I hope this is a win for the Webpass employees, in the short and long term. Thanks for all the bits!
An ISP that doesn't provide at least outbound IPv4 connectivity would rapidly lose all of its customers.
IPv6-only with NAT64 is doable when you control the set of attached devices; see T-Mobile US, with phones that implement 464XLAT.
If you have terminal access to your router and it supports iptables, you can manually enable forwarding for a specific port like this:
ip6tables -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 5005 -j ACCEPT
ip6tables -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 5005 -j ACCEPT
ip6tables -I FORWARD -p tcp --dport 5005 -j ACCEPT
ip6tables -I FORWARD -p tcp --dport 5005 -j ACCEPT
ip6tables -I FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
Note that if you're using this for Api callbacks like AWS Lamda, they do not support IPv6 and then your best bet is a VPN tunneled to your local device.
For example, the average Romanian wage is like 8,000 dollars a year. But that 8,000 dollars goes a lot further.
Wow, in France for $40 we got:
- 12Gbps (100G Fiber at no additional cost in supported area)
- Free landline call to a 100 countries and free cell calls to France
- HD TV
- and a media center with recording capabilities, a blue ray player, public FTP and network harddrive
- for 3 more $, you get a cell phone line with 2 hours of communication and unlimited text, or for $20 unlimited calls and 4G.
And people are still complaining...
You guys kinda rained on my parade :(
p.s. I'm watching you: http://i.imgur.com/rS9LGZ6.png
A Webpass engineer I spoke to last week mentioned they're rolling out fiber to the building to provide redundancy for the wireless mesh. Surprised me as I could count on my fingers the number of outages webpass has had since I started using them. Perhaps it'll replace the wireless portion in the longer term.
Edit: I always speculated the difference between 100Mbps and 200Mbps on-net buildings was if that particular location was multihomed.
The bummer is- it's actually cheaper than Google charges in other cities- hopefully the price does not go up.
It is also one big reason why I really want municipal fiber. There are a lot more "houses or smaller and/or older apartment buildings" than there are new condo or high-end apartment buildings. It would be nice to have some competition in those dwellings alongside the cable company, usually with caps, and (maybe) the telephone company, usually DSL with very slow speeds.
The right-of-way fee covers costs for use of poles and conduits but also municipal right of way usage fees. The municipal right of way fees are much less than it would cost Verizon to otherwise negotiate and purchase right of ways from private property owners.
This was often paid for / subsidized by the Universal Service Fund, because telephone service was seen as something absolutely necessary for modern life. Back in 1934.
ISPs, unfortunately, are not able to be subsidized by the Universal Service Fund. AFAIK.
That said, the USF is a big step up from the "forced build-out" into unprofitable areas, which is what used to happen with telephone, and still happens with broadband. It highly distorts the market. E.g. if build-out requirements were imposed on Webpass, it'd basically ban their business model.
Does anyone have experience dealing with properties who claim to have exclusivity contracts? I talked to people at Webpass, and they've stated it is available in my area. They'd come in and set everything up free of charge. I don't see the downside for my building to allow Webpass to come in. I do know the FCC has regulations about exclusivity contracts with video providers, but I couldn't find any documents on things like internet. It seems like my only option is to find a place that does not have exclusivity contracts with providers.
Bucharest internet pricing is 10$ / 1gbps, so that would come at about 320x price ratio, and still 5x cheaper than Google Fiber.
Funny thing, the ISP I am getting this from set the price for 100mbps and 300mbps the same, 7$/month. As if a 200mbps difference is trivial.
The state of customer dis-service in the USA is so strong that it seems pretty likely any company that has good service for awhile will shift resources into bigger paychecks for executives and fewer resources for customer support. I hope Google Fiber avoids this situation. Some companies do but not very many: Trader Joe's, Costco...
They offer faster service (gigabit and probably more) but what startup can pay 10k/month for their business internet?
What's worse is monkeybrains and webpass should seemingly compete on price for business offerings but it seems like they actually collude. Their pricing for businesses is exactly the same.
Certainly, you should try to eliminate unnecessary expenses. That’s one of the appeals of cloud services: You no longer need to buy your own servers and get professional Internet service to reach the whole world. Nor do you need to spend the time running all that stuff, which can be significant.
If you do need fast Internet for your startup, have you considered Sonic.net? They have gigabit fiber only in the Sunset district of San Francisco and a few other neighborhoods in the Bay Area, but their price is only $90 for a small business, or $40 per employee when you have 5 or more “work stations.” That’s 250 work stations before you reach $10k/month, and by then probably you have enough money and need for room to pay for an actual SoMa office.
Practically all Internet service is oversubscribed to some extent. The uplink is maybe 1 gigabit, but the downlink that has been sold is maybe 30 gigabits to 200 gigabits, when you add up all the customers. It is actually a feature of the Internet, that you don’t use any bandwidth when you don’t send anything, and you have the full bandwidth available to you when nobody else is sending anything. You can’t afford high-speed Internet if you had to pay for all the bandwidth yourself.
The problem comes if you use the bandwidth a lot. For most of the day, home service is idle, with a peak in the evening when everybody is watching YouTube and Netflix at the same time. And that traffic is mostly downstream, so a big company like Comcast can receive it for free, or even charge the source for “transit.” Businesses peak at business hours for their time zone, and a lot of businesses have a significant amount of upload traffic. If your company successfully expands overseas, then it will be uploading all the time. In theory, business plans cannot be oversubscribed as much.
If your web site doesn’t use HTTPS, then the big ISPs also tend to do deep packet inspection, and some of them inject their own ads. Fun times.
Of course, there are also captive audiences and rent-seeking.
residential is best effort. they'll do their best to keep it up and give you the speeds you pay for, but if it doesn't work out that way sometimes, well, they're sorry about that.
Disclosure: I work at Google (but not on Fiber).
My building is on 500mbit Webpass and things get pretty dire at peak times.
No login, no metering, no shaping.
admin@RT-AC5300-E6A0:/tmp/home/root# ping -c 5 22.214.171.124
PING 126.96.36.199 (188.8.131.52): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 184.108.40.206: seq=0 ttl=55 time=3.526 ms
64 bytes from 220.127.116.11: seq=1 ttl=55 time=3.559 ms
64 bytes from 18.104.22.168: seq=2 ttl=55 time=3.547 ms
64 bytes from 22.214.171.124: seq=3 ttl=55 time=3.518 ms
64 bytes from 126.96.36.199: seq=4 ttl=55 time=3.584 ms
--- 188.8.131.52 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 3.518/3.546/3.584 ms
why were you disappointed?
You can already order microwave and fixed fiber links in Sydney CBD, Pyrmont, etc but they cost a lot more than $60/m.
The NBN was a solid idea. Execution is always kind of the issue though.
:( such a sad truth.
I recall someone complaining that they had no internet at all for months, because the NBN wire got hooked up to their house, but not plugged into anything at the other end - then their internet company was legally obliged to disconnect their DSL because technically they had an NBN cable - it just wasn't plugged in to anything.
Of course this would be a good law IF we were getting proper fibre NBN (and the above technicality got seen to). Just like we don't want multiple companies running power lines to one house.
This does not preclude other high-speed internet options servicing those dwellings.
For example, https://www.lightningbroadband.com.au offers or plans to offer 100/100 (actually, some pages have mentioned 200/200 but maybe that's coming later or business only). A salesperson explicitly told me they plan to service NBN-connected areas too but that they'll probably prioritise other non-NBN metro areas first, because the demand will be stronger.
I'd hope that connection would be good enough for gaming.
It's point to point wireless to a building and Ethernet from there. No real latency issue there.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have buildings fed with 1x1Gbps going to 40x1Gbps clients.
(hand waving about Erlangs and queuing theory here) E.g. if you assume everyone is downloading a DVD image from a fast mirror (CentOS install DVD or something), they probably won't all start the download at the same time so there's a really good chance one user will finish their download before someone else starts theirs.
My MDU users rarely crack 1Mbps on a 30-day 95th percentile basis.
Disclosure edit: I'm a current Webpass P2P wireless customer. I was literally about to switch away from Webpass to another P2P wireless solution (we have a site evaluation next Monday) because Webpass has been unreliable for us lately. I'm really curious what, if anything, this means for Webpass and Google Fiber in SF.
At the same time it's kind of a huge embarrassment for Google not to offer Fiber in its own back yard. Fixed wireless gives Google a bridge to offering Google Fiber service in SF without taking on the SF government head on.
In 10 months they've been laying down their own glass trunk lines along a VERY small corridor. Last year was ~15 blocks of Howard St. This year was supposed to be Bryant St. So if you were in SOMA you had a decent chance.
Google has already stated they were going to use some other providers glass along with deploying their own in the city. This seems like a really good way to jump start things for GF in SF.
I'm not concerned with who owns the fiber, I would just prefer not to have wireless involved because of weather and oversubscription.
The difference between that and fiber is who owned the glass. All of what I mentioned above, to my knowledge, is glass leased from other companies (Ex: AT&T). Their fiber product is glass they dug up the street and laid themselves - directly from the DC. If you look at the fiber maps in SF ( https://webpass.net/fiber ) they all start at 365 Main ( http://365datacenters.com/ ).
As a webpass customer, I have to say that weather and oversub have not been an issue for me for the last 3 years. For example this winter there was only 2 days where it rained hard enough (when it was REALLY coming down) to notice latency. In both cases it was for ~10mn and I only noticed because I was on SSH connections. Any muggle's netflix connection wouldn't even flinch.
Search on Licensee Name Webpass
speedtests put me at around 100Mbps consistently when its "fast" and about 20-30 Mbps when its slow.