Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!bu.edu!bu-it!kwe
From: kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent England)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Dial up access to Internet facilities
Message-ID: <57952@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 30 May 90 17:14:47 GMT
References: <118@ultrix.uhasun.hartford.edu> <9005270423.AA19852@psi.com> <1990May25.163528.14300@ameristar> <57875@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu
Reply-To: kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent England)
Organization: Boston University
Lines: 82

In article <118@ultrix.uhasun.hartford.edu>, jbloom@uhasun.hartford.edu
(Jon Bloom) writes:
> In article <57875@bu.edu.bu.edu>, kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent England) writes:
> > We also have strict standards on quality of service, and we
> > do not wish to compromise these standards in offering less costly access,
...
> >
> Speaking as one who is trying to figure out how to convince management that
> $10k/yr would be well spent, I would be willing to accept service limitations
> for a lower-cost net access.  If the service truly is as useful to the
> organization as I believe it would be, the demonstration of that usefulness
> might just break loose the dollars for a higher quality ($10K)
connection.  So
> providing low-cost, restricted service connections may well have the effect
> of enhancing the number of sites getting full-service connections eventually.
> 
	We hear you.

	Let me elaborate on some of the costs hidden in a NEARnet service fee.
Consider these representative of a mid-level network service provider.  I
certainly don't mean this as an advertisement, but as explanation of the costs
of internetworking.  It might be helpful for someone starting from a UUCP or
BITnet point of view.

	Cost of the router on your end.  NEARnet requires that the demarcation
point be on the local LAN and not somewhere on the leased line.  In
other words,
NEARnet has to own and control the router at your site.  You have to pay for
that.  But this has proved critical to achieving service objectives.

	Cost of the router on our end.  It takes a lot of hardware to make
the NEARnet core work and provide access to NSFnet and other services.

	Leased line charges.  Leased lines are expensive and difficult to
move and change.  Fractional T1 is helping that a little, but still, we are
in large part unable to provide distance-insensitive fees, and some of our
clients pay large fees because of geography.

	Depreciation.  What does your service provider do for you when your
router is obsolete and can no longer function in an Internet?  Do they make
you pay for a new one?  NEARnet builds depreciation into its fee schedules,
so you pay for the cost of hardware and software continually, and not in a
lump sum, or worse, never.  Depreciation is critically important to a
network service provider being able to keep up with the technology.

	People costs.  It is very expensive in man-hours to run a mid-level
network, but we have found that it does not pay to scrimp on people.  I
think new network management tools will help, particularly as we gain control
of the wide area network, but it is still an expense that we feel is justified
to provide a sufficiently high level of service.  NOCs should be 24 hours
a day, seven days a week, and that will never be cheap.

	User services.  We have found it absolutely critical to be able to
offer some minimal user services to our members.  This is extremely important
to some of our clients.  Some of these services are things like name servers
for their domains and help with registration and connected-status.  But it
also includes a committment from NEARnet to take responsibility for tracking
down, identifying, and, to the extent possible, fixing users' connectivity
problems, no matter where in the Internet the problem is lurking.  This is
a service available to anyone, anywhere.  Finger @nic.near.net for details.
It also includes Dan Long's time and effort in the IETF in the User 
Connectivity Problems Working Group to try to spread this capability and 
commitment throughout the Internet.

	All this adds up to quite a chunk of change.  Makes UUCP look pretty
good, eh?      :-)

	I understand, though, that money is money and it still costs too much.
I believe the NSF is sympathetic, as they are still considering proposals for
grants to connect qualified sites to the Internet.  You may be able to turn to
the NSF for grant aid.

	It's all part of the Internet growing up, running like a business,
going private, etc.  And NEARnet is not the only mid-level network
service provider
working these issues.  More and more operational people are getting into the
IETF and there is the Federation of American Research Networks which is
populated
by the mid-level networks, among others, and is working on these sorts
of issues.

	--Kent England