Challenge: Not Insight (soon to be Time Warner) or AT&T
Looks like I'm going to be moving soonish and I'm curious what options are out there and what folks would recommend. I don't have or want cable TV or satellite. I don't have or want a landline connection either really.
I'm assuming any independent ISPs would be DSL, but I'm not sure if 'dry' DSL is still an option. I worked for a Telco in the early 2000s that provided dry DSL to customers in Eastern KY, but I'm not sure if this was a PSC anomaly.
I'm going to be in southern area of the Highlands, if it's a consideration for wireless ranges.
I really like Iglou, though I have to pay for a phone line I don't otherwise use (it's not even hooked to a phone) because headless DSL isn't allowed in the city unless you choose AT&T. Stupid monopolies. But on the positive side they're local, friendly, and give you a dedicated IP and don't care what you run on your end (servers, services, etc.). I've been with them for many years now.
Blenster
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Challenge: Not Insight (soon to be Time Warner) or AT&T
> Looks like I'm going to be moving soonish and I'm curious what options > are out there and what folks would recommend. I don't have or want > cable TV or satellite. I don't have or want a landline connection > either really.
> I'm assuming any independent ISPs would be DSL, but I'm not sure if > 'dry' DSL is still an option. I worked for a Telco in the early 2000s > that provided dry DSL to customers in Eastern KY, but I'm not sure if > this was a PSC anomaly.
> I'm going to be in southern area of the Highlands, if it's a > consideration for wireless ranges.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Ben Hibben <the.blens...@gmail.com> wrote: > I really like Iglou, though I have to pay for a phone line I don't otherwise > use (it's not even hooked to a phone) because headless DSL isn't allowed in > the city unless you choose AT&T. Stupid monopolies. But on the positive > side they're local, friendly, and give you a dedicated IP and don't care > what you run on your end (servers, services, etc.). I've been with them for > many years now.
> Blenster
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> Challenge: Not Insight (soon to be Time Warner) or AT&T
>> Looks like I'm going to be moving soonish and I'm curious what options >> are out there and what folks would recommend. I don't have or want >> cable TV or satellite. I don't have or want a landline connection >> either really.
>> I'm assuming any independent ISPs would be DSL, but I'm not sure if >> 'dry' DSL is still an option. I worked for a Telco in the early 2000s >> that provided dry DSL to customers in Eastern KY, but I'm not sure if >> this was a PSC anomaly.
>> I'm going to be in southern area of the Highlands, if it's a >> consideration for wireless ranges.
> Yeah Iglou was the first thing to come to mind. Too bad about needing the > AT&T.
> Any other contenders?
> Thanks Ben!
> Chris
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Ben Hibben <the.blens...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I really like Iglou, though I have to pay for a phone line I don't > otherwise > > use (it's not even hooked to a phone) because headless DSL isn't > allowed in > > the city unless you choose AT&T. Stupid monopolies. But on the positive > > side they're local, friendly, and give you a dedicated IP and don't care > > what you run on your end (servers, services, etc.). I've been with them > for > > many years now.
> > Blenster
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> Challenge: Not Insight (soon to be Time Warner) or AT&T
> >> Looks like I'm going to be moving soonish and I'm curious what options > >> are out there and what folks would recommend. I don't have or want > >> cable TV or satellite. I don't have or want a landline connection > >> either really.
> >> I'm assuming any independent ISPs would be DSL, but I'm not sure if > >> 'dry' DSL is still an option. I worked for a Telco in the early 2000s > >> that provided dry DSL to customers in Eastern KY, but I'm not sure if > >> this was a PSC anomaly.
> >> I'm going to be in southern area of the Highlands, if it's a > >> consideration for wireless ranges.
> Yeah Iglou was the first thing to come to mind. Too bad about needing the > AT&T.
> Any other contenders?
> Thanks Ben!
> Chris
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Ben Hibben <the.blens...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I really like Iglou, though I have to pay for a phone line I don't > otherwise > > use (it's not even hooked to a phone) because headless DSL isn't > allowed in > > the city unless you choose AT&T. Stupid monopolies. But on the positive > > side they're local, friendly, and give you a dedicated IP and don't care > > what you run on your end (servers, services, etc.). I've been with them > for > > many years now.
