Basically, i'm just wondering if this is good for redundancy and also if this good value wise. I'm looking to spend a total of about $35/mbit for all 3 providers (one could be $30/mbit and the other $40/mbit). Let me know your opinions on this. Thank you
*NOTE: I am not looking for offers from resellers of these providers or from the provider itself...
Okay, I take that back after looking at more recent pricing. Looks like L3 is about $45/Mbit at 100Mbit. At 150Mbit or 200Mbit they will probably be in that price range. Still, that is a lot of monthly cost, especially if you're going redundant.
Paul, you are right... all of the carriers seem a bit desperate right now. I asked for what I thought would be a sure-fire "no" with AboveNet on our latest upgrade and they gave me exactly what I asked for. We are way below list at this point, and "list" isn't what I'd consider expensive.
Erica Douglass, Founder, Simpli Hosting, Inc.
»»» I founded Simpli Hosting, and sold it in 2007 to Silicon Valley Web Hosting after over 6 years in the business.
Now I'm blogging at erica.biz!
As far as whether or not those are good providers to go with, it might be wise to do some research on the nature of flows that your traffic takes to determine which bandwidth to choose. Granted all three will give you good views of the Internet and hopefully 300Mbit of aggregate bandwidth will suffice for your needs, but traffic engineering and research is always a good place to start for choosing upstreams.
I agree with the consensus that bandwidth is cheap to come by tho -- so have fun getting the best pricing
We have heard for 5 years that the price of bandwidth is going up, and it may someday. The best way to assure you arent caught paying a higher rate when you need more is to put it in your initial contract. If you buy 20 Mbps, make them put in comments that you can upgrade to 100Mbps for $X, or GigE at $X. If the price goes down you can always negotiate down.
Too many companies price aggressively to get you in, then punish you for your growth. As stated earlier, carriers are getting aggressive. Make sure they stay that way.
In my experience, long-term transit contracts have almost always been a mistake. All too often, folks will sign a 3 year term on such services because management sees a 10% savings over the contract term to be beneficial. That's all good and well in a stable market, but in our business you can lock yourself into high pricing that makes it difficult for you to compete. Just the same, the <= $50/Mb low-commit pricing could evaporate by next year, and if so, it'll leave some companies with term commitments in an advantageous position, while others would have to negotiate new contracts.
Like I said, though, I've been buying these services since 1996 and I've never wished I had signed the 2 or 3 year agreement instead of the 1 year term.
Originally posted by jsw6 Qwest, Broadwing, and Time Warner sound like cheap choices made by management based on low commitments and high local loop costs from carriers who don't have fiber in-building.
From what I've read about Qwest, Broadwing on the forums: the customer service isn't great, but the bandwidth is ok. Also, that Qwest, Broadwing are Tier 1 and TW isn't.
Any reason I should be concerned about this mix as a colo client?
check out gnax.com ... they don't have level3 by the way...
P4HOST.COM -- Specialize in quality Web Hosting solutions.
Affordable -- Prices are very comparative
Reliable -- Very low load average guaranteed. 60 day money back. Fast Support --Support Forum -- Providing hosting since 2003
Originally posted by systame
Hmmm...seems to be some controversy on this. I'm kinda new to this so don't know what to believe.
There is no controversy. Broadwing buys transit from Sprint. Tier-1 has always meant that you are transit-free, which mandates that you must peer with all other transit-free networks to achieve global reachability. Broadwing is not transit-free today, and unless someone acquires them, they never will be.
Tier-1 does indeed mean transit-free. Up-start transit networks have attempted to blur the line through marketing over the past several years, but since the early days of the Internet days it has been an indication of your distance from a transit-free backbone.
Let's look at it another way. Forrester Research defines tier-1 as owning enough facilities to reach 90% of the potential customers in an operating area. The article you reference provides no additional detail, yet shows AT&T as a tier-1 carrier. Does AT&T own copper to the home? Of course they don't. Is there any tier-1 provider in Pennsylvania? So much telephone service in PA is provided by independent LECs that no one can directly access 90% of the market.
What folks care about when they ask if a transit provider is "tier-1", whether or not they are educated enough to know it, is if they rely on any other network for transit, and if so, who and how heavily do they depend on those transit providers. Scroll up to see the answer I've provided.
Almost everyone relies on someone else for their transit of data, physical connections, etc. i seriously doubt at&t owns every piece of fiber on its network, and i'm sure most of the rest of them don't either yet they call themselves tier-1 which is a misconception