Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!hybrid!scifi!bywater!dagobah!mis From: mis@Seiden.com (Mark Seiden) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: uunet service improvement suggestions (you asked for it...) Summary: shoot the messenger Keywords: uunet Message-ID: <3627@dagobah.UUCP> Date: 31 Mar 91 02:32:30 GMT Organization: Seiden and Associates, Inc, Stamford, CT Lines: 226 several people have asked about my suggested improvements to uunet's service. well, here's a copy of a note i sent to the usenix board, which included the past history of correspondence, and ls -l says dec 18 1990. this is the note that resulted in the "go away little boy don't bother me i'm too busy" response from rick adams, cited in my previous posting <3625@dagobah.uucp>. although other usenix board members managed to take it seriously, including producing thoughtful responses, nothing seems to have happened... if you're just interested in suggestions, look for the 4 numbered points in the middle... [i realize now on reviewing my initial posting that there were two errors of fact -- sorry about that: 1. lori leonard spells her name "lori", not "laurie". 2. i actually spoke with her *twice*, not once.] (how about a "clean government" slate next usenix election time? RESOLVED: usenix association not have major entanglements with businesses controlled by board members?) ********************************************************************** i would like to raise the policy issue of usenix financing a for-profit organization that has no accountability to its users for failures in service, and in fact, has no service policy they are willing to elucidate. i hope that uunet is more accountable to its bankers than to its users. there should be some quid pro quo for financing the setting up of such a service, and i would like to ask not only what it is now, but why there isn't a process by which we can change it, rather than having it work like a personal fiefdom. without such policies, uunet could turn out to be as arbitrary in their way of doing business as prodigy has been. i gather that the "uunet board" is not an organization that actively participates in policy matters. there is no uunet user group so usenix arguably should function in that regard. i should make clear that in general i have been happy with most aspects of uunet's service (when it is up, which is almost all of the time). however, i have had sent email several times in which i complained about not knowing in advance when uunet would be down, and not knowing *after* it was down why it was down, and not knowing whether to report it was down or not, etc. making what i thought were suggestions that would be well received, but receiving no response whatsoever, beyond an occasional "yeah, we don't do that" from the guy in the trenches that day. eventually i sent the note below: (note sent to rick and uunet!postmaster 12/10/90), copy sent later to mo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- uunet has been down several times on saturdays without advance notice. it was down a lot of saturday, 12/8. it was down as well on nov 24 as i remember. (it was down several weekends during the sequent/pyramid debacle, um, experiment...) (and then there have been the recent problems with sprint echo suppression, and modem firmware upgrades.) since the echo suppression problems appeared i *listen* to the trailblazer transmitting data so i know how long it's been taking to come up with the next spooled file to be transmitted recently. i am completely sympathetic with the need to upgrade anything you might find it appropriate or necessary to upgrade... however, i have little sympathy with what seems to be the current reality: that a machine as central to things as uunet is, in a position quite like a public utility and claiming to provide a full time, professionally managed *service* should go down without any notice to customers. you should be more responsible and if you aren't you should be held more accountable). (it should be pointed out that the psi people seem to do much better at public notification to their customers of service outages, planned and unplanned.) i can plan for any downtime that is scheduled, and of course can have/get a life during any unscheduled downtime. what i can't cope with is not being told what you presumably know hours or days in advance will be going on, and not knowing whether you know your own system is down. so on 12/8 i called 703 876 5050 to find out what might be going on. (uunet had been down for several hours). i got the answering service. on the first call they didn't know what i was talking about when i said the system seemed to be down, and didn't know if anyone was there ("i'm just the service"). on the second call (an hour later) i asked whether they could get in touch with anyone in the event of service problems. i gave them my name, site name, phone number (they wanted my "address", but couldn't explain what kind of address they wanted... usmail, perhaps?) so i didn't know whether it was scheduled downtime, something's broken or what, and whether anyone knew about it or not... nor do i know whether the downage on nov 24 was scheduled or something broke. this has been at least my third request for a policy of advance notification of scheduled downtime. i think you should at least try to tell people who *say* they want to know, even if you don't mail customer-list. the last such notification i recall receiving was in late march. (am i to presume that all downtime i've noticed