> > Blenster
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >> Challenge: Not Insight (soon to be Time Warner) or AT&T
> >> Looks like I'm going to be moving soonish and I'm curious what options > >> are out there and what folks would recommend. I don't have or want > >> cable TV or satellite. I don't have or want a landline connection > >> either really.
> >> I'm assuming any independent ISPs would be DSL, but I'm not sure if > >> 'dry' DSL is still an option. I worked for a Telco in the early 2000s > >> that provided dry DSL to customers in Eastern KY, but I'm not sure if > >> this was a PSC anomaly.
> >> I'm going to be in southern area of the Highlands, if it's a > >> consideration for wireless ranges.
> They also offer DSL, probably with the same capabilities as Iglou.
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> Yeah Iglou was the first thing to come to mind. Too bad about needing the >> AT&T.
>> Any other contenders?
>> Thanks Ben!
>> Chris
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Ben Hibben <the.blens...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I really like Iglou, though I have to pay for a phone line I don't >> > otherwise >> > use (it's not even hooked to a phone) because headless DSL isn't >> > allowed in >> > the city unless you choose AT&T. Stupid monopolies. But on the >> > positive >> > side they're local, friendly, and give you a dedicated IP and don't care >> > what you run on your end (servers, services, etc.). I've been with them >> > for >> > many years now.
>> > Blenster
>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Christopher Cprek >> > <paxtita...@gmail.com> >> > wrote:
>> >> Challenge: Not Insight (soon to be Time Warner) or AT&T
>> >> Looks like I'm going to be moving soonish and I'm curious what options >> >> are out there and what folks would recommend. I don't have or want >> >> cable TV or satellite. I don't have or want a landline connection >> >> either really.
>> >> I'm assuming any independent ISPs would be DSL, but I'm not sure if >> >> 'dry' DSL is still an option. I worked for a Telco in the early 2000s >> >> that provided dry DSL to customers in Eastern KY, but I'm not sure if >> >> this was a PSC anomaly.
>> >> I'm going to be in southern area of the Highlands, if it's a >> >> consideration for wireless ranges.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com> wrote: > The new place backs up to Seneca Park, to zone in a little more.
> I'll definitely check out bluegrass.net, they've been immensely > generous to LVL1! Didn't know they had DSL offerings.
> Chris
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:20 AM, DE 'Tad' Heckaman III > <dougl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm not exactly sure where the 'Highlands' is located... Is Google >> accurate? http://goo.gl/NBwep >> You could check Bluegrass.net and see if you are in their coverage area: >> http://www.bluegrass.net/wireless-internet
>> They also offer DSL, probably with the same capabilities as Iglou.
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> Yeah Iglou was the first thing to come to mind. Too bad about needing the >>> AT&T.
>>> Any other contenders?
>>> Thanks Ben!
>>> Chris
>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Ben Hibben <the.blens...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > I really like Iglou, though I have to pay for a phone line I don't >>> > otherwise >>> > use (it's not even hooked to a phone) because headless DSL isn't >>> > allowed in >>> > the city unless you choose AT&T. Stupid monopolies. But on the >>> > positive >>> > side they're local, friendly, and give you a dedicated IP and don't care >>> > what you run on your end (servers, services, etc.). I've been with them >>> > for >>> > many years now.
>>> > Blenster
>>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Christopher Cprek >>> > <paxtita...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote:
>>> >> Challenge: Not Insight (soon to be Time Warner) or AT&T
>>> >> Looks like I'm going to be moving soonish and I'm curious what options >>> >> are out there and what folks would recommend. I don't have or want >>> >> cable TV or satellite. I don't have or want a landline connection >>> >> either really.
>>> >> I'm assuming any independent ISPs would be DSL, but I'm not sure if >>> >> 'dry' DSL is still an option. I worked for a Telco in the early 2000s >>> >> that provided dry DSL to customers in Eastern KY, but I'm not sure if >>> >> this was a PSC anomaly.
>>> >> I'm going to be in southern area of the Highlands, if it's a >>> >> consideration for wireless ranges.
