The backbone that sucks least?

Tue Sep 25 23:44:34 UTC 2001

On 10:31 AM 9/18/2001 -0700, dan kelley wrote:

 >lost in this whole mess is that their service (DS1) to
 >us was reasonably good. unfortunately, their
 >organizational sloppiness negates that for us - we'll
 >be dropping them as soon as other arrangements are in
 >place.

Could you elaborate on the "other arrangements" and who you contacted when 
you went shopping?

We have servers colocated in 8 locations, 4 each with 2 of the big-name 
colo providers, one of which made news today (no points for accurate 
guesses).  We are looking at adding new server locations in a carrier 
neutral location like Equinix (who else is doing multiple carrier neutral 
locations and has available space? who is presently doing this in Europe, 
in Asia?), and thus need to consider who we want to contract with for our 
bandwidth.  It is essential that the bandwidth provider be a Tier 1 
backbone such as UUNET, C&W, Qwest, MCI, Sprint, Verio, L3, AT&T, Genuity 
(anyone else belong in this class?).  Yeah, they all suck one way or the 
other.  But we'd rather not jump out of the frying pan only to land into 
the fire.  Thus...

Of those, who sucks least?  Does paying extra for UUNET actually get you 
anything extra (better customer service, better billing/accounting service, 
better trouble ticket tracking and reporting)?

jc