Internet service: business class

[tmetro-blu-5a1Jt6qxUNc at public.gmane.org (Tom Metro)]

Matthew Gillen wrote:
> Ok, so if I want to play a game over the internet, or watch a video, or use
> bittorrent, or any number of other things that require a "server" in the
> strictest sense on the "residential/consumer" side, then I should buy
> business class service?  I don't think so.
> 
> The language in the TOS is completely and obviously wrong.

Yup, I agree, but if you sign up for it, you need to be prepared for
inbound capability going away at any time.


> If they really thought it was enforcable, why don't they block any
> "SYN" packets going to their customers?

Because it doesn't suit them. At the moment.

Their objective is to get residential users to use as little bandwidth
as possible, pushing the high volume users over to more expensive
business class service by blocking ports under the guise of protecting
"dumb" residential users from Internet threats, while at the same time
not ticking off a critical mass of users.

Blocking SYN packets would likely break so much that it would drive up
their support costs, so unlikely to happen, but you can bet they'll walk
up to that line as much as they can.


> Because the FCC would have a fit (witness the FCC's reaction to
> Comcast's experiment with sandvine/bittorrent-prevention).

And how did the FCC vs. Comcast battle turn out? As I recall, Comcast
won on appeal.

Net neutrality doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast, and it may prove
to be the wrong approach. Rather than taking companies that provide
content and Internet service, and regulating them to operate against the
best interest of their content services, a more ideal approach would be
splitting them into separate organizations, much the way the electric
utilities were split between electric generation and distribution. Think
what benefits that would have if it happened with cell phone carriers.
(Use any electrically compatible phone on any network and run any
application.) But of course this is too disruptive of the status quo and
will never happen.

Consumers seem largely complacent. (Witness the lack of general outrage
to all the major cable companies switching to encrypted QAM only.)
Without that, the FCC won't do much.


> I'm not going to pay double when I don't need the uptime guarantees
> or any of the other things a business class connection offers.

Have you looked at the contract for a entry-level business-class net
service? You're not likely to find any uptime guarantees. At best there
might be a clause saying you'll get credit for downtime. This just isn't
offered at the low-end.

Aside from a static IP address, which is often an added-cost extra, and
some often times vague language permitting servers, there really isn't
anything tangibly different between the residential and business
service. (Presumably the tech support for the business service might be
better, particularly with providers like Verizon that have a high level
of separation between their consumer and business divisions.)


> If I had the option of a sane ISP, believe me, I'd be with them.

So which "insane" ISP are you using?


> (I did look into Vz business class, but I couldn't combine it
> with phone and cable...

I avoid bundling like the plague. Sure, it can offer some savings, but
it also provides vendor lock-in.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/