    29. Re:Servers by Shagg · · Score: 1

      Translation: 'For $40/mo, you can have all the surfing, etc. you can handle, OR you can have all the servers and crap you want with a 5 GB/mo cap. If you choose option 2, we'll be happy to sell you more throughput at $3/GB.'

      So, I think they agree with you. IF you pay for your bandwidth, THEN you can use all you want. Otherwise, you're stuck with surfing really* fast.


      (Bogus numbers, but I think they make the point)

      So I can buy the first account and download 50GB of data per month for $40. However, if I also want to run a server that serves 1MB of data in a month and still want to download 50GB of data, then I am basically paying $135 for that 1MB of data I served.

      Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    30. Re:Servers by nolife · · Score: 1

      So then why even offer it? They brag about the speed, the applications you can run and the videos you can watch at ultra high speed, but when people actually start using it, they cry foul. WTF is that?

      Do not offer or market a product that you can not sell. The "average" user model they use to calculate an expected total bandwidth per month is a complete sham. The average user is using far more now then they ever were. Singling out ones that use more then the median amount is not fair either. They are paying for and using the advertised service. That's like complaining to the fat dude at the all you can eat buffet. It is there and he is paying for it.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    31. Re:Servers by Xerithane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wha? I pay $150 for a quarter rack of space, and $200 per 256kbits/sec ($700 for a full T1) of pipe.
      Granted, there is a premium b/c it is at a hosting facility on eight different backbones with garunteed 100% uptime (where they define 'up' as less than 100% packet loss, but in reality it is always up).


      I'm talking about T1s to a location, not in a datacenter. I'm not sure what you mean though, if you are at a datacenter you should be riding on their pipes to the backbones, and a T1 should never be mentioned. I pay $200/mo for a leased server at 10MBs at Rackspace, and will probably switch to a better deal soon.

      Are you saying I got a raw deal? The premium name-brand folks wanted $800+ for the same thing (asking price, of course, not what they would really settle for).

      The best prices you can get if you are just looking for coloc space is to find a datacenter and use them directly. HE.net is a great one, and is fairly reasonable in what you can get, if buying in larger quantities.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    32. Re:Servers by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Huh??? You just attacked his point that wholesale access is expensive, and then quoted prices that are _higher_ than he noted!

      T1=1.5Mbps, $350/1.5 = $233 per Mbps, while he was quoting $75/Mbps-$200Mbps!

      He's not talking about $75/MBYTE of traffic passed through, he's talking $75/MBIT/SEC of capacity - that's how wholesale ISP access is priced.

      Calling someone as clueless as they come, when you don't even understand how bandwidth is priced, is pretty damn silly.

    33. Re:Servers by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

      This is right on the money. The cost to the consumer is a function of what they're willing to pay, which has less to do with what it actually costs than you probably think.

    34. Re:Servers by Xerithane · · Score: 2, Informative

      T1=1.5Mbps, $350/1.5 = $233 per Mbps, while he was quoting $75/Mbps-$200Mbps!

      Yeah, I really botched writing it. T1s are not commonly used anymore because they are too expensive. DSL prices (redundant DSL lines or sDSL) are much more effective for businesses. When latency isn't an issue, even Satellite is cheaper for what you get.

      My point was that T1s aren't what are being used anymore, so bandwidth isn't that expensive. I completely missed writing that.

      Calling someone as clueless as they come, when you don't even understand how bandwidth is priced, is pretty damn silly.

      No... I'm just illiterate.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    35. Re:Servers by ddent · · Score: 1

      I can get 300GB of bandwidth at a datacenter for $100/mo.

      Actually, this is true. For a mere $99/month, I can think of at *least* 3 different companies that offer between 300 and 500 GB /month of traffic. I'm pretty sure there are others as well. And yes, they are quite profitable - these places are the walmart of colocation, they buy thousands of megabits of a time. They manage to do a good job too.

    36. Re:Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that, I'd better get 2304/2304 kbps SDSL for ~$230 USD in Estonia with absolutely no limits caps or BS you hippie bastards dream of all the day.

    37. Re:Servers by Shishak · · Score: 1

      300GB/month = 1mbps for $100/month is a bit over the current el cheapo national ISP pricing.

      Your point again?

      yeah, yeah I know you can burst at the datacenter and send the 300Gigs out in 30 minutes then sit idle for the rest of the month. This is all a numbers game. When you have enough customers all their bursting evens out. Buy a big enough pipe and you don't feel any one company bursting.
      What committed sustained datarates do you get for the $100/month? How much bandwidth does the datacenter buy from 'upstream' and how much do they sell 'downstream'? What is their overcommit rate? The further you move from the 'core' of the Internet the cheaper the bit is but the water starts to get muddy.

      Current DS-3 pricing is $10k/month = $200/meg/month not including the loop. Buying in bigger chunks drops the price down a bit. The current trend from the big guys is an increase in $/bit in the next few years.

      --
      Now I hope and pray that I will But today I am still, just a bill
    38. Re:Servers by Krow10 · · Score: 1
      blockquoth the posters:
      I am paying for the bandwidth
      Kinda, but you're prolly paying more like 1/8 of the bandwidth in reality. If 8 random people rent a basketball court together, what happens when one of them wants to lay down basketball court sized paper and paint basketball court sized murals? Shouldn't he have to get his own court instead?
      But this is an entireley seperate issue from running servers. The equivalent of taking the entire basketball court could well be done by downloading pr0n all day, while my hobbyist (read doesn't need business quality SLA) servers serving pictures of the baby to grandma and catching mail for my family & letting me ssh in remotely plays very well with the neighbors checking their mail and surfing the web. And if it doesn't, call me on that -- not for running servers.

      -Craig
      --
      Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    39. Re:Servers by Echnin · · Score: 1

      Hey, move to Norway. My ISP, NextGenTel provides SHDSL at 1160 each direction for 998 NOK a month, which is... Oh. Hm. $140. But if you actually move to Norway you'll probably be paid more than you are in whatever job you may find; minimum wage is about $11.20. No restrictions at all when it comes to usage; the ISP has made an official statement that they don't give a rat's ass what their customers use the bandwith for. You can also get 1024/512 ADSL for about $77. I've got that, and I transfer about 170 GB a month. Good CS too; always been helpful.

      --
      Lalala
    40. Re:Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Get real people, the Internet is EXPENSIVE to operate and maintain. throw all the spammers in jail and the price would drop some I'm sure.

      If the Spammers actually PAID fees to the affected ISP's, they would probably cover the cost of operating the internet. The US Post Office offsets the cost of the rest of us sending individual letters by charging the bulk mailers less per unit but jundreds of dollars for thousands of pieces. The junk mail that I throw out is what keeps the cost of mailing a letter fairly cheap. If we were able to keep spammers honest, the internet would be cheap for the rest of us.

    41. Re:Servers by cymen · · Score: 1

      Or for $80/month you could have one account for unlimited usage and one account for that 1MB of data you want to serve.

    42. Re:Servers by hansroy · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a pretty poor business model. They shouldn't foist responsibility for that onto the customer.

    43. Re:Servers by m_c_rose · · Score: 1

      It's not that the ISPs believe allowing US to run servers of any sort is going to use any more or less bandwidth than downloading pron, its that it will compete w/ their own services offerrings. They want you to pay them an extras 5.00 a month for a mailbox or 100 megs of unlimited webspace! or whatever they are selling on that day of the week!

    44. Re:Servers by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Did I say I wanted a website? Then shut up. I want a UT server, or my own streaming server. Or a heavily scripted site using an unusual language.

      In short, I want the connection on my machine. Not hosting. My problem is that there is very little consumer-level server ISP's - they're all aimed at corporates who are have different priorities - things like reliability, high throughput, and scalability are important to the corporate. I just want a fat pipe I can run a dedicated 24h game server through.

    45. Re:Servers by kesuki · · Score: 1

      Bandwidth prices are getting better, yes. But you are forgetting something important that I already covered in this post

      As far as the price you quoted refers to that If you really meant 300 Gigabytes (2400 gigabit) a DVD rom still costs $1.60 If you forgot to lowercase the b then that jumps to $12.80. The post office at 1 penny per gigabit (in 4.7 GB packets with 2-3 day latency) still has you beat on price (well if you ignore the cost of the media anyways).

    46. Re:Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, block incoming traffic on server ports. It wont stop you from moving the server to a port of your choosing, but then the person connecting to you must know about that ahead of time. Sometimes this isnt a big deal.

      RoadRunner in the past has started port scanning computers on their network for open ports that are running ftp and www servers (this was atleast 4-5 years ago) and would send you a letter for you to shutdown the server. A few letters and they would kill your service.

      Of course, they scanned from the same computer every time, so you just add a firewall rule to block their ability to scan... After a while they learn and start scanning from different computers, so you start blocking everyone from your subnet (and only allow your friends).

      Umm, no I haven't done this before. =)

    47. Re:Servers by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      You honestly think that $39.95/month 'pays' for a 100mbps Internet feed?

      If the ISP is advertising "a 100mbps Internet feed", then it doesn't matter if they're paying more for the circuit than they can recoup from the users. You pay for what was promised, and you get what you paid for.

      Then again, few ISPs are foolish enough to advertise bandwidth numbers that are more specific than "up to X times as fast as dial-up", whatever than means this week. Fewer still will have language in the contract that guarantees more than a really really minimal QOS.

    48. Re:Servers by kotj.mf · · Score: 1

      Plus, you've got TURBONEGRO.

      --
      hang brain.
    49. Re:Servers by abelenky17 · · Score: 1

      To what degree do ISP's actually hunt out and cancel servers, or prevent them via technology? I've been on a few ISP's now, both CableModem and DSL. I always run my little servers, and I've never gotten in trouble. I'm not serving world+dog, mainly just myself and a few friends. My upstream-bandwidth is mild, and the provider never seems to mind. In my experience, these "rules" are really just for bandwidth hogs who think they're getting something valuable very cheaply. YGWYPF, always!

    50. Re:Servers by LarsG · · Score: 1

      Why is it always the consumers fault when a company underprices its services? If the service costs $1e+06 a month, then CHARGE THAT.

      Because then they wouldn't be able to sell it.

      It is a numbers game. The cell phone companies don't scale their networks so that all their subscribers can call at the same time, they just make sure that there is sufficient bandwidth for normal usage peak hours.

      Bandwidth isn't cheap, and before KNapsterZaa most ISP subscribers used their lines for just a few percentages of the day.

      So, what do you want - Dirt expensive service with guaranteed bandwidth or cheap service where you get the bandwidth you expect most of the time?

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    51. Re:Servers by egburr · · Score: 1

      We want what was advertised when we signed up and paid. If they can't provide "unlimited bandwidth" for the advertised price, the shouldn't advertise it. Instead, they should advertise "limited bandwidth shared with 20 other people, so play nice". Either adjust the advertising or the price, but don't kick someone off for using what was promised.

      --

      Edward Burr
      Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
    52. Re:Servers by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Because then they wouldn't be able to sell it.

      C'est la vie. I'd like to have a box of diamonds, but there's no where to get them as there's no way a regular company is going to sell them. I could get them on special order, just like a regular business, if I had deep pockets, though. I don't expect someone to turn around and lose money selling them to me though. Same thing with this service. And if they do, hey, that's their fault. Just like it would be a company's fault if they offered to sell me a million diamonds for $10. You wouldn't blame me for taking them up on their idiotic offer, would you?

      >It is a numbers game. The cell phone companies don't scale their networks so that all their subscribers can call at the same time, they just make sure that there is sufficient bandwidth for normal usage peak hours.

      Well, that's why cell phone companies charge the amounts they do. Cause if you wanted to use your phone 24/7 you'd be paying them enough to build a cell tower just for you! However, at normal usage (say 300 minutes a month) they charge your for the small amount of tower time you use.

      >Bandwidth isn't cheap, and before KNapsterZaa most ISP subscribers used their lines for just a few percentages of the day.

      Then make it burstable. Normally 1 Mbit, burstable to 100 Mbits for $xx a day. Don't blame the customer if they take advantage of the company's stupidity in pricing.

      >So, what do you want - Dirt expensive service with guaranteed bandwidth or cheap service where you get the bandwidth you expect most of the time?

      It's not what I want. It's what the company needs to do to be profitable. If they aren't, I see no reason why the customer should be held accountable. If 100 Mbits really costs $1,000,000 a day when used to its ultimate, then their pricing should reflects that at the same time it reflect the lower cost of barely using the line at all.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    53. Re:Servers by srichman · · Score: 1
      Ok, I see. I had gotten confused again, with the switch from bandwidth per second to bandwidth per month.

      Now I will accept your apology for calling me a troll.
      Maybe another day. I call people trolls with reckless abandon, and have no intentions of starting to recant now.
    54. Re:Servers by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      Actually It would reduce the strain on servers with fast connections like that... Unless Web Page Content Started to hit megs per page... Slow connections tie up bandwidth for extended periods of time.. The faster you can fulfill requests The less bandwidth is needed to meet demand.. (This only is noticeable of a larger scale.. )... The Internet would be way diffrent if everyone had even a True 10 meg full duplex connection... Mind ya DDOS attacks would be So Hairy and effective :)

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    55. Re:Servers by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is that the Highspeed Business model will Fail with this type of use... Bandwidth isn't free and infastructure maintence costs are high.. Do some research if you think you are so right... For say 45$/month just say its a Async connection that can handle 2 megs... for you to have as much bandwidth as you want to use you would need to be alotted that full 2 megs 24/7 so that its allways available to you... now 155/MB connection would only handle 77.5 customers that want to use as much as they want... say just to keep numbers round.. you going to over sell it a wee bit... so you hook up 100 people to this 155 meg connection (and for the guys that know that 155 is a OC and there is all kinds of overhead you need to take into account.. lets just say it doesn't exsist to make life easy..) Now.. Just try to find a carrier that will sell you a 155 meg connection for 4,500 a month... Its simple you wont costs are much much higher than that..... If you do phone and find a company that will sell you for that price or less... ask if it also includes a local Loop and is dedicated and not over sold/bursting type (Shared higher capisty line ect) Its impossible... the cost of the equipment and infastruture is way to high the return on investment would be 7-10 years if not longer... Depends on how far it is to a CO where it can join a larger stream.. But still there is upstream infastrurture to pay for that costs Way more... Your right as far as they have misleading advertising... unlimited (average consumption making alot of assumptions and a rather low estimate what people will use)... That is how the business model works.. and its damn handy to surf and do the things they have accounted for..

