[12466] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Traffic Engineering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John A. Tamplin)
Wed Sep 17 15:58:58 1997
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 14:34:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: "John A. Tamplin" <jat@traveller.com>
To: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <19970917143554.53021@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>
On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> It's my analysis that the problem is that small (T-1 and below)
> customers should be buying their connectivity from (and there should
> _be_, for them to buy it from) a local exchange-type provider. IE: buy
> a T-3 up hill to, oh, say, the top 6 or 10 backbones, and then sell
> transit to local ISPs and IAPs in your geographic area.
>
> This doesn't seem to be technically difficult, and it seems like it
> ought to be pretty easy to sell... sure, you're one hop further from
> the backbone... but you're now two hops away from _10_.
>
> Sane? I should be looking for capital? :-)
>
> Are there any major potholes in this theory that I'm missing?
We do this already, but the main problem we run into is customers are
hesitant to buy services from a direct competitor. Doesn't matter that we
are cheaper or have good connectivity, but that they don't want to have to
sell against who they are buying services from. The fact the MCI/Sprint/etc
all sell local access doesn't seem to bother them as much.
We have been successful doing this, but it is definitely a hard sell.
And this is with the advantage that we are offering ATM connectivity to a
local exchange service at cheaper prices than can be had anywhere around.
John Tamplin Traveller Information Services
jat@Traveller.COM 2104 West Ferry Way
205/883-4233x7007 Huntsville, AL 35801