T 502.476.9878 C 502.939.1756 pmccar...@humana.com<mailto:pmccar...@humana.com>
From: lvl1@googlegroups.com [mailto:lvl1@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of DE 'Tad' Heckaman III Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 11:21 AM To: lvl1@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: {LVL1} Recommendations for broadband ISP
They also offer DSL, probably with the same capabilities as Iglou.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com<mailto:paxtita...@gmail.com>> wrote: Yeah Iglou was the first thing to come to mind. Too bad about needing the AT&T.
Any other contenders?
Thanks Ben!
Chris
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Ben Hibben <the.blens...@gmail.com<mailto:the.blens...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I really like Iglou, though I have to pay for a phone line I don't otherwise > use (it's not even hooked to a phone) because headless DSL isn't allowed in > the city unless you choose AT&T. Stupid monopolies. But on the positive > side they're local, friendly, and give you a dedicated IP and don't care > what you run on your end (servers, services, etc.). I've been with them for > many years now.
> Blenster
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com<mailto:paxtita...@gmail.com>> > wrote:
>> Challenge: Not Insight (soon to be Time Warner) or AT&T
>> Looks like I'm going to be moving soonish and I'm curious what options >> are out there and what folks would recommend. I don't have or want >> cable TV or satellite. I don't have or want a landline connection >> either really.
>> I'm assuming any independent ISPs would be DSL, but I'm not sure if >> 'dry' DSL is still an option. I worked for a Telco in the early 2000s >> that provided dry DSL to customers in Eastern KY, but I'm not sure if >> this was a PSC anomaly.
>> I'm going to be in southern area of the Highlands, if it's a >> consideration for wireless ranges.
>> Recommendations?
>> Chris
-- Tad Heckaman
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this material/information in error, please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information.
> From: lvl1@googlegroups.com [mailto:lvl1@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of DE > 'Tad' Heckaman III > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 11:21 AM > To: lvl1@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: {LVL1} Recommendations for broadband ISP
> I'm not exactly sure where the 'Highlands' is located... Is Google > accurate? http://goo.gl/NBwep
> You could check Bluegrass.net and see if you are in their coverage area:
> They also offer DSL, probably with the same capabilities as Iglou.
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> Yeah Iglou was the first thing to come to mind. Too bad about needing the > AT&T.
> Any other contenders?
> Thanks Ben!
> Chris
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Ben Hibben <the.blens...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I really like Iglou, though I have to pay for a phone line I don't >> otherwise >> use (it's not even hooked to a phone) because headless DSL isn't allowed >> in >> the city unless you choose AT&T. Stupid monopolies. But on the positive >> side they're local, friendly, and give you a dedicated IP and don't care >> what you run on your end (servers, services, etc.). I've been with them >> for >> many years now.
>> Blenster
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> Challenge: Not Insight (soon to be Time Warner) or AT&T
>>> Looks like I'm going to be moving soonish and I'm curious what options >>> are out there and what folks would recommend. I don't have or want >>> cable TV or satellite. I don't have or want a landline connection >>> either really.
>>> I'm assuming any independent ISPs would be DSL, but I'm not sure if >>> 'dry' DSL is still an option. I worked for a Telco in the early 2000s >>> that provided dry DSL to customers in Eastern KY, but I'm not sure if >>> this was a PSC anomaly.
>>> I'm going to be in southern area of the Highlands, if it's a >>> consideration for wireless ranges.
>>> Recommendations?
>>> Chris
> -- > Tad Heckaman
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed > and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this > material/information in error, > please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information.
> > From: lvl1@googlegroups.com [mailto:lvl1@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of > DE > > 'Tad' Heckaman III > > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 11:21 AM > > To: lvl1@googlegroups.com > > Subject: Re: {LVL1} Recommendations for broadband ISP
> > I'm not exactly sure where the 'Highlands' is located... Is Google > > accurate? http://goo.gl/NBwep
> > You could check Bluegrass.net and see if you are in their coverage area:
> > They also offer DSL, probably with the same capabilities as Iglou.
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > Yeah Iglou was the first thing to come to mind. Too bad about needing the > > AT&T.
> > Any other contenders?
> > Thanks Ben!