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    56. Re:Servers by Xerithane · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Maybe another day. I call people trolls with reckless abandon, and have no intentions of starting to recant now.

      Well, I'm glad that you feel so self-important that your pride is worth more to you than accepting the simple fact that you were completely wrong. I'm glad you are so blatantly ignorant to not know current hosting rates, otherwise I may have the misfortune of firing you for the same head-in-the-sand but fundamentally-right-because-you-say-so mentality at some point in the future.

      I only hope you never have children, because if they adopt the same fucked-over-head-to-toe logic you seem to possess with that single statement, they would be better off serving as suicide bombers against surrendering Iraqi soldiers.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    57. Re:Servers by Comen · · Score: 0

      This artical said they charged more if you used more.

      Personal - Unlimited Access
      100 Mbps Connection Speed - Unlimited Usage
      5 eMail boxes
      5MB of Personal Web space
      ** Not to be used for: Business Networks, Web server Hosting, Mail Servers, or Resale.
      $39.95 / Mo

      See Setup Charges Below:

      Business - Access
      100 Mbps Connection Speed - up to 5 GB Monthly Traffic*
      5 eMail boxes
      * Additional Bandwidth sold @ $3.00 / GB

      ----

      What ISP are we talkig about?

      This one?

      This seems honest to me.
      So it is unlimited up to use up too 100mb.
      If you dont runs servers etc... other wise they are going to charge you a corperate price.
      People just always want to get something for free, just admit it.

    58. Re:Servers by Comen · · Score: 0

      You are still wrong dude, even at what even datacenter you are sharing bandwidth, if you were actully using 300GB a month they would lose money on you, I dont think they are getting that bandwidth that cheap.
      I know that a OC3 from top level backbone provider, Sprint, Cable and wireless, UUNET for instance is very exspensive and that is only what 150 160 mb ?
      Most the time this is just over subscription just like anything else.

    59. Re:Servers by lewp · · Score: 1

      Because if they start capping Kazaa users and other heavy downloaders they'll just go get DSL. On the other hand, if they let your service fall into the toilet you'll just bitch on Slashdot. If I were a heartless corporation, what would I do?

      (As an aside, I'm not ragging on you for bitching on Slashdot. Hell, I'm sure I've whined about my cable at least once in my comments here. It was just an honest observation.)

      --
      Game... blouses.
    60. Re:Servers by GreeboNZ · · Score: 1

      Damn you, whining over such a trivial little extra cost.. I have to pay 20c per extra meg over my 5gb monthly traffic cap, and I only get 256k cable to play with in the first place. For much more than US$40/month. $3/gb would be a dream. (my $1 = US$0.55)

    61. Re:Servers by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      Most ISO warez kiddies have access to 100mbit pipes, They'd eat this up given the chance.

      Also, who needs servers when all of your peers have 100mbit both ways?

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    62. Re:Servers by budgenator · · Score: 1
      The way I see it is bandwidth on the user's side of the ISP's network is cheap, bandwidth from the ISP's network to the internet is expensive.

      So the 1st solution is to over sell your bandwith in the hopes that not everbody is going to use the bandwidth at the sametime, this thing works great when I'm download patches at 06:30, works pathetic when I download patches at 20:30. I looked into the ISP thing year's ago and the telco guy said the rule of thumb was three business users per b channel (re in 18.6Kbs/user) thirty home users per b channel(re 1.8Kbs/user), so a T1 with 23 b Channels is suposed to support 690 users! Now you know why getting that expensive 56K modem ten years ago didn't do jack)

      The second part of the solution is to install a transpearent proxy on the network so that every request doesn't have to leave the ISP's network thereby aggreagating all of the user's requests into one request saving ton's of bandwith inbound.

      Unfortunatly not all of us do things that cache well like running servers, file sharing ect. So the bean-counters dream are giving way to the net-admins warnings and all of the pointy-haired bosses are blaming the customers and everbody else rather than coming up with the real solution. Which I see as
      • IP6 NOW, we need the name-space (probably should have went to IP8 instead why go through all of this pain again next century) and give everybody a static IP or even ten or twenty
      • give everybody a domain name and set up for alternative domain resolutions
      • If I am served to or from the ISP's network I get full available bandwith unlimited traffic inside that bandwith(have domain names and statiic IP's should make this do-able)
      • if I'm served by cache-able and cached get full available bandwith and unlimited traffic
      • cache misses get a percentage of the available bandwith to the internet, say somewhere between 60-80%
      • un-chacheable outside traffic gets to share the remaining bandwidth.

      This just seems a more honest way to do it to me. Also ISP's could setup links between their networks and market it as a value added thing imagine getting a full speed connection from a internet friends 'puter on Warner in Milwalkee and yours in Detroit on Comcast (Hint Hint cable guys, its not like your realy competitors you know; DSL provider could never do this).
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    63. Re:Servers by Greg+W. · · Score: 1

      So, what do you want [...]?



      (Why isn't every company asking me this?)



      I want to be able to run peer-to-peer services and not have to worry about exceeding some stupid number of bits per unit time. I want a static IP address. I want no ports to be blocked, in either direction; in fact, I want no restrictions on the nature of the traffic I allow, in terms of direction, port numbers, protocols, content, etc., beyond what the lawyers will require ("don't do anything that would get you arrested or sued; if you do, we let you hang for it").



      Right now, I'm getting all of this with a 512/256 ADSL connection from my local telco. It's a bit expensive/slow ($40 USD/month for the service, $20/month for the static IP), but I have no complaints. I've gotten what I paid for. How many people in, say, Australia can claim that?



      A 100 Mbps fiber connection to my house? Sounds good. A 5 GB/month bandwidth cap? Not allowed to run services? Hahahahaha! Excuse me while I ignore your company.

    64. Re:Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Top tier? Hmm, maybe that's the problem kiddo.
      Cogent is $1000 a month.

    65. Re:Servers by LarsG · · Score: 1

      If 100 Mbits really costs $1,000,000 a day when used to its ultimate, then their pricing should reflects that at the same time it reflect the lower cost of barely using the line at all.

      Then the ISPs have to go to bandwith usage pricing (N$ per GB traffic). It seems like every time an ISP thinks about going down that road, you get a flame-fest terrible.

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    66. Re:Servers by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Then the ISPs have to go to bandwith usage pricing (N$ per GB traffic). It seems like every time an ISP thinks about going down that road, you get a flame-fest terrible.

      That's because the users have been so used to being pandered to for so long they've gone soft.

      Personally, I don't mind paying for what I use. Users that think otherwise need to smell the coffee... :-)

      My friendly local ISP came up with a novel solution to the problem, though. They simply got a list of the top users and switched them onto a less-than-7-nines, higher latency network. They're (the users) happy because they get their unlimited bandwidth and the ISP is happy because the heavy users don't cost them extra. But if that wasn't possible, hey, the company has to make money!

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    67. Re:Servers by Comen · · Score: 0

      Gezzz, Cogent has to at some time connect to a Top Tier provider.
      UUNET for one is a huge part of the Internet backbone... you connection to the net is only as good as services connection to the part of the internet you happen to be going to.
      That is why if you have a Big UUNET connection you have a better chance that the server you are connecting to is on thier network or that the client that is connecting to your webserver will get better bandwidth.
      Most ISP's will be BGP peered with serveral TOP TIER service providers, so that customers on C&W and on UUNET and on SPRINT will go through the that connection to you.
      The internet is just a big interconnected network, look at the connection points to other networks not jsut the connection within the network you are connected.
      For instance, looking at the Cogent website they sure look like they have a nice backbone, but I couldnt find any info on who they peer with.
      That is usually the most important info wwhen looking at a Tier 1 service provider, who do you peer with and how many time, where at? how much bandwidth is that peering?
      Cogent sounds nice if me and my customer are both on the Cogent network. good luck though.

    68. Re:Servers by Comen · · Score: 0

      I agree with BuckaBooBob here!
      It just doesn't ever make sense that people think I can sell something for cheaper than I pay for that service and make money. IF you do you wont be around long, some people are still convinced bandwidth is cheap, that some company paid to have a span of fiber ran around the country for their services only, and for 50$ a month, hey its cheap!
      Allot of their providers can offer decent bandwidth to you into their network, hoping to make up the infrastructure costs over time, and hoping to get enough of the business out there to develop a client base.
      They may get bandwidth a little cheaper from Sprint or Cable and wireless than I do cause they buy more of it, But i guarantee you that if the had 100 customers paying for 100mb apiece they wouldn't have a Gigabit connection to their peers.
      1 reason for this that it probably wouldn't be needed, most the time you simply monitor those connections and know why it needs to be a bigger connection. they still cant give but so many people connection that are in use 24/7 using 100mb for cheaper than they pay themselves for that connection.

    69. Re:Servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh why don't you just try www.cyberonic.com

      they offer 1500kbps down / 768kpbs up for 50$/month if you are in their area

  7. First (?) by neuro.slug · · Score: 4, Insightful

    5Gb per month? If they really are talking about gigabits and not gigabytes, then that is somewhat ridiculous. Oh boy, I can download one CD image (of a piece of software I already have, of course) per month. What a great service. --n

    1. Re:First (?) by IAR80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if this are Gigabytes it is still very litlle! Actually on a true 100Mbps connection you can teoretically dowload 5GB in less than 7 minutes.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
    2. Re:First (?) by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      Is that an upstream and downstream combined total? Also, the installation costs seems really fishy ... what's with this:

      4 Port Router: $150.00 / Mo

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    3. Re:First (?) by br0ck · · Score: 1

      Their pricing is confusing. I looked through the site and it looked to me like personal access with no running of servers is truly unlimited. Nowhere does it say that that service has a cap. The business service, at the same price of $39.95 caps at 5Gb and $3 per additional Gb. Don't most ISPs mean gigabyte in the hard drive company sense of 5,000,000,000 bytes when they say this? Anyway, the only real difference between the two plans seems to be server use of upstream bandwidth.

      Also, what do they mean by 'Point-to-point' connections? Do they physically wire you up with someone else in the community? If you both have a 100Mbs connection to the Internet, why would you even want that?

    4. Re:First (?) by jaavaaguru · · Score: 3, Funny

      5Gb per month? If they really are talking about gigabits and not gigabytes, then that is somewhat ridiculous. Oh boy, I can download one CD image (of a piece of software I already have, of course) per month. What a great service.

      Why do that when you can download one that you don't already have?

    5. Re:First (?) by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      what's with this:
      4 Port Router: $150.00 / Mo

      Utterly false. You are charged a one-time $150 charge.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    6. Re:First (?) by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      You can?

    7. Re:First (?) by abhisarda · · Score: 1

      This is better...

      porn

      porn

      ???

      profit

    8. Re:First (?) by calcifer · · Score: 1

      he meant that he would download something he already has because downloading something he doesnt already have could be illegal.

      If he hadnt included that little tidbit, the FBI would have immediately broken down his door and thrown him in jail for software piracy.

    9. Re:First (?) by neuro.slug · · Score: 1

      Bingo. And I just got a new door installed after the cocaine and kiddie porn raid.



      Oops.


      -- n
    10. Re:First (?) by gordyf · · Score: 1

      Yes...

      100mbps = ~12.5 mbytes/sec

      5gb = 5000mbytes
      5000/12.5=400 seconds, or 6.7 minutes.

  8. The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by iowagary · · Score: 4, Informative

    I work in western washington and I just had a cisco rep in here talking about something vaguely related but he told us the only reason they can afford this in Mason County is because they own 3 hydro dams and have no idea what to do with all the money they are making, so they decided to pull fiber to every house. They really don't expect to ever recover the investment. Almost makes you want to move though...

    1. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by hrieke · · Score: 1

      You'd think that they'd place the money in a rainy day account or setup a trust fund for the schools or something?

      --
      III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    2. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by unicron · · Score: 1

      Uh..maybe if I lived in Ogdenville, North Haverbrook or Brockway. We in civilized parts of the country have had broadband connections for quite some time. I pay $50 a month for 3mb/down, 256k up, 24/7 support, and if there's a bandwidth cap, I've never reached it. The uptime has also been REALLY good for the last year or so.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    3. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by Diskord · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is dead wrong. Mason County does not have any Hydro generation at all. The Cisco rep may have been thinking of Grant County in Washington, which has 3 Hydroelectric dams. They are also doing a fiber to the home project as well.

    4. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by infohord · · Score: 1

      I grew up in Mason County and I can assure you that they have NO money. My gues is PUD (for those on the east coast PUD is a Public Utility District, essentially an elected/democratic power company) still owns the fiber but the ISP is working with them on this. For some time now the PUDs have been looking at fiber optics to replace meeter readers. Wonder if this is related. By the way the PUDs get their power primarily from the Bonnivile Power Administration (BPA) who has for sometime now been running fiber allong its power transimission coridors.

