On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:00:47 -0400 Neil Carpenter
in many places, the choice of broadband providers is quite poor. see
my earlier posting about my client for whom Ameritech DSL was the
only affordable choice, and we just barely made it work for their
This seems like a specious argument. The client had chosen, as you
indicate, to scrimp on their broadband provider to save money. You also
indicate that other providers were available.
The nature of picking any product is cost vs. benefit. In this case,
the customer chose to favor cost and, thus, received less benefit.
well, they'd dumped Covad for abysmal service. anyone else was so pricy
that the project would not go forward at all; the monthly recurring cost
was simply a budget buster.
it's not a matter of scrimping so much as a matter of whether the project
is even feasible under the budgetary constraints. port NAT enables some
folks to run lots of computers behind small subnets, sure, but it also has
the side effect of disabling or nearly disabling lots of other
technologies. the folks who have the hardest problems are the ones with the
least cash. telling someone with a small budget that they can solve their
problem with an application of more money (to get a better provider) isn't
advice that goes down so well.
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security