Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!uhasun.UUCP!jb.loom
From: jb.loom@uhasun.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Dial up access to Internet facilities
Message-ID: <9005301640.6.142@cup.portal.com>
Date: 30 May 90 23:40:17 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26

In article <57875@bu.edu.bu.edu>, kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent England) writes:
> 
> 	NEARnet is committed to broadening its base of support to include
> smaller sites at lower cost.  We are chafing against technical issues in
> being able to offer high quality service at lower costs, since we balance
> hardware and people costs, and people costs are not really that bandwidth
> sensitive.  We also have strict standards on quality of service, and we
> do not wish to compromise these standards in offering less costly access,
> since we know that later on our customers would regret the compromise as
> much as we.  Then there is the issue of just what is part-time access;
> is it terminal dial-ups, SLIP/PPP (host or router?), uucp, what?  We have
> to keep in mind what services we provide and we have to make sure that
> our clients understand what they can and can't do with new service offerings.
>
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.

Jon
 
--
Jon Bloom, KE3Z -- jbloom@uhasun.hartford.edu