10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Dear NANOG@, In light of the recent discussion titled, "The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network", I'd like to point out that smaller operators and end-sites are currently very busy having and ignoring the 10 Mbit/s problem in their networks. Hotels in major metro areas, for example. Some have great connectivity (e.g. through high-capacity microwave links), and always have a latency of between 5ms and 15ms to the nearest internet exchange, and YouTube and Netflix just work, always, and nearly flawlessly, and in full HD. Others think that load-balancing 150+ rooms with Fast Ethernet and WiFi in every room, plus a couple of conference/meeting rooms (e.g. potentially more than a single /24 worth of all sorts of devices) on a couple of independent T1 and ADSL links is an acceptable practice. Yes, a T1 and an ADSL, with some kind of Layer 3 / 4 balancing! This is at a time when it would not be uncommon to travel with an Apple TV or a Roku. And then not only even YouTube and cbs.com don't work, but an average latency of above 500ms is not unusual in the evenings, and ssh is practically unusable. (Or sometimes they do the balancing wrong, and the ssh connections simply break every minute due to the broken balancer.) And this happens even with boutique hotels like the Joie de Vivre brand in the Silicon Valley (Wild Palms on El Camino Real in Sunnyvale has an absolutely horrible bandwidth even when it's half empty), or with brand-new properties like Hyatt Place in the hometown of a rather famous ILEC that has the whole town glassed up with fiber-optics (the place is less than 2 years old, and Google Maps still shows it as being constructed, yet independent T1 and ADSL links from two distinct ILECs is the only connectivity they have!). How should end-users deal with such broadband incompetence; why do local carriers allow businesses to abuse their connections and their own customers in such ways; why do the sub-contracted internet support companies design and support such broken-by-design setups? When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions? Best regards, Constantine.
"why do the sub-contracted internet support companies design and support such broken-by-design setups?" Because they don't know any better and lack the technical clue on how to implement a network that can support a hotel-full (or half-full) of people... But i'm sure they all have their MCSEs and CCNAs so they are qualified :) -mike Sent from my iPhone On Feb 9, 2013, at 19:57, "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com> wrote:
why do the sub-contracted internet support companies design and support such broken-by-design setups?
On Sat, 9 Feb 2013, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions?
Not really. Best way to improve this would probably be to get the hotel booking sites to include a separate rating for the internet connectivity. Up until then, getting Internet connectivity into a hotel is either just cost (in case they offer it for free) or probably a badly performing profit center (because as soon as they try to charge their outrageous prices I imagine take up is abysmal). If a good performing hotel actually got better rating out of having bad connectivity, and a badly performing hotel got worse rating at rating sites, then I'd imagine that more emphasis would be put on this. *But* it also requires a standard test that people can run to understand if things are bad or good. For instance, my ISP guarantees to provide 50-100 megabit/s down and 7-10 up on my 100/10 home connection to a speed test site located on neutral ground here in Sweden. So if the hotels could market themselves with some kind of lowest speed guarantee according to some standard, I believe things would improve. Especially if hotels.com (and others) had a special search item for this, where you could do a search and it would only show results for hotels that guaranteed a certain speed. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On 9 February 2013 22:59, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2013, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions?
Not really. Best way to improve this would probably be to get the hotel booking sites to include a separate rating for the internet connectivity.
Up until then, getting Internet connectivity into a hotel is either just cost (in case they offer it for free) or probably a badly performing profit center (because as soon as they try to charge their outrageous prices I imagine take up is abysmal).
If a good performing hotel actually got better rating out of having bad connectivity, and a badly performing hotel got worse rating at rating sites, then I'd imagine that more emphasis would be put on this.
*But* it also requires a standard test that people can run to understand if things are bad or good. For instance, my ISP guarantees to provide 50-100 megabit/s down and 7-10 up on my 100/10 home connection to a speed test site located on neutral ground here in Sweden.
So if the hotels could market themselves with some kind of lowest speed guarantee according to some standard, I believe things would improve. Especially if hotels.com (and others) had a special search item for this, where you could do a search and it would only show results for hotels that guaranteed a certain speed.
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. How anyone could math out that an average single-digit Mbps asymmetrical connection can be shared with 151 rooms without any kind of service degradation or outright periodic halts is rather beyond me. Out of curiosity, I've tried going onto SureWestBusiness.com web-site to see what kind of offers they provide for businesses, only to find out that business FTTH connections max out at 10Mbps down and 1Mbps up! Yeap, in a major metro area, that's definitely an ILEC for you! Anyone from SureWest to comment how come residential fibre-optic connections can have 50Mbps/50Mbps, but businesses that share their connection with several hundred residents are limited to 10Mbps down and 1Mbps up max? Why do you even need to have fibre-optics for that kind of stone-age speeds? And I thought AT&T FTTU was slow! C.
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.
Others think that load-balancing 150+ rooms with Fast Ethernet and WiFi in every room, plus a couple of conference/meeting rooms (e.g. potentially more than a single /24 worth of all sorts of devices) on a couple of independent T1 and ADSL links is an acceptable practice. Yes, a T1 and an ADSL, with some kind of Layer 3 / 4 balancing! This
Not to be pedantic, but The Last Mile Cache will actually help you to solve this problem, with a local cache server at the hotel. The hotel's ISP must participate in TLMC before they, the hotel, can have a cache server running. -- //fredan http://tlmc.fredan.se
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:08:04 +0100 From: fredrik danerklint <fredan-nanog@fredan.se> Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Not to be pedantic, but The Last Mile Cache will actually help you to solve this problem, with a local cache server at the hotel.
