[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: New? LIT site.
At 9:20 AM 7/11/96, David Levine wrote:
>Regarding AOL...
>
>>Ouch. If we're going to pay that much, then let's just get our own server
>>space and
>>InterNIC Domain name. forgot about urly-bird, let's just get a real site.
>
>Well, of course, I agree here - I wouldn't suggest going to AOL unless we
>got the
>"free version."
Really. If we were very comercial and hot I might suggest it, but
otherwise it would be off the wall.
>>> I guess my thought would be that a major sponcer like AOL (whos rich
>>enough
>>> write us off as a novelty forever) could provide us with a stable high
>>
>>Or until they see enough activity at the site that they think we can pay
>>for it.
>>I see real potential "blackmail" problems. ie. It would be such a hassel
>>to look
>>for a new site that we would be unwilling to move. I would prefer to stay
>>at
>>Sunsite than go to AOL.
>
>Okay, I suppose I hadn't thought of that... could they at some point ask us
>to pay
>if our traffic was high enough? What kind of history do they have right now
>with
>their free accounts?
If we got that active I'ld be more worried about SunSite figuring we could
go forth and pay our own bills. Also if we pay for our own domain name
(which is tranferable) we can jump to another site and have the name
redirected easily and no one out in the web space would even notice the
change.
Lets face it their lowest comercial accounts are rated at:
Transfer allowance: 1,500MB per month
This is equivalent to a 100KB file being uploaded or downloaded 500
times a day.
According to dave we get about a 1000 hits a month (is that right Dave?).
Unless each hit involved downloading most of our site we'ld be well within
the normal account limits.
Conversly if we did get that kind of trafic we would start to get
attractive to sponcers.
I don't know how generous they are with their sponcership. It is sort of a
charity/PR thing for them. On the other hand they were willing to donat a
bunch of workstations to one group and other goodies to others. We are
just a bit of data in a corner of their server cluster.
>The other thing is that Ric said:
>>My only problem with AOL is thier flakey billing policies and over
>>pricing. Would we have to put up with thier continual "downloading"
>>graphics. I guess in short I don't trust AOL but that is my problem...
>
>I think the thing here is that the site would not be "on" AOL (i.e. we
>wouldn't
>have to dial-in, get accounts, pay, etc) but rather AOL hosts the site on
>their
>web servers. So if we get the space for free, and its accessable from the
>web,
>and they don't go back on the free thing, then its a good deal. If we don't
>get free space or its not accessable from the web, then its not.
Correct. The service is not part of the AOL dial in service (thou AOL
members get a $100 of the start up costs). It a part of a comercial web
service AOL owns. When AOL decided to add WEB browsing abilities to their
dial-up service. They found and bought the biggest succesful internet
service they could find and had them develop the service. (These people
have money!) I beleave this service is run out of that purched service.
>Back to Kevin:
>>As for time constraints, having multiple access codes to the site, would
>>allow
>>us all to take over Sysadmin duties if needed.
>
>Also true.
>
>-David
Also avalible on the AOL option. Definatly a plus to consider for
rehosting. But we need to make sure everyone who is allowed to update is
knowledgable enough to not crater partts of the site. A few instructions
in back up should be enough.
Kelly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Starks Internet: kgstar@most.fw.hac.com
Sr. Systems Engineer
Magnavox Electronic Systems Company
(Magnavox URL: http://www.fw.hac.com/external.html)
----------------------------------------------------------------------