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

[Tony Godshall]

Also look at MonkeyBrains, static IP starting at $75 "boutique" small
business service:

  https://www.monkeybrains.net/business.php

I'm thinking of moving my mailserver back home again myself, so this
topic is timely for me, thanks.



On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 10:00 PM Michael Paoli
<Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> conspire mailing list
> conspire at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire