ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services
-
My ISP is a local deal, well-known for protecting privacy, and run by an absolute nerd (in the best way possible, also outspoken about privacy, FOSS, and other such things). Their customer service is second-to-none; I had an issue with my static IP a couple years back, and had an actual engineer on the line within a few hours. On a weekend.
It's XMission. I dropped Comcast for them once they were in my area. Comcast can climb up a cactus.
I’m jealous. Xmission is all around me but not in my area. Luckily I have another local ISP (and not Comcast) but they want $10 a month for a static IP.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
Starlink gives me an ipv6 its not static as such but a dynamic DNS can solve that issue. My ISP issue is that my mobile provider doesn't give me an ipv6 at all so I can't route to my home server without a gateway to proxy.
-
My ISP is a local deal, well-known for protecting privacy, and run by an absolute nerd (in the best way possible, also outspoken about privacy, FOSS, and other such things). Their customer service is second-to-none; I had an issue with my static IP a couple years back, and had an actual engineer on the line within a few hours. On a weekend.
It's XMission. I dropped Comcast for them once they were in my area. Comcast can climb up a cactus.
Pete Ashdown's a badass. Big up XMission.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Asymmetric bandwidth is literally designed to ensure you remain a consumer and is actively inhibiting the collaborative, communal web utopia we were told was going to be the future.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
My dynamic IPv6 prefix hasn't changed in a couple of years. It only changed because I reset the router config and that changed my DUID. That's good enough for everything I host. I don't even bother with dynamic DNS anymore.
I wouldn't bother with trying to host an email server from a residential connection though. Even if you can get your ISP to open port 25 for you, many email servers won't accept mail from residential IP addresses.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]IPv6 costs money to implement so it doesn't happen without good reason.
For ISPs you need many options so that one company can't take all the business. In my area competition is steep so fiber is cheap. In rural areas I'm personally interested in community or small ISPs. Surely some people could get together and make something better.
-
Starlink gives me an ipv6 its not static as such but a dynamic DNS can solve that issue. My ISP issue is that my mobile provider doesn't give me an ipv6 at all so I can't route to my home server without a gateway to proxy.
Starlink is worse that many other options. I would avoid it if you can.
-
Asymmetric bandwidth is literally designed to ensure you remain a consumer and is actively inhibiting the collaborative, communal web utopia we were told was going to be the future.
I think really it's designed because you're a consumer. Most people consume far more bandwidth than they upload, so asymmetry is more efficient.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
If you only care about having a static IPv6 address take a look at TunnelBroker by Hurricane Electric. They give you free /48 IPv6 blocks tunnelled through their network. Words of warning though: 1) some ISPs block using this service (prevent the tunnel from working), 2) in my experience I’ve seen high latency due to weird routing, 3) those IPs ending up on blocklists due to abuse and 4) the tunnel is unencrypted so traffic between you and Hurricane Electric is trivially intercepted, though if that was a problem in the first place then you wouldn’t be hosting from your home network anyway so this is mostly moot.
-
I think really it's designed because you're a consumer. Most people consume far more bandwidth than they upload, so asymmetry is more efficient.
is that because asymmetry is the norm due to these ISPs' practices or because people just don't upload things often as a common behavior?
i recall a lot of my peers hosting mail and web servers among other things when broadband started to become more common, before they started blocking common ports as "security" and "antivirus" measures designed to extract more money from you.
-
Starlink is worse that many other options. I would avoid it if you can.
Except I'm in rural Australia. Star link is objectively the best option.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
Huh????
Honestly I don't see your problem, a nuance? Sure! An unsolvable problem? For sure not.
If you want to have your system reachable from the Wan then you will need a domain name. If you have a domain name then it is needed to be resolved by a dns server.
If there is a dns resolver then you would able to update it dynamically every time your ip changes.
True that the time alive of the dns records must be low enough to ensure that an ip change does not let your system down for an unacceptable amount of time.
-
is that because asymmetry is the norm due to these ISPs' practices or because people just don't upload things often as a common behavior?
i recall a lot of my peers hosting mail and web servers among other things when broadband started to become more common, before they started blocking common ports as "security" and "antivirus" measures designed to extract more money from you.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]For shared lines like cable and wireless it is often asymmetrical so that everyone gets better speeds, not so they can hold you back.
For wireless service providers for instance let's say you have 20 customers on a single access point. Like a walkie-talkie you can't both transmit and receive at the same time, and no two customers can be transmitting at the same time either.
