Why Is Less Than 99.9% Uptime Acceptable?

Ian Lamont writes "Telcos, ISPs, mobile phone companies and other communication service providers are known for their complex pricing plans and creative attempts to give less for more. But Larry Borsato asks why we as customers are willing to put up with anything less than 99.999% uptime? That's the gold standard, and one that we are used to thanks to regulated telephone service. When it comes to mobile phone service, cable TV, Internet access, service interruptions are the norm — and everyone seems willing to grin and bear it: 'We're so used cable and satellite television reception problems that we don't even notice them anymore. We know that many of our emails never reach their destination. Mobile phone companies compare who has the fewest dropped calls (after decades of mobile phones, why do we even still have dropped calls?) And the ubiquitous BlackBerry, which is a mission-critical device for millions, has experienced mass outages several times this month. All of these services are unregulated, which means there are no demands on reliability, other than what the marketplace demands.' So here's the question for you: Why does the marketplace demand so little when it comes to these services?"

Oh Zonk

[opec]

Oh Zonk, I'm marking your story as "flamebait". :(

More physics in action.

[palegray.net]

mass outages several times this month

Was it converted to energy?

It's simple confusion

[Chairboy]

Be careful to pick a provider that advertises "seven nines of reliability" instead of the more common "nine sevens of reliability".

Re:Here's an easy one.

[palegray.net]

The only way to beat the weather right now is to have a physical connection (and even that's not 100% immune).

That's a true statement. Hurricanes, fires, and tornadoes do have a way of reducing uptime in many cases. I suppose the network provider could always enter into an SLA with God to improve things, though. Similar deals with the devil have proved too costly in the long run.

Re:Costs increase geometrically

[setagllib]

My concept of 5 9s is much easier: 9.9999%. Or for Vista servers, .99999%.

Re:Reality Check

[PlusFiveTroll]

I have no recollection of POTS telephone service ever being unavailable.

Your neighbors evidently didn't own a backhoe. ;)

Re:because they've been conditioned

[Anonymous Coward]

but the "just reboot!" mentality persists to this day.

Frequent reboots haven't been required since win2k. If you have to reboot frequently, then you have something wrong with your system, and it isn't the OS.

Re:because they've been conditioned

[Vellmont]

I'm not saying Windows is better, but the above means you don't have to work a lot with NFS clients on Linux...

Very true.

I consider NFS to be the devil. If given the choice, I'll choose a different protocol every time.

Re:because they've been conditioned

[Kalriath]

Actually it is the case. I rarely reboot my Vista machine (mostly because for some reason the BIOS on my PC tries to boot from the printer - don't ask, I don't know), and on average only need to do so once every month or two (I don't accept Windows Updates for components I don't use)

once in a while

[Scrameustache]

One day every other month where our home internet is down doesn't seem like the end of the world

Hell, it's a relief! We wander outside, blinking and squinting at the surprising brightness, experiencing strange yet nostalgic smells and sounds.

Re:because they've been conditioned

[wizzahd]

Everything else being equal, that should still result in 99.94% uptime, or .04% fail. The point is still valid, of course.

Do you work for Verizon?

Brandy?

[JakartaDean]

I have people send me Brandy, fine wines and other tokens of their appreciation after sales.

Great! Could you send her my way, once you're done with her?