[Imc-web] Re: [UCIMC-Tech] Re: [Imc] Today's Internet Outage

[dan blah]

please continue this discussion on the imc-tech list only.  if you are
not on the imc-tech list and would like to join please visit:
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-tech

Matthew Isaacs wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 22:06 -0500, Stuart Levy wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 07:29:10PM -0500, dan blah wrote:
>>     
>>> echo but for most all of today.  anyone want to donate a bunch of money
>>> so we can get something better than insight to provide internet for the
>>> several hundred users of chambana.net :)
>>>       
>> What else is available?
>>  
>> I have mcleodusa DSL at home... it's not very fast (768/256kbps),
>> but is reliable.  If you had more money, which services could you use?
>>
>>     
>
> DSL is, in general, too slow for what chambana.net does, at least the
> way that it currently does things.  AT&T has some new faster options
> that may be viable (6.0Mbps down / 768Kbps up).  That however, is slower
> than what Insight gives us.  According to Dan, the last time I asked,
> Insight gives us 10Mbps down / 2 Mbps up.  Now, you have to figure that
> only about 80-85% of those speeds are available due to overhead.
> Typically with insight, when I've measured the actually throughput of
> the line, we max out at 1.5Mbps upload.  Now, WRFU does streaming audo,
> which, while the listeners don't connect directly, utilizes a good
> portion of the upload bandwidth, 24/7 (I believe they use somewhere
> around 192-256 Kbps, plus overhead).  I know of at least one other radio
> station to do streaming audio (to a 3rd party server for the listeners
> to connect to, just like WRFU) on comparable bandwidth and they had to
> switch to a T-1 line as the cable line was not able to cope with the
> load.
>
>   
2mbps or even 1.5mbps would be fine if it was symmetric, insight is not.
> What Dan is suggesting around is obtaining some sort of dedicated
> service, such as a T-1 (or several of these).  However, a single T-1 at
> the lowest rate I've seen for the area is still over $300/month, plus
> extra equipment that is need to interface to the circuit.  Additionally,
> a T-1 only provides 1.5Mbps down / 1.5Mbps up, but is generally much
> more reliable than any "consumer grade" service.  This may be sufficient
> for upload chambana.net hosting, however it does not really buy us more
> than the increased reliability.  The 1.5Mbps may suffice for general
> office use, however I can not say that with certainty, as I don't know
> how many people use the IMC internet connection, what they use it for,
> and how much they use.  All of those would factor into whether 1.5Mbps
> is sufficient.
>
>   
right-o, speakeasy is the cheapest ($399) and again does not serve this
area.  att is over $500/mo which may or may not include local transit. 
> Another alternative may be Volo.  They typically provide 3 Mbps down / 3
> Mbps up, and are quite reliable.  OJC and several other business I know
> of use Volo's service for their operations.  The downside to Volo is
> that it is not an unmetered line, i.e. they charge you per Megabit of
> traffic you send and receive (typically you purchase it in blocks).
>
> The bandwidth issue can also be avoided altogether if chambana switches
> all (or most) of its services to running on a host located in a
> dedicated data center.  Depending on service options, etc, this runs
> anywhere from $20 to $200 per month.
>
>   
volo would be nice.  does anyone know how much more weight the wrfu
tower can hold?  would be interesting to offer them tower space in
return for bandwidth...
> I hope this helps further the discussion.
>
> --
> Matt
>
>   
another option is setting up a point to point wireless link to some one
with more bw than they need.  we could maybe pitch this idea to urbana
(who is peered fairly well).