> > Chris
> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Ben Hibben <the.blens...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I really like Iglou, though I have to pay for a phone line I don't > >> otherwise > >> use (it's not even hooked to a phone) because headless DSL isn't > allowed > >> in > >> the city unless you choose AT&T. Stupid monopolies. But on the > positive > >> side they're local, friendly, and give you a dedicated IP and don't care > >> what you run on your end (servers, services, etc.). I've been with them > >> for > >> many years now.
> >> Blenster
> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Christopher Cprek < > paxtita...@gmail.com> > >> wrote:
> >>> Challenge: Not Insight (soon to be Time Warner) or AT&T
> >>> Looks like I'm going to be moving soonish and I'm curious what options > >>> are out there and what folks would recommend. I don't have or want > >>> cable TV or satellite. I don't have or want a landline connection > >>> either really.
> >>> I'm assuming any independent ISPs would be DSL, but I'm not sure if > >>> 'dry' DSL is still an option. I worked for a Telco in the early 2000s > >>> that provided dry DSL to customers in Eastern KY, but I'm not sure if > >>> this was a PSC anomaly.
> >>> I'm going to be in southern area of the Highlands, if it's a > >>> consideration for wireless ranges.
> >>> Recommendations?
> >>> Chris
> > -- > > Tad Heckaman
> > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > > which it is addressed > > and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this > > material/information in error, > > please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Ben Hibben <the.blens...@gmail.com> wrote: > He can't be, anyway; there can be only one and that spot's filled. Hell > of an entrance exam to get the spot, too...
> Blenster
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> No I'm not going to be that kind of Highlander.
>> Chris
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Pat McCarthy <pmccar...@humana.com> >> wrote: >> > ... Is Google accurate?
>> > From: lvl1@googlegroups.com [mailto:lvl1@googlegroups.com] On Behalf >> Of DE >> > 'Tad' Heckaman III >> > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 11:21 AM >> > To: lvl1@googlegroups.com >> > Subject: Re: {LVL1} Recommendations for broadband ISP
>> > I'm not exactly sure where the 'Highlands' is located... Is Google >> > accurate? http://goo.gl/NBwep
>> > You could check Bluegrass.net and see if you are in their coverage area:
>> > They also offer DSL, probably with the same capabilities as Iglou.
>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Christopher Cprek < >> paxtita...@gmail.com> >> > wrote:
>> > Yeah Iglou was the first thing to come to mind. Too bad about needing >> the >> > AT&T.
>> > Any other contenders?
>> > Thanks Ben!
>> > Chris
>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Ben Hibben <the.blens...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I really like Iglou, though I have to pay for a phone line I don't >> >> otherwise >> >> use (it's not even hooked to a phone) because headless DSL isn't >> allowed >> >> in >> >> the city unless you choose AT&T. Stupid monopolies. But on the >> positive >> >> side they're local, friendly, and give you a dedicated IP and don't >> care >> >> what you run on your end (servers, services, etc.). I've been with >> them >> >> for >> >> many years now.
>> >> Blenster
>> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Christopher Cprek < >> paxtita...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:
>> >>> Challenge: Not Insight (soon to be Time Warner) or AT&T
>> >>> Looks like I'm going to be moving soonish and I'm curious what options >> >>> are out there and what folks would recommend. I don't have or want >> >>> cable TV or satellite. I don't have or want a landline connection >> >>> either really.
>> >>> I'm assuming any independent ISPs would be DSL, but I'm not sure if >> >>> 'dry' DSL is still an option. I worked for a Telco in the early 2000s >> >>> that provided dry DSL to customers in Eastern KY, but I'm not sure if >> >>> this was a PSC anomaly.
>> >>> I'm going to be in southern area of the Highlands, if it's a >> >>> consideration for wireless ranges.
>> >>> Recommendations?
>> >>> Chris
>> > -- >> > Tad Heckaman
>> > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to >> > which it is addressed >> > and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this >> > material/information in error, >> > please contact the sender and delete or destroy the >> material/information.
I know you aren't to keen on insight, but I have their 30M download 10M upload service. They even have a 50M service. DSL and at&t uverse does not even come close. It is all about speed for me. I used to have a naked dsl from speakeasy.net They were pretty good.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:47 AM, DE 'Tad' Heckaman III <dougl...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> > From: lvl1@googlegroups.com [mailto:lvl1@googlegroups.com] On Behalf >>> Of DE >>> > 'Tad' Heckaman III >>> > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 11:21 AM >>> > To: lvl1@googlegroups.com >>> > Subject: Re: {LVL1} Recommendations for broadband ISP
>>> > I'm not exactly sure where the 'Highlands' is located... Is Google >>> > accurate? http://goo.gl/NBwep
>>> > You could check Bluegrass.net and see if you are in their coverage >>> area:
>>> > They also offer DSL, probably with the same capabilities as Iglou.
>>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Christopher Cprek < >>> paxtita...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote:
>>> > Yeah Iglou was the first thing to come to mind. Too bad about needing >>> the >>> > AT&T.
>>> > Any other contenders?
>>> > Thanks Ben!
>>> > Chris
>>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Ben Hibben <the.blens...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> I really like Iglou, though I have to pay for a phone line I don't >>> >> otherwise >>> >> use (it's not even hooked to a phone) because headless DSL isn't >>> allowed >>> >> in >>> >> the city unless you choose AT&T. Stupid monopolies. But on the >>> positive >>> >> side they're local, friendly, and give you a dedicated IP and don't >>> care >>> >> what you run on your end (servers, services, etc.). I've been with >>> them >>> >> for >>> >> many years now.
>>> >> Blenster
>>> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Christopher Cprek < >>> paxtita...@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >>> Challenge: Not Insight (soon to be Time Warner) or AT&T
>>> >>> Looks like I'm going to be moving soonish and I'm curious what >>> options >>> >>> are out there and what folks would recommend. I don't have or want >>> >>> cable TV or satellite. I don't have or want a landline connection >>> >>> either really.
>>> >>> I'm assuming any independent ISPs would be DSL, but I'm not sure if >>> >>> 'dry' DSL is still an option. I worked for a Telco in the early 2000s >>> >>> that provided dry DSL to customers in Eastern KY, but I'm not sure if >>> >>> this was a PSC anomaly.
>>> >>> I'm going to be in southern area of the Highlands, if it's a >>> >>> consideration for wireless ranges.
>>> >>> Recommendations?
>>> >>> Chris
>>> > -- >>> > Tad Heckaman
>>> > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity >>> to >>> > which it is addressed >>> > and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this >>> > material/information in error, >>> > please contact the sender and delete or destroy the >>> material/information.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Brian Wagner <br...@tegrasys.com> wrote: > I know you aren't to keen on insight, but I have their 30M download 10M > upload service. They even have a 50M service. DSL and at&t uverse does > not even come close. It is all about speed for me. I used to have a naked > dsl from speakeasy.net They were pretty good.
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:47 AM, DE 'Tad' Heckaman III <dougl...@gmail.com > > wrote:
>> this guy?
>> :)
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Ben Hibben <the.blens...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> He can't be, anyway; there can be only one and that spot's filled. Hell >>> of an entrance exam to get the spot, too...
>>> Blenster
>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Christopher Cprek <paxtita...@gmail.com >>> > wrote:
>>>> No I'm not going to be that kind of Highlander.
>>>> Chris
>>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Pat McCarthy <pmccar...@humana.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > ... Is Google accurate?
>>>> > From: lvl1@googlegroups.com [mailto:lvl1@googlegroups.com] On Behalf >>>> Of DE >>>> > 'Tad' Heckaman III >>>> > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 11:21 AM >>>> > To: lvl1@googlegroups.com >>>> > Subject: Re: {LVL1} Recommendations for broadband ISP
>>>> > I'm not exactly sure where the 'Highlands' is located... Is Google >>>> > accurate? http://goo.gl/NBwep
>>>> > You could check Bluegrass.net and see if you are in their coverage >>>> area:
>>>> > They also offer DSL, probably with the same capabilities as Iglou.
>>>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Christopher Cprek < >>>> paxtita...@gmail.com> >>>> > wrote:
>>>> > Yeah Iglou was the first thing to come to mind. Too bad about needing >>>> the >>>> > AT&T.
>>>> > Any other contenders?
>>>> > Thanks Ben!
