Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jelv]

[Moderator note: This post and those that follow have been split off to create a separate topic, at Weaver's request.]

Have you looked in to Starlink? I can't see you ever getting a reliable service through land lines.

[jelv]

Starlink should give you 50 to 150 megabits per second and latency from 20 to 40 milliseconds, but that is likely to improve as more satellites are launched.

Edit: Reading their FAQ (https://www.starlink.com/faq) there's an app you can download to assess the field of view where you intend to install the dish.

[burakkucat]

As I can't see a fibre link being provisioned to "The Weaving Shed" by this time next Thursday, I keep coming back to the LEO satellite option . . . As suggested by jelv, earlier in this thread.

[jelv]

As I can't see a fibre link being provisioned to "The Weaving Shed" by this time next Thursday,

Or even the next 100 Thursdays!

I wondered if there are a number of others in the area who would also like much better speeds and perhaps the threat of a mass defection might push OpenReach in to a more sustainable solution?

[meritez]

Have you looked in to Starlink? I can't see you ever getting a reliable service through land lines.

Looks really good for a rural option https://mobile.twitter.com/hazardontrack/status/1373702159695552513

[Moderator edited to remove an error message.]

Tweets from a starlink beta user above, speed tests look incredible

[Weaver]

Moderators, could we split this last portion of the thread off? re Starlink

[jelv]

I can see a downside if Weaver went to Starlink.

There will people on here who will currently take some consolation from reading his posts and thinking "well at least my service isn't as bad as his"!

[meritez]

I can see a downside if Weaver went to Starlink.

There will people on here who will currently take some consolation from reading his posts and thinking "well at least my service isn't as bad as his"!

Huge savings though instead of paying for 4 lines.

[bkehoe]

Should be almost half the price for a vastly superior service, no? Plus no myriad of potential points of failure.

[Ronski]

I'd be surprised if Weaver went for this, I think he's too attached / reliant on A&A, but his wife and her customers would certainly benefit.

Mind you he could still use A&A over the link, just the speed would be limited to 100Mbps, which is still a vast improvement.

[Weaver]

I could indeed use this with L2TP, as Ronski points out.

[Ronski]

You could even split your stuff off over L2TP, and the holiday guest's could be separated and not use the L2TP connection, effectively two separate networks over the same connection.

[Weaver]

We were thinking about providing a service to guests way back in 2011, which is one reason why I budgeted ly for a /26 not a /27 and so asked AA for the upgrade, filled out the form with our plans. The plan of providing this service to guests never happened though. I became a lot more ill and Janet decided rightly that she wasn’t going to make any money out of providing this service, but rather in fact just lose a lot of money and we have excellent 4G anyway.

[niemand]

If you go the L2TP route worth confirming with A&A that you can carry the subnet over. As you've already completed a form they should really have rejected and their handing out /27s without one was dicey you'll probably be fine.

New L2TP customers can only have a single IPv4 address.

[Weaver]

  FYI We weren't lying to anyone; those genuinely were our plans back in c. 2011. We wanted enough space back then for our own machines, for a DHCP pool for our own personal visitors, one for a a tenant and his machines and for b&b guests, so 32 IPs was limiting, and renumbering would be required for growth. And AA believed "NAT was evil ;-)". So we asked AA if we could have a /26 instead of a /27, going up from the then current /28, and they said yes. And it was FOC. Which is superb.