On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:09:37 -0400 Miles Fidelman <mfidel...@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> On 10/24/18 2:05 PM, Joe wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:47:10 -0400 > > Miles Fidelman <mfidel...@meetinghouse.net> wrote: > > > >> > >> Re. ISP objections - those objections sometimes take the form of > >> active measures that block various kinds of traffic. > > Then they're not a proper ISP. I pay for an *Internet* connection, > > not just the forwarding of a few ports that are convenient for the > > provider. > > You can argue what constitutes proper or not, if you want a > connection with any level of bandwidth, you're talking a major > carrier - and they deliver the service that they want to. I've always found it odd that the country that invented the Internet seems to have such poor Internet provision. We (UK) have the choice of at least half a dozen major ISPs, all delivering fibre to the local cabinet, i.e. 40-80Mb/s, at least in cities and towns. Rural is a bit patchy. Two of them are fairly professional, another one very much so but expensive, the rest are domestic who wouldn't know a fixed IP address if it bit them. There are also many small ISPs who buy wholesale from BT, the national phone company. But there's plenty of genuine competition, and at least three of the ISPs will provide a fixed IP address and no messing about with blocking. BT itself will also provide fixed IP but unfortunately with a domestic level of customer service, even on its 'business' accounts. As to bandwidth, I'd have thought a private mailing list would have fairly small requirements, at least compared with a houseful of teens streaming films... -- Joe