>>>> > Chris
>>>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Ben Hibben <the.blens...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> I really like Iglou, though I have to pay for a phone line I don't >>>> >> otherwise >>>> >> use (it's not even hooked to a phone) because headless DSL isn't >>>> allowed >>>> >> in >>>> >> the city unless you choose AT&T. Stupid monopolies. But on the >>>> positive >>>> >> side they're local, friendly, and give you a dedicated IP and don't >>>> care >>>> >> what you run on your end (servers, services, etc.). I've been with >>>> them >>>> >> for >>>> >> many years now.
>>>> >> Blenster
>>>> >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Christopher Cprek < >>>> paxtita...@gmail.com> >>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>> Challenge: Not Insight (soon to be Time Warner) or AT&T
>>>> >>> Looks like I'm going to be moving soonish and I'm curious what >>>> options >>>> >>> are out there and what folks would recommend. I don't have or want >>>> >>> cable TV or satellite. I don't have or want a landline connection >>>> >>> either really.
>>>> >>> I'm assuming any independent ISPs would be DSL, but I'm not sure if >>>> >>> 'dry' DSL is still an option. I worked for a Telco in the early >>>> 2000s >>>> >>> that provided dry DSL to customers in Eastern KY, but I'm not sure >>>> if >>>> >>> this was a PSC anomaly.
>>>> >>> I'm going to be in southern area of the Highlands, if it's a >>>> >>> consideration for wireless ranges.
>>>> >>> Recommendations?
>>>> >>> Chris
>>>> > -- >>>> > Tad Heckaman
>>>> > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity >>>> to >>>> > which it is addressed >>>> > and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this >>>> > material/information in error, >>>> > please contact the sender and delete or destroy the >>>> material/information.
Standard Insight 10M at home has been good. Never try any "exotic" port numbers for torrents or such on that one. I have heard that they may block some ports, just haven't had it happen to me.
Iglou has been rock-solid for me most of the last 20 years at work. Any DSL service will only obtain "provisioning" from the local LEC if you subscribe to AT&T for a POTS line. The cost of the landline plus DSL service will probably be more than in internet-only cable hookup. And about six time slower on average. Iglou has never harassed me about oddball port usage.
> Standard Insight 10M at home has been good. Never try any "exotic" > port numbers for torrents or such on that one. I have heard that they > may block some ports, just haven't had it happen to me.
> Iglou has been rock-solid for me most of the last 20 years at work. > Any DSL service will only obtain "provisioning" from the local LEC if > you subscribe to AT&T for a POTS line. The cost of the landline plus > DSL service will probably be more than in internet-only cable hookup. > And about six time slower on average. Iglou has never harassed me > about oddball port usage.
> What's this land line stuff? I thought naked dsl was available most > everywhere now? Are you saying it's not available here?
> On 04/03/2012 01:22 AM, 2600 wrote: >> Standard Insight 10M at home has been good. Never try any "exotic" >> port numbers for torrents or such on that one. I have heard that they >> may block some ports, just haven't had it happen to me.
>> Iglou has been rock-solid for me most of the last 20 years at work. >> Any DSL service will only obtain "provisioning" from the local LEC if >> you subscribe to AT&T for a POTS line. The cost of the landline plus >> DSL service will probably be more than in internet-only cable hookup. >> And about six time slower on average. Iglou has never harassed me >> about oddball port usage.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:40 PM, <creig...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote: > Considering that I'm a ham, and so many others on this list as well, there > is no reason that we couldn't replicate this project...
>> What's this land line stuff? I thought naked dsl was available most >> everywhere now? Are you saying it's not available here?
>> On 04/03/2012 01:22 AM, 2600 wrote: >>> Standard Insight 10M at home has been good. Never try any "exotic" >>> port numbers for torrents or such on that one. I have heard that they >>> may block some ports, just haven't had it happen to me.
>>> Iglou has been rock-solid for me most of the last 20 years at work. >>> Any DSL service will only obtain "provisioning" from the local LEC if >>> you subscribe to AT&T for a POTS line. The cost of the landline plus >>> DSL service will probably be more than in internet-only cable hookup. >>> And about six time slower on average. Iglou has never harassed me >>> about oddball port usage.
Some of Ubiquiti Networks equipment can be set to 'compliance mode', which lets you to directly set the frequency of the radio, allowing you to move the equipment to a ham-only frequency.