The hotel's ISP must participate in TLMC before they, the hotel, can have a cache server running.
And as a business traveller I want to have the ISP or Hotel cache (aka be able to read and for others to be found!) my possibly very sensitive corporate documents exactly _why_ ? The TLMC concept only has possible applications in certain residential settings. And even then it's very debatable as to how it could actually improve instead of overcomplicate and deteriorate the entire service along the route. Kind regards, JP Velders
Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network Date: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 05:07:49PM +0100 Quoting JP Velders (jpv@veldersjes.net):
Not to be pedantic, but The Last Mile Cache will actually help you to solve this problem, with a local cache server at the hotel.
And as a business traveller I want to have the ISP or Hotel cache (aka be able to read and for others to be found!) my possibly very sensitive corporate documents exactly _why_ ?
A VPN or SSH session (which is what most hotel guests traveling for work will do) won't cache at all well, so this is a very bad idea. Might improve some things, but not the really important ones. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 Thousands of days of civilians ... have produced a ... feeling for the aesthetic modules --
Not to be pedantic, but The Last Mile Cache will actually help you to solve this problem, with a local cache server at the hotel.
The hotel's ISP must participate in TLMC before they, the hotel, can have a cache server running.
And as a business traveller I want to have the ISP or Hotel cache (aka be able to read and for others to be found!) my possibly very sensitive corporate documents exactly _why_ ?
Since when have you started to publish your sensitive corporate documents on public sites, cause that's what's needed for TLMC to cache your documents in the first place. Look, If a CSP (Content Service Provider - where you host your documents) does not want to have it's content cached, they don't need too. The cache server(s) at the ISP:s around the world will then _not_ be able to cache it. The traffic will in this case, will be loaded directly from the CSP.
The TLMC concept only has possible applications in certain residential settings.
No. It will help the ISP:s to distribute their loads in their network.
And even then it's very debatable as to how it could actually improve instead of overcomplicate and deteriorate the entire service along the route.
How about those who have limited bandwidth to the Internet? Like ferries, trains, buses or satellite links... -- //fredan http://tlmc.fredan.se
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 17:33:04 +0100 From: fredrik danerklint <fredan-nanog@fredan.se> Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network
Since when have you started to publish your sensitive corporate documents on public sites, cause that's what's needed for TLMC to cache your documents in the first place.
You seem to be mistaken that any bandwidth issue will be remedied by TLMC. A significant number (well over the 50% mark I'd wager) will not be remedied. This thread was started over such a subject. The Apple TV cited as an example was an example. Travellers, be they corporate or leisure, have significant networking needs that the TLMC cannot address. Just think of "The Cloud" (yes, I'll go and flog myself for bringing it into a discussion on NANOG), where people are storing their (semi-) private documents or files - in the end it's similar to connecting back to the office to access the fileserver.
How about those who have limited bandwidth to the Internet? Like ferries, trains, buses or satellite links...
And pray tell me, why should they all have TLMC's ? If the concepts and technologies underlying "The Internet" were invented to have the same ubiquitous speed for all, I think it would have a fairly different design. Now if you're a content provider, then yes I can imagine why you'd like everybody else to pay for better ways to deliver your content without having to pay for it yourself. The examples you cite are the prime examples where users either bring their own entertainment, or it is already provided. On a long airplane flight it is quite uncommon to not have some offering with movies or audio, free or paid is outside scope since TLMC's won't be free either. After all, when I sleep or travel on the road my bandwidth use is vastly different from when at home, work or at a hotel. Within this discussion we're talking about the actual last mile. A proxy or cache won't be of any use if the users can't get to it with sufficient bandwidth to make it work anyway. Kind regards, JP Velders
You seem to be mistaken that any bandwidth issue will be remedied by TLMC. A significant number (well over the 50% mark I'd wager) will not be remedied. This thread was started over such a subject.
And to save 1 - 5 Mbit/s of this bandwidth is wrong, how?
The Apple TV cited as an example was an example.
If the TV Show/films/movies/etc.. is static content, then we should be able to cache it, at the hotel's cache server.
Travellers, be they corporate or leisure, have significant networking needs that the TLMC cannot address. Just think of "The Cloud" (yes, I'll go and flog myself for bringing it into a discussion on NANOG), where people are storing their (semi-) private documents or files - in the end it's similar to connecting back to the office to access the fileserver.
(We have 1 - 5 Mbit/s of more bandwidth for these services). What you are talking about here is dynamic content, which should not be cached at all and everyone knows this.
How about those who have limited bandwidth to the Internet? Like ferries, trains, buses or satellite links...
And pray tell me, why should they all have TLMC's ?
I'm not saying that they should have a cache server. I'm saying that they could.
Now if you're a content provider, then yes I can imagine why you'd like everybody else to pay for better ways to deliver your content without having to pay for it yourself.
It does matter how you are going to try to solve this, it is always the customer who is going to pay in the end.
Within this discussion we're talking about the actual last mile.
I call it "The Last Mile Cache", TLMC
A proxy or cache won't be of any use if the users can't get to it with sufficient bandwidth to make it work anyway.
So, as long as a user does not have enough bandwidth, they should not have a cache server on their side, correct? -- //fredan http://tlmc.fredan.se
----- Original Message -----
From: "fredrik danerklint" <fredan-nanog@fredan.se>
The Apple TV cited as an example was an example.
