3 ms·
If the price of the service working (or not working) is disproportionately large compared to the price of your lost business, that's a problem at your end: you
by scott_karana 9y ago
If the price of the service working (or not working) is disproportionately large compared to the price of your lost business, that's a problem at your end: you needed to calculate the risk vs return for redundancy.
Eg, if your Internet costs $100/mo, but you'd lose $100/hour when it's down during business hours, buy a fallback connection from a competing ISP. ;)
- tchaffee 9y ago> a competing ISP Wow! That actually exists in some places? ;-) Infrastructure so often becomes a monopoly. I can't pay a competing bridge service to drive to work quicker, I can't pay a competing gas company to deliver gas via different pipelines to my house. And I can't pay a competing electric company that uses different wires. I actually am lucky enough to live in a city where there are many competing high speed ISPs. But guess what? I've paid for fallback connections in the past and when one goes down, the other goes down, so I go out to lunch and see the guys working on the wires in the cabinet down the street. The wires that both my ISPs share. I suppose I could get a satellite ISP? That latency. True redundancy for infrastructure is actually very expensive in most cases.