Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:6843 news.admin:15218 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!ucsd!mvb.saic.com!dayton.saic.com!ake From: ake@dayton.saic.com (Earle Ake) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,news.admin Subject: Re: Is UUNET going to upgrade? Message-ID: <1991Jun13.161827.1675@dayton.saic.com> Date: 13 Jun 91 20:18:26 GMT References: <1991Jun8.210644.4897@shaman.com> <1991Jun12.012806.25633@osh3.OSHA.GOV> Organization: Science Applications Intl. Corp., Dayton, Ohio Lines: 49 In article <1991Jun12.012806.25633@osh3.OSHA.GOV>, chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: > In <1991Jun8.210644.4897@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > >> Does anyone know if UUNET is going to get an upgrade soon? I know >>about their recent upgrade, but I've been experiencing severe delays when >>communicating with them -- sometimes so severe my machine timeouts and >>stops talking. >> [details deleted] >> I think it's time UUNET expanded. What do you others think? >>Replies to comp.mail.uucp or news.admin please, I want to get a >>discussion going. > > Well, I've been a satisfied customer for a few months now, but after > looking at the xferstats file recently I have to agree. It disturbs me > that I am paying for connect time and sometimes the rates are terrible, > and other times the rates are great. I have reason to believe it's not > me because my system load is relatively stable and I converse with > another system that maintains consistant rates. > > It does bother me that they are charging for connect time and the > inadequacy of their system is costing me money. Sounds crazy, but maybe > they should drop their rates during peak hours when they know their > system can't give you peak performance. I always wondered why they charged for connect time. If you have a 2400 baud modem and pay for your own phone call you get it twice as bad. First you pay the long distance carrier for a longer call duration then uunet hits you for more connect time. I guess the assumption if they want everyone to get trailblazers to increase throughput. I think the problem now is so many have gotten the high speed modems that their system can't handle the throughput! If they continue to have a problem it might be fairer to charge by the kbyte of data transferred then add a small sur-charge for slower speed modems. This would charge evenly even if the system at their end is going slow. It would not reduce the phone bill however. Right now, what is the driving factor to speed up their system? If it runs slower then customers will use more connect time and their bill will be higher. Let's hope they use some of the additional money they collect due to the slower throughput and upgrade their systems. Earle _____________________________________________________________________________ ____ ____ ___ Earle Ake /___ /___/ / / Science Applications International Corporation ____// / / /__ Dayton, Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet: ake@dayton.saic.com uucp: dayvb!ake SPAN: 28284::ake