Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!shaman!jiro
From: jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: UUNET Problems
Message-ID: <1991Jun11.010801.8920@shaman.com>
Date: 11 Jun 91 01:08:01 GMT
Sender: jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura)
Organization: The Shaman Group
Lines: 73


In an earlier article, I expressed my unhappiness with UUNET's current
performance (slow, almost dead UUCP transfers, busy lines, timeouts, etc).
I hypothesized that it was due to UUNET's computers being overloaded.
As it turns out, that isn't the case. I received the following e-mail
message from UUNET, responding to my message:

>> 	We are beginning to experience timeouts when
>> communicating via UUCP to UUNET. These timeouts are most probably
>> because UUNET's computer is overextended. However, as a paying
>> customer, I must tell you that these timeouts are absolutely
>> unacceptable. As long as UUNET makes us pay by the minute, I
>> think that they are obligated to make sure that they are
>> transmitting at an optimum speed.
>
>This is unrelated to the load on UUNET.  We had a disk controller
>& disk flake out on us this week, which caused all manner of
>problems for the processes trying to access them.
>
>kyle jones   <postmaster@uunet.uu.net>   ...!uunet!postmaster

    This reply was, to say the least, irritating. Kyle Jones seems
to not care about the situation. He offered no apology for UUNET's
performance. Yes, yes, the problem was not his fault, but he (or 
someone at UUNET) should have notified their customers that they
were experiencing problems. 
    As such, I have wasted a good deal of this month's communication
charges because of UUNET's problems. Only one out of two polls to
UUNET will succeed, most of them time-out after transferring one or
two files. This is simply inexcusable. 
    This was my direct reply to Kyle Jones e-mail message:

>	Why didn't you notify your customers of this?  If we had been 
> notified ahead of time that you were experiencing this problem, that 
> you were working on it, and were going to fix it by a certain, specified 
> date, then it may not have generated as much ill feelings at this site.  
> If this has affected as many other sites as it has mine, then UUNET has 
> cheated many companies out of a lot of money.
>	Not notifying your customers of computer trouble that had 
> severely affected UUCP communications is absolutely inexcusable for 
> a UUCP communications service provider. UUNET should be ashamed of 
> themselves.

   Up to last week, I have had nothing but the best feelings toward 
UUNET. They have provided with one of the industry's best customer
and technical support. Because of that, I was willing to overlook
the fact that they were not providing same quality in their UUCP
service. Now with this incidence, I am reconsidering whether or
not I want to continue having UUNET as my primary e-mail and news feed.
If I cannot trust them with being able to carry my data, then I will
not stick with them.
   Kyle Jone's brazenness and uncaring attitude towards his customers
will have its effect. I hope his attitude does not reflect a new policy
of UUNET towards its customers. I hope UUNET takes the necessary steps
to rectify this situation. I am sad to see an industry leader cover
itself with mud.

	- Jiro Nakamura
	jiro@shaman.com


ps. Please do not flame me telling me how wonderful UUNET is. Until last
week, I too believed that it was the best thing since string telephones.

pps. IMHO, I think UUNET should notify all of its customers of its recent
problems and give sites that experienced severe problems (such as mine)
credit towards this month's bill. 


-- 
Jiro Nakamura				jiro@shaman.com
Shaman Consulting			(607) 256-5125 VOICE
"Bring your dead, dying shamans here!"	(607) 277-1440 FAX/Data