If the TV Show/films/movies/etc.. is static content, then we should be able to cache it, at the hotel's cache server.
Oh. *Now* I understand the problem. Do you really think that the content providers, and the delivery systems they purposefully choose for that, actually make that possible, much less practical? Even in your country, much less the countries of, um, North America? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
*Now* I understand the problem.
Do you really think that the content providers, and the delivery systems they purposefully choose for that, actually make that possible, much less practical?
(I'm not sure that I understand what you mean with that sentence). If you mean that a CSP already has an agreement with a CDN, why should they change it to something else since it works right now for them? If this is what you mean, yes the can add TLMC to their mix as well and continue with whatever they are using today for delivering their contents.
Even in your country, much less the countries of, um, North America?
I think that has more to do with the CSP since they are actual needed in the first place. After that it is the ISP, which in turns adds the possibility for a end-user/customer/residence to set-up their own cache server at home.
Cheers, -- jra
-- //fredan http://tlmc.fredan.se
Hello,
The Apple TV cited as an example was an example.
If the TV Show/films/movies/etc.. is static content, then we should be able to cache it, at the hotel's cache server.
The question is "how much it helps". Everyone can easily find that caching Google logo is possible, also some pictures from big media companies webs. Also some program updates may help. I'm not sure what will be cache hit ratio from YouTube (because of very log tail) or facebook pictures. Number of hotel guests is really limited.
How about those who have limited bandwidth to the Internet? Like ferries, trains, buses or satellite links...
And pray tell me, why should they all have TLMC's ?
I'm not saying that they should have a cache server. I'm saying that they could.
The question is: Is investment for buying TLMC and operation costs for TLMC profitable for the hotel? Seems to me like question: Is investment and operation costs for high bandwidth connection profitable for the hotel? The discussion is really about the hotel business, the best way for the community is to provide a feedback for hotel managers what is expected (for free and for the money). And, eventually, provide a kind of metric. What is really annoying, is when you pay for broken connection. Regards Michal
On 2/9/13 7:55 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Dear NANOG@,
In light of the recent discussion titled, "The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network", I'd like to point out that smaller operators and end-sites are currently very busy having and ignoring the 10 Mbit/s problem in their networks.
Hotels in major metro areas, for example. Some have great connectivity (e.g. through high-capacity microwave links), and always have a latency of between 5ms and 15ms to the nearest internet exchange, and YouTube and Netflix just work, always, and nearly flawlessly, and in full HD.
Others think that load-balancing 150+ rooms with Fast Ethernet and WiFi in every room, plus a couple of conference/meeting rooms (e.g. potentially more than a single /24 worth of all sorts of devices) on a couple of independent T1 and ADSL links is an acceptable practice. Yes, a T1 and an ADSL, with some kind of Layer 3 / 4 balancing! This is at a time when it would not be uncommon to travel with an Apple TV or a Roku. And then not only even YouTube and cbs.com don't work, but an average latency of above 500ms is not unusual in the evenings, and ssh is practically unusable. (Or sometimes they do the balancing wrong, and the ssh connections simply break every minute due to the broken balancer.)
And this happens even with boutique hotels like the Joie de Vivre brand in the Silicon Valley (Wild Palms on El Camino Real in Sunnyvale has an absolutely horrible bandwidth even when it's half empty), or with brand-new properties like Hyatt Place in the hometown of a rather famous ILEC that has the whole town glassed up with fiber-optics (the place is less than 2 years old, and Google Maps still shows it as being constructed, yet independent T1 and ADSL links from two distinct ILECs is the only connectivity they have!). Network is rather far outside the core competency of most hotel manangement corporations and REITS assuming they have any at all.
There's fairly abundant reasons reasons why they or their contractors might not be very good at it or be able to deliver a decent service at the pricepoint they have budgeted. When you consider the alternative is bringing your own (in the form of HSDPA/LTE) and that might in many cases be an order of magnitude faster, it's hard to imagine how most of them would address that in a fashion that generates in cost recovery on the service or pricing power on rooms.
How should end-users deal with such broadband incompetence; why do local carriers allow businesses to abuse their connections and their own customers in such ways; why do the sub-contracted internet support companies design and support such broken-by-design setups?
When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions?
Best regards, Constantine.
On 10 February 2013 11:02, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
On 2/9/13 7:55 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Dear NANOG@,
In light of the recent discussion titled, "The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network", I'd like to point out that smaller operators and end-sites are currently very busy having and ignoring the 10 Mbit/s problem in their networks.
Hotels in major metro areas, for example. Some have great connectivity (e.g. through high-capacity microwave links), and always have a latency of between 5ms and 15ms to the nearest internet exchange, and YouTube and Netflix just work, always, and nearly flawlessly, and in full HD.
Others think that load-balancing 150+ rooms with Fast Ethernet and WiFi in every room, plus a couple of conference/meeting rooms (e.g. potentially more than a single /24 worth of all sorts of devices) on a couple of independent T1 and ADSL links is an acceptable practice. Yes, a T1 and an ADSL, with some kind of Layer 3 / 4 balancing! This is at a time when it would not be uncommon to travel with an Apple TV or a Roku. And then not only even YouTube and cbs.com don't work, but an average latency of above 500ms is not unusual in the evenings, and ssh is practically unusable. (Or sometimes they do the balancing wrong, and the ssh connections simply break every minute due to the broken balancer.)
