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?"
The marketplace has been duped into believing that this is the best technology can provide. People don't have time to know, understand, or research history and find that technology really can be reliable.
I'll get modded troll, but I lay much of this at Microsoft's feet. I laughed them off when I first heard of them and their goal of taking over the industry. After all, I'd been working on systems that ran 24x7 with five-9 reliability for years, and DOS/Windows couldn't touch that.
One time I had an opportunity to visit Microsoft and have lunch with a friend there. I figured while there I'd take the opportunity. I asked them in hushed tones, "Just how do you configure Windows so that you don't have to reboot it all of the time?" They looked at me like I was crazy.
Technology can provide reliability. The general public is no longer even aware that it's possible.
... after decades of mobile phones, why do we even still have dropped calls? It's a little thing called physics. When you're traveling while using your phone, you may transit into dead zones. We could solve this by cutting down all the trees and flattening the landscape, but that might make some people angry...512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
You can have one or the other.
We're not talking about software, we're talking about hardware and man-hours. Those will never be free.
Gone!
To put it simply, it's the money stupid. It requires a lot more equipment and manpower to offer a high availability service. This extra cost results in higher prices. It can cost 1000% more a month for less than 1% more reliability. Think of a $400 a month T1 with a SLA versus a $40/month cable line. Being sheep has nothing to do with it.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
Because 90% of stuff labeled 'mission critical' actually isn't. Think about it - for most of us, being able to receive or send cellphone calls or emails at any time seems super important, but the number of hours in any given month where it really *was* super important (the grant application was due in two hours; your mother was sick; your partner was about to go into labor; whatever) is generally pretty low - our real tolerance for occasional downtime is therefore quite high.
"The marketplace has been duped into believing that this is the best technology can provide. People don't have time to know, understand, or research history and find that technology really can be reliable."
No. They believe it is the best the technology can provide at a given price. Why do people "put up" with cars that only give them X amount of protection in a car crash even though there is technology out there that would make them safer? Because they aren't willing to pay the marginal cost for the extra protection. Arguing about what is possible with technology is pointless. What matters is what a piece of technology can do at a given price.
Everything is a trade-off. The sooner Slashdot learns this the less we will have these stupid "Why don't consumers use the latest, greatest, most expensive technology? We need to force them somehow!" articles.
Creative Demolition
When Comtrash Internet dropped my speed from 6 Mbps to 1 Mbps but kept the rate at 6 times DSL, I dropped Comtrash and went with the 1.5 Mbps DSL from my local telco. I got 50% more than Comtrash was delivering at 1/6th the cost. No problem.
When Microsoft decided that I didn't own the rights to my own media and stopped me from being able to copy my own DVDs, I decided to drop them for my media development system and I switched to Linux and Apple. Microsoft doesn't want my business so I went with the people who do. No problem.
When my Long Distance company decided to charge over $1.00 per minute for International calls, I switched to AT&T and their 17 cents a minute program. No problem.
When Frigidaire washers charged extra for the warm water cycle but only give you 5 seconds of hot water and thus, never any, it was no problem to return the unit and buy a different brand. Sure, the salesman wasn't happy but, that is now his problem and not mine. I bought a different brand that did give me what they advertised and promised. No problem.
The list is endless and across all businesses and domains.
The point being is that there are alternatives but, many (or most) people are either too lazy to do anything about it or, like this article, they are too apathetic to do anything about it.
The choice is up to the consumer and, if the consumer would take action, the industry would have to adapt because the market demands it. So far, the market is willing to accept this and thus, the industry sees no reason to change. The less the consumer will accept for their dollar the less they will receive. That, is the problem.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
It's all about cost vs. the cost of downtime. You'll find in business lines such as the financial sector, customers are willing to pay for extremely high availability because time is indeed money. Business lines that have lower costs for downtime have to weigh availability vs. ROI.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
This has everything to do with cost and nothing to do with Microsoft. Consider VoIP... people are deliberately choosing telephony services that are less reliable and lower quality than POTS, because VoIP is cheaper. If you want 99.999% uptime, that's fine -- but you're going to pay for it. High availability services require better equipment, redundant equipment that doesn't come cheap and more, higher quality staff to operate it. So it costs more.
I've been in the technology services business for a long time, and with few exceptions, 80%+ customers want their services are delivered as cheaply as possible. Most hospital systems don't even have a 99.999% availability requirement. The 20% the want varying levels of higher than normal availability usually have a government regulation, SLA or other mandate requiring that they do so.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK