[152533] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hale)
Tue May 1 17:28:23 2012
In-Reply-To: <24340.1335907253@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 14:27:50 -0700
From: Mike Hale <eyeronic.design@gmail.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Mike - please get mail software that does correct quoting. It's 2012, and
> proper quoting has been understood since the mid 80s. There's *really* n=
o
> excuse for using software that can't get quoting and citing right.
*eye roll*
Really? You wasted 36 words on this?
> And if you've *collected* that $316,472 from the one customer, it's somew=
here
> between sleazy and skanky to include that $316K in the costs that need to=
be
> amortized over the next N sales of the software.
It's neither sleazy nor skanky. It's called profit. I get what
you're saying, but it's a silly argument because, while you're not
going to bill the same "hours" (as a unit) twice, you sure as hell are
going to bill over and over again for the same work...you'd be stupid
not to.
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:20 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 May 2012 14:13:01 -0700, Mike Hale said:
>
>> > "But you *may not* tie your
>> > price to the hours used to produce it for the first."
>
> The above was William Herrin's comment (quoting level fixed by me).
>
> Mike - please get mail software that does correct quoting. It's 2012, and
> proper quoting has been understood since the mid 80s. =A0There's *really*=
no
> excuse for using software that can't get quoting and citing right.
>
>> Sure you can. =A0How else do you determine what the software's going to
>> cost if you're not going to factor in development?
>
> You missed the point - having given customer #1 an invoice that included
> a line item for 1,432 hours of R&D at $221/hour, you're treading on thin
> ice if you present another customer an invoice that includes a line item =
for
> the same 1,432 hours of R&D (absent an agreement between the two
> customers to share the costs, etc).
>
> And if you've *collected* that $316,472 from the one customer, it's somew=
here
> between sleazy and skanky to include that $316K in the costs that need to=
be
> amortized over the next N sales of the software.
>
--=20
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