And this happens even with boutique hotels like the Joie de Vivre brand in the Silicon Valley (Wild Palms on El Camino Real in Sunnyvale has an absolutely horrible bandwidth even when it's half empty), or with brand-new properties like Hyatt Place in the hometown of a rather famous ILEC that has the whole town glassed up with fiber-optics (the place is less than 2 years old, and Google Maps still shows it as being constructed, yet independent T1 and ADSL links from two distinct ILECs is the only connectivity they have!).
Network is rather far outside the core competency of most hotel manangement corporations and REITS assuming they have any at all.
There's fairly abundant reasons reasons why they or their contractors might not be very good at it or be able to deliver a decent service at the pricepoint they have budgeted.
When you consider the alternative is bringing your own (in the form of HSDPA/LTE) and that might in many cases be an order of magnitude faster, it's hard to imagine how most of them would address that in a fashion that generates in cost recovery on the service or pricing power on rooms.
Well, let's do a thought experiment on cost comparison to put things into perspective. * How much do they pay for the actual pipe? * How much do they pay for the outsourced maintenance and the technical support contract? (Tech support is outsourced to New York.) * How much do they pay to an average in-house employee? * How much do they pay to receive and deliver the newspapers in the mornings to at least half the rooms? (Potentially more than 2000 copies a month at just half the rooms.) And: * How much do they charge per night per room? Then times 151, then times 31? Something along the lines of 200'000$/mo to 600'000$/mo? Unless my guesstimates are wrong, even 100$/mo for the actual pipe is completely and utterly nothing compared to all the other expenses (and the revenue), and I think their 10Mbps down / 1Mbps up fibre-optic (or ADSL?) connection from SureWest Business is even cheaper than that (although their AT&T T1 is probably not, but then it's still rather unclear why they even need to load-balance 151 rooms over a T1 in a brand-new building in a major metro area in California in 2013 anyways). Even at 500$/mo for the pipe it would still be SEVERAL TIMES cheaper than delivering the daily newspaper to every guest every morning alone. Even with just a couple of speed-related tech-support calls per month, it might still be cheaper to upgrade to a better pipe than to have the guests needing to call the support and being inconvenienced with even a very slight likelihood of not returning. Besides, why would leisure and business travellers need a complementary newspaper in the morning, but would be OK with 200ms average latency and 300ms std-dev / jitter, and not being able to watch YouTube, video conference or work remotely comfortably, is something that I'm yet to comprehend. Yet the local management of the hotel thinks that there's no problem. "Internet works." "It's been fixed." "We've fixed your internet, sir -- the system has been rebooted; please check again in a few minutes." "Yes, sir, some customers occasionally do complain that the video streaming doesn't work; but most people just check their email, and it works." "Sir, I personally do have a 30Mbps connection at home, but here at our hotel 10Mbps (+ 1.5Mbps) is shared between 151 suites; what's your problem again, sir?" I think it is honestly laughable that they must be spending about 3$/day (the price of coffee at some Starbucks locations) for their actual internet pipe for the whole hotel. Also, do people really think that a 10/1 connection is still a 10/1 "broadband" even when shared with hundreds of folks? Best regards, Constantine.
How should end-users deal with such broadband incompetence; why do local carriers allow businesses to abuse their connections and their own customers in such ways; why do the sub-contracted internet support companies design and support such broken-by-design setups?
When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions?
Best regards, Constantine.
When staying at Homestead a few years back, they would close my Internet connection, because I was downloading movies via peer to peer. It took me a while and escalating to a relatively competent network engineer to figure it out: "Mate, I don't have any p2p software installed, may be my computer is hacked, tell me what traffic you see that triggers your system, so I can investigate". I came down that they did not like my Skype trying to re-establish connections with contacts in Asia/Pacific (where I lived then), instead of the USA. I also organized conferences, and putting more than 20 people (with various OS/hacked machines) on the same access point, is not standard operations as in a company, you need some experience with that, something that some ISPs (who were sponsoring the Internet) failed to understand. On 2/9/13 7:55 PM, "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear NANOG@,
In light of the recent discussion titled, "The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network", I'd like to point out that smaller operators and end-sites are currently very busy having and ignoring the 10 Mbit/s problem in their networks.
Hotels in major metro areas, for example. Some have great connectivity (e.g. through high-capacity microwave links), and always have a latency of between 5ms and 15ms to the nearest internet exchange, and YouTube and Netflix just work, always, and nearly flawlessly, and in full HD.
Others think that load-balancing 150+ rooms with Fast Ethernet and WiFi in every room, plus a couple of conference/meeting rooms (e.g. potentially more than a single /24 worth of all sorts of devices) on a couple of independent T1 and ADSL links is an acceptable practice. Yes, a T1 and an ADSL, with some kind of Layer 3 / 4 balancing! This is at a time when it would not be uncommon to travel with an Apple TV or a Roku. And then not only even YouTube and cbs.com don't work, but an average latency of above 500ms is not unusual in the evenings, and ssh is practically unusable. (Or sometimes they do the balancing wrong, and the ssh connections simply break every minute due to the broken balancer.)
And this happens even with boutique hotels like the Joie de Vivre brand in the Silicon Valley (Wild Palms on El Camino Real in Sunnyvale has an absolutely horrible bandwidth even when it's half empty), or with brand-new properties like Hyatt Place in the hometown of a rather famous ILEC that has the whole town glassed up with fiber-optics (the place is less than 2 years old, and Google Maps still shows it as being constructed, yet independent T1 and ADSL links from two distinct ILECs is the only connectivity they have!).
