[UFO Chicago] Recommendations Please: ISP with Shell Access

[Neil R. Ormos]

Ian Bicking wrote:

> Neil R. Ormos wrote:

> > I don't see any particular user benefit that necessarily
> > obtains by separating mail, web space, and shell accounts
> > from the access interface and backbone interface functions
> > of an ISP.  [ . . . ]
> > It's also more expensive, because now you're
> > paying for several administrative and billing organizations,
> > etc.

> If the ISP ditched all the other services, then it
> wouldn't have to be more expensive.  

With all due respect, Ian, that's pie in the sky.  IIRC,
Enteract was charging about $18/mo for access, shell with
generous disk quotas (first unlimited, then 350 meg, then 50
meg), web service, mail, and news, and until recently, all
of those services worked quite well.  If I go to a
bare-bones access provider for, say, $10/month, that only
leaves $8/month for shell, news, web, and extra disk quota
(I'm assuming the access provider handles e-mail).  I doubt
I could procure those from separate providers for $8/month.

> And ISPs are usually
> very limited in a region, and this is only getting worse.
> Low competition means high prices and poor service. 

Well, I agree with that, but I don't see how providing shell
service is a controlling variable affecting the number of
ISPs.  If anything, loss of shell service where it was
earlier supported is an example of poor service caused by
low competition.

> Plus jack of all trades and all that...

Maybe, but you haven't met your burden of persuasion that an
access provider who also supplies services such as shell,
mail, and web so attenuates their focus and expertise that
it can't be done well.  And I've seen examples where all
those services were done well.

> Once you are connected to the internet, there is no
> limitation to where you can get your other services.
> That's the beauty of the internet, unlike the old-style
> providers like a BBS or AOL.  Everyone's a peer.

Yeah, so what?  Excluding AOL, about whose service and
network architectures I am ignorant, a user of any other ISP
may buy shell, news, mail, web hosting, etc., from whomever
they want, regardless of whether their ISP integrates some
of those additional services with an access account.  That
does not negate the value to some users of having those
services integrated.  In fact, the fraction of internet
users who want to buy all their internet services as an
integrated package from a single provider, instead of
piecemeal as you suggest, probably approaches Ivory soap
purity.

> As a result, people can specialize in just the services
> you want (and not the ones you don't).  If you want a
> little website, there's people who do that.  And if you
> want a big one, again, people to do that.  But most
> importantly, when you change your ISP you don't have to
> change your email address, web address, etc.  And you can
> pick and choose about services without changing your ISP
> (a painful proposition).

And as noted before, the cost of buying these services
piecemeal is much higher than equivalent integrated service
offerings.  And also a painful proposition.

> That's why I think all this stuff about allowing
> competitors onto the monopolistic networks (cable, in
> particular) isn't that important -- rather, the
> monopolistic provider shouldn't be allowed to package
> anything, and the notion of an ISP should become more
> limited.  AOL in particular should die, die die (along
> with all the AOL-wannabes) 

Well, the model you're describing almost exactly parallels
the current state of local telephone service, which IMO,
sucks.  Because the regulated incumbent LEC owns the "last
mile" facility by which the subscriber gains access to the
network, there is effectively no competition, and the ILEC
therefore can charge monopoly prices for access.  The
consumer got the raw end of that deal.