So to get around this problem TDMA (time division multiple access) is used. Basically time is split into slices and each user is given a certain percentage of those slices.
Since the AP is transmitting to everyone it usually gets the bulk of the slices like 60+%. This is the shared download speed for everyone in the network.
Most users don't really upload much so giving the user radios equal slices to the AP would be a massive waste of air time, and since there are 20 customers on this theoretical AP every 1mbit cut off of each users upload speed is 20mbit added to the total download capability for anyone downloading on that AP.
So let's say we have APs/clients capable of 1000mbit. With 20 users and 1AP if we wanted symmetrical speeds we need 40 equal slots, 20 slots on the AP one for each user to download and 1 slot for each user to upload back. Every user gets 25mbit download and 25mbit upload.
Contrast that to asymmetrical. Let's say we do a 80/20 AP/client airtime split. We end up with 800mbit shared download amongst everyone and 10mbit upload per user.
In the worst case scenario every user is downloading at the same time meaning you get about 40mbit of that 800, still quite the improvement over 25mbit and if some of those people aren't home or aren't active at the time that means that much more for those who are active.
I think the size of the slices is a little more dynamic on more modern systems where AP adjusts the user radios slices on the fly so that idle clients don't have a bunch of dead air but they still need to have a little time allocated to them for when data does start to flow.
A quick Google seems to show that DOCSIS cable modems use TDMA as well so this all likely applies to cable users as well.
-
I’m jealous. Xmission is all around me but not in my area. Luckily I have another local ISP (and not Comcast) but they want $10 a month for a static IP.
I pay $89/mo total for symmetrical gigabit via UTOPIA, no monthly cap, and my static IP. I was paying Comcast a hair over $60/mo before this for 400/20 via cable w/1.2TB cap.
Absolutely worth it.
-
Pete Ashdown's a badass. Big up XMission.
Hell yeah. I don't normally simp for companies, but I will happily support locally owned alternatives to big, faceless corporations, even if it costs a bit more. Usually.
-
is that because asymmetry is the norm due to these ISPs' practices or because people just don't upload things often as a common behavior?
i recall a lot of my peers hosting mail and web servers among other things when broadband started to become more common, before they started blocking common ports as "security" and "antivirus" measures designed to extract more money from you.
I recall a lot of my peers hosting mail and web servers
I don't think that's representative of the global population. There's more people streaming movies than hosting private blogs.
-
Except I'm in rural Australia. Star link is objectively the best option.
It sucks that rural Australia’s part of the NBN got kneecapped down to Skymuster. I’ve played with Starlink quite a while ago and unless it’s really heavy rain it works really well up to the point of being able to stream games on GeForce NOW. Obviously a fast wired connection is preferable but as you say Starlink really is the only good option for a lot of people.
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
I think you need to take the tin foil hat off mate.
IPv4 in many places has RAN OUT. No more, zilch.
Most people can get a fully functioning CGNAT address and surf the IPv4 web just fine.
Most VPS providers will give you IPv4 and IPv6 just fine.
So really the only issue is for the 10-20% of people who need to host an online service, security camera or online game system that doesn't have a server or rendezvous service.
-
use a cheap $5/mo VPS that exists purely as your gateway host
Now, why so expensive?
https://racknerdtracker.com/?sort=price
Disclaimer: I never used Racknerd (nor any other VPS).Thank you sir!
-
(Sorry if this is too off-topic:) ISPs seem designed to funnel people to capitalist cloud services, or at least I feel like that. And it endlessly frustrates me.
The reason is even though IPv6 addresses are widely available (unlike IPv4), most ISPs won't allow consumers to request a static rather than a dynamic IPv6 prefix along with a couple of IPv6 reverse DNS entries.
Instead, this functionality is gatekept behind expensive premium or even business contracts, in many cases even requiring legal paperwork proving you have a registered business, so that the common user is completely unable to self-host e.g. a fully functional IPv6-only mail server with reverse DNS, even if they wanted to.
The common workaround is to suck up to the cloud, and rent a VPS, or some other foreign controlled machine that can be easily intercepted and messed with, and where the service can be surveilled better by big money.
I'm posting this since I hope more people will realize that this is going on, and both complain to their ISPs, but most notably to regulatory bodies and to generally spread the word. If we want true digital autonomy to be more common, I feel like this needs to be fixed for consumer landline contracts.
Or did I miss something that makes this make sense outside of a big money capitalist angle?
Vodafone gave me an IPv4 in Germany no problem. I asked and they gave it to me. They said it's not static, but it hasn't changed for me in years.
