Best of the ISP Lists

Hosting on DSL Lines, Take 2

Members of the ISP-Webhosting list discuss offering webhosting services over DSL. There are significant problems to consider before opting for DSL as a cheaper alternative to T1 lines.

[October 17, 2000]

On the ISP-Webhosting list in September, WRC asked:

"Are any of you hosting on DSL lines? Do you trust putting mission critical services on them? How are you handling a second back up to the network?"

A number of respondents warned that DSL is a risky solution:

[BLH observed] "If I was a customer looking to host a site with you and I knew that you were trying to give me bandwidth like that, I would not be your customer. A DSL line cannot provide enough bandwidth for web hosting."

[CW advised] "I would not recommend using DSL instead of T-1 unless you are willing to have more potential down time. And DSL is subject to more latency, lack of SLAs, and sometimes sporadic outages during maintenance windows. One thing you might look into is getting dual DSL lines to cover yourself in case one fails. I think DSL line bonding, though, is relatively new technology; not too many carriers have it."

[JR noted] "Service level agreements (SLAs) are starting to come out for DSL connectivity, but they are nowhere near as robust as those for digital service. So DSL is fine for non-critical applications, because it is inexpensive and delivers a reasonably decent quality of service for things like web access, email, and low grade file transfers. But when you start piling more sophisticated network related items on the link, it can misbehave. Plus, DSL can have cost factors that users do not anticipate. I know quite a few ISPs that will start charging additional fees beyond 1 and 3 GB of transfer. If a user does not anticipate that, they can end up with a substantial bill."

Other respondents saw solid advantages to making use of DSL:

[KV explained] "We run our redundant lines on DSL. In fact, for a long time we ran the whole hosting center on multiple DSL lines."

[JM added] "We personally still use time-tested T-1 lines, but the roadmap may be changing in the future if redundant DSL becomes a possibility, and if business-level DSL accounts start to get the respect they deserve. Cable is not an option; it's a shared-bandwidth format, and I would HIGHLY suggest against using it in any professional serving application."

[DS contended] "As the last-mile solution that it is, DSL is a perfectly valid solution. As a matter of fact, it's used to provide many of the T-1s that make up the current Internet. The problem is not DSL itself; it's the pricing structure. Those with government-granted monopolies on broadband networks right into homes (the cable companies) began offering high-speed 2-way Internet connections for just under $50/month, and the have-nots decided DSL was the way to offer a competing service.

Because they're trying to keep the prices down to cable levels, there's very little incentive for the owners of the copper to get off their collective butts and do anything like install, fix, test, etc. That's why a T-1 is currently a better solution than DSL; the price includes incentives at all levels for it to be operating as advertised."

Related articles
Can a DSL Line Handle Web Hosting Traffic?  [February 29, 2000] It's tempting to try to purchase a DSL line instead of a T1 to save money. The experts on the DSL list point out that there are significant differences between the two.

Shotgun DSL [July 6, 2000]  Members of the ISP-DSL list discuss using two DSL lines to create a single connection at twice the speed. One respondent claims it "Smokes along better than a T1 and is cheaper, too!" It is, however, complex.

—End