    5. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by magickalhack · · Score: 1

      No idea what to do with the money?!? There's a problem I'd love to have. Sheesh.

      I can't say this is a bad use of the money, but I'm sure they could come up with more productive uses. Like revitalizing their energy infrastructure and making a market for all the energy they are generating with those damns.

      --
      This Sig Kills Fascists
    6. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by L-Train8 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Mason County PUD started laying a fiber backbone in 1998 to enhance control of their power distribution grid and then to aid in meter reading. The fiber-to-your-door is only available in the most populous areas of Mason county, that is, the cities of Shelton, Allyn, Belfair, and Lake Limerick. Most of Mason county does not have access to fiber.

      My grandfather was a commisioner for PUD3 for almost 20 years, and your cisco rep is wrong about Mason county's hydro dams. Mason county has no dams and buys most of its power from the Bonneville Power Administration. It has one generating plant of its own, and I believe that runs on natural gas.

      --

      Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
    7. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by NathanBales · · Score: 1

      You have been able to get fiber to your home in Eastern Washington for a while now.

    8. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have been able to get fiber to your home in Eastern Washington [nwinternet.com] for a while now.

      That should be you have been able to get fiber to your home in some rural parts of Eastern Washington for a while now. Places that haven't turned over their telecommunications infrastructure to corporate giants aren't fortunate enough to have their network designed for the public good.

    9. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by Shonufftheshogun · · Score: 1

      I skimmed over the article first and was like, cool, fiber. Then just now I saw that it is in MASON COUNTY?! I have a lake cabin there! I can get fiber at my vacation house but not at my own house, great.

    10. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by satterth · · Score: 1
      They laid fibre to aid in meter reading?

      Incredable

      --
      Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
    11. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rainy day account? if it rains, they make more money . . .

    12. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so incredible. The cost savings of automated meter reading pays for the cost of wiring the county in about 5 years. Leasing the lines to ISP's is all gravy.

    13. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by satterth · · Score: 1
      yes, i know that automated meter reading is cheaper, but FIBRE to the meter... Crazy..

      The utility company in my city just piggy backs on the phone line. Its much cheaper.

      --
      Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
    14. Re:The only reason Mason Cty. can do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm . . . virtually all of Eastern Washington is rural

  9. damn...that is nice, BUT by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    the cap is stupid, I will say however that the per GB over rate is resonable...3 bucks is not bad. if the rate is even graded down to the say 10 MB over that would be better. my question though is, if you had that to your house, what would you do on the net? it would take oh about 2 days to get the stuff you want that month and then what...refresh /. and be bored?

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    1. Re:damn...that is nice, BUT by mrtroy · · Score: 1

      well run a website on that account
      then we will /. you and you will be selling yourself on the street to pay for it
      and think about movies...can you really download too many?

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
    2. Re:damn...that is nice, BUT by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the part about not being allowed to run servers.....though the bussiness class is a bit silly.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  10. Their DSL prices are higher? by Brento · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Somehow I've gotta wonder when their DSL prices are more expensive than their fiber prices. Something's gotta be amiss.

    --
    What's your damage, Heather?
    1. Re:Their DSL prices are higher? by IAR80 · · Score: 1

      Seems that this fiber offer is just a marketing trap. Some people just know that fiber is fast actually forgeting to ask about caps or if their chanell is shaped down just to 64kbps. Just one the wonders of marketing in market economy.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
    2. Re:Their DSL prices are higher? by devaudio · · Score: 1

      Also, the DSL companies have the "old world" copper per minute charge mentality still. It's why i still get charged per minute on my long distance, but companies like vonage do "all you can eat" bills for one flat fee a month. They charge what consumers will pay, not what actually gives them profit (to an extent)

    3. Re:Their DSL prices are higher? by matastas · · Score: 1

      Oh, who knows. Maybe the column marked "Qwest?" The part where they have to fork over for the port costs at the local ILEC? See, how it's PRINTED ON THEIR WEB SITE?

      Jesus. Don't create some pointless conspiracy theory that doesn't need drummed up.

    4. Re:Their DSL prices are higher? by programR · · Score: 4, Informative

      Our DSL prices are higher than our Fiber prices because the phone company makes those charges higher....

      We provide the best prices we can on all of the different media available. DSL is more expensive to us, but Fiber is only available in certain areas... There are petitions for customers to sign to try and help get Fiber into more areas, but it really comes down to what the Public Utility District for that county is willing to foot the bill for.

      We are providing IP service over the PUD network of Fiber optics. Customers also have the ability to have On-Demand video provided over the pipe & other services like telephony. Those are currently outside the realm of what DONOBi offers, but we are working with the different PUDs in the areas we can to provide all of those services to our customers.

      --
      Jeff Wood < jwood [at] donobi [dot] com >
      Manager of Hosting & Development Services
      DONOBi
  11. I wonder about the details? by mrnick · · Score: 1

    I wonder if you get a static IP on a personal account. If you are on a business account do you get multiple IP addresses? How many? For this price I would not be suprised to see a bunch of web hosting companies spring up there.

    hmmmm...

    Nick Powers

    --

    Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
    1. Re:I wonder about the details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, trust me, if you knew Mason County, you would be SO suprised to see a bunch of web hosting companies spring up there.
      These are beautiful, charming little communites, but there is no way in hades that business will flock to Shelton or Belfair for cheap pipes. They would have to start building office buildings, for one. They don't really have any.

  12. Minor Info by Sedennial · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has actually been in place for some time and there are a couple of other ISP's in Mason offering fibre connectivity via the open access network, but full scale rollout has been slowed down for a number of reasons. Some political and some financial. Currently they are reviewing a wireless solution for lastmile due to unexpectedly high costs for lastmile fiber solution. Last commisioners meeting I went to had some interesting discussion taking place regarding alternative solutions for last-mile.

    Real per customer business costs far exceed various estimates due to the fact that to sign up customer X at the end of the street you have to essentially lay out fiber for EVERY home between your splice point and customer X. And unless every one of those customers signs up, you may have just expended $15k or more (since they Mason is doing an underground install not poletop) for one customer.

  13. Sweet deal... by xchino · · Score: 1

    I'm sure their backbone isn't 100Mpbs, but the rates are very competitive, and the restrictions are no worse than most cable or DSL plans. This would be more than worth making an ISP switch if I can play quake with my friends across town on a 100Mps connection. $3.00 per extra gig seems a tad pricey though...

    --
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
    1. Re:Sweet deal... by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      You dont need 100Mbps to play quake (or anything else) with your friends across town. That's all about lag times, not bandwidth.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Sweet deal... by Sedennial · · Score: 1

      Actually their backbone is much larger than that. They essentially ride the NOANET SONET loop around the Pacific Northwest, and given proper configuration could drop off 100 MB ethernet at any node on the ring, offering full scale ISP services around the entire northwest. If they desired to do so.

    3. Re:Sweet deal... by IAR80 · · Score: 1

      If you shape it down you get the same lag times.

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
    4. Re:Sweet deal... by LordHunter317 · · Score: 1

      And with UDP, lag is almost purely a function of bandwidth

    5. Re:Sweet deal... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      And with UDP, lag is almost purely a function of bandwidth

      Well, lag is latency, and that has two parts: the time to transmit, and the inherent latency in the system. If you use a modem, you get 250ms of lag straight away. Use satellite and get 500ms - 1sec lag. Use DSL or a T1/OC3 and get 15ms.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    6. Re:Sweet deal... by Captain_Jackass · · Score: 1

      If you use a modem, you get 250ms of lag straight away.

      Unless you're good:

      Reply from 66.162.211.9: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=126
      Reply from 66.162.211.9: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=126
      Reply from 66.162.211.9: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=126
      Reply from 66.162.211.9: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=126
      Reply from 66.162.211.9: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=126
      Reply from 66.162.211.9: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=126
      Reply from 66.162.211.9: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=126
      Reply from 66.162.211.9: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=126
      Reply from 66.162.211.9: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=126

  14. Re:rwerwerwerwe by friedmud · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Trying to make a Suffix Tree

    Sorry, I gotta stop coding and go get some fresh air.

    Derek

  15. Re:frost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you were beaten by an ontopic post. You suck.

  16. Now, wait a second. by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure, they also offer a business account that has limited bandwidth and allows servers, but that account costs the same amount as the personal account.

    So, I think they're being trustworthy. They're just saying, if you want to run servers, you have to pay for bandwidth. If you want to download pr0n, gobble away. It's a stupid model, but it doesn't seem duplicitous.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    1. Re:Now, wait a second. by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      it's a stupid model,

      I wouldn't go that far. One thing many seem to forget is the bussiness part of it. Yes, from a consumers point of view this is stupid. No real raeson why I whouls not be allowed to run some crappy servers. But they view servers as money making (should they kill stuff like sshd and the like then I would more or less agree).

      What the bussiness deal offers many is the ability to write it off your income tax if it is a bussiness expense (that is you actually own/operate a bussiness). You can't write a personal line off. The focus they (and many others) are looking at is a bussiness, consumers are a by-product. If that is the case then it makes sense. If you main investment ins consumers - well it's stupid then. It is not an attempt to limit bandwidth usage but to maximise profits (though some places use it to limit bandwidth which is stupid also). This is the way our (and I assume others) local phone service works. This is probably one of the least stupid setup's I have seen in high-speed access.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    2. Re:Now, wait a second. by timeOday · · Score: 1
      I don't see why it's stupid; I think it's fabulous. $3/GB is fine, you could download an iso for under $2. And for those like me who do run servers but don't use a lot of bandwidth doing it, the business plan is great.

      I welcome metered access if it persuades ISPs to stop filtering, and if the marginal fee for more bandwidth is reasonable and not a ridiculously high penalty fee.

    3. Re:Now, wait a second. by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      No, what's stupid is offering the "personal" plan at all. Metered access isn't evil. Calling specific services on specific ports "servers" is kindof stupid, imho.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    4. Re:Now, wait a second. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it does make sense. uncapped downloading can be offset by agressive caching. 20,000 people reading CNN (or Slashdot) is the same as one person reading CNN.

      you can't cache the servers (well it's pointless anyway).

      downpipe management is easy and works. there is no uppipe management.

  17. I smell a lawsuit from the baby bells by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought only the baby bells had rights to lay out lines? At least thats what I hear from slashdotters who bicker about what de-regulation would do to the isp industry. Southern bell for example says if the isp's do not like it tough, they can lay out there own lines. Interestingly the government has specific contracts to the baby bells from the old bell laboratories to only use them and no one else when digging up public property like roads and open land.

    My guess is they will try to stop this isp or actually bill them through the roof since they do not want anyone else to play ball. I find it unlikely for the second to be true since more supply = less demand for their bussiness dsl and T1 service.

    1. Re:I smell a lawsuit from the baby bells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do we know who ran this fiber? I suspect it was laid by a backbone provider, and has been sitting dormant for some time-- there is a huge glut of unused fiber, so this ISP probably snapped it up cheap from somebody who didn't have the funds or need to light it.

      Now, the "to the door" bit of the fiber is VERY interesting. Right-of-way can be acquired from your government, but it is typically expensive. I'd be very curious to know if they are using existing utility poles, and how they got around the invetible fight from the phone companies' eternal striving to keep out competition.

    2. Re:I smell a lawsuit from the baby bells by geomon · · Score: 1

      The link mentions something about a PUD, which in Washington means a public utility district. They are able to run any service they want because they own the right of way. In Eastern Washington there is at least one other fiber pipe that is serviced by a PUD.

      This probably does make the baby bells unhappy, but I guess that is too bad.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    3. Re:I smell a lawsuit from the baby bells by rmadmin · · Score: 1

      Actually, more than the baby bells can lay. Independant telcos can lay lines too. We have three Independant telco's on each side of our city, and both of them have a LOAD of fiber in the ground.

    4. Re:I smell a lawsuit from the baby bells by L-Train8 · · Score: 1

      Actually, this fiber was laid by a Public Utilities District. Mason county is a rural area in Washington state, and much of it is not serviced by Qwest (formerly US West), the baby bell that covers most of the western US. There are several small, independent telephone companies that operate in the county,and each of them run their own cable. However, it was the PUD in this case that ran the fiber.

      The PUD is the power company for Mason county, but it is a public utility with an elected board of commisioners. The original purpose of the fiber was to connect the PUD's offices and power substations, as well as provide automated meter reading. The PUD now leases the fiber out to ISP's and independent telcos (and I think Qwest in the Shelton area) for data.

      What is happening in Mason county is a shining example of what slashdotters bickering about what deregulation would do to the ISP industry are talking about. There is true competition in much of Mason County. A company like Hood Canal Communications can provide internet service over leased PUD lines in Shelton, and not have to go begging for Qwest's approval. The problem is, such competition only occurs in areas not serviced by a baby bell, and those areas are all rural. For anyone living in a medium sized city or larger, this competition doesn't exist. Qwest doesn't care if they lose a few customers in a town of 8000 people (like Shelton), if they keep their monopoly on large metropolitan areas like Seattle.

      --

      Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
    5. Re:I smell a lawsuit from the baby bells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      All you need to lay down lines is to become a Public Utility. It's not as hard to do as you think it might be. I worked for a company (Airswitch) that did that. They become a public utility, got access to every right-of-way in the city, and laid their own cable (Cat5) down. To bad stupid management killed the company. They had a great idea.

    6. Re:I smell a lawsuit from the baby bells by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Nope, pretty much anyone can get permitting, so long as they prove business viability (if you grabbed your shovel and started digging up main st, the city would be a little pissed. The ILECs (aka Baby Bells) do have existing right of way permits, but they're by no means the only ones. The reason other ISPs are so desperate to sublease copper circuits from the ILECs is that installing new ones is incredibly expensive. Legal, but really pricey.

