---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <1ho0l3z9a4brw.16r9bnbox6b3i.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 02:23:11 -0400 From: tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> Subject: Re: Is 384 Kibit/s adequate for travel? On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 17:21:00 -0400, Julian Thomas wrote: > We are going on a trip where the only communications options are > satellite phone @$7/min or 384 Kibit/s internet @ 25-50 cents/min. > How grim is this by today's standards? Grim? 384 Kbps is about par for my normal, home, "Hi-Speed" DSL link, on the download side. Upload is a tad slower. But at "25-50 cents/min" I'd be screaming "Highway Robbery!" Viewing video? Doing VoIP? Forget it. HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <20160908013901.34826.qmail@ary.lan> Date: 8 Sep 2016 01:39:01 -0000 From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Subject: Re: Is 384 Kibit/s adequate for travel? >How grim is this by today's standards? I've dealt with worse, throttled to 64kb when a mobile data package expired. >Should we even try for email? If your mail program does IMAP and you can tell it not to download attachments, it should be fine. You surely remember that mail was quite usable at 9600 bps. R's, John ------------------------------ Message-ID: <nqrm1u$ssm$1@dont-email.me> Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 08:37:19 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein <fg_es@removeQRM.ionary.com> Subject: Re: Alternatives to AT&T DSL service On 9/6/2016 12:32 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: > In article <nojisr$3gu$1@news.albasani.net>, > Bob Prohaska <bp@www.zefox.net> wrote: >> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote: >>> Alternately you can download the state tariff yourself and look >>> through it, but it's pretty heavy going. I suppose you could ask >>> someone at the PUC for information though. >>> >>> If it's not in the book, it's a non-tariffed service. Y'all do realize that DSL is not tariffed. The raw DSL (not the Internet service, just the last mile transport) was, prior to 2006, tariffed at the federal level (never state level). The FCC allowed the Bells to detariff it as of 2006, no longer making it available to other ISPs, which is precisely why "net neutrality" is a thing. Internet service itself was never tariffed. Now, the DSL wire itself is treated as if it were Internet service, even though it isn't. ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Fri, 09 Sep 2016