I've seen this compliance mode on a NanoStation M2. I'd love to grab a few of these units (perhaps the Nanobridge M or Bullet M2s/2.4ghz yagis) and try to setup some long range links... maximum power, on ham frequencies, and set the channel width to 5 or 10mhz, and see how far we can get it to work. The only trick would be to get one or both ends as high up as possible.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:40 PM, <creig...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote: > Considering that I'm a ham, and so many others on this list as well, there > is no reason that we couldn't replicate this project...
> > What's this land line stuff? I thought naked dsl was available most > > everywhere now? Are you saying it's not available here?
> > On 04/03/2012 01:22 AM, 2600 wrote: > >> Standard Insight 10M at home has been good. Never try any "exotic" > >> port numbers for torrents or such on that one. I have heard that they > >> may block some ports, just haven't had it happen to me.
> >> Iglou has been rock-solid for me most of the last 20 years at work. > >> Any DSL service will only obtain "provisioning" from the local LEC if > >> you subscribe to AT&T for a POTS line. The cost of the landline plus > >> DSL service will probably be more than in internet-only cable hookup. > >> And about six time slower on average. Iglou has never harassed me > >> about oddball port usage.
> That's a cool project Creighton. James and I were discussing something > like this. It's worth some more investigation.
> Jason, from what I understand there's no way to get DSL without paying > for POTS from AT&T. Someone more informed could correct me though.
> Thanks everyone for the info and laughs. I'm going to weigh my options.
I called mega today, and naked dsl is available, but simply isn't cheap enough to matter. $70 per month is the starting price for any practical data rates (785Kbps up/3meg down) and for another $10 to $15 one could get a WiMax account with Bluegrassnet, providing that you have a roof with a clear line of sight you can mount the gear to.
> That's a cool project Creighton. James and I were discussing something > like this. It's worth some more investigation.
> Jason, from what I understand there's no way to get DSL without paying > for POTS from AT&T. Someone more informed could correct me though.
> Thanks everyone for the info and laughs. I'm going to weigh my options.
> Chris
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:40 PM, <creig...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote: > > Considering that I'm a ham, and so many others on this list as well, > there > > is no reason that we couldn't replicate this project...
> >> What's this land line stuff? I thought naked dsl was available most > >> everywhere now? Are you saying it's not available here?
> >> On 04/03/2012 01:22 AM, 2600 wrote: > >>> Standard Insight 10M at home has been good. Never try any "exotic" > >>> port numbers for torrents or such on that one. I have heard that they > >>> may block some ports, just haven't had it happen to me.
> >>> Iglou has been rock-solid for me most of the last 20 years at work. > >>> Any DSL service will only obtain "provisioning" from the local LEC if > >>> you subscribe to AT&T for a POTS line. The cost of the landline plus > >>> DSL service will probably be more than in internet-only cable hookup. > >>> And about six time slower on average. Iglou has never harassed me > >>> about oddball port usage.
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Christopher Cprek > <paxtita...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> That's a cool project Creighton. James and I were discussing something >> like this. It's worth some more investigation.
>> Jason, from what I understand there's no way to get DSL without paying >> for POTS from AT&T. Someone more informed could correct me though.
>> Thanks everyone for the info and laughs. I'm going to weigh my options.
Perhaps LVL1 could apply to the FCC for a club license, and any member in good standing (paying member, which presently excludes myself) that can get a clear line of sight could use the 'compliance' mode channels that we agreed upon as well. I like the idea of dropping down into the ham only sector of the spectrum and cutting the signal width down to a quarter channel (5mhz wide) while jacking up transmission peak power up closer to the ham legal max. Probably users would have to get their own ham license to join the network, but that's not so hard to do anymore and we would literally have our own 'wimax' data net, able to use it in the car.
Disadvantages include...
encryption of traffic *may* not be legal. Encrypted ham transmissions that cross international borders are *never* legal due to international treaties, but that's not an issue for us. Encryption is sometimes allowed if encryption is a byproduct of the medium, and not something under control of the operator/user. For example, https surfing is verboten, because http is just as effective and is not encrypted; but playing an online video game that uses encryption for it's own internal operations (which cannot be turned off by the player) is likely good to go.
