[conspire] Bay Area ISPs for servers/hosting: Re: (forw) Legacy DSL ending at Raw Bandwidth on 12/19/19 - please read carefully!

[Michael Paoli]

Ah, yes, well, I've certainly started my research on options for ISPs,
notably including hosting at home ...
notably including DNS/mail/list server(s).

And ... BALUG next Tu - I've come up with discussion topic ... topical
at that.  I'll likely have website updated and announcements out (well)
before noon tomorrow.  Essentially, something approximating:
Bay Area ISPs for hosting at home / Democratization of The Internet

Most notably, not only discussions of what options are out there,
but the more general issue of most ISPs basically wanting to sell a
"consumer" service - no static IPs - often not even an option for such,
ports not only blocked by default, but some won't allow 'em period (e.g.
TCP port 25).  (I've got unfettered IPv6 (tunneled over IPv4) ... but
alas, not all SMTP TCP port 25 on 'da Internet has or also has IPv6 ...
yet).

Anyway, something approximating that for meeting topic (I've a wee bit 'o
word crafting ahead of me ... notably for web page & announcements).

And, as for my research on ISPs ... have started that fair bit, ...
alas, I don't happen to also already have Comcast Business with static
IP(s) to spare in the residence ... so don't have that path of least
resistance option.  And yeah, for reasons, I'd prefer not Comcast, but ...

Anyway, haven't found an "ideal" solution yet.  Did come across one quite
promising near-miss, though.  Don't know about general quality of the
operation, but at least on the surface, LMi.net seemed highly promising,
... at least for my location in Berkeley.  Just one big issue that's
probably a deal breaker though ... TCP port 25 ... no way to get that
opened, as they resell from Sonic's service, and Sonic is (at least to
them), hell no - not negotiable - on TCP port 25.  *Other* than that,
seemed like it might'a made excellent fit (enough static IPs, reasonable
cost, ample bandwidth, ... mostly unfettered Internet access, ... alas,
notwithstanding TCP port 25).  Anyway, still workin' through what may be
sufficiently viable (and hopefully doesn't suck too much ... like certain
provider(s) I would prefer to avoid).  Anyway, more stuff to discuss
at Tuesday's meeting.  :-)  "Of course" some "discussions" about such
may also happen on-list(s) ... before and/or after meeting, etc.

I still also, just for my own situation, have fair bit more research
to do ... guesimating I'm only about 1/3 of the way to making decision.
Most of 'em have lead times that aren't too horrific, so I don't want
to decide too quickly and without sufficient information - and potentially
regret the decision.  Good ISP service, that that reasonably well covers
my needs and interests ... and those using the services I provide too ...
fairly important to get that "right" ... or, well, at least as close
as feasible.

> From: "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> Subject: Re: [conspire] (forw) Legacy DSL ending at Raw Bandwidth on  
> 12/19/19 - please read carefully!
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 18:08:42 -0800

> Quoting Michael Paoli (Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu):
>
>> Sonic's fiber would generally be a decent choice, except the don't
>> provide static IP addresses on it and have pretty much said they
>> won't be.
>
> Sonic does offer static IP on Fusion DSL (ADSL2+ & VDSL2) service.
>
> Sonic does not offer static IP on Fusion IP Broadband or Fusion Gigabit
> Fiber.  (They say, very vaguely, that the lack of static IP on those two
> services might change in the future.)
>
>
> Among the numerous reasons I distrust Sonic is that it requires (I
> think?) particular makes/models of DSL 'modems'.  They supply one of
> several models made by Pace.
>
> One of their support Web pages mentions that, yes, if you're one of
> those privacy-sensitive control freaks who are not thrilled about Sonic
> being able to control and spy on your entire uplink from _inside_ your
> house, you can indeed switch your Pace device into Bridge mode, but that
> this configuration 'is not recommended or supported', and that 'iif you
> configure your Pace [model #] as a basic bridge, Sonic.net Support staff
> may need you to reset your modem to its default state for
> troubleshooting purposes'.
>
> I.e., 'If you don't let us have root on your router, gosh, I guess we
> won't have total visibility into your end.'  Yes, guys, we know.  The
> only point of contention is where you consider that a i bug, and I
> consider it a feature.
>
>
> Sonic's Fusion IP Broadband and Fusion Gigabit Fiber services both block
> outbound connections to port 25 (SMTP).  Check out this mealy-mouthed
> bullshit from their CEO about both the port-blocking and omission of
> static IP availability:
>
>   Customer's Q:  Does anyone know if Sonic is planning to offer static IPs
>   to gigabit fiber customers anytime soon ?
>
>   CEO Dane Jasper's A:  No, we are not.
>
>   Residential gigabit fiber service is not for business or hosting use,
>   and the vast majority of consumer applications no longer require static
>   IP addressing.
>
>   Using a dynamic IP configuration also allows for a simpler, scaleable
>   network architecture and straightforward management, key as we continue
>   our rapid fiber network roll-out. Less complexity also reduces errors,
>    increasing uptime.
>
> That last paragraph in particular is such an insultingly absurd
> smoke-screen, I almost turned on the kitchen ceiling fan out of habit.
>
> Anyway, it's obvious that Sonic is definitely not the sort of company I
> like to deal with.  I'm tempted to say 'Oh, just FOAD, Sonic', but
> that's a tiny bit unfair.  They're not actually notably awful, they're
> just way, way overhyped by some overly credulous members of the local Linux
> community who really ought to know better.  (I'm not naming names, here,
> because I'm trying to be nice, but you wankers know who you are.)
>
> Of course, I'm not thrilled about Comcast, nor of course AT&T.  Relying
> on an AT&T reseller would qualify as 'evil and incompetence mitigated by
> outsiders who on a good day might be less so', i.e., uncomfortably tied
> to AT&T IP-provisioning infrastructure in exactly the way that Raw
> Bandwidth Communications DSL has averted.
>
>
>> You can get static IP from Comcast Business, or from AT&T and their
>> resellers.
>
> Chez Moen has three still-unassigned static IPv4 addresses on Cheryl's
> Comcast Business uplink (/29 CIDR netblock), so accepting Cheryl's
> gracious offer thereof is currently my path of least resistance -- for
> now.
>
>> You might also check www.wavebroadband.com to see if they can reach
>> you with their cable modem service.
>
> I've now asked for contact (from Wave Broadband), which doubtless means
> dealing with some slavering salesdroid in a few days  -- or a canned
> statement that I'm not in their service area.  (They have one of those
> deals where they want a chance to assess you and guesstimate the weight
> of your wallet before they're willing to give you any specific
> information.  If you've ever dealt with Oracle Corp. or with most parts
> of IBM, it's like that.)
>
> The availability map on this page suggests (if accurate) that they have
> no service to West Menlo Park:  https://broadbandnow.com/Wave-Broadband