The Little ISP That Stood Up to the Government
blogs.wsj.com
blogs.wsj.com
Edit: Seems that reading this puts it's it all in to a better context:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020347680457661...
I also appreciate they offer static IP (presumably v4) (8 addresses? Like, a /3?), but I wonder why it costs so much. A DSL modem/router typically stays on all day long, so, surely they could offer a single static IPv4 without any additional cost to themselves?
Well, it's not possible to provide high upload bandwidths on ADSL/ADSL2/ADSL2+, because you only have so much frequency to play with and your end-user devices can only output so much power (else you get plenty of interference from nearby lines).
SHDSL provides for higher upload bandwidth, but that's because it is limited on the download front. I think the maximum the current ADSL2+ spec allows for is about 24Mbit down/3Mbit up, with Annex M.
So, I wondered if they had made that choice, and they didn't. I can understand that: most customers don't want to give up half their download bandwidth so they can share more with bit-torrent, or host a server they would never care to configure anyway. Lack of education and tragedy of the commons say that download is the priority.
Maybe we would have been better off if symmetric bandwidth was simply mandated by law ("thou shalt propose symmetric bandwidth at no higher cost than asymetric bandwith")?
It's the only time I believe it when they say "Thank you for calling, how can I help you?".
Can't wait for their SF fiber roll-out.
They've also got great customer service; the only reason not to use them is if you're too far from the central office.
[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifte...