|
I just got on speedtest to see how gigabitty my gigabit fiber really is, and it comes in at about 800-900mbps locally. Then I discovered I could switch servers to anywhere in the world... Then I lost about half an hour pitting 3rd world country infrastructure against each other. Kazakhstan has surprisingly decent ping.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Biowarfare posted:Something I've noticed is that internet exchanges and peering, bar *very* few exceptions in the single digits, are for-profit in the US and generally a nonprofit association in Europe with heavily open peering apart from a few lovely people (DTAG, Liberty Global, etc) Motronic posted:That's an incredibly simplistic view to the point of being blatantly inaccurate. If the geography challenges didn't exist it would be commercially viable to do this to a point that multiple private actors would have already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Upload was really important when bittorrent was huge but now that streaming is ubiquitous most people don't need a lot of upload capacity. Yeah but if you ask for more upload for your torrents, your ISP is gonna laugh at you. Most other things they'll just say you should have a dedicated business line. What kind of bandwidth does a twitch stream or whatever utilize anyway? I don't actually know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
Renegret posted:Yeah but if you ask for more upload for your torrents, your ISP is gonna laugh at you. Most other things they'll just say you should have a dedicated business line. If you're not partnered I think it's hard capped at 1080p60 at about 7500kbps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
Renegret posted:Yeah but if you ask for more upload for your torrents, your ISP is gonna laugh at you. Most other things they'll just say you should have a dedicated business line. Most 4k afaik clocks somewhere between 20 and 30 mbps so yeah if you had gigabit/50mb docsis you'd be fine and idk how many streamers actually bother uploading IN 4k
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
Biowarfare posted:In San Francisco you have Paxio, Sonic, Webpass/Google. Unfortunately they all cap out at gigabit only and won't do 10G. I used Fastmetrics (business ISP) in SF. And my apartment complex has an exclusive deal with Comcast. Even the microwave providers' coverage maps end at our borders. I hate Comcast, but it turns out I hate 6Mbit down, 768kbit up even more. Yes, that was a legacy DSL connection through Sonic. I know it's an exclusive because I'm two blocks from a university and I can see my local CO. There has to be a solid uplink just for the university.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 01:23
|
|
|
Jaded Burnout posted:Is that their business leased line service? Do you know what your install cost was? I'm pretty sure we didn't pay anything, there wasn't any construction needed - Openreach just dragged the fibre through the existing duct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
i am a moron posted:Oh so wait would subsidies work or are we both not knowledgeable about the subject
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
Today I encountered one of those systems where the client swears up and down that nothing has been touched and it just stopped working on its own, but I absolutely cannot fathom how it ever worked if it was always set up this way. You can't just run an analog POTS line and a digital phone extension through the same wire pair and expect that to work. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
I need to figure out how to make a dialup internet connection over VoIP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 03:18
|
|
|
Biowarfare posted:Wave has two separate things, Wave G and Wavecable. The latter generally is terrible. The former is good only on gigabit plans (from what I've heard, if a Wave FTTH building only has a 100M plan, then it was an inherited legacy building that never had fiber run to it, is running off microwave, and oversubscribed/constant outage).
