Why so many servers in Texas

[atelier23 2]

Why so many servers in Texas? They never have more than 50 users at a time either... really should have spread it out some... could use another one or two in the Chicago/Indianapolis/Detroit area. :/ I check every few days and no one is ever using the new Dallas ones... not sure who made that decision, but yeah... please consider the three cities I mentioned, we need some love up here with low latency. 

 

DNS Leak and IP Leak websites show that the current Chicago ones have randomization connections all the way to California... for crying out loud... the Dallas ones never show me anything other than Dallas ones when I check those websites for leaks. Give us some love.

[LZ1 672]

Hello!

 

The most straightforward answer would be that it follows Airs requirements, while being beneficial in other aspects, such as cost.

 

If location choices were to be solely based on what Airs customers wanted at any point in time, then Air would surely be amongst the first of companies in mankind to establish servers on Mars too .

[atelier23 2]

Hello!

 

The most straightforward answer would be that it follows Airs requirements, while being beneficial in other aspects, such as cost.

 

If location choices were to be solely based on what Airs customers wanted at any point in time, then Air would surely be amongst the first of companies in mankind to establish servers on Mars too .

Doesn't answer my question... there are already two servers in Chicago which serves the entire Midwest... and 10+ in Dallas Texas that no one ever hardly uses... you telling me you can't move a couple of the ones not being used in Texas to Chicago to help the overflow traffic there? Nonsense. But suit yourself, I have other options once my subscription to AIR ends.

[LZ1 672]

I would say it does answer your question, by pointing out to you that it's precisely not about how many people use it, but about if it follows Airs requirements or not. You asked:

 

Why so many servers in Texas?

 

And the answer is that it lives up to Airs requirements:

A new server location must comply to every AirVPN requirement. Contrarily to some of our competitors, we don't add locations just to have "one more country flag", in disrespect of service quality and customers' security. We take every care in order to provide high quality of service and high security. The servers datacenters must comply to our requirements for privacy, bandwidth, traffic, peering, net neutrality and usage policy. All these factors together restrict significantly the range of viable choices.

Would you prefer that Air sets up shop in locations that you happen to desire, while compromising on security and other important aspects, such as the quality of the datacenter, that make Air worthwhile to begin with? Then you would perhaps be here again, saying that your connection is slow or something doesn't work . By comparison, there's many people who also want Australia made possible and it's not that Air doesn't want to do it. But it has to make sense, both security-wise, economically and in terms of connectivity.

 

I'm glad you have other options. I wish you luck in exploring them in 2018 and finding out what suits your needs best .

[go558a83nk 362]

 

Hello!

 

The most straightforward answer would be that it follows Airs requirements, while being beneficial in other aspects, such as cost.

 

If location choices were to be solely based on what Airs customers wanted at any point in time, then Air would surely be amongst the first of companies in mankind to establish servers on Mars too .

Doesn't answer my question... there are already two servers in Chicago which serves the entire Midwest... and 10+ in Dallas Texas that no one ever hardly uses... you telling me you can't move a couple of the ones not being used in Texas to Chicago to help the overflow traffic there? Nonsense. But suit yourself, I have other options once my subscription to AIR ends.

 

 

Add up all the users on all the 11 servers in Dallas and tell me nobody hardly uses them.  If there were only 2 or 3 servers in Dallas they'd be overloaded.

 

I do agree that there are some locations in USA that seem regularly overloaded while there is "room" for use on Dallas servers.  It makes more sense for people to just use the Dallas servers rather than ask for Air to add more bandwidth.

[iwih2gk 93]

I use both cities but most often Dallas area.  The servers there "smoke" and almost never disconnect me after many hours of use a day.  btw- I am MUCH closer to Chicago.  You might check because distance is not always the best measuring tool.  Eddie selects Dallas for me over Chicago most of the time.  You wouldn't think so looking at a map.  All good here.

[Fly AirVPN 12]

This might help. It explains the reason Texas is a major data center state in the USA. Texas enacted House Bills to provide data centers with major tax exemptions. PDF is attached for convenience.

 

Frisco Texas site: friscoedc.com

 

Site PDF: http://friscoedc.com/sites/default/files/files/SelectUSA-Investors/snapshots_datacenters.pdf

 

snapshots_datacenters.pdf

[atelier23 2]

This might help. It explains the reason Texas is a major data center state in the USA. Texas enacted House Bills to provide data centers with major tax exemptions. PDF is attached for convenience.

 

Frisco Texas site: friscoedc.com

 

Site PDF: http://friscoedc.com/sites/default/files/files/SelectUSA-Investors/snapshots_datacenters.pdf

 

snapshots_datacenters.pdf

 

I didn't realize this, cheers. Understandable then, I do understand fiscal responsibility. No worries mate

[atelier23 2]

This might help. It explains the reason Texas is a major data center state in the USA. Texas enacted House Bills to provide data centers with major tax exemptions. PDF is attached for convenience.

 

Frisco Texas site: friscoedc.com

 

Site PDF: http://friscoedc.com/sites/default/files/files/SelectUSA-Investors/snapshots_datacenters.pdf

 

snapshots_datacenters.pdf

 

I know Texas and Indiana are both very very strong Republican states, so there is a good chance Indianapolis would not charge tax either for data center, has it been checked? Just curious.

[atelier23 2]

Just a bump. Indianapolis doesn't have a tax for server location either I don't believe.

 

@fly

[Staff 9972]

I didn't realize this, cheers. Understandable then, I do understand fiscal responsibility. No worries mate

 

 

 

On top of all the good arguments already brought on, we would like to add that in Dallas we have a better protection against © trolls and other entities. Any VPN service operating servers in the United States must take into account the cowardliness of datacenter owners who prefer to just shut lines and services than analyzing claims from copyright industry and other entities.

 

Actually, check our competitors: you will see that even giants like Private Internet Access do not have the guts to allow (just to make an example) p2p protocols in the United States (they re-route outside the USA).

 

Or think of NordVPN which does not allow p2p at all in servers in the USA, in spite of their promises of Net Neutrality, no traffic discrimination, no traffic monitoring etc.

 

They do monitor and discriminate traffic to re-route your p2p traffic outside the USA, or to block it altogether. They re-route or ban an entire class of protocols because through a couple of them copyright infringements might be easier.

 

At the end of the day, please evaluate all the services we provide and all the promises we keep. You will get an explanation about why we focus on carefully picked locations to host our servers instead of basing our business on marketing fluff aimed to gullible people.

 

Kind regards

[DarkSpace-Harbinger 11]

Actually, check our competitors: you will see that even giants like Private Internet Access do not have the guts to allow (just to make an example) p2p protocols in the United States (they re-route outside the USA).

 

Or think of NordVPN which does not allow p2p at all in servers in the USA, in spite of their promises of Net Neutrality, no traffic discrimination, no traffic monitoring etc.

 

They do monitor and discriminate traffic to re-route your p2p traffic outside the USA, or to block it altogether. They re-route or ban an entire class of protocols because through a couple of them copyright infringements might be easier.

 

Savage XD