Even today, when it comes to delivering high bandwidth, MCI goes unrivaled. Microsoft Corp., for example, in late 1997 was attached to MCI's backbone at OC-12 (622 Mbps)--an Internet first. Most customers reported few problems, and MCI's investment in infrastructure attests to its commitment to intelligent capacity planning.

However, as with most carriers of this size, MCI customers struggle with the finer points: finding answers to obscure questions, getting to the right technician and resolving billing disputes, for example. Along the same lines, we found it rather odd that MCI offers, as an additional service, primary DNS hosting for $100 month. Unless we missed the boat on an enormous change in the DNS world, maintaining DNS is little more than coordinating client updates and administering servers. We hardly see this as warranting a $100 fee--and apparently the other providers agree with us; MCI is the only one that charges for it.

Regardless, organizations looking for base connectivity to a robust backbone may find MCI to be very appealing. MCI also can take advantage of its carrier status to combine voice and data services--reducing overall costs in addition to providing discounts. Its global availability and commitment to capacity make it an excellent candidate for VPN usage, as well. However, if it is customized service, more detailed instruction or a diverse but accessible knowledge base that you're looking for, you might be more comfortable using one of the more traditional ISPs like ANS, DIGEX, GTE or PSINet.

DIGEX A somewhat newcomer to the large ISP arena, DIGEX prides itself in dedicated, relentless customer support. What DIGEX may lack in size it makes up for in diversity. Well-known for its in-depth Web hosting services, DIGEX focuses on larger organizations with defined business needs.

Like ANS customers, DIGEX customers report a high level of satisfaction in the area of problem resolution. DIGEX's ability to answer inquiries, hold hands and point people in the right direction received praise from its client base. However, unlike ANS, DIGEX is a little rough around the communication edges. One client reported being stuck in a series of finger-pointing incidents, while others complained about lack of warning before changes, updates and maintenance outages.

To DIGEX's credit, we interviewed a customer who had recently moved to DIGEX for Web hosting after leaving GTE (known as BBN Planet at the time). They reported a substantial improvement in responsiveness and were incredibly satisfied with all levels of service provided. One thing we noted about DIGEX unique to the industry is its public advertisement of on-staff MCSEs (Microsoft-Certified System Engineers). Although no phenomenal feat by itself, this does exemplify something you don't see in other providers: a commitment to going beyond the client's door with a firm understanding of enterprise environments. Everyone needs their core group of router jockeys--but DIGEX is rounding up more than just horses.

Finally, one of DIGEX's upcoming projects could be pivotal in the future of SLAs: releasing backbone statistics to the public. DIGEX engineers are working on toolsets that will let its client base view actual backbone utilization. We think of this as being the ultimate move to "putting your money where your mouth is." We'll see if others follow suit.

UUNET
A veteran in the Internet community, UUNET has been one of the largest players at the nationwide, and now international, level for some time. With deep-rooted expertise and a very large, redundant backbone, UUNET, like ANS, straddles the fence between traditional ISPs like PSI and large carriers like Sprint.

However, UUNET falls slightly behind in the areas of support and cost. With T1 port prices close to $2,500, UUNET topped the charts as the most expensive provider we surveyed.

Where UUNET differs from large carrier-based ISPs like MCI and Sprint is in its adaptability. For example, a significantly large content provider we've interviewed is experimenting with alternative-distribution methods. This customer also shares connections with MCI and Sprint. While looking into multicast technology this company found UUNET to be more receptive to its efforts, where MCI and Sprint more or less stonewalled the entire issue.