[38702] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: non-op (Re: Definition of Tier-1)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Travis Pugh)
Mon Jun 11 09:47:03 2001
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:46:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Travis Pugh <tpugh@shore.net>
To: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0106111310570.17571-100000@www.everquick.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0106110915220.21620-100000@cider.ecosoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Travis Pugh <tpugh@shore.net>
> >
> > That sales BS is probably prompted by customers telling sales people
> > that they won't buy service from anyone but a "tier 1" provider. This
> > leads to many creative definitions of tier 1.
>
> So, how firm is the "transit-free" definition? (That's what I always
> thought was the proper definition, but it's been obliterated in the past
> couple of years...) Firm enough to slap abusers with false advertising
> suits? ;-P
>
>
> Eddy
>
I also subscribe to the "transit-free" meaning of Tier 1, from a technical
standpoint. However, when talking to suits, I find that I have to
constantly explain the difference between the technical definition and
some competitor's marketing definition. Have you ever told the marketing
department that they can't call themselves Tier 1 but their competition
(which isn't tier 1) can? If confusing people in suits makes you laugh,
it's a blast.
The part that really drives me crazy is that nobody seems to have played
the "tier 2 and proud" card from a marketing standpoint. I can think of a
few reasons why I'd rather not be transit free right now, and could
probably successfully pitch those reasons to customers if I wanted to
change careers.
Since I'm not a lawyer, I really can't comment on a false advertising
suit, but you could file one against a lot of people if you got the urge.
cheers.
-travis