  18. over your cap in 50 seconds? by bvk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    with 1 Gb = 1000 Mb, if you max out the connection at the theoretical 100Mbps you'd hit the monthly 5Gb cap in 50 seconds. Of course, at actually achieveable rates, it would probably take a few minutes.

    And after that, you could be paying $3 every few minutes. That sounds kind of pricey to me...

    1. Re:over your cap in 50 seconds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damb, how much pr0n do you download to eat up that much bandwidth that fast?

      Can I get a copy of your archive?

    2. Re:over your cap in 50 seconds? by EricWright · · Score: 1

      One full quality DVD image... 4.7 GB. Add on one ~20 min VCD and poof! There's your 5GB...

      FWIW, this applies to video, not just pr0n... if you know what I mean.

    3. Re:over your cap in 50 seconds? by Blimey85 · · Score: 1

      But how much pr0n do you need? 5 gigs would be plenty for me... after about 3 or 4 gigs of pr0n I start to get blisters anyway.

      --
      How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
  19. Last mile by fishybell · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As far as being a good last mile solution, it fares well, mainly because of symmetric speeds. Of course the last mile is not where you're going to see the speed bottleneck, it's at both the ISP and the webserver/etc that you're connecting to.

    What this will be exceptional for is people who have computers at various points in the Donobi network. Here are the people who will gain the most: company with multiple office locations, people who's company let's them work from home (VPN, VNC, etc), and of course, gamers. Gaming within the network will be supreme.

    I currently have Comcast. The connection can be flaky at times (supposedly because I am doing it wrong), but the speeds are incredible. I love having a 25-50 ping on the games I play, but when one of my room mates is uploading files (I'm talking to you Kai) on WinMx my ping goes down the tube fast (400 anyone?). I would love my 2.5 mbps down just as much as the next guy, but I would trade my soul just to get a synchronous speed even as low as 768 kbps (256 now). Now 100 mbps? that's fast, no matter what the other problems (pay for downloads beyond 5gb, etc).

    --
    ><));>
    1. Re:Last mile by ewhenn · · Score: 1

      I would trade my soul just to get a synchronous speed even as low as 768 kbps

      Lets make a deal...

      MWAHAHAHAHA....

    2. Re:Last mile by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      You need to install a traffic-shaping router. You can probably build one out of iptables-1.2.7a with the fuzzy logic patch.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    3. Re:Last mile by imscarr · · Score: 1

      You can use CBQ to improve your uplink connection as described in this article http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.cookbook.ultimate-tc. html

      Sure beats selling your soul!

      --
      Like the beaver, it's just Dam one thing after another
    4. Re:Last mile by fishybell · · Score: 1

      Well, I figured the going rate for my soul was fairly low, but thanks for the link.

      --
      ><));>
    5. Re:Last mile by g00bd0g · · Score: 1

      Check out 1.5/768 DSL for $50/month! I got it and had full 1.5/768 speed 14,000 feet from the CO! But it turned out to be a little flaky so I had to go down to 768/384. Still good enough for smallish game servers. If you are closer to the CO you can get the full speed connection. It's like 1/2 a T1 for $50/month. Their customer support was slammed when I ordered and it was a hassle, but I think things have calmed down now.

      I swear I don't work for 'em or anything!http://www.cyberonic.net/int-for-home.sht ml

  20. Their TOS by Echnin · · Score: 1
    Unlimited access accounts are for intermittent usage/connection to our system as long as you are physically in front of your computer and actively using the connection. This use includes sending and receiving mail, downloading files, surfing the web and using Internet Relay Chat (IRC).

    Same TOS for all types of accounts. Basically, you being AFK while connected is not allowed... Idiotic rules.

    --
    Lalala
    1. Re:Their TOS by Echnin · · Score: 1
      I hate replying to myself, I really do. Howvever, I just looked at another part of the site, the part with information about the fiber optic connections, and it mentions this:

      Other Networking or Configurations: (i.e. Multiple Computers) Billed PER HOUR
      $75 / Hour

      WTF is up with that? I wouldn't believe it if I saw it posted, so check yourself!

      --
      Lalala
    2. Re:Their TOS by modecx · · Score: 1

      I'd say that's the cost of the technician coming out and hooking all of your computers to your router. IE: nothing you couldn't do yourself

      That's about standard pricing for that kind of work anywhere.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    3. Re:Their TOS by PerlGuru · · Score: 1

      I believe that that is a $75/hr charge for them to do other networking, such as setting up multiple computers on site.

  21. Not cheap until.... by SirLantos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    High speed internet access will not truly be cheap until it is considered a utility instead of a commodity. Until then, people will be making wads of cash selling it to people, and that is the way it should be. Once it turns into a utility, you will see a lot more gov control over it.

    So, you have to ask yourself: Would you rather have cheap Internet service or an uncontrolled Internet?

    Something we all have to learn is that you cannot eat your cake and have it too.

    Thats just my humble opinion,
    SirLantos

    --
    The flying hamster of DOOM rains coconuts on your pitiful city.
    1. Re:Not cheap until.... by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

      >Something we all have to learn is that you cannot eat your cake and have it too.

      And why not? The Telco's do?

  22. Fraud? by NineNine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Call me nuts, but isn't advertising something as "unlimited" when it's not, generally considered fraud? I don't care if it's really x amount of bandwidth + no servers, blah, blah, blah, but the company can't really advertise "unlimited" if it's not. A real "unlimited" pipe to the Net at xxGig/S is called a T-1, or greater. Those are generally $1500/month.

    1. Re:Fraud? by heff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i had this dispute with burlee.com, they offer unlimited space and bandwith and then bill you a "non-disputable service charge" of $250 to $500 for each "infraction". Before i knew it, my $120/yr hosting was now $600+ . I reported them to the bbb along with at least 10 other people. Some guys were charged over $1000 and then took burlee to court...i felt sorry for them.

      --

      --

      |-_-| . o O ( bEef!)

    2. Re:Fraud? by josh+crawley · · Score: 1

      Just as bad as an ISP around here who 'sold' dialup accounds at $9.95 . It was unlimited access, but the secertary said they DID NOT WANT people to be online all the time. They allow unlimited time, but they said they'd harass you (Calls) if you exceeded a 'limit'.

      The company's name is REMC (in Indiana).

    3. Re:Fraud? by EvilStein · · Score: 1

      I dunno. My T1 only costs me $560/mo, all local loop & taxes included.

      ANd I can do whatever the hell I want with it. wh00t. :-)

    4. Re:Fraud? by permaculture · · Score: 1

      NTL put a 1GB/day broadband cap on their UK cable network, yet call their broadband service 'unlimited'.

      --
      Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
    5. Re:Fraud? by edmac3 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they were lying, but a local isp here in Toronto said, in emails sent to me that they offer unlimited bandwith at 120kB/s for 40$/month. They repeated it twice so if there was catch you'd think they would say it unless there a mean company.

    6. Re:Fraud? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


      There's no such thing as an "unlimited" internet connection. Even the thickest bundle of fiber has a maximum throughput, though no current hardware can keep up with it yet.

      Even if the connection between your machine and the nearest peer could be truly unlimited in transfer rate, your percieved speed will still be constrained by the connections between other machines along the route.

    7. Re:Fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Score: -1 "Pedantic"

  23. What's the point? by forkboy · · Score: 1

    100Mbs along with both a bandwidth cap and restrictions on servers? Not for nothin, but what's the point? If you couldn't run a server of your own (negating the usefulness of outbound 100Mb) and could exceed your monthly cap in like an hour if you maxed out your download bandwidth, why even have this? Oh, and you get to pay out the nose for the router? I'd rather keep my cable, thanks.

    --
    This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  24. speed by upt1me · · Score: 1

    One OC-192 will be able to serve 100 Warez Servers / P2P Users / ISO Downloaders, etc....

    1. Re:speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how much does one of those run per month? yeah...

  25. 100 mbps fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A similar plan is under development in adjacent Kitsap Co. WA with their PUD. The fiber net would service Bainbridge Island, with its ferry terminal directly across from downtown Seattle. I don't have specifics, but the timeframe is this year. And a lot of commuters would begin telecommuting and some software companies would be looking at cheaper real estate and high-speed connectivity.
    Downtown Tacoma did a similar infrastructure upgrade, and attracted similar business from metro Seattle. (Not a huge amount - after all, it's still Tacoma.)

  26. We don't ever learn, do we? by NerveGas · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There are a couple of fundamental problems with 100 mbit fiber to the door. First, the cost. With real, gauranteed bandwidth costing anywhere from up to $1,000 per megabit (depending on the quality of the provider), that means that they are going to have to oversell their bandwidth like *crazy* to try and make any profit. With a 100 mbit connection, it only takes a very small number of kiddies with P2P clients to use enough bandwidth to make the entire project unprofitable. Five people using an average of 50 mbits/second each could potentially cost the company over a hundred thousand dollars per month. That means that they'd need a minimum of 2,500 customers just to break even.

    The second problem is the routing/switching. Let's say that they signed up those 2,500 people on the service. If even one tenth of them actually tried to use even half of their bandwidth at the same time, you're looking at 12 gigabits per second, which is more than an OC192 can handle.

    Yep, there are some serious problems here. The kind of problems that they will only overcome by one or more of the following:

    • capping bandwidth
    • overselling like mad, effectively capping bandwidth
    • charging a lot


    It looks like it will still be as good (or better) than DSL, but don't cling to the hopes of actually using 100 mbits.

    On the other hand, I *have* been in places where one person could actually use 100 mbits. I watched a single download from Microsoft coming along at 11 megabytes/second - 88 megabits/second. Of course, the place had a barely-used OC3.

    steve
    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    1. Re:We don't ever learn, do we? by Graymalkin · · Score: 1

      If you look at the numbers they are really familiar, they're pretty similar to the deal you'd get with a colocation account in a carrier hotel. Their local network might be 100mbps but your connection to the outside world is going to be limited by whatever connection the head end has. Cable and DSL providers do this as well, they sell you a 512kbps or whatever line but that speed is really just dependent on how saturated their head end line is. I think more important than the internet speed is the fact this is fiber to the door and not merely fiber to a DLC.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    2. Re:We don't ever learn, do we? by Diskord · · Score: 3, Informative

      Our Fiber connection comes from NoaNet (www.noanet.com) and uses the existing BPA (Bonneville Power Administration) infrastructure. The pricing we recieve is based on 95th percentile billing, so you aren't charged on what your actual use is, but on what your average use is.

      Most end customers use very little bandwidth, but then burst when they are downloading a large file, demo, etc...

      Currently we have no plans to clamp or cap as you refer to it bandwidth. We do charge more as your usage increases, but at under $2 a GB, it is fairly reasonable.

    3. Re:We don't ever learn, do we? by NerveGas · · Score: 1


      I've been in colocation facilities where you got a 100 mbit connection, and could push/pull 100 mbits to the outside world. Generally, though, you're buying a much smaller amount, and paying for that base +/ overage.

      The difference is that in most upper-end colo facilities, you pay for BANDWIDTH, not TRANSFER. It's one thing to say "You get to mvoe 5 GB per month", it's another to say "You get to use X Mbits/second".

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    4. Re:We don't ever learn, do we? by Pointy_Hair · · Score: 1

      The real value with this is connectivity within this network. Yeah, the Internet gateway will be limited to whatever pipes the provider is paying for and everyone shares the pool. On the other hand, if you happen to be an editor remotely rendering uncompressed NTSC video from home, this would be pretty handy.

    5. Re:We don't ever learn, do we? by NerveGas · · Score: 1


      Even then, are they going to have the switching capacity from within the network? My guess is that they won't. Again, it wouldn't take many people actually trying to use that much bandwidth to create some serious congestion.

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    6. Re:We don't ever learn, do we? by djrogers · · Score: 1

      Bah, there are several non-blocking switches that can handle 500+ ports of 100Mb L3 traffic. Avaya, Cisco (well... on a good day), Extreme, and I could go on. And heck, most of these are enterprise class switches, get into carrier class stuff and they wouldn't even break a sweat...

      --
      Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
    7. Re:We don't ever learn, do we? by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      Alrighty, look at the cost per port for those things. These people are charging $30 per month. After they pay for the investment in the fiber, their bandwidth, pay their employees, etc., just how long do you think it would take them to pay off those switches? A lot longer than they're willing to go for, I'll imagine.

      Besides, simply putting all of those computers on the same L3 switch would be... well, quite ludicrous.

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  27. i disagree by intermodal · · Score: 1

    no...its duplicitous in that they claim to be an internet service providor. Internet Service is defined as TCP/IP networking with server capability. internet ACCESS is being able to download from servers to view web pages etc.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:i disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you get those definitions? Did you pull them out of your self-righteous sense of entitlement?

    2. Re:i disagree by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Internet Service is defined as TCP/IP networking with server capability. internet ACCESS is being able to download from servers to view web pages etc.

      Internet Service is defined that way... by you. They're being perfectly clear about what your money buys you.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    3. Re:i disagree by intermodal · · Score: 1

      a TCP/IP book from like 15 years ago. If the internet is to have standards, it should also be consistent about its terminology.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    4. Re:i disagree by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      15 Years ago!

