[9272] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Cost vs benefit of internet services
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dennis Fazio)
Mon Dec 27 17:18:32 1993
From: dfazio@mr.net (Dennis Fazio)
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 16:18:01 -0600 (CST)
Barry Shein's comments on the relative costs of interactive terminal access
vs. SLIP or PPP are accurate under the right conditions. It is often easier
to support people on terminal emulators, since you have a single controlled
environment on the host which everyone uses. However there are two
assumptions:
1. That the host-based provider has done a good job at providing a custom
interface that shields subscribers from Unix (except for those either macho
enough or masochistic enough to demand it and have the need for the power
and flexibility it provides) and gives them a nice easy to navigate and use
system for mail, news and file fetching.
2. That the SLIP provider does nothing more than give subscribers a phone
number and a list of places to get software and SLIP drivers.
Essentially, this describes a situation that stacks the deck for the
host-based provider as far as cost and effort of providing the service.
I can easily argue that SLIP is much cheaper and easier to provide and
support, providing it's done right (which it often isn't).
We decided to go SLIP-only for our dialup service because we determined it
would be cheaper and easier. I do not need an expensive host, since no
subscribers get an account on it. I set up an authentication server, POPmail
server, NNTP news and gopher server. This can all be done on a $5,000 Sparc.
A 20 or 30 line SLIP-capable terminal server (or rather Network Access
Server) is available for $2,000 or $3,000. That will handle a couple hundred
accounts. The key to the success of it all is that you give the subscribers
the software they need: SLIP drivers, TCP/IP software, mail, news, gopher,
telnet and FTP clients. You effectively control the environment as in the
host-based services, except the environment is on the subscriber's host.
We have found that if you give people good software, preconfigured with
decent installation instructions, they rarely call you. The clients are all
public domain or low-cost shareware (often better than the high-priced
commercial versions) bundled together in a single self-installing archive
with automated connection scripts - What is now being tried on a large-scale
commercial basis with the "Internet in a Box" product recently announced.
Most of the support calls deal with the *^%$# modems and their setup.
Terminal emulation has the same difficulties.
It is certainly more complex overall, but it is mostly hidden from the user.
All the work is pushed off to the subscriber's computer. They just type a
single command or click a button, wait 30-40 seconds and they are connected.
They then launch the application or applications of choice. On the Mac, you
can run multiple downloads and interactive sessions simultaneously. A key
advantage is that the subscriber is on the Internet directly, not relaying
through another host. Their connect time can be less, since they can read
mail and news offline. File transfers come right to their disk. When they
eventually migrate to a direct connection, the software is the same. You
just pull out the SLIP driver and put in an ethernet driver -- no interface
change.
There is a place for both types of systems and they both can be cheap and
easy if designed and implemented well. I don't think one can argue that
either is necessarily easier or cheaper; it depends upon the implementation.
--
Dennis Fazio, Minnesota Regional Network --|||-- Gabnet: (612) 342-2570
