Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Exactly what I was thinking. I work for a CLEC, and I have a rough idea how much things cost -- compare what a Lucent 5E costs with what a top of the line Cisco router costs, and you have the answer why voice service achieves five-nines while data service typically does not.
Because every nine will cause a geometric increase in costs.
This
Uptime (%) Downtime 90% 876 hours (36.5 days)
95% 438 hours (18.25 days)
99% 87.6 hours (3.65 days)
99.9% 8.76 hours
99.99% 52.56 minutes
99.999% 5.256 minutes
99.9999% 31.536 seconds
I work for a software shop where we can do high availability, but more often than not, folks chose to lower the uptime expectation rather than pony up for the stupid money it takes to have the hardware / software / infrastructure to get there. Most companies know the customer will not pay the extra cash for the uptime, thus... you get what you pay for.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Also, because the EULA came into existence, product warranties effectively vanished, as well as actions the consumer could take via product liability claims, in court..
After all, liability plays a large part in defining QA policies. If software companies were held to the same liability standards most product manufacturers face, I'd bet software development would be more of the engineering practice it should be.
To quote part of Microsoft's EULA for Windows XP.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx
ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.
I believe you are correct. The market isn't "conditioned" into thinking that anything less than five 9s is acceptable. They just don't want to pay the cost associated with it. The price/reliability ratio right now is the one that will satisfy the most customers. 99.999% reliability is harder to sell than 99.9% reliability at half the cost.
I work for a cable company, by the way. I design a lot of the building-out of our system, so i know the actual costs associated with creating that kind of reliability. Whenever someone needs that kind of reliability, I actually recommend getting a second ISP as a low-speed backup solution. It is the only smart way to go to get complete reliability, as pretty much any company advertising 99.999% reliability in this area is outright lying to the customer. (I know this from experience. I have switched customers over to our ISP from a week-long (or longer) outage of every ISP here, and there are quite a few.) Besides, a good router will split bandwidth between the ISPs so you're not paying for something you're not using. (called "bonding")
I still get amazed when people yell at me for being offline for a few hours after maybe 3, 4, 5 years of uptime. They say that they are losing thousands of dollars per day they are offline. Yet, they don't want to pay for a $40 roll-over backup. THESE are the vast majority of customers who complain so much about 99.999% uptime.
On another note, I think anyone claiming 99.999% on POTS is anecdotal. Growing up, I had my power cut out at least twice a year, and the phone system was hardly 99.999%. Trees fall on lines, and people cut buried lines for all sorts of accidental reasons. Just like you insure anything worth enough value, just like you back up data in multiple locations, you need a fallback plan if your ISP goes out if it means that much to you.
Actually our health system has completely ballooning costs relative to other countries and is really more of an example of the opposite phenomenon, where insurance must pay for all possible treatment or be sued. Our system without a doubt provides the most care of any system in the world, even though it's pretty obvious that returns diminish dramatically after about 10% of GDP (we are at 15% of GDP, 2nd runner up is Switzerland at 11 or 12%). Returns diminish because, essentially, more care doesn't actually make people healthier past a certain point. 99% if people just need a GP (cheap), immunizations (dirt cheap), antibiotics when they get an bacterial infection (dirt cheap), and surgeons to sew them up when they get in a car crash (expensive-ish but hopefully uncommon and only rarely protracted). The problem is whenever anybody gets anything terminal, there's the potential for basically infinite spending, and the more successful treatment is, the more money goes in because treatment is prolonged. In this case our system is not "barely good enough", it's more way too good, or at least, way too generous.