      How many ISP's were there then???
      1 or 2 at most.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    5. Re:i disagree by intermodal · · Score: 1

      Quantity is irrelevant. If you're gonna provide internet service, provide internet service. if you're gonna provide internet access, at least be straight about what it is.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  28. Limit for business makes sense. by QuantumSlip · · Score: 1

    You could say its like a cheaper co-lo; most of the time co-lo is at least 99 bucks a month;same for a dedicated server. So 5GB/month is usually plenty for a server, though I wish the company would allow larger usage for more money. So you could probably download tons with the personal accnt, but I wouldnt upload 100GB/month on it.

    1. Re:Limit for business makes sense. by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      Five gigabytes per month for a server? That's only 2 kilobits/second. If you assume that all of your traffic will be during an 8-hour period, that's still only 6 kilobit/s second. That means that somebody on a dial-up modem can make you go over that amount.

      I suppose that if it's a personal server that is just going to handle email and occasionaly web-surfing, it would work, but not for much more. If you're doing ANY appreciable amount of traffic on the server, you're going to use a lot more transfer than that.

      (As an aside, my servers generally pump out 5 gigabytes every couple of hours, but that's probably not the level of serving that you were talking about.)

      steve

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    2. Re:Limit for business makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... nooo this isn't remotely comprable to co-lo. Most co-lo gives you about 100MB sometimes less, but offers 400 GB/Month or so!

      yes, that's at 99 bucks a month. and yes that's realistic. My personal webpage gets roughly 65 GB a month traffic

  29. Easy by jaavaaguru · · Score: 3, Informative

    That would be excellent for me. My Internet habits entirely consist of...

    * Checking Slashdot and a few other discussion boards
    * Checking my e-mail
    * Chatting on Jabber, AIM and MSN
    * Updating my website
    * Occasionally downloading Redhat's software updates
    * Sometimes playing streaming music (but not very often)

    That could easily be les than 5Gb/month.

    1. Re:Easy by veeoh · · Score: 1

      Then why would you want 100Mbs internet connection? Seems rather a waste of money??

    2. Re:Easy by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      I currently have 512k and am considering getting 1mbps. Just because I don't download huge amounts of pr0n or videos, doesn't mean I don't want my Internet connection to be very responsive.

  30. Wow that's fast! by sconeu · · Score: 2, Funny

    100mbps? Wow! 100mbps is 1 bit every 10 seconds! I can talk faster than that!

    Now, a 100Mbps connection, that I could get excited about!

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Wow that's fast! by tkg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow! 100mbps is 1 bit every 10 seconds!

      Still faster than my dialup. Damn crappy phone lines.

    2. Re:Wow that's fast! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a penis.

  31. Donobi is just the ISP by Diskord · · Score: 3, Informative

    Juyst to clarify, Donobi is just one of many ISP's on our fiber network. The Fiber itself is being laid by Mason County PUD3.

    The PUD website is http://www.masonpud3.org

    There you can find a complete list of retailers, and more information on the Fiber project.

  32. They got to be kidding! by ah.clem · · Score: 1

    From their site:

    4 Port Router:
    Installed to one (1) computer with CAT-5 cable (50ft.) $150.00 / Mo

    Hmmmmmm.... gimme 3! Jeeze, Mom 'n Pop will buy anything, I guess. I'd be happy to lease 'em the other 3 jumpers for $50.00 / Mo, US.

    --
    "Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
  33. Servers by jargoone · · Score: 1

    They dont allow servers. Neither does Road Runner. Doesn't stop me, doubt it stops most people. What are they going to do, block all incoming traffic?

  34. Not so strange, it's the same here in Sweden by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 2, Informative

    I pay about $20 per month for having a 10-megabit jack in my wall enabled, that's about par for fibered cities in Sweden. DSL in general is a notch more expensive and a lot lower on the bandwidth ladder, it's about $25 per month for something like 2048/512 ADSL.

    I guess it has to do with cost of equipment and return on investment in densely populated areas (I live in a high-riser, so suburban villas may be different and more of a DSL place).

  35. Have any of you been to mason county Wa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt it from what you are saying there may be 100 mbps fiber to your door but the area that this covers is inhabited by the biggest hillbilly population in washington state. The only reason that there is fiber connectivity out there is that there is a school in the middle of nowhere that by state law needs connectivity and to make it anywhere near profitable the telco sells the accounts.

    1. Re:Have any of you been to mason county Wa? by Diskord · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would agree with you that Mason County is in the middle of BFE, being that I live in Shelton, Mason County's metropolis of 6,000 people.

      BUT, the reason Fiber is here has nothing to do with Schools. It has to do with the Electric company (Mason County PUD 3) using BPA Fiber and making it available to their customers.

  36. From The TOS by Nick+Harkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "In any case, you will be disconnected after approximately 8 hours of continuous connect time"

    This isn't something i expect/want from a fibre optic line, neither is:

    We expect that you will promptly disconnect your modem from our dialup facility when you are not actively using the connection. If we discover that your system is connected to DONOBi but idle (not sending or receiving data) we may disconnect you.
    http://www.donobi.com/terms_of_service.php

    1. Re:From The TOS by trauma · · Score: 1

      Ahh, suddenly it all becomes clear.

      By "unlimited" they mean "you can remain connected for an umlimited number of hours", as opposed to a metered/per hour system, or one with limits placed on connection as alluded to above. It's just archaic dial-up language being applied to describe the "always on" aspect of this type of connection.

      For all the reasons already stated over and over again, they certainly can not/will not be offering unlimited data transfer at this price.

    2. Re:From The TOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donobi is also a dial-up ISP.

      Jesus, you people get so confused.

    3. Re:From The TOS by nacs · · Score: 1

      THey're obviously talking about their dialup service--not the fiber. And I don't know where you're from but most major dialup ISPs do boot you after periodically or when you're idle.

      --
      "I filter at +6, and have yet to miss out on an important comment." (#822545)
  37. Mason County, eh? by d3funct · · Score: 0

    Mason County! Why the hell are they putting that there? Mason County (for all of you who don't know), is a VERY rural community, who's biggest TOWN is Shelton, WA (pop. ~9,000 (maybe pushing it)). Most of this county is forest/logging country and the rest is farming community. What the...?

    --
    ASCII a stupid question, get a stupid ANSI!
  38. Yeah, great... by hafree · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The first thing I do when I turn on my computer is tune into internet radio, usually a 128kbps mp3 stream for around 4 hours a day. At that rate, I'd use up my 3GB quota before the month was half over, and that doesn't even include browsing the web, sending and receiving e-mail, or downloading files. I'll stick with cable until they can figure out a better definition for "unlimited".

    1. Re:Yeah, great... by matastas · · Score: 5, Informative

      Read. The damned. Web site.

      If you don't want the business account, you don't have to worry about that. You sacrifice the ability to use server. This is what we in the Real World call 'give and take.' And it comes with the territory of paying a lower price for a service.

    2. Re:Yeah, great... by kilonad · · Score: 1

      Something tells me you'll stick with cable until you figure out how to move to Mason County.

  39. Terms of service... by Destoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    I really hate those dispositions...

    Many Internet service providers block all email from sites that are primary by senders of unsolicited email. In addition, you agree to pay the following in the event you are responsible for, generating or cause any unsolicited commercial e-mail to emanate or appear to emanate from DONOBi. $500 per event plus $1.00 per message sent, plus $50 per complaint received by DONOBi, plus any damages or loss of service(s) to DONOBi, as a result of any spamming or other violation of these policies. These damages include, but are not limited to system shut downs, retaliatory attacks or data flooding.

    Translation into abuse:
    Spam with reply-to address <user>@donobi.com

    Replace <user> with name of loved one.

    Is that disposition really necessary?
    Unlimited access accounts are for intermittent usage/connection to our system as long as you are physically in front of your computer and actively using the connection.

    --
    Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
  40. Five gigs a MONTH? Are they insane? by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I usually leech on the order of fifteen to twenty gigs a DAY. These guys have not done their homework on how the customer uses the product...

    ...either that, or they are trying to present a politically correct image of how the product will be used, in case they will go the way of the other dot-bombs. In any case, they have shown to be pulling numbers out of thin air. My guess is that the executives' secretaries print their e-mail for them.

    1. Re:Five gigs a MONTH? Are they insane? by Beetjebrak · · Score: 1

      Umm.. just out of curiosity.. twenty gigs a day of what do you download?? Also, at such rates, I'm sure you don't have a regular DSL or cable link right? That'd get you in serious trouble with your ISP.
      Personally I'm a pretty active Linux user, but I think I grab about 5 distributions (ISO's) per month if not less.

      --
      Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
    2. Re:Five gigs a MONTH? Are they insane? by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 1

      Mostly DivXed movies (as a side note, media happens to be legal to download where I live). Hard drive space fills up fast, though, so it's not going on month after month. :-)

      I don't have a regular DSL or cable, but a 10-megabit fiber. Still a consumer deal to the ISP, though.

  41. All too easy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow... in non-Soviet Washington, the PUD pulls your fiber.

  42. Kara by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd explore Kara. Anybody else with me?

  43. YOU FAIL IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU FAIL IT!

  44. bah.. straight for #1 at f'd company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This offer is complete crap.. what should i do with 100mbit when i'm only allowed to download 5gig/month?

    that makes roughly 10 minutes download time for 5-6 movies /month...

    sucks...

  45. we have an isp like that in sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    BBB have have som ares where they give 100mbit connection to ewry household. well in most citys they only offer 10mbit. but it cost about 32US a month. they have an unlimited transfer quota witch is nice. i guess thats why many sites in sweden are on bbb 100mbit ;). some peopel migth wonder how they can earn money from this well they cant or at least not so far. but their bussnis model seems to include owning all fiber that they use and not rent fiber connections. so when their net is completed they can lean back. guess they will lose alot of money in the meantime they have allredy gone bankrupt once but then a bigger company bought them. too bad my household cant get bbb ;(

  46. Gigabytes, megabits. by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

    Still, even changing it to that effect means you could use your entire 5G in about 7 minutes.

    Then again I have a 1.544 to the house (cablemodem) and my real life speeds run between 300kbit/s and 1Mbit/s (37KBytes/s to 125KBytes/sec) - so generally speaking we are still going to be limited by the bandwidth on the server side.

    If we can /. a server with what we have now (client side) just envision what we could do with a bunch of 100Mb/s connections - just a thought.

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  47. Avoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have access to a 100Mbit fiber connection like this in Austin through Eagle Broadband. They have the same bizarre anti-service as this other company mentioned has, which I find interesting considering they're on the brink of bankruptcy. I can't even get service from these folks as their sales staff seem to refuse to return my calls.

    I also don't understand the anti-service that these broadband providers offer. They absolutely refuse (at least via policy) to allow you to even connect to your office over a VPN, much less run a server on your network. In fact, Eagle won't even allow its customers to run a game server, and they can disconnect you if you accidentally have a share running on your system (like who disables default shares anyway?)

    When are these people going to realize that service is the key to success, as opposed to anti-service? What's the rationale behind the anti-service policy? Why can't I even get a sales person to call me back? Sigh.

    1. Re:Avoid by kcurrie · · Score: 2, Informative

      I too live in Austin, and have a connection via Eagle. I have a fixed IP from them (as they NAT upstream so without it I couldn't run any services at all). The people I spoke with specifically spoke about some people requiring a static IP to use VPN to work, and they didn't have any problems with it AFAIK.
      And what's up with the news service?? They require authentication now?? What password??

      --
      -- I speak only for myself.
    2. Re:Avoid by kcurrie · · Score: 1

      ..BTW, with my "fiber" connection I get (only) 250-300K/sec downloads, although I get ~120-150K/sec uploads. When I had Road Runner I had much faster downloads, but uploads were only around 40-45K/second. For most people that's not an issue, but I work from home and use an IP phone, which can easily use >29K/s upstream.

      --
      -- I speak only for myself.
  48. Blowup Doll by kyoko21 · · Score: 1

    Mod this down for a troll, but if their TOS states that someone has to be in front of the computer then just go get yourself a blowup doll and put its hands on the keyboard and stare away while you are away. Simply push the doll aside later on when you return. This way, someone will always be in front of the computer.

  49. As a current user of Mason County's fiber service, by thewimps · · Score: 2, Informative
    I can fill in a few of the details people seem to be debating. Our company currently subscribes via Hood Canal Communications. We have a block of 16 static IPs and the fiber connection comes to our business at 100mb, though we typically see about 5mb/s to the internet. Keep in mind that I don't know that our connection is the limiting factor in that.

    While I agree that the bandwidth cap might discourage home users, it still makes great sense for business users. The cap is set at 5GB (that's gigabytes, no matter what the website says) and our service is not affected if we go over the limit--our checkbooks, however, are. We pay a rate of $2.20 for each GB after the 5 GB limit. Consider the amount of data we can send for the same price as our (now backup) T1:

    $900 for the old connection - $40 for the first 5GB = $860
    $860 / $2.20 per GB = 390GB
    390GB Extra + 5GB Included = 395GB monthly

    We can deal nearly 400GB monthly for the same price as our old connection. If I recall correctly, we paid the PUD $200 to bring the fiber from the road to our building and we pay something like $5 monthly for each of our IPs (except one, which obviously is included with the base price).

    We're extremely happy with the service and frankly I'm amazed that a county as rural as Mason has such great internet access. It's far better than is available just 30 minutes away in Olympia, WA.

  50. I have a similar services to this by robjob · · Score: 1

    I recently bought a house in a new "Smart Community" in suburban Virginia. The community was wired with direct to home fiber and 100mb ethernet throughout the neighborhood. The provider is a company called Openband - http://www.openband.net - and over the same network (although not over the same fiber) they provide our cable and phone services. Its actually a pretty good little packeage that is paid for in our home owners fees. (the cost in the fees for basic phone, internet access, and the basic cable is about $150 bucks, which is not bad. The whole network is connected out through a T1 at the moment, but as more homes come online, that will up to a T3. So while they claim they have 100mb network, the connection is only a T1. The entire house is wired with cat5, so I ahve at least one if not two data/phone/cable connections in every room, which is pretty sweet. All in all, its a pretty nice set up.

    robjob

    1. Re:I have a similar services to this by tristton · · Score: 1

      Actually my connection is on 2 T1 lines at the moment. And i am getting a very fast speed sometimes, i.e. 6Mbs. Within a couple months they will upgrade as he said to a higher bandwith, but i heard differently than he did and we should be getting around 10-85 Mbs. This is because they are still building the central office which is supposed to have an OC-(?) connection. But until then its just a guess.

    2. Re:I have a similar services to this by Zed2K · · Score: 1

      They will be offering that in my new subdivision soon also. The other side of the main street has it but our side doesn't. I talked to a technican about it and he said don't bother. Its horribly slow. It may be better when the upgrade their pipe but until they do cable modem is faster. They will also be offering cable over the fiber but it doesn't have the technologies that timewarner does here. My whole house is wired with cat5e cable which is great and they have fiber going right up to the house, but until the big pipe at the main station is upgraded a whole lot its not worth it.

    3. Re:I have a similar services to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the kansai region of Japan, (Osaka, Kyoto, Nara) the power co. Kansai Electric Power CO. ran fibre on the poles with the power supply, likely to monitor the meters and operate the system, so everyone has fibre to the door. But yahoo is signing up cutomers like crazy for their 8 and 12 mbps services, especially no that they provide phone as well (VOIP) 3min/2.5\. the current campaign includes free phone for two months! they have people selling it on street corners with stacks of modems! Fibre is now \4000/month 100mbps, yahooBB is about \3000.

  51. It exists now from by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    Astound Cable, a seren communications company, but like many people pointed out who has 100 mb/gigabit gateways or modems ? The fiber runs to a box on my garage and is then split to coax or rj-45, or phone line depending on the usage.
    Their thru-put is great :)

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  52. With a blowup doll, who needs Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    With a blowup doll, who needs Internet?

  53. observations by euggie · · Score: 1

    Just a couple unrelated observations:

    * This is nothing new in WA. Around 2000 we were shopping for an apartment in Issaquah, WA. There was a small ISP providing fibre-to-the curb service for comparable prices, with no bandwidth limits in a planned community. I cannot recall the community's name nor the ISP name, but for those who are in the area, take exit 17 on I-90, Northbound on SE Front St, Right on Issaquah-Fall City Rd., then take the first right (Black Nugget Rd.). Follow it all the way to the end and there it is.

    * Without a doubt, the amount of bandwidth available for Internet-bound traffic is not going to be 100Mbps. But assuming they don't do QoS at the port level, having that kind of bandwidth to the curb will at least speed up P2P and gaming traffic within your neighborhood. You may also achieve better performance for certain applications than traditional DSL and cable services if the provider were to do QoS at the edge with something like this.

  54. Already here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in Atlanta, most of the new neighborhoods have fiber to the door, and I've been told (by several reliable sources) that it's 100Mbs. I personally have the services, but it's capped at 2Mbps, and served as DSL over Fiber.

    The fiber comes into the telco box from BellSouth like the other services, and then there's card that does (something), and I get a ethernet cable run from that card to my house. So when I hook up to my DSL connection - there's just a jack, and I run PPTP over it; I personally use a Linksys router to do so.

    But the technology is there. They just limit the bandwidth, for obvious reasons. $50/mo.

  55. Don't run Freenet, then. by expro · · Score: 1

    I've hit 12GB a week each direction just running Freenet, after adjusting the weekly average to way below that (the throttling does not work as advertised). No significant file transfers were going on -- the throughput of Freenet does not make swapping large binaries rewarding.

    It is a significant non-business need for larger quotas. I had to pull the plug on an active Freenet node because my ISP has his own caps and I couldn't get it down to the 2 GB per week I could spare.

  56. exercise to poster: by nyet · · Score: 1

    1) calculate transmission time for a 64 byte frame at 56k, 1Mbit, and 100Mbit

    2) calculate transmission time for a 1518 byte frame at 56k, 1Mbit, and 100Mbit.

    3) compare each of those times to the transmission time of light from Los Angeles to New York.

    4) do the same for a TCP SYN/ACK sequence.

    5) discuss the correlation of bandwith/distance/UDP/TCP vs end to end latency.

  57. There is a bottleneck by PineHall · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the colocation page ( http://www.masonpud3.org/Telecom/Colocation/): Featuring a Gigabit (1,024 megabit/second) Backbone through the entire county!

  58. speakeasy!! by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1

    Look them up. Best damn dsl provder on the plante. Im a very satisfied customer.

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
    1. Re:speakeasy!! by mssymrvn · · Score: 1

      I have speakeasy and I'll agree, it rocks. Problem is, the recent FCC ruling that allows Derizon to charge what they want (not at cost) to Covad and other ILECs has me a bit worried. I don't know how much longer my Speakeasy link will remain.

      To Derizon's credit (sorta) at least they're now offering business class service that has a static IP and server hosting is allowed on the link.

      I'm sure the service is unreliable and support is worse, but before you couldn't even get a static IP for your DSL connection. However, that doesn't mean I'll be switching anytime soon.

  59. Banned Fiber by c4tp's+friend · · Score: 2, Informative

    In our silly midwestern town it was not too long ago (two weeks or so) that our city council finally made it legal. But, now we have to wait for our state public service commision to allow this service to be instated. Which means more time before our market can reach a higher level of parity between cable/DSL/fiber. Supposedly our electric company has run the cable throughout the city, but not to the houses because it has been (and still is technically) illegal to do this. Its all the government's fault that we consumers cannot pay a nominale amount for our internet. I say this because of the mandates essentially making public services monopolies in each town. For example, I believe only fifty miles away people have a choice of Cox or Qwest high speed access. Of which Qwest I believe is comparatively cheaper than Alltel which we are forced to use. Just my two cents.

    --
    I dont like it when people think about what I think (say). Rather I try to make them think like I think.
    1. Re:Banned Fiber by c4tp · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it. Stuck between AOL/TW Road Runner cable and Alltel DSL is horrible. I'm all for deregulation in this sector, but it's a newer technology so it might take awhile to come up. Just my two cents.

    2. Re:Banned Fiber by c4tp · · Score: 1

      I have a friend! I feel loved!

      BTW, I know this guy in real life, I'm just giving him a hard time.

    3. Re:Banned Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a life, idiot. You're just using two different logins.

    4. Re:Banned Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and now you're responding to yourself anonymously.

  60. speakeasy doesn't make real life easy by chicks.net · · Score: 1

    Given that this guy was hoping to avoid restrictions, I would recommend avoiding Speakeasy like the plague. Their policies are very arbitary. I once ended up with a tech support person on the weekend who couldn't fathom what traceroute was. For typical home users, that may be acceptable, but for the /. crowd, you want Megapath.

    --

    --
    Free software isn't free, but expensive software is expensive.

    1. Re:speakeasy doesn't make real life easy by cymen · · Score: 1

      What does a clueless tech support person have to do with restrictions?

    2. Re:speakeasy doesn't make real life easy by chicks.net · · Score: 1
      What does a clueless tech support person have to do with restrictions?

      Both are examples of ISP cluelessness that people searching for competence should avoid.

      --

      --
      Free software isn't free, but expensive software is expensive.

    3. Re:speakeasy doesn't make real life easy by vicviper · · Score: 1
      What does a clueless tech support person have to do with restrictions?

      Nothing. I'd gladly drop comcast for speakeasy if I weren't so far fom my CO. You can only use so much bandwidth, but you never get over being authoritative for your IP.

    4. Re:speakeasy doesn't make real life easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both are examples of ISP cluelessness that people searching for competence should avoid.

      He wasn't asking for a competent ISP, he was asking for a $100 per month 1Mbps no restrictions ISP.

    5. Re:speakeasy doesn't make real life easy by Jouster · · Score: 1
      Yeah, this makes me want to use their service:

      Megapath Networks
      Mar 13, 2003

      This web site is temporarily unavailable. Please check back later.

      MegaPath IT
      (925) 201-2500

      Jouster
  61. Mason County? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why offer it there? It's out in the middle of nowhere, and is just rednecks and fishermen. They probably couldn't turn on a computer even if the only button on it was an on button.

    Of course, now that I think about it, they look like a little mom and pop isp, so they couldn't handle the bandwidth requirements that opening up service in King County would consume. (King County being Seattle, Redmond, Bellevue for you lucky people that don't live in this colonial little village).

    1. Re:Mason County? by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was my first reaction, too.

      MASON County??? Talk about backwoods... Nothin' but loggers there... Every redneck joke you ever heard applies...

      And THEY are getting fiber-to-the-curb? Hoo boy...

      --
      In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  62. [O/T] by natey · · Score: 1

    Someone used the phrase correctly! *faint*

    --
    --- "No matter who or what, a box of flowers is better than a smack in the belly with a wet fish." --RAH
  63. Almost the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I used to work for a company in Canberra, Australia that has built a fibre network in order to provide telephony/tv/video-on-demand/internet access to all of the city (~350-400K people IIRC).

    It wasn't an ethernet network, nor was it FTTH. The "last mile" was up to 300m (1000ft) of copper CAT5. It was essentially ATM to the home. A DSL network if you really want to call it that.

    The throughput to each home is 52Mbps so could carry a payload of around 36Mbps. Over this, you got your tv/video services and your net connection.

    A typical video stream would take up to 9Mbps, with HDTV stuff reaching as high as 23Mbps. This still leaves >10Mbps for each home!

    The network is considered to be an open network, the cable company isn't actually an ISP, there is multiple ISPs on the network all able to service every house.

    It's a pretty cool setup, but developed with video as a priority and data as an also-ran. That doesn't really matter as data can continue just fine with retransmits, tv/video won't put up with that (results in blocking/pausing/skipping).

    Anyway, here's their URL... http://www.transact.com.au

  64. Mason County? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, Mason county has to be the world capital for imbreading. I live in the neiboring Thurston county and I'm still forced to use dial-up. Why can't they give us this kind of service? After all our population density is higher than 1 person to every 6 miles and as such should be more profitable, right?.

  65. Too bad, its limited to ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... 8 hours of connection at a time.

  66. I do 100 GB/month on my 'unlimited' AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do web performance monitoring strictly for hobby purposes... That utilization is roughly 100 Gigabytes each month.

    Thank you AT&T Broadband!

    $3/Gb? Ouch!

  67. 5GB/Month...... What's the point? by agsweeney · · Score: 1

    I have personally downloaded over 20GB in the past month over 1500/256 ADSL. A cap at 5GB/Month is lame. I would love to be able to download things lickity split over 100mbps, but the thought of any kind of cap is, to say the least, not apealling.

  68. I hope their service is better then thier news.... by yiffyfox · · Score: 1

    DONOBi News

    Warning: Too many connections in /var/www/virtuals/s/donobi.com/htdocs/includes/db_ ro.php on line 7

    Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /var/www/virtuals/s/donobi.com/htdocs/news/donobi_ news.php on line 156
    Uh oh, something didn't work...

  69. What's the point, my lameass provider would cap it by asscroft · · Score: 1

    I hate caps. I wish I still lived in the bay area. the mecca of all things tech.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  70. bandwidth usage is irrelevant by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 0

    and should not be charged for. And I don't understand how we're still using this business model for internet connections at any level. Charge for size of pipe, not for how much it gets used, doesn't literally cost any more to send more data than it does to send less data, apart from possibly using a miniscule amount more of electricity. Yes, it costs more to install (and maybe maintain) a bigger pipe. But once it's in, it's in. In reality it doesn't cost more to send 100GB than it does to send 50GB, and charging by the GB is unwarranted. I always say, imagine how many businesses would not have gone under and would still be running today, and how many more customers ISPs at various levels would still have, and how much more money everyone would be making, if people weren't being charged by how much traffic is generated.

    1. Re:bandwidth usage is irrelevant by oRdchaos · · Score: 1
      This is completely wrong.

      If you have a dedicated fiber line to your house, then it doesn't matter how much traffic your putting on that individual line, but where does the traffic go after that?

      At some point, the traffic has to run over high speed fiber links that are shared by everyone basically. The people who maintain those links need to charge someone money...the way that makes by far the most sense is to charge based on what percentage of the bandwidth you use. That costs trickles down to the consumer.

    2. Re:bandwidth usage is irrelevant by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 0

      missed my point entirely, good show. Let me restate it. Every single entity that provides lines, regardless of size or to whom, should charge for accordingly for the line itself, not for how much you use it. By your reasoning, I should be able to get an OC-48 to my house, but it should only cost me $20 if I only upload/download 2GB a month. Yeah, right.

  71. Ack! So close! by yukster · · Score: 1

    Holy Shit! I'm in the next county over (Thurston)! I hope they expand. What's weird is that the population of Mason County is about 50,000. Seems like a very limited customer base to go installing fiber service for. It's also a very rural county... lots of space between homes. Seems like a very expensive proposition, stringing all that fiber. I can't wait to tell my girlfriend that I actually want to move to Shelton (if you've been there, you'd get it)!