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 03:20
|
|
|
Biowarfare posted:I need to figure out how to make a dialup internet connection over VoIP. I mean, I have had to set up analog-to-SIP gateways to make a fax machine work as a SIP extension. You could in theory run a dial-up connection over that if you wanted to be as inefficient as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
Motronic, buddy, you're usually right on but in this case you seem to be taking the wrong view for some weird reason. No one's disputing (or should be disputing) that getting fiber to every last corner of the US will take an absurd shitload of money and it probably does NOT make sense to put in the money to get 10 gig to bumfuck Wyoming. But it's quite clear that the US telco oligopoly has done its best to extract every last dime of profit out of the American consumer, which means providing the absolute minimum they can get away with in every area and doing their best to prevent any ideas or attempts to treat Internet infrastructure as the public utility it is. Notwithstanding the billions and billions of dollars we as American taxpayers have given the telcos to upgrade services which they then just pocketed (the $200 billion in 1996 being one of the most egregious), or the myriad of lawsuits the telcos have filed against every single municipality that's ever floated the idea of municipal fiber (usually with the absurd claim that it would be "unfair competition" to them), the biggest argument against your statements is that every other modern Western country HAS this in major urban areas, and if it WERE just about geography, we would have fiber to the home by now in our dense municipal areas. Sure, we have SOME fiber, in SOME areas, but there's a whole lotta big cities where fiber either isn't available at all or is available only in certain neighborhoods. Friend of mine lives in Silicon Valley right near Google - does he have fiber? Nope! In a dense area with 10 million residents and one of the bigger cities in the US (San Jose, not SF, SF is actually quite small), where the average income is in the 6 digits, you can't loving get fiber to your house, because there's no competition and no one is offering it. The bigger issue that some have touched on is that competition can't actually happen without the lines themselves being treated as a resource for all, so in a country that claims to worship the free market, we have one of the least free markets on Earth when it comes to telecommunications. Claiming that this is somehow only because of geography is absurd. You claim that if it would be commercially viable someone would do it - I mean, yes, that's technically true, but it's NOT commercially viable. That's the whole point - it's only commercially viable for the company that owns the lines to your house (Comcast for most Americans), and they have absolutely zero incentive to spend money improving their infrastructure when they can continue to charge $100/month for 50 megabits down and 5 up, plus hitting you for a $30/mo charge for DARING to download more than 1.2 TB a month - after all, if you make those routers work harder they need replacing earlier, right? Router maintenance isn't cheap! They just announced they'll be rolling that charge out in more markets, i.e. they've successfully boiled the frog in a couple markets and it's time to turn up the gas on the rest. CEO needs his bonus after all. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 08:05
|
|
|
Paladine_PSoT posted:Then I discovered I could switch servers to anywhere in the world... Then I lost about half an hour pitting 3rd world country infrastructure against each other. Kazakhstan has surprisingly decent ping. Kazakhstan is surprisingly high tech. They were an aerospace hub when they were in the USSR, and their current government has made it a goal to advance science programs since becoming their own country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
Assorted Gubbins posted:Motronic, buddy, you're usually right on but in this case you seem to be taking the wrong view for some weird reason. No one's disputing (or should be disputing) that getting fiber to every last corner of the US will take an absurd shitload of money and it probably does NOT make sense to put in the money to get 10 gig to bumfuck Wyoming. But it's quite clear that the US telco oligopoly has done its best to extract every last dime of profit out of the American consumer, which means providing the absolute minimum they can get away with in every area and doing their best to prevent any ideas or attempts to treat Internet infrastructure as the public utility it is. Notwithstanding the billions and billions of dollars we as American taxpayers have given the telcos to upgrade services which they then just pocketed (the $200 billion in 1996 being one of the most egregious), or the myriad of lawsuits the telcos have filed against every single municipality that's ever floated the idea of municipal fiber (usually with the absurd claim that it would be "unfair competition" to them), the biggest argument against your statements is that every other modern Western country HAS this in major urban areas, and if it WERE just about geography, we would have fiber to the home by now in our dense municipal areas. Sure, we have SOME fiber, in SOME areas, but there's a whole lotta big cities where fiber either isn't available at all or is available only in certain neighborhoods. Friend of mine lives in Silicon Valley right near Google - does he have fiber? Nope! In a dense area with 10 million residents and one of the bigger cities in the US (San Jose, not SF, SF is actually quite small), where the average income is in the 6 digits, you can't loving get fiber to your house, because there's no competition and no one is offering it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
