Thanks for your informative replies.
I can't believe that Xplornet would offer a NATted service with no provision for configuring port forwarding. I will likely be requesting a static IP. A static IP is not really as important as having a "public IP". I don't currently pay for a static IP, but I have found that it is "effectively" static (as long as MAC address of the router doesn't change) - my RipNet IP has not changed since I started the service.
People *say* it's a technical issue, but I'm pretty sure it's a business decision to let them sell the few customers who want open ports to pay for a static IP.
It is also probably a means to curb p2p traffic (as if throttling such traffic to 300kbps wasn't enough
That's your dilemma. Start the conversion process, demand a static IP before you'll let an installer come out, and hope for the best. Or get the 6000 now, and live without a static IP until they figure out how to configure the 6000 to allow one. Or hold out until either the 6000 is "fixed", or a 3000 becomes available (may be a long wait). Or decide you don't really need incoming ports.
Well, I can't immediately switch (I need to build a new tower), so when I am ready perhaps the static IP situation will be rectified.
Or investigate non-Xplornet options.
That's the real pickle - there doesn't seem to be any...
The traffic management for WiMax is more tolerable than the old system. In a nutshell, they downgrade Torrent port traffic (I don't do torrenting so I can't comment on that), and if a tower shows decreased overall performance they'll downgrade the top 10% of users in 15-minute chunks until the traffic clears.
This is the part that really concerns me. Sometimes this really means that they will throttle the top 10% regardless of of the status of the tower. There is really no way to dispute their claims that the the tower is congested. And bless their hearts, "this traffic management policy will not cause transfer speed to fall below 100 kbps"
I'm still hopeful that eventually cable or DSL will come my way (it's real close), but until then it'll do.
There will likely be flying cars before DSL comes my way...
P.S. What RipNet tower are you on?
I am connected to the Kemptville tower.
I just realized I didn't answer your question about VPN. Yes, I'm VPN'ed into my work pretty much constantly. That includes running one or more Remote Desktop sessions to VMs at the office. I've also connected back to my local machine from a VM running on the remote side. No issues at all.
Thanks, that is encouraging.
I am really peeved by the whole situation. I was required to switch to RipNet when Rogers Portable Internet was shutdown. That involved bringing out a bucket truck in the middle of winter so that the new antenna could be mounted to my makeshift 60 foot tower that was being used for the Rogers service. I have been intending to erect a more permanent free standing tower and I thought I would have some time. I certainly did not expect my new service to be terminated mere months after starting it (and RipNet gave no indication that they were selling a obsolete service) - well, it is not really terminated but it is increasingly unusable. So, I don't want to transfer to the new service until I construct the tower. The really frustrating thing is that the RipNet service was really quite good.