How should end-users deal with such broadband incompetence; why do local carriers allow businesses to abuse their connections and their own customers in such ways; why do the sub-contracted internet support companies design and support such broken-by-design setups?
When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions?
Best regards, Constantine.
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 07:55:59PM -0800, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Dear NANOG@,
In light of the recent discussion titled, "The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network", I'd like to point out that smaller operators and end-sites are currently very busy having and ignoring the 10 Mbit/s problem in their networks.
When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions?
If you don't like it, let them know, and stop providing them with your business. Money talks. They'll either decide they need to invest in good Internet, or they'll decide that for their customer demographic it just isn't worth it. I personally think you're being unreasonable on the bandwidth and latency expectations, Hotel Internet connections are there as a convenience rather than some kind of business grade connection. If you are expecting a top quality connection, expect to pay by the GB - so that greedy patrons watching Netflix HD pay for their bandwidth. Broken SSH connections would annoy me though. Graham.
On 2/11/13, Graham Donaldson <graham@airstripone.org.uk> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 07:55:59PM -0800, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: I personally think you're being unreasonable on the bandwidth and latency expectations, Hotel Internet connections are there as a convenience rather than some kind of business grade connection.
Hey, the name business grade connection is prejudiced, as if to imply, that only businesses get it. I think the expectation from a visitor, is only, that their internet experience will be comparable to their home cable/dsl internet. If it's not... that's fine, but they should provide disclosure of that, whenever mentioning the feature, before a reservation could be made. Of course there can be no worldwide standard, but there should be a standard, based on what is normal in the country. If the advertising tells you, that the room has electric lights, air conditioning, and cable tv; you don't want to see a room that just has a 9 volt battery, a little LED lamp, as your light source -- a portable battery powered fan. And a single shared television in the lobby, plugged into a cable provider that charges a per-minute fee to visitors wishing to see anything other than channel 3.
Graham. -- -JH
On 02/09/2013 07:55 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions?
Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel. For many reasons: - internet connectivity at a hotel is just another free amenity like after shyave or a hair net, be glad you can at least check your email :-) - a hotel room is (should be) used for sleeping, having sex, watching the tv idly, not for work (except emergencies and the likes), even when you're on a work trip. Use an actual office for work. - such internet connectivity doesn't exist to begin with for the average consumer in the USA Granted if a hotel markets itself as a business hotel in a business area it should include at least half decent internet connectivity, otherwise forget it and be glad you can spend some time away from the hedonistic attractions of "the net". Greetings, Jeroen -- Earthquake Magnitude: 4.2 Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 22:33:45 UTC Location: Gulf of Alaska Latitude: 59.6203; Longitude: -142.6829 Depth: 1.00 km
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:18 -0800, Jeroen van Aart said:
Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel.
The part that always puzzled me is why a major high-tier chain like Hilton can't get it right, but a Motel 6 can... :)
Ironically, I suspect that it's for the same reason that East Germany has right up to the minute telephony services these days, while West German is still sucking hind tit: The big properties are, over all, likely to skew somewhat older in building construction, and because of that, they're not built/wired for the internal transport; too much rebar in the walls blocking wifi and stuff like that. Plus they have more corporate inertia in actually getting it done. Or, they just don't care. They don't have to. They're... oh, nevermind. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On Feb 26, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:18 -0800, Jeroen van Aart said:
Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel.
The part that always puzzled me is why a major high-tier chain like Hilton can't get it right, but a Motel 6 can... :)
Ironically, I suspect that it's for the same reason that East Germany has right up to the minute telephony services these days, while West German is still sucking hind tit:
The big properties are, over all, likely to skew somewhat older in building construction, and because of that, they're not built/wired for the internal transport; too much rebar in the walls blocking wifi and stuff like that.
In fact, many of the hotels that have solved this intelligently have simply placed DSLAMs in the phone room and run DSL to each room with a relatively inexpensive (especially when you buy 500 of them at a time) DSL modem in each room. Some also have wifi, some have wifi in the room from the DSL modem, but in most cases, these have been among the best functioning solutions in some of the larger properties.
Plus they have more corporate inertia in actually getting it done.
Hyatt does a consistently better job of this than Hilton in my experience. Same with Motel 6. I would expect them to have roughly equivalent corporate inertia.
Or, they just don't care. They don't have to. They're... oh, never mind.
I think this is the larger factor, yes. Owen
---- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
[ quoting me ]
Ironically, I suspect that it's for the same reason that East Germany has right up to the minute telephony services these days, while West German is still sucking hind tit:
The big properties are, over all, likely to skew somewhat older in building construction, and because of that, they're not built/wired for the internal transport; too much rebar in the walls blocking wifi and stuff like that.
A comment off list pointed out to me that sometimes, it's the reverse: The property jumped on-board in the late nineties, putting in a system worthy of the next decade... and has never updated it, cause it's "good enough". Cheers, -- jr 'sorry to hijack your post to quote myself, Owen' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On 26 February 2013 20:03, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
---- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
[ quoting me ]
Ironically, I suspect that it's for the same reason that East Germany has right up to the minute telephony services these days, while West German is still sucking hind tit:
The big properties are, over all, likely to skew somewhat older in building construction, and because of that, they're not built/wired for the internal transport; too much rebar in the walls blocking wifi and stuff like that.