Assorted Gubbins posted:Motronic, buddy, you're usually right on but in this case you seem to be taking the wrong view for some weird reason. No one's disputing (or should be disputing) that getting fiber to every last corner of the US will take an absurd shitload of money and it probably does NOT make sense to put in the money to get 10 gig to bumfuck Wyoming. But it's quite clear that the US telco oligopoly has done its best to extract every last dime of profit out of the American consumer, which means providing the absolute minimum they can get away with in every area and doing their best to prevent any ideas or attempts to treat Internet infrastructure as the public utility it is. Notwithstanding the billions and billions of dollars we as American taxpayers have given the telcos to upgrade services which they then just pocketed (the $200 billion in 1996 being one of the most egregious), or the myriad of lawsuits the telcos have filed against every single municipality that's ever floated the idea of municipal fiber (usually with the absurd claim that it would be "unfair competition" to them), the biggest argument against your statements is that every other modern Western country HAS this in major urban areas, and if it WERE just about geography, we would have fiber to the home by now in our dense municipal areas. Sure, we have SOME fiber, in SOME areas, but there's a whole lotta big cities where fiber either isn't available at all or is available only in certain neighborhoods. Friend of mine lives in Silicon Valley right near Google - does he have fiber? Nope! In a dense area with 10 million residents and one of the bigger cities in the US (San Jose, not SF, SF is actually quite small), where the average income is in the 6 digits, you can't loving get fiber to your house, because there's no competition and no one is offering it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 21:16
|
|
Zereth posted:Based on past actions the telecoms would take the subsidies and then just not do it. Agreed - there would need to be some kind of framework and enforceability along with any public/private joint ventures. So whatever form the hypothetical solution would take wouldn’t be something that’s been done or exists in the US to my knowledge
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Today I encountered one of those systems where the client swears up and down that nothing has been touched and it just stopped working on its own, but I absolutely cannot fathom how it ever worked if it was always set up this way. What kind of digital? And does 'work' mean that either one can use the line, or that they can simultaneously use the line?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
Dylan16807 posted:What kind of digital? And does 'work' mean that either one can use the line, or that they can simultaneously use the line? Digital meaning Avaya IP Office digital extension, and the answer to "either or both" is "no".
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
Reminds me of how I was working for a company that had a contract with a large retail store and I got a ticket for a computer losing connection at a desk. I get there, there's no network cables at the computer. I dig around in the desk, can't find the cables anywhere. Look under the desk, no cables coming out of the floor. "Oh, we just moved that desk to a different location." I end up telling them that they either need to move it back or call their cabling vendor to run new lines, because there's absolutely nothing I can do for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 06:10
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:Reminds me of how I was working for a company that had a contract with a large retail store and I got a ticket for a computer losing connection at a desk. I get there, there's no network cables at the computer. I dig around in the desk, can't find the cables anywhere. Look under the desk, no cables coming out of the floor. "Oh, we just moved that desk to a different location." I end up telling them that they either need to move it back or call their cabling vendor to run new lines, because there's absolutely nothing I can do for them. I wish this wasn’t something I’ve had to deal with repeatedly in my time, but nope, this is extremely common. It’s in the same category as, “It’s wireless, what do you mean I have to plug it into a power socket?”
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 06:14
|
|
|
I remember early wireless broadband here still required an ethernet connection to the computer, and this being a source of much confusion and anger for many.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
When Sky started selling broadband here (just a basic DSL service), the name alone was enough for people to assume it was wireless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 11:31
|
|
|
What did they think when Virgin got into the market then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
Rooted Vegetable posted:What did they think when Virgin got into the market then? They were about to get hosed over. Oh and clumsily mishandled by amateurs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
Assorted Gubbins posted:Motronic, buddy, you're usually right on but in this case you seem to be taking the wrong view for some weird reason. No one's disputing (or should be disputing) that getting fiber to every last corner of the US will take an absurd shitload of money and it probably does NOT make sense to put in the money to get 10 gig to bumfuck Wyoming. But it's quite clear that the US telco oligopoly has done its best to extract every last dime of profit out of the American consumer, which means providing the absolute minimum they can get away with in every area and doing their best to prevent any ideas or attempts to treat Internet infrastructure as the public utility it is. Notwithstanding the billions and billions of dollars we as American taxpayers have given the telcos to upgrade services which they then just pocketed (the $200 billion in 1996 being one of the most egregious), or the myriad of lawsuits the telcos have filed against every single municipality that's ever floated the idea of municipal fiber (usually with the absurd claim that it would be "unfair competition" to them), the biggest argument against your statements is that every other modern Western country HAS this in major urban areas, and if it WERE just about geography, we would have fiber to the home by now in our dense municipal areas. Sure, we have SOME fiber, in SOME areas, but there's a whole lotta big cities where fiber either isn't available at all or is available only in certain neighborhoods. Friend of mine lives in Silicon Valley right near Google - does he have fiber? Nope! In a dense area with 10 million residents and one of the bigger cities in the US (San Jose, not SF, SF is actually quite small), where the average income is in the 6 digits, you can't loving get fiber to your house, because there's no competition and no one is offering it. Not emptyquoting 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 04:23
