Hosting

[Jeff Shannon]

Steven Majewski wrote:

> On 21 Feb 2002, Kevin Dahlhausen wrote:
>
> > That's actually not such a bad idea.  I'm only paying $10/month for
> > dialup, and looking to pay about the same for hosting.   Does DSL
> > require you to continue phone service once it is installed?  That
> > would make up the difference and it would be affordable then.
> >
> > > With the money you pay to ISP, why don't you get DSL with static IP, and
> > > run your own server?
>
> Prices will vary, but where I am you'll pay a LOT more for DSL
> service with a static IP than $10/month. However, sometimes you
> can get a package plan ( w/ phone service and a bunch of extras:
> caller ID, etc. ) so it might make sense -- you'll probably still
> pay more but the connection is worth it.

My DSL costs me approx. $50 / month, plus bandwidth charges if I exceed a
certain amount, compared to ~$20 / month for typical dialup packages in this
area, though some dialup goes as low as $10, and some DSL around $40.  Part of
my extra cost is because I required an external DSL modem (to be able to connect
multiple computers without fiddling with MS's internet sharing mess) and a
static IP (actually I get two, though I only use one for my router).  In theory
I could host a low-traffic server, but if I was doing anything more than a small
personal page, I'd probably end up paying more for the extra bandwidth than just
dropping the $10-20 for a hosting service (and then I'd have to deal with system
maintenance for the server, security updates, etc...)

(Server issues aside, after a few months of DSL the thought of going back to
dialup is actively painful. ;)  And really, I pay less than many people pay for
cable TV, and I enjoy the DSL a lot more than I would the TV...)


> The other thing is that you still might end up paying an ISP :
>  For DSL service, it was a package provided by Sprint (my local
> phone Co.) and Earthlink, so you HAD to get an account with
> Earthlink. ( Somebody told me that since Sprint doesn't know
> what they're doing with DSL, that it's really a marketing arrangement
> with Earthlink, who really provide most of the "service" )
> With my ISDN, I'm paying Sprint for the ISDN lines and I'm paying
> our local ISP (cstone.net) for an ISDN to internet connection on the
> other end.

There's always two parts of DSL service, the physical link and the ISP.  Some
phone companies offer both;  some places, you can get the physical link through
someone other than your phone company (but it's usually more expensive to do
so).  I deliberately chose to have an ISP (northwest link) *other* than my phone
company (which is Qwest) because I don't trust the phone company to know how to
run an ISP properly.  :)


>  For small to moderate usage, I think an ISP is always going to
> be cheaper than paying for a thick pipe and doing it yourself --
> but if you want the thick pipe anyway, then it might be worth
> setting up your own server. ( But if you do anything "commercial"
> with the server, they won't want to let you use any of the
> end-user oriented packages and pricing! )

Agreed.  In general, if you're wanting anything more than a "toy" server, you're
going to be better off paying for a commercial host than messing with it
yourself.  But if you've got the pipe, and won't have that much traffic, you
*can* do it yourself if you want to.  (If you've got the tools and the time, you
can fix your own car, too, but isn't it usually easier to take it to a
professional mechanic?)

Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International