A comment off list pointed out to me that sometimes, it's the reverse:
The property jumped on-board in the late nineties, putting in a system worthy of the next decade...
and has never updated it, cause it's "good enough".
Brand new Hyatt Place in NorCal, less than 2 years old, Fast Ethernet in every room: This is a smokeping of their SureWest (ADSL or FFTH) connection, all within NorCal, ~20ms latency on a good millisecond: http://www.dslreports.com/r3/smokeping.cgi?target=network.9b37669cada3f00d34... (half-second latency is common, above 1s latency is not unheard of) This is a smokeping of their AT&T (T1?), which seems to be only marginally better, but on a good millisecond, it's only 10ms: http://www.dslreports.com/r3/smokeping.cgi?target=network.bb79d93501996d8896... Time on the graph is in dslr timezone (ET), not in hotel's time (PT), but the trends are pretty obvious. Now. Good luck typing and then editing that that rm -rf in your ssh! Or picking up that conference call through a VPN. C.
The property jumped on-board in the late nineties, putting in a system worthy of the next decade...
and has never updated it, cause it's "good enough".
This is more likely the root cause of this particular problemŠyou see a lot of crufty old access points in the big chains, at least in hotels that bought into wifi in the late 90's or early 2000's. These things are not optimized to their environments, and the environments they have to work in are pretty sucky for el-cheapo 2.4GHz radios to work in. I'm a Marriott fan, having spent at least 150 nights a year in the past three years under their sheets, and their Internet offerings range from pretty darned good (Marriott Alpharetta, newish, built in '08 or '09) to downright awful (Marriott IAD, I'm looking in your directionŠ) The correlation between "downright awful" and "installed early on in the cycle" is strong. Like others mention, I carry around a lightweight, portable, doesn't-take-up-much-space, was-ridiculously-cheap-at-a-Target-in-Chicago access point that I use when hotel wifi isn't up to snuff (Residence Inn North Loop, I'm looking in your directionŠ) -- it's cheap and easy and lets me get MLB TV on the iPad while on the road with little interruption. The point, which I've wandered away from a bit, is that a lot of these chains probably have put the wifi and network infrastructure on a ten year amortization schedule, and it's only recently wound down to $0. Hopefully that means they're going to start investing in new kit and generally improving stuff. My .02c-worth, -c On 26-02-2013 11:03 PM, "Jay Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
---- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
[ quoting me ]
Ironically, I suspect that it's for the same reason that East Germany has right up to the minute telephony services these days, while West German is still sucking hind tit:
The big properties are, over all, likely to skew somewhat older in building construction, and because of that, they're not built/wired for the internal transport; too much rebar in the walls blocking wifi and stuff like that.
A comment off list pointed out to me that sometimes, it's the reverse:
The property jumped on-board in the late nineties, putting in a system worthy of the next decade...
and has never updated it, cause it's "good enough".
Cheers, -- jr 'sorry to hijack your post to quote myself, Owen' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On 2/26/2013 10:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
In fact, many of the hotels that have solved this intelligently have simply placed DSLAMs in the phone room and run DSL to each room with a relatively inexpensive (especially when you buy 500 of them at a time) DSL modem in each room. Some also have wifi, some have wifi in the room from the DSL modem, but in most cases, these have been among the best functioning solutions in some of the larger properties.
While other more brain-dead properties are streaming their TV content over wireless (have seen this more than once)... Jeff
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:58 PM, Owen DeLong <mailto:owen@delong.com> wrote:
In fact, many of the hotels that have solved this intelligently have simply placed DSLAMs in the phone room and run DSL to each room with a relatively inexpensive (especially when you buy 500 of them at a time) DSL modem in each room.
...or more likely (at least in my own probably limited experience), a CMTS and cable modems instead of a DSLAM and DSL modems. Probably because so many of these hotels have an existing digital PBX system that drives all the phones in the rooms which isn't going to take very kindly to sharing its copper with a DSLAM, and because they already have coax run throughout the place to drive the televisions. Easier to share the existing coax with a CMTS than it is to stretch a bunch of new telephone wire dedicated just to DSL; I mean, at that point, you might as well just pull some Ethernet. -- Nathan Anderson First Step Internet, LLC nathana@fsr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Anderson" <nathana@fsr.com>
In fact, many of the hotels that have solved this intelligently have simply placed DSLAMs in the phone room and run DSL to each room with a relatively inexpensive (especially when you buy 500 of them at a time) DSL modem in each room.
...or more likely (at least in my own probably limited experience), a CMTS and cable modems instead of a DSLAM and DSL modems.
I don't spend a lot of time in a lot of hotels, but every hardwire I have seen with my own personal eyeballs was indeed DSL. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On 2/26/2013 11:35 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I don't spend a lot of time in a lot of hotels, but every hardwire I have seen with my own personal eyeballs was indeed DSL. Cheers, -- jra
Hrmm... Ramada Inn, Okaloosa Island resort outside Fort Walton Beach (kinda your neighborhood Jay) two years ago had Cisco LRE boxes in the room for wired connectivity (no wireless when I was there). And lots of actual ethernet elsewhere. Jeff
On Feb 26, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Nathan Anderson <nathana@fsr.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:58 PM, Owen DeLong <mailto:owen@delong.com> wrote:
In fact, many of the hotels that have solved this intelligently have simply placed DSLAMs in the phone room and run DSL to each room with a relatively inexpensive (especially when you buy 500 of them at a time) DSL modem in each room.
