See now that is the issue around here.
If we want true redundancy we need to ride two different fibers out of
town. One is the fiber we are already on, and the other is the expensive
guys Qwest.
We hate to give Qwest a dime.
Matt Liotta wrote:
Sure it is more costly than being single-homed, but being multi-homed is
pretty important. If your single provider goes down what do you tell
your customers?
-Matt
John Scrivner wrote:
Maybe it is very costly to do? Charter Pipeline service in my market
is not multi-homed either. Neither am I at this point. I used to be
multi-homed in the days when 2 T1s did the job. It is not easy to
swing redundant fiber runs in a town that is 75 miles from the nearest
telco-hotel. When I get multi-homed fibers here then I will probably
do that through a mini-telco-hotel facility here and make that place a
new business opportunity in itself.
Scriv
Matt Liotta wrote:
It does make you wonder why the ISP in question wasn't multi-homed.
-Matt
Tim Wolfe wrote:
Thank The good Lord above that I never signed the TelCove contract
for bandwidth last year!. I mean, you really have no idea what the
local provider was doing wrong, but to turn off a school district
and fire CO on that system, COME ON!. You can bet the lawsuits from
the school district alone will make Level 3 think twice about doing
this again?. If you have an offending server, the stupid thing has
an IP address, Block it!. I would hope that Level 3 has enough
smarts to do this?. Even a little guy like me knows how to block an
offending IP address, and I am stupid, LOL!
Matt Liotta wrote:
http://gigaom.com/2007/03/14/why-did-level-3-turn-off-a-rural-isp/
--
George Rogato
Welcome to WISPA
www.wispa.org
http://signup.wispa.org/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/