  72. Wonder Shaper by pixphys · · Score: 1
    This is an easy way to setup a traffic shaper under Linux for the beginner. It is a script called Wonder Shaper. All you do is set your upload/download speed and magically download/uploading in bulk does not interfere with interactive apps like online games and SSH sessions.

    http://lartc.org/wondershaper/

  73. ooops! by Sarreq+Teryx · · Score: 1

    I think timothy there read the page wrong, the donobi page says the personnal plan is unlimited bandwidth/month but no servers or bandwidth resale are allowed, where the business plan is 5Gb/month + $3/additional Gb and does allow servers on it.

    now as for Gb vs GB, I really hope their use of Gb is a typo and they aren't using Gb as the proper Gigabit, cause that would mean only 640megabytes/month, and thinking everyone will think they mean 5GB/month (40Gb/month), that could be quite a nasty lawsuit

  74. Fun with math! by jriskin · · Score: 1

    So at full rate you get 50 seconds of bandwidth a month before they charge you more! Spread evenly you get a mind blowing .23kbytes/sec. At typical modem rates I could use up 4kbytes/sec*60*60*24*31=10.7GBytes or 85.7Gbits/month.

    So to get the equivalent of modem bandwidth for a month you would pay $280 ($240 + $40) at $3/Gigabit.

    Compared to a $300 1.5Mbit sDSL. Where you could use 192kbytes*60*60*24*31=514GBits or 100x the bandwidth for the same cost.

    I'll take my crappy cable modem where I can use as much as my 48k up and 200k down allows per month.

    Maybe if that was a factor of 100 cheaper I would reconsider.

  75. Available in Japan for two years now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the last two years, I have had a fiber
    coming through my window from NTT, the biggest
    telecom vendor in Japan. 100megabit service,
    switched (no more than 16 customers will ever
    share the bandwidth at the switch). About $70
    per month. Available all over major cities
    like Tokyo and Osaka. No server restrictions.
    Yes, 100Mbit makes a difference. Clearly my
    bottleneck is now my Pentium-16Mhz based
    iptables firewall, with a bus throughput which
    can't exceed 6Mbps!

    1. Re:Available in Japan for two years now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant... 66Mbps on the bus, of course.
      Sorry.

    2. Re:Available in Japan for two years now by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      I live in Osaka, and that service is unfortunately only available in the main city, not in the outlying suburbs. It also seems to be limited to large apartment buildings, where the number of tenants justifies the cost of installing the technology.

      On the other hand, for the "rest of us," there's broadband DSL at 20Mbps for about $35 a month. I can deal with that. My 802.11b wireless LAN has become my bottleneck. The irony hurts my head. Note to self: need 802.11g.

      As has been pointed out, the rest of the internet has become the bottleneck. My connection performance is perceptually equivalent to what I was getting on my university's departmental routers, which was 100Mbps.

      My current provider (KDDI) has a simple safety built in - limit uploads to 1Mbps. No stipulations on servers required, the performance just isn't there.

      I'll be moving soon and switching to Yahoo! BB, which offers the Yahoo! BB phone connected to their DSL modem. This allows you to call anywhere in Japan for less than the current long-distance and local rates, call another Yahoo! BB customer anywhere in the country for free, and to the US for 2 cents every three minutes.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    3. Re:Available in Japan for two years now by ag0ny · · Score: 2, Funny

      I live in Tokyo and have a 100Mbps B-Flets line since August last year. I'm paying $230/month (27000 yen), with no restrictions of any kind. I have my own server at home, and neither uploads nor downloads are capped.

      I was a bit sceptical at the beginning, but my ISP confirmed the 'no restrictions' part after I emailed them.

      Of course, porn is ilegal here in Japan, so I guess that's the reason why they have no problem in allowing customers to set up their own server.

  76. Re: 400Gb for $99 /month by slashkitty · · Score: 1

    Even better deal at rackshack.net. I now have a growing cluster of servers there ;-)

    --
    -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
  77. 100mbps ?!? by sbaker · · Score: 2, Informative

    100mbps ... 100 millibits per second? Wow! That's 1/10th baud. You'd better
    type R-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-ly!

    Maybe they should consider shooting for 100Mbps?

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
  78. In Whatcom Co. too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They also offer that in Whatcom County, WA. All I know is that it's run through the PUD to a local datacenter. An office building in town that I used to maintain a lab at got it, I think it was for $300 a month.

  79. Actually... by unicorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The point to point makes no mention of bandwidth caps anyhow. So I would assume that it's unlimited as well.

    --
    "Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
  80. Product differentiation by unicorn · · Score: 4, Informative

    They have an obvious, absolute rule to no servers. They do want to drive customers to the "business" accounts. BUT If you actually look at their page, the business accounts are the same price as the residential ones. The difference being that business accounts have a bandwidth cap.

    So you can choose what service best suits your needs. Unlimited bandwidth, geared at downstream only. Or be able to run servers as well, but be limited in the amount of "free" bandwidth you get.

    --
    "Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
  81. Not fraud at all, read the damn page... by unicorn · · Score: 1

    For once on Slashdot, it would be nice if someone actually read the original material before popping off with the criticisms. As unlikely as that may be around here.

    They are selling 2 classes of service. Either:

    $40/mo for unlimited downstreaming. No servers allowed.

    Or

    $40/mo for 5GB/mo, and you're allowed to put up servers, etc. And an extra $3/GB for extra bandwidth.

    --
    "Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
  82. Former Fiber Customer by hippoart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to live in Mason County in Allyn. The 100mb fiber was the only option for Internet Connection other than dial-up. I could get digital cable but not cable modem for some dumb reason. So I paid PUD $250 to install the line from pole on street to side of my house. Donobi wanted an additional $150 or so for setup as well - I told them I could do it myself for free. After much wrangling I got out of that charge. I was only charged $39.99 a month but the problem was that the performance was extremely poor. I lived there about 6 months - had 3 service outages, and consistently low performance. The line ranked below a 256K DSL line on most tests. Donobi technically support was completely useless. I think we were only 1 of 3 or 4 customers that had this due to the high install fee. So the technical support staff was very unfamiliar with the fact that Donobi even offered fiber, much less how to troubleshoot any problems. The downloads were unlimited but again with crappy performance who cares. I have since moved into Seattle and am much happier with my DSL from Speakeasy.net

  83. Upstream/Downstream costs by Neolithic · · Score: 1

    In regards to those wanting to be more server than user, I have a question:

    I would much rather have a 512kbps/512kbps than 1.5mbps/128kbps. If I were to peg my 512kbps upstream running a decent UT server would that cost my ISP more than someone pegging their 1.5mbps downstream running a P2P app?

    Next let's assume the reverse direction were also pegged. Figure I would surf, minor P2P action, and connect to other UT servers. The other customer would (hopefully) be a friendly P2P user and share files out for others.

    If you were to do simple math, I would be occupying 1mbps of bandwith while the other would occupy 1.625mbps. So my overall question is: is there a cost difference between upstream and downstream traffic for the ISP?

    I enjoy running my own domain. DNS, mail, web, etc. I don't do anything exciting with my domain, it's merely for the challenge, education, and personal pride of ownership. As well, I can provide minor services for friends and family. There is absolutely nothing illegal about what I do, in fact I'm giving something back to the Internet community at large, in contrast to a good majority of P2P copyright violations. Yet what I do is against the vast majority of TOS while P2P is rampant and, for the most part, unenforcable.

    1. Re:Upstream/Downstream costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Assymetrical service in the access part of current networks isn't some evil plot to charge you more for a "business account" or to "force you to be a consumer". It's a property of the way the existing networks are laid out.

      For cable modems, there's a huge difference in the upstream and downstream bandwidth on the cable itself. These systems were designed and built to broadcast video downstream, with next to no upstream signalling required. A typical cable plant will have something like 40 MHz upstream, and maybe 700 MHz downstream theoretically available. Actual usable spectrum strongly depends on the actual installation; cable is pretty noisy. Typically, the data system uses one 6 MHz channel downstream for about 30 Mbps. The downstream modulation formats that can be used are also more efficient in terms of bits per Hz.

      For DSL, you get a similar effect from a different problem. High speed signals will cause crosstalk in copper pairs next to each other. Downstream, your house doesn't have very many pairs that can crosstalk. Upstream, the central office has huge numbers of them all bundled together. You can't run high frequencies upstream into a big cable bundle and still expect them to have decent bit error rates, whereas you're much more successful doing so downstream to an individual house.

      It's not a matter of there being a, say, 30 MHz pie that's divided into, say, a 256k piece one way and nearly 30 meg the other. It's just than the upstream runs at 256k, and if you insisted on the service being symmetrical just for the sake of symmetry, you'd have 256k/256k service, not 15M/15M.

      As it turns out, quite a number of common Internet services as usually used also happen to be assymetrical, so we might as well use the higher downstream speeds available. Why limit that direction just because the upstream is limited?

      Ultimately, of course, your real usable speed is limited by the amount of bandwidth the provider has for backhauling the traffic through their network and out to the Great Wide World. This in why in practice, the great DSL vs. cable debate is meaningless. Both systems are subject to cheapskate operators that might just slap your entire neighborhood on one T1 line on the other side of the CMTS/DLC/DSLAM/other acronym box of choice, in which case the differences between my unrealized 1.5M dedicated downstream and your unrealized 30M shared downstream make no net difference at all as they're both smothered by the pathetic upstream bandwidth, router speed, congestion, and what have you.

      Other networks are possible, but if everyone really is losing money of $40/month DSL service, they're going to be disinclined to install all-new cabling and new hardware to lose even more money on more symmetrical (never mind higher speed) services.

  84. Nothing new.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up In Winnipeg Manitoba(Canada) two of our largest telecom companies (MTS and Shaw Cable) have been running Fiber to the door for the passed few years and are almost complete... -Those of you from Winnipeg, don't go looking at the junction box on your house, the Fiber is terminated at the pole behind your house still.. Within the next two years, we'll be completely fiber wired.

  85. Stupid joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, I think only on /. could a joke like that be considered 5, Funny. All the popular kids in school would be like, huh? or oooooooooook. But geeks, we find nitpicking technical details the funniest shit in the world.

    God help us.

    p.s. your computer shouldn't be in your living room if you ever want to impress a hot lady you bring home, should you get that far.

  86. FTTH Is Reality For Many by NuttyBee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here in beautiful Sacramento, CA we have something very few others have -- a choice.

    Winfirst, purchased by SureWest Broadband, delivers phone / data / cable TV to thousands of Sacramento residents via fiber to the home. Comcast and SBC also offer service, but SureWest is better!

    SureWest's data rate for home users is 10 Mbps symmetrical. (And it's pretty rare that I can max that out for any period of time.) I believe I am limited to 30 GB a month before I incur additional charges. I would't know because I can't find 30 GB worth of crap to download in a month.

    I would imagine that eventually 100 Mbps service will be available here -- the infrastructure for it already exists. But really -- who needs 100 Mbps at home? You're not serving CNN to millions.

    Oh and the price -- the package of cable + 10 Mbps data + 1 phone line comes in at about $100 a month.

    All in this lovely community we call Sacramento.. Err the Future Greater Bay Area.

    1. Re:FTTH Is Reality For Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot all the gay pr0n you can shake your stick at.....

  87. Yeah, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's nice that you guys finally are starting to get what we here call FTTH (Fiber To The Home), but why does it have to be so expensive? All over Japan, 100 Mbps is about US$25.00/month. (Of course, if you're cheap, you can just go for 8 Mbps DSL for less than US$20.00/month...)

  88. 5GB @ 100Mbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doing quick math, in theory I could reach my monthly limit in just under 7minutes. That's some deal. Of course, good luck finding a 100mbit server but still... even @ 3Mbit you can fill up 5GB pretty quick.

    At least they're up front about it.

    We've got FTTC here in S.FL but BellSouth doesn't offer any internet / data services over it at this point. All you can use it for is POTS/Analogue modem. Gotta love it!

  89. I live in Mason County and use Donobi by Some+Big+Spoon · · Score: 1

    I live in Mason County, WA and use Donobi's 100Mbps fiber for my internet service. While the service is ok, the speeds have never exceeded 64Kb per second. Donobi's response is that they actually rent service from the local PUD which, they say, is in charge of partitioning off bandwidth.. So be prepared for loads of redtape and not alot of headway.. Also, the service costs $250 to install and start.. unfortunately, there is no other option for highspeed net access in my area, so I am forced to do it Donobi's way, or go dial up.

    1. Re:I live in Mason County and use Donobi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you live there then Pick another ISP, I looked at MasonPUD's website and they list many other Retailers. If you don't like Donobi's service get another retailer!

  90. This is only one-billionth as cool as it sounds. by benedict · · Score: 1

    % units
    1992 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units

    You have: Mbits
    You want: mbits
    * 1e+09
    / 1e-09

    --
    Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
  91. Well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100mbps connection isn't very good if you can't make use of it. It's not going to do a home user much more good than a cable modem, if you aren't allowed to exceed a few GB per month, nor can you use it as a server.

    Kinda pointless, really.

  92. Hong Kong Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want real fast internet with no transfer limits, come to Hong Kong...I'm on a truly unlimited 12Mbit (1.5MB), meaning I can do 129GB a day, or 3.88TB a month (that's full duplex, and I've tested to within a few hundred MB of the traffic limit). I've run web, FTP, and various game servers, along with different file-sharing programs. The cost? HK$36/mo, or about US$4.75. It's not available everywhere, but where it is, it's an incredible deal.