Business transactions over a ham band is verboten. This means no ordering pizza over the mesh from papajohns.com, no shopping at Amazon, no bidding on Ebay, etc.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM, <creig...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote: > > Let us know what you decide.
> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Christopher Cprek > > <paxtita...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> That's a cool project Creighton. James and I were discussing something > >> like this. It's worth some more investigation.
> >> Jason, from what I understand there's no way to get DSL without paying > >> for POTS from AT&T. Someone more informed could correct me though.
> >> Thanks everyone for the info and laughs. I'm going to weigh my options.
> Perhaps LVL1 could apply to the FCC for a club license, and any member in > good standing (paying member, which presently excludes myself) that can > get a clear line of sight could use the 'compliance' mode channels that we > agreed upon as well. I like the idea of dropping down into the ham only > sector of the spectrum and cutting the signal width down to a quarter > channel (5mhz wide) while jacking up transmission peak power up closer to > the ham legal max. Probably users would have to get their own ham license > to join the network, but that's not so hard to do anymore and we would > literally have our own 'wimax' data net, able to use it in the car.
> Disadvantages include...
> encryption of traffic *may* not be legal. Encrypted ham transmissions > that cross international borders are *never* legal due to international > treaties, but that's not an issue for us. Encryption is sometimes allowed > if encryption is a byproduct of the medium, and not something under > control of the operator/user. For example, https surfing is verboten, > because http is just as effective and is not encrypted; but playing an > online video game that uses encryption for it's own internal operations > (which cannot be turned off by the player) is likely good to go.
> Business transactions over a ham band is verboten. This means no ordering > pizza over the mesh from papajohns.com, no shopping at Amazon, no bidding > on Ebay, etc.
> We have a club call, N1LVL. Joe and I intend to put antennas on the roof > at the next opportunity. Additional help may hasten this opportunity.
Ha!
I'm off work presently due to a hernia surgery. So I'm available to help, but I'm not able to lift more than 8 pounds, and ladder climbing is out of the question. I know my way around openwrt and somewhat around dd-wrt, so depending upon the hardware and software we decide upon, I'm willing to contribute as far as I am able until I return to work.
>> We have a club call, N1LVL. Joe and I intend to put antennas on the >> roof >> at the next opportunity. Additional help may hasten this opportunity.
> Ha!
> I'm off work presently due to a hernia surgery. So I'm available to help, > but I'm not able to lift more than 8 pounds, and ladder climbing is out of > the question. I know my way around openwrt and somewhat around dd-wrt, so > depending upon the hardware and software we decide upon, I'm willing to > contribute as far as I am able until I return to work.
> Creighton
Now that I think about it, though, if we have our own club callsign, then there is nothing stopping us from using another ham band with better propogation characteristics, particularly if we are going to be buying new gear from a commercial vendor such as Ubiquity. 70 centimeters would be best, but there doesn't seem to be a 5 mhz wide section in the band plan acceptable for digital communications, unless we took over the Amatur TV channel around 441 mhz. 33 centimeters has a digital band only 3mhz wide centered on 916.5 Mhz, with another ATV band just below that. We could center right on 915 Mhz, nobody really uses ATV anymore anyway. 23 centimeters has a fine area in a digital communcations band centered at 1253 Mhz that would also give us 2.5 mhz of room on each side of the band for overspray. It's less than ideal, but certainly better than anywhere near 2.5 Ghz. Using a lower frequency with better propogagtion characteristics, high grade gear for the fixed stations, and higher peak-envelope power, we could reasonablely mesh the entire county with only a few well chosen antenna sites. If it's also a real emergency network for local use, we could literally get free sighting of a node upon city buildings. We would have to use a filter (dansguardian?) to prevent users from casually or automaticly contacting business sites (amazon,ebay) or known porn sights through the Internet gateway. The resultant mesh wouldn't be up to streaming video, but if the nodes all use Qualitiy of Service rules to favor Voip, a few end-user2node2node2end-user conversations could be managed at the same time.
>> We have a club call, N1LVL. Joe and I intend to put antennas on the >> roof >> at the next opportunity. Additional help may hasten this opportunity.
