Re: ISP vs "newsgroup server provider": [was: Re: Question for Agent (and other news reader) users]

Mike Lyle wrote:

> Default User wrote:
> [...]
> > A service can be both an ISP and news server. Being an ISP doesn't
> > imply that they are a news server.
>
> I'm loth to disagree. But if we classically define the (or "the")
> Internet as a combination of www, email, and Usenet, then surely a
> provider which doesn't provide all three cannot be an Internet
> Service Provider. So, on that generally accepted definition, AOL
> isn't an ISP.

Many people don't believe usenet to be part of the internet, but a
separate, allied network.

Meaning has a way of shifting. I'd say that almost everyone asked would
identify AOL as an ISP, regardless of the lack of usenet access.

> You may argue that being connected by way of AOL makes all three
> available, even though indirectly, and that AOL is therefore an ISP.

Actually, you cannot get all three from AOL. AOL used to provide a news
server, they no longer do.

> I would then suggest that having a British Telecom (or whichever)
> line makes all three Internet elements potentially available, but
> that in itself doesn't make BT an ISP. Some clever person may use his
> AOL connection to worm his way into a private network: that wouldn't
> make it reasonable to say that AOL "provided" access to that
> intranet.

I'm not sure what you mean. AOL was news provider when they had a news
server. You can still access news from an AOL account, but must use a
third party server, such as giganews. I would say AOL was and is still
an ISP in spite of this. I would say giganews in NOT an ISP.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
.

Relevant Pages
Loading