...or more likely (at least in my own probably limited experience), a CMTS and cable modems instead of a DSLAM and DSL modems. Probably because so many of these hotels have an existing digital PBX system that drives all the phones in the rooms which isn't going to take very kindly to sharing its copper with a DSLAM, and because they already have coax run throughout the place to drive the televisions. Easier to share the existing coax with a CMTS than it is to stretch a bunch of new telephone wire dedicated just to DSL; I mean, at that point, you might as well just pull some Ethernet.
I haven't encountered many CMTS-based systems in hotels where I've stayed (and I stay in quite a few every year). In most cases, the digital phone system uses 1 pair of the 2-pair wiring and the DSL modem uses the other pair. Owen
--- On Tue, 2/26/13, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network To: "Jeroen van Aart" <jeroen@mompl.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013, 6:30 PM On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:18 -0800, Jeroen van Aart said:
Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel.
The part that always puzzled me is why a major high-tier chain like Hilton can't get it right, but a Motel 6 can... :)
...sure they can but don't want to because *customers* will still come! Motel 6 on the otherhand, does not have that cachet and have to try-harder! Just Economics; nothing personal...;-) ./Randy
And the fact that a motel 6 is generally owned by a private owner, versus big box chains that are massively corporate. As Internet is free, it's a it a concern to them. The little guy has to Try harder, which leads to generally a better service.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
-------- Original message -------- From: Randy <randy_94108@yahoo.com> Date: 02/26/2013 6:56 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net>,Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network --- On Tue, 2/26/13, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network To: "Jeroen van Aart" <jeroen@mompl.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013, 6:30 PM On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:18 -0800, Jeroen van Aart said:
Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel.
The part that always puzzled me is why a major high-tier chain like Hilton can't get it right, but a Motel 6 can... :)
...sure they can but don't want to because *customers* will still come! Motel 6 on the otherhand, does not have that cachet and have to try-harder! Just Economics; nothing personal...;-) ./Randy
The reason is Hilton outsources it to AT&T. They don't build the networks for performance in my experience. I have started to avoid some hotels that moved from level3 to AT&T for their Internet providers as they are very slow at peak times. Sad as we all know the main cost for 1g to a site is in the optics (well actually the fiber build... But after that, it costs almost nothing to light it at 1g). A pair of 20km optics is about $250. Not sure why they deliver such poor service on their wifi products. When talking to their support they always cite extraordinary usage. Jared Mauch On Feb 26, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:18 -0800, Jeroen van Aart said:
Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel.
The part that always puzzled me is why a major high-tier chain like Hilton can't get it right, but a Motel 6 can... :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>
Sad as we all know the main cost for 1g to a site is in the optics (well actually the fiber build... But after that, it costs almost nothing to light it at 1g). A pair of 20km optics is about $250.
I see that assertion a lot, and I want to correct it. The major cost, MRC, is *the router port*; I don't know what the 95%ile BW for a major hotel is going to be over a month, but I suspect that you're gonna need the whole 1Gb/s worth of port to handle the peaks. And those aren't exactly cheap -- though, by "daily commercial hotel revenue" standards, I suppose they're not *that* expensive; what kind of margins do hotels make? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On Feb 27, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>
Sad as we all know the main cost for 1g to a site is in the optics (well actually the fiber build... But after that, it costs almost nothing to light it at 1g). A pair of 20km optics is about $250.
I see that assertion a lot, and I want to correct it.
The major cost, MRC, is *the router port*; I don't know what the 95%ile BW for a major hotel is going to be over a month, but I suspect that you're gonna need the whole 1Gb/s worth of port to handle the peaks.
And those aren't exactly cheap -- though, by "daily commercial hotel revenue" standards, I suppose they're not *that* expensive; what kind of margins do hotels make?
Actually, local loop usually exceeds router port. If you're at one of the data centers where we have presence, I can sell you a dual-stack Gig for <$1/Mbps. OTOH, getting a Gig-E to the datacenter from the hotel and then the additional cost of the XC are probably more than $1,000/month when combined. Possibly by some multiplier ≥2. Owen
On 27 February 2013 11:47, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Feb 27, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jared Mauch" <jared@puck.nether.net>
Sad as we all know the main cost for 1g to a site is in the optics (well actually the fiber build... But after that, it costs almost nothing to light it at 1g). A pair of 20km optics is about $250.
I see that assertion a lot, and I want to correct it.
The major cost, MRC, is *the router port*; I don't know what the 95%ile BW for a major hotel is going to be over a month, but I suspect that you're gonna need the whole 1Gb/s worth of port to handle the peaks.
And those aren't exactly cheap -- though, by "daily commercial hotel revenue" standards, I suppose they're not *that* expensive; what kind of margins do hotels make?
Actually, local loop usually exceeds router port.
If you're at one of the data centers where we have presence, I can sell you a dual-stack Gig for <$1/Mbps.
OTOH, getting a Gig-E to the datacenter from the hotel and then the additional cost of the XC are probably more than $1,000/month when combined. Possibly by some multiplier ≥2.
Owen
I'm not sure how you've arrived at such an assertion. I thought 20$/mo (or even below) was more like the cost of an FTTU pipe; lighting at dedicated GigE would probably bring it higher, but (prior to XC) the cost should still be comparable. Also, how about microwave links? Webpass.net seems to have some nice offerings for residential buildings in SF Bay; it would seem like their technology might be perfect for the hotel sector, too. Also, even at $2,000/month -- wouldn't this still be several times cheaper than what they pay for newspaper delivery to every room? Oh, I get it, business people require their morning newspaper, but inet, ehh -- only the kids need the internet! C.
