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?"

Comments

Cost?

[koan]

Cost shouldn't be an issue, look at what they charge us and cellular networks are cheaper to expand than hardwired cables thru the ground, I agree with "conditioned" most people don't know enough to know any better.

I will say we are headed for a world of hurt when all communications go via IP (phone/video/data) you want to talk about a "terrorist" wet dream that would be it.
the reliability of
The current network structure can't even come close to POT's (IMO).

Screw cost, they charged me 19$'s in 2001 now my bill is 49$'s for the *same exact service*....