|
|
|
Could y'all knock it off? It's a lot of scrolling for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 10:28
|
|
|
Dirt Road Junglist posted:Could y'all knock it off? It's a lot of scrolling for no reason. your avatar is long than Assorted Gubbins posted:Motronic, buddy, you're usually right on but in this case you seem to be taking the wrong view for some weird reason. No one's disputing (or should be disputing) that getting fiber to every last corner of the US will take an absurd shitload of money and it probably does NOT make sense to put in the money to get 10 gig to bumfuck Wyoming. But it's quite clear that the US telco oligopoly has done its best to extract every last dime of profit out of the American consumer, which means providing the absolute minimum they can get away with in every area and doing their best to prevent any ideas or attempts to treat Internet infrastructure as the public utility it is. Notwithstanding the billions and billions of dollars we as American taxpayers have given the telcos to upgrade services which they then just pocketed (the $200 billion in 1996 being one of the most egregious), or the myriad of lawsuits the telcos have filed against every single municipality that's ever floated the idea of municipal fiber (usually with the absurd claim that it would be "unfair competition" to them), the biggest argument against your statements is that every other modern Western country HAS this in major urban areas, and if it WERE just about geography, we would have fiber to the home by now in our dense municipal areas. Sure, we have SOME fiber, in SOME areas, but there's a whole lotta big cities where fiber either isn't available at all or is available only in certain neighborhoods. Friend of mine lives in Silicon Valley right near Google - does he have fiber? Nope! In a dense area with 10 million residents and one of the bigger cities in the US (San Jose, not SF, SF is actually quite small), where the average income is in the 6 digits, you can't loving get fiber to your house, because there's no competition and no one is offering it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 11:04
|
|
|
Anyone know of a free SMTP server that'll allow forwarding or relay to Gmail? After a near death HDD, I want to set up disk health monitoring for my home machines and get emails if RAID or SMART status changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 14:43
|
|
|
MJP posted:Anyone know of a free SMTP server that'll allow forwarding or relay to Gmail? After a near death HDD, I want to set up disk health monitoring for my home machines and get emails if RAID or SMART status changes. I've never had issues sending direct to gmail as long as I wasn't spoofing the source. I can send myself an email from my home connection using telnet and it works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
Amazon SES isn't free but it's pence
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
I like Mailgun as well
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2020 22:40
|
|
|
After working with banking software and banks, I now keep my savings under my mattress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 08:13
|
|
|
nitrogen posted:After working with banking software and banks, I now keep my savings under my mattress. Welcome to the party, pal. Financial IT Engineering is the art of deploying a secure, efficient infrastructure... in spite of the best efforts of Financial software developers. “We don’t support virtualization”, indeed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:your avatar is long than Gangtags don't show up on mobile, and I didn't even ask for most of them. Besides, this is the bitching about computer touching thread, not the dunk on Motronic thread. But you do you, buddy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
nitrogen posted:After working with banking software and banks, I now keep my savings under my mattress. My bank sends me the occasional email that is indistinguishable from a phishing email. I grumbled about it on Twitter to their unverified customer service account and they asked me to DM them sensitive information.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
My bank will let me directly navigate to either https://www.fakebank.com or fakebank.com just fine, but there's no redirect and their cert has been only valid for www since at least... *checks* June of this year, when I reported it to them. TBH I think their customer support just isn't aware of how to get in contact with website techs at all. Likely outsourced to some third party that gives zero fucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2020 08:09
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:My bank will let me directly navigate to either https://www.fakebank.com or fakebank.com just fine, but there's no redirect and their cert has been only valid for www since at least... *checks* June of this year, when I reported it to them. TBH I think their customer support just isn't aware of how to get in contact with website techs at all. Likely outsourced to some third party that gives zero fucks. Your bank didn't have an SSL cert on their website before June? JFC
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2020 08:19
|
|
|
orange juche posted:Your bank didn't have an SSL cert on their website before June? JFC Based on the wording of the post I think it did, but only had fakebank.com as a subject and not also www.fakebank.com or *.fakebank.com or anything similar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Kyrosiris posted:Based on the wording of the post I think it did, but only had fakebank.com as a subject and not also https://www.fakebank.com or *.fakebank.com or anything similar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2020 18:54
|
|