DSL provider recommendation

Fri Jul 25 19:43:51 PDT 2003

> >Well, if you went with SBC, you may^H^H^Hwill end up with IP problems.
> >At the very least you will be given dynamic IP address assignments which
> >sucks if you want to have a server of some sort.  And SBC frowns on
> >servers.  The SBC offerings are aimed at the lowest common denominator
> >which I think most of us on this list do not fit into...

> But since I deployed my DSL connection (single static IP address), I've
> run servers on it -- HTTP, SMTP, DNS, SSH -- with no hints from SBC (or
> successor organizations) that I was doing something unwelcome or
> inappropriate.  Nor do they do any filtering of which I am aware.

I also have a static IP from SBC and have run servers on it with no 
problem.  

> And since my IP assignment is static, I do not have "IP problems".  I
> have had connectivity problems -- but then, I've also had 8-hr. power
> outages (from the use of utility poles as braking devices for out-of-
> control vehicles).  And my UPS presently only keeps things going for
> about 45 minutes.

I also have not had any "IP problems", moreover, I haven't had any 
real connectivity problems.  Since December, my longest recorded 
connectivity outage is no more than 3 minutes, and my recording of
this is as likely to be in error as it is to be a real outage (ICMP
ECHO packets can get lost).  

While I'm no fan of SBC, I have to admit in all honesty, their connectivity
has been first rate, two orders of magnitude better than the Frame Relay
line for a small coop ISP in LA county I help out with.  I, too, can
demonstrate that SBC's DSL service is between 2 and 3 orders of 
magnitude better than PG&E's electricity service, which is easily the 
worst utility service I have ever had anywhere at any time.  Of course,
I've only lived in relatively civilized areas.

-- 
Nick Christenson
npc at gangofone.com