since then was unscheduled?) this would be to your advantage because customers would promptly notify you of service problems, knowing that anything not announced would represent a problem. in addition, you might consider setting up a phone number that can be called (with at least the intelligence of an answering machine) to find out uunet-status in the case of downage. or train your answering service, which is usually impossible. while i have gotten some indications from uunet worker bees that a lack of communication with the customers has been noticed and mentioned by other customers (to you, rick) there has been no public movement toward additional openness or information. am i correct that there is no stated policy to inform customers in advance of service outages or after they have occurred? customers seem to find out about new modem offerings pretty promptly, though. i know you're busy, but how about the courtesy of a reply? maybe you don't think this is important? (i composed this mail on saturday, and lest it be considered "just a flame", let it sit for a day...) (and continued on sunday...) well, uunet came up saturday night, some time, but is down again sunday morning. of course, once again, i have no idea why or for how long, scheduled or unscheduled. and there was no mail sent explaining why the outage, even though it seemed that it was i who called your attention to it, by a long distance call on my own dime. so i guess it doesn't pay to report uunet down in any case, since you won't even get a thank you. so, to summarize, these are the service policies i propose you think about implementing: 1. scheduled downtime should be announced in advance to all customers who express interest in such matters. 2. the reason for and duration of unscheduled downtime should be announced within a reasonable period after the system comes up again. 3. an 800 phone number with a voicemail system machine that reports on system status when the system is down and to which service problems can be reported, and which will beep the person providing coverage. system failure (halt/panic etc.) should also result in the coverage person being beeped. 4. general announcements of solutions to systemic problems (e.g. recent problems with echo suppression and trailblazers). a recent piece of mail dealing with duplicate netnews is a good example of the sort of thing i hope to hear more often, and the sort of thing there should be an announced service policy covering. i will send these suggestions to the uunet board, to the usenix board, and maybe even to the postmaster of all mapped machines if that is necessary to increase the amplitude and frequency of communication from uunet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- after i sent this note, i got a call from laurie leonard at uunet, who said she was the new customer relations person, and would be working on issues like this. the following weekend, uunet was down for a substantial part of sunday, and i sent this note: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From mis Mon Dec 17 15:34:06 1990 Received: by seiden.com (4.0/1.39) id AA01905; Mon, 17 Dec 90 15:34:04 EST Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 15:34:04 EST From: mis (Mark Seiden) Message-Id: <9012172034.AA01905@seiden.com> To: uunet!leonard Subject: uunet down on sunday Cc: uunet!rick Status: RO uunet was down several times on sunday. need i point out that i noticed this downtime, that it impacted my work, and don't know why it occurred. since i have not received a reply to my note of the other day, other than your phone call which i think i correctly summarize to have said "we're thinking about it but don't expect anything soon", i will send my note (amended to mention the sunday downtime) to the usenix board. that is, unless you have thought about it and might be willing to comment on the need or lack of need for a stated service policy. "comment" means in email, not a phone conversation intended to placate me without saying anything specific one way or the other. i have heard through the grapevine that rick claims i'm the only person who thinks this is important. i think i can show otherwise. thanks for your consideration. Mark Seiden, mis@seiden.com, 203 329 2722 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- on tuesday morning i received another phone call from laurie leonard, apparently pissed off that i had characterizing her phone call as trying to "placate" me, and said she thought it was obvious that i couldn't be satisfied with something or other, i forget exactly, and since she didn't reply in email i can't quote it absolutely verbatim. (well, so i'm a crank, i admit it, but she was wrong that i couldn't be satisfied...) but she did specifically state that, yes, there was currently no announced service policy, and that there wouldn't be for the forseeable future, that no uunet "internal policies" would be announced to users (like me, who want to know about downtime, from which i gathered that uunet insist on their god-given right to take uunet down for any and all reasons without any notice whatsoever even to people who say they depend on it) and that "uunet wouldn't be doing anything i don't want to do". i asked her how long this process might take. she said she didn't know and wasn't willing to guess. she suggested that i use an alternate carrier. (hardly the response i expected...) ************************************************************************ -- mark seiden, mis@seiden.com, 1-(203) 329 2722 (voice), 1-(203) 322 1566 (fax)