5 ms·
This is spot on IMO. It's true that if you put enough quality and maintenance into a system, it can stay at ~100% uptime. But very few organizations have those
by Nuzzerino 7y ago
This is spot on IMO.
It's true that if you put enough quality and maintenance into a system, it can stay at ~100% uptime. But very few organizations have those kinds of resources, and government systems tend to not be funded more than they need to be, and generally aren't staffed with state of the art tech teams.
But it's not unreasonable to imagine the possibility that this can change in the future, if the cost and risk for maintaining such a system were to decrease below a certain threshold.
- ma2rten 7y agoWhy can't we have redundancy? Internet-based and telephone-based emergency services.
- ptaipale 7y agoWe can, we should and in some countries we do, but the increasing reliance of POTS services on internet technology make them vulnerable to the same weaknesses that exist in the internet.
- zaxomi 7y agoRedundancy cost money, and most companies do not want to pay for it. I work for a company with about 40 employees. Our offices are connected to two different ISPs: one by optical fiber and one by VDSL. We have two different telephone operators for our outgoing calls from the offices, and I have two mobile phones with different operators. During the last five years there have been multiple outages that lasted between minutes and days, but most of the times the redundancy have saved us. But when we lost power (the whole city went dark for hours) we went down when the batteries in the UPS was drained. Having our own generators is too expensive.