[UFO Chicago] Recommendations Please: ISP with Shell Access

[Ian Bicking]

On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 02:16, Neil R. Ormos wrote:
> 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.

I was thinking broadband, where prices were a little less slimmed
down... but it still mostly applies to dialup.

You can get a domain, very small web, and mail for quite cheap -- a
number of the registrars offer packages with a single, yearly fee.  You
don't get shell -- but then you aren't going to get shell at Enteract
soon either :)

If you have more serious server needs, you can get a web host with shell
access for pretty cheap ($10/mo, I think).  That gives you mail as well,
often with a pretty good disk quota.  Again, you can to use a domain,
and you can own your own permanent email and web address -- I consider
ISP emails and web addresses to be horribly inferior to using your own
domain name.  Too many people don't change ISPs because they don't want
to lose their email address.  This is demonstrably a problem, as I
believe Hotmail and Yahoo mail's popularity stems mostly from this
portability, even though the services themselves rather suck.

You can't get a news server for cheap, from what I can tell -- though I
haven't looked hard.  Of course groups.google.com is free, and many
newsgroups have email gateways (which are often more reliable anyway). 
News is fucked up.

> > 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.

No, of course not -- but the pain of being in a non-competitive market
is mitigated by not relying on the ISP for anything other than a
connection.

> > 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.

I agree.  But there's a natural monopoly to these sorts of services
(plus a bit of a constructed monopoly).  I don't think competition like
Z-Tel is achieving a whole lot -- in the end Ameritech provides all
services, and Z-Tel is just a fictional company that writes bills.  In
the past cable providers have had to do similar sorts of things, where
there are other "internet providers" that have access to their wiring --
but in reality, the cable companies were just selling the entire service
wholesale, and the other ISPs were adding on their own internet
services.  The connection part was still a monopoly.  I think that's
dumb -- instead they should keep the cable company out of any service
aspect, and make them a common carrier -- completely non-discriminatory
and relatively benign in its monopoly.  It might end up like
long-distance companies, where the local connector has a common billing
facility with the services provider, but they remain two distinct
entities.  This way your services would remain portable, even as you
changed your provider.  I think this would increase competition, as
provider lock-in wouldn't occur.

MSN has been very evil about this lock-in, as they've been very actively
keeping their subscribers from using any email address other than their
@msn.com address.  I don't know what other intrusive providers (like
AOL) are doing, but I imagine they've been doing the same sort of
thing.  AOL uses its software to create an educational lock-in -- people
don't understand how to use standard internet interfaces after becoming
adapted to AOL.

  Ian