On 2/27/13 6:26 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
The reason is Hilton outsources it to AT&T. They don't build the networks for performance in my experience. I have started to avoid some hotels that moved from level3 to AT&T for their Internet providers as they are very slow at peak times.
Sad as we all know the main cost for 1g to a site is in the optics (well actually the fiber build... But after that, it costs almost nothing to light it at 1g). A pair of 20km optics is about $250. These manangement companies have been minimizing their cap/opex from fall 2007 through the end of 2011. They're still not spending on stuff unless it reduces their cost. Not sure why they deliver such poor service on their wifi products. When talking to their support they always cite extraordinary usage.
Jared Mauch
On Feb 26, 2013, at 9:30 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:45:18 -0800, Jeroen van Aart said:
Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel. The part that always puzzled me is why a major high-tier chain like Hilton can't get it right, but a Motel 6 can... :)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeroen van Aart" <jeroen@mompl.net>
- internet connectivity at a hotel is just another free amenity like after shyave or a hair net, be glad you can at least check your email :-)
It is like hell. It is very often not one paid, but *unreasonably* expensive ($5-10 a *day*). If you don't know this, it's because you either 1) never looked, 2) were always in hotels on group rates where free access was negotiated in the contract or 3) were very very lucky.
Granted if a hotel markets itself as a business hotel in a business area it should include at least half decent internet connectivity, otherwise forget it and be glad you can spend some time away from the hedonistic attractions of "the net".
One word: "Conventions". No, it really *isn't* acceptable for a hotel not to have decent connectivity these days; would you tolerate a hotel where the power went out from 8-midnight every day? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Clearly a person making a comment about high speed Internet not being important in hotel rooms has not tried to stream the type of entertainment generally viewed in a hotel room. You view a "movie" that buffers every 10 seconds, it has a fantastic way of killing the moment.. ;)
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
-------- Original message -------- From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> Date: 02/26/2013 6:47 PM (GMT-08:00) To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: 10 Mbit/s problem in your network ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeroen van Aart" <jeroen@mompl.net>
- internet connectivity at a hotel is just another free amenity like after shyave or a hair net, be glad you can at least check your email :-)
It is like hell. It is very often not one paid, but *unreasonably* expensive ($5-10 a *day*). If you don't know this, it's because you either 1) never looked, 2) were always in hotels on group rates where free access was negotiated in the contract or 3) were very very lucky.
Granted if a hotel markets itself as a business hotel in a business area it should include at least half decent internet connectivity, otherwise forget it and be glad you can spend some time away from the hedonistic attractions of "the net".
One word: "Conventions". No, it really *isn't* acceptable for a hotel not to have decent connectivity these days; would you tolerate a hotel where the power went out from 8-midnight every day? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On Feb 26, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net> wrote:
On 02/09/2013 07:55 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
When you are staying at a 3* hotel, should you have no expectations that you'll be getting at least a 3Mbps pipe and at least an under 100ms average latency, and won't be getting a balancer that would be breaking up your ssh sessions?
Correct, one should not have expectations of fast reliable internet with low latency in a hotel.
For many reasons:
- internet connectivity at a hotel is just another free amenity like after shyave or a hair net, be glad you can at least check your email :-)
This argument fails when compared to my real world observations. In general, my experience has been that the hotels that offer wifi as a free amenity have relatively uncomplicated systems, you get a password (if one is required at all) when you check in or when you ask for it and it just works. In contrast, the more expensive hotels that charge have elaborate systems designed to make sure they can capture that revenue and that nobody gets on without paying. These systems are often poorly implemented, poorly managed and extremely prone to various forms of failure resulting in a loss of connectivity. The people at the other end of the phone when one calls about such problems tend to think nothing of rebooting WAPs, etc. in order to try and "shotgun" the user's problem, creating a multitude of additional failures for all the other users.
- a hotel room is (should be) used for sleeping, having sex, watching the tv idly, not for work (except emergencies and the likes), even when you're on a work trip. Use an actual office for work.
This is a rather arrogant value judgment for you to think that you have a right to inflict on everyone else.
- such internet connectivity doesn't exist to begin with for the average consumer in the USA
I'm not sure I go quite that far, but, yes, it is not uncommon for people to have less than this level of connectivity in their residential environments in the US.
Granted if a hotel markets itself as a business hotel in a business area it should include at least half decent internet connectivity, otherwise forget it and be glad you can spend some time away from the hedonistic attractions of "the net".
Yet my experience has been that to a large extent, the reverse is true. I am more likely to get better internet connectivity from a low-budget tourist motel in a tourist area than from a "business hotel" in a business area. Hilton owned properties are among the worst in this respect and my recent experience at the Hilton LAX has confirmed that they haven't gotten any better. Owen
participants (23)
-
Chris Hindy -
Constantine A. Murenin -
Franck Martin -
fredrik danerklint -
Graham Donaldson -
James Cloos -
Jared Mauch -
Jay Ashworth -
Jeff Kell -
Jeroen van Aart -
Jimmy Hess -
joel jaeggli -
JP Velders -
Masataka Ohta -
Michal Krsek -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Mike Lyon -
Måns Nilsson -
Nathan Anderson -
Owen DeLong -
Randy -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
Warren Bailey