    1. Re:Hong Kong Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linkage: http://www.newworldtel.com/1about/1_3press_release /20030304.html

  93. ftth by crazy+al's · · Score: 1

    We offer a 10mbps pipe to the home, also, for stupidly low prices (26.95)- less than that, but I see our prices going up a bit (a dollar or two) over the near future. This is a cooperative RURAL initiative venture for us in Grant County, Washington, between Grant County Public Utility District and us ( a small rural ISP) because the enabling legislation in WA will not allow the PUD's to retail-sell internet services but must wholesale through existing ISP's (not a bad idea from MY point of view, as I was a pre-existing ISP offering dialup and JUST rolling out wireless when they came in).
    This is a seriously cool state in terms of the rural internet access legislation passed by the current, Democratic, Governor Locke, and passed (and initiated) by the Washington Legislature. I thank them all, personally. This is a face of the emerging renaissance in broadband internet access for rural United States, and we have internet access here I would not trade anyone for.
    "Come on down to Crazy Al's! We got bandwidth for nuthin'! An Infinite number of bits, at prices so low we pay YOU to take 'em!" There are two tiers of service - one price pays all with QoS issues thereby associated - this group is put into a pool of other users, tagged to the ISP's, with the guess being that some will use a bit, others a byte, and the cost will average out. This seems to be working pretty well. The other group is tagged uniquely for billing, and is charged accordingly. Prices may vary disclaimer, here. Bottom line is that we are getting Fiber to the home here for very 'reasonable to the user' pricing. Check out the PUD site with links at http://www.gcpud.org/zipp/

    --
    Crazy Al's House of Intertubes - where we make up in volume what we lose per bit...
  94. I would sooo frelling kill for this! by Vorlonesque · · Score: 1

    I would love to see something like this show up in my area of WV...hell, I'd kill for IDSL. Imagine the great pings you could get with this! (being behind a frelling SLC and unable to get DSL, and being 1 mile away from cable of any sort SUCKS)

  95. old news by greggman · · Score: 1

    Here in Japan, 80% of the country has access fiber to the door and 100Mbps connections for under $40 a month.

    And we have video on demand over ip.

  96. I live in Mason County and I can't get fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    That pretty much sums it up. I've lived here from about 2 years. I have a house in possibly one of the most desireable neighborhoods in the whole county (Cole Road) and you just cannot, under any circumstances get fiber there. PUD#3 says that to get fiber, you have to organize your whole neighborhood, getting enough committed subscribers, in advance for them to bring fiber out on an cost recovery basis, at minimum. ... Fat chance.


    The actual deployment of fiber in Mason County has been very small: the downtown area in Shelton, one street, 7 blocks of it; a small area in in Belfaire; and a neighborhood north of town (a PUD executive is reported to live there). In total, there are probably less than 200 connections in total for PUD#3's fiber.


    There is no schedule for when service will be delivered anywhere except where it already is.


    The good news: For those who can get it, Hood Canal Communications (formerly Hood Canal Telephone Company), yes a mom & pop phone company, is the best outfit for fiber, DSL, Cable TV and POTS. Johnny on the spot, fairly priced, run as tight as a marine barracks. Alas, I'm south of Shelton and I can't get HCTC service; I got QWorst.


    The bad news: one of the resellers of PUD's fiber has had an intermittent spammer spewing for a while. Check DejaGoo for the details. Someone, I forgot who, someone with significant influence has suggested that all of NOANET's IP space could end up in SPEWS if the spammer isn't killed. This includes all IP space for Mason PUD#3's fiber. NOANET has stated that they will not terminate service for spammers, something about public policy.


    But wait! There's more. QWest isn't interested at all. There is a QWest concentrator at Cole Road and Cook Plant Farm Road where all the telephone service along Cole Road goes thru. The best anyone can connect there is 26.4kbs. You cannot get DSL there (3+ miles to the switch in town). You cannot get ISDN. You cannot get DS1. The concentrator is too old, there is no economic demand to put a DSLAM there.


    So, I host elsewhere and suffer with slow pipes, rotten service from QWest and nary a chance of getting broadband within the next 5 years or longer.


    Whew! I feel better now.
  97. Misunderstanding of networking by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    having faster clients does not harm the 'other end' at all, it helps reduce retransmissions on the server end from packet loss, allows for shorter connection durations (get each client handled QUICKLY so others can get a whack), and pushes for better server connectivity in the long run. if 10,000 slashdotters on 56K modems are trying to look at your site all at once and they switch to 100Mbit connections, the server will be able to handle more of them because it will be able to handle each page view in less time.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  98. 100Mbs form the curb to the ISP by baja · · Score: 1

    I would assume they use 10/100/1000 switched Ethernet on the consumer side and buy much smaller circuits from the big guys. Like so many posters have said it would be great within the ISP's network, but web browsing will be limited to the backbone connection.

    1. Re:100Mbs form the curb to the ISP by masontrep · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but the backbone has a OC12 connection to the westin. (If you live in Western WA. you know what building this is. It is one of the GigaPops for the west coast.)

  99. Re: 400Gb for $99 /month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or 500gb for $99/month.

    http://www.calpop.com/dedicated.html

  100. Lag free Halo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just imagine, you could host a 4 box 8v8 CTF with virtually no lag!

  101. Let me tell you about Mason County by saberworks · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have lived in Mason County since 1990 or so. Mason County is the poorest county in Washington. They have been advertising this service for years and have yet to deliver. Mason county has a very small population, and the few areas that this service is actually available are "downtown" in these little ho-dunk towns that got their first mcdonalds just a few years ago. The downtown businesses are a hardware store, some antique (junk) shops, some bars, a pet salon... not much else. A bunch of gas stations. A few weeks ago we got our first chain pizza place (a papa murphey's). Hell, look at their map of areas that are covered:

    http://www.masonpud3.org/Telecom/Where/Belfair-m ap .jpg

    Do you realize that that's a SINGLE road? Do you have any idea how few people live along that stretch of road? Look to the upper left of that map, where the big group of streets are all clustered - that's where people actually live. This isn't for the consumer -- it's paid for by our taxes (well, higher electricity bills), but only available to maybe 1% of the population in the county. I think the county would have appreicated lower electricity bills more than a fiber connection that's nothing but a pipe dream.

    Hell, I was surprised that they were offering cable internet in my neighborhood... They advertise it and promote it, but guess what? I've been waiting for over a month for a "servicability" survey (which was supposed to take 3 business days). Please don't let your community model their infrastructure and service on that of mason county.

  102. mbps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    microbits per second, eh?

  103. Donobi is only one of several in Grant County... by SwedishChef · · Score: 1

    The Grant County PUD was one of the first in Washington State to install Fiber in this mostly-rural and agricultural county on the "dry side" of the Cascade Mountains. There are about 10 ISPs in the county (including ours. The PUD is the wholesale provider of bandwidth and the local ISPs are retail. Every ISP sells essentially the same service and almost no one is dual-homed because the competition has driven the prices down to the point where no one can afford more than one uplink.We have essentially uncapped bandwidth on 100Mbps fiber for $23 a month (non-static IP).

    However there are political shifts in the wind ahead. The farmers in this ag area are up in arms over the idea that their power bills should be capitalizing the fiber services. Unable to realize the benefits to them long-term (like their kids finding jobs here rather than in Seattle), they want the PUD to finance the fiber without raising electricity rates. With the fiber rollout only about 20% completed, it remains to be seen as to whether the rest of the county can be connected before things change radically.

    We all expect this cheap bandwidth to end as the Public Utility District (whose commissioners are elected) wrestles with a way to continue the roll-out while still keeping the politically powerful farmers happy. If the PUD doesn't do it, no one (certainly not the telephone company) will. But will the rate payers, the majority of whom do not understand any benefits to them long-term, allow this to continue? Stay tuned...

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  104. We pay 400 US$ plus for each additional gig in AUS by bloodbob · · Score: 1

    Omg this is soo much better then we get in australia most users who can get broadband pay a similar monthly fee and get 3-5 gigs of data at 512/256 kilobit or pay more like 50 US$ for 1500/512 kbit. I would so love this here in australia :/

  105. How much is 5GB/month? by AnotherScratchMonkey · · Score: 1
    Let's see:

    60*60*24*30 = 2,592,000 seconds in a month

    5 GB * 8 (bits/byte) / 2.5Msecs = 16 kbps of 24x7 data.

    Not enough to run a bandwidth-hungry game server, but still respectable. Certainly adequate for web, FTP, and email. (Until you're slash-dotted.)

    If you want to run a game server, consider a colo. My team uses The NetGamer which shares their 100 Mbps Cogent fiber in 2 Mbps (uncapped) units for a reasonable price.

  106. Another innumerate is born every minute by AnotherScratchMonkey · · Score: 1

    It's not stupid if you realize how many customers can't do the math and think 5 GB is a limit they might hit. Those smart enough to know how much 5GB is are probably the same people who will want to run servers.

  107. The problem the fat pipe doesn't solve by AnotherScratchMonkey · · Score: 1

    One might assume that a fat pipe like 100 Mbps fiber would eliminate all contention for your line. Alas, big queues in ISP routers tend to cause problems on your fat pipe when a big download runs in parallel with your interactive traffic. I've found that the WonderShaper is great for both my residential gateway and my colocated game/web/ftp server. It suppresses queuing at the ISP, so that my own gateway can set priority policies on my packets.

  108. Bullsh*t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cushman # 1 and #2 are most certainly hydro dams.

    1. Re:Bullsh*t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, Cushman #1 and #2 are dams, and they are in Mason county. But they are owned by Tacoma Power and have nothing to do with PUD3. Check here.
      It would have been more accurate for me to say that PUD3 has no dams, not Mason county (though the county government does not own the Cushman dams).

      It is my understanding that the Olympic View generating plant, which is not hydro but I believe natural gas, is the only generating facility under the direct control of the PUD3.

  109. Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok

    lets get 100MBit fiber lets cap it at 5GB
    lets use it all in 2 minutes

  110. Perspective of a Resident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Mason County. We're the ass end of Washington state, right now a v.92 connection is considered blistering fast internet access. This story is proof that Jesus loves me and wants me to be happy. I'll be going to Church on Sunday. Ok...maybe not. I really doubt if this company's claims will turn out to be anywhere near real, but hell, if they deliver 1% of what they claim...it'll be huge.

  111. Japan have that now by schouwl · · Score: 1

    We have 100 mbit Internet access here in Japan. You will get 100 mbit sek both ways. First you need to order a fiber connection from NTT for arround 2000 Euro once payment. After that you need to pay an 10 euro a month for access to internet. If you want static ip accress so that you can put up a server it is arround 80 euro a months. The most new houses and flats all have that installed now so if you move in there you do not need to pay the 2000 Euro! WAKE UP THE REST OF THE WORLD.

  112. A question that people will not like by portwojc · · Score: 1

    Why is it that people feel personal accounts should be allowed to run services?

    Personal accounts mean just that personal - not anyone else. I don't understand what all the complaining is about. If you want the service pay for the service. Don't just think $19.95 is going to give you everything. Now of course if the providers upstream connection was that cheap and/or overhead (which it's not) it would be another matter.

    1. Re:A question that people will not like by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 1

      why not? you pay for your bandwith right? Why should you not be able to run a server or run limewire or run your own isp off that bandwidth? "Personal" is not definitive. It is just a casual term that can resolve into different meanings. Look from ISP to ISP and see that a lot are not going to define "personal account" the same way.

      If I pay for a 1.5/meg line of any kind, I should be able to use 1.5/megs of that line at any time and in any way (provided it is not against a law of the state, country, etc).

      Restriction of information comes in many ways. This is just a more clever scheme to restrict information, IMO.

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
  113. Come to Australia.... PLEASE?!? by Cryacin · · Score: 1

    grmble... makes me want to become a yank... grmble

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  114. No servers by dpilot · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that nobody brought up the other obvious reason for a no servers policy.

    How many people are competent to run a server?

    How many people think they are competent to run a server, and really aren't?

    How can an ISP differentiate?

    Let's face it, running a server can really muck up a network. Simple things, like open relay to mail loops to a misconfigured DHCP server acting as a rogue. Then behind all of the stupid or basic mistakes, you have a cracker giving the appearance of simple mistakes while doing Evil. Then you have the cost crunch.

    A no servers policy is simpler, even though I dislike it too.

    I would run to DSL if it were an option for me. Prompted by this, I need to check out how much more expensive a business account is. I have a mail forwarding domain, and would rather set up a point-to-point SMTP server than use my ISP's POP box with multidrop, for starters.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  115. Bitching on Slashdot by andrew_0812 · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, if they let your service fall into the toilet you'll just bitch on Slashdot.

    I thought that was what we were all here for.

  116. sniff sniff by VinniTheGeek · · Score: 1

    think of the millions of poor fools that have to contend with dsl or cable...or dial-up. for just pennies a second, YOU can have broadband....please won't you help.

  117. Deceptice advertsing is commonplace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This practice of (at the very least) deceptive advertising has become the norm. My ISP (PTD) as well as many others who provide cable access, advertise "unlimited" access and claim that you never have to log in because the service is "always on". Well, I assure you, it's not always on, and there are limits to what you can do on the net. Hell, there's a dialup provider around here (Enternet) that runs a radio ad claiming to be the "official ISP of the new millenium".

    Apparently, since one provider made baseless claims and hasn't been sued or prosecuted, that somehow allows them all to engage in false advertising.

  118. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    "Reintegration complete," ZORAC advised. "We're back in the
    universe again..." An unusually long pause followed, "...but I don't
    know which part. We seem to have changed our position in space." A
    spherical display in the middle of the floor illuminated to show the
    starfield surrounding the ship.
    "Several large, artificial constructions are approaching us,"
    ZORAC announced after a short pause. "The designs are not familiar, but
    they are obviously the products of intelligence. Implications: we have
    been intercepted deliberately by a means unknown, for a purpose unknown,
    and transferred to a place unknown by a form of intelligence unknown.
    Apart from the unknowns, everything is obvious."
    -- James P. Hogan, "Giants Star"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...