Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
The problem here is that somehow someone at Hyatt decided that a regular low-end asymmetrical ~10Mbps/~1Mbps fibre-optic connection from SureWest could be shared (together with a lousy 1.5Mbps T1 from T) between 151 rooms, when almost every single person staying in the hotel has a connection at least twice as big back home, for their own unshared use! Isn't the logical reasoning simply unbelievable?
I've tried calling their corporate office, but they, apparently, don't have any kind of a corporate standard for internet connectivity, saying that it's up to the individual hotels and the local conditions.
Yes, that is reasonable. Just saying "Internet connectivity" is too broad for world wide hotel operators. It's up to the local conditions, of course!!! When I was at a resort in an isolated island in Pacific ocean three yeas ago, only connectivity of the resort was through satellite, shared by tens of rooms. There, of course, was no local 2G/3G/4G services. When I was at a hotel in Geneva about 10 years ago, the hotel advertised to be Internet-capable, even though the hotel only offered telephone connectivity to local and international dial-up ISPs. When I was at a resort in Africa more than 15 years ago, there was no telephone connectivity, except for one by private wireless relay maintained by the hotel for its reservation and other its own business purposes. Differentiating the "Internet connectivity" of hotels as: (No?) Internet connectivity (dial up) Internet connectivity (satellite) Internet connectivity (DSL) Internet connectivity (FTTH) could be meaningful, for which NANOG could act for or against it, but there can be no standard for "Internet connectivity" defined world wide, unless you accept 110bps dial up good enough. Masataka Ohta PS You can, of course, pay for private satellite connectivity at certain bps available world wide.