[44426] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Followup British Telecom outage reason
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jerry scharf)
Mon Nov 26 11:32:33 2001
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:31:06 -0800
From: jerry scharf <scharf@vix.com>
Reply-To: jerry scharf <scharf@vix.com>
To: "Christopher A. Woodfield" <rekoil@semihuman.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <47390000.1006792266@conure.laguna.vix.com>
In-Reply-To: <20011126092201.B789@semihuman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--On 11/26/2001 09:22:01 AM -0500 Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
>
> My first thought in response to this is the vendor's support costs -
> wouldn't shipping more reliable images bring down those costs
> signficantly? Or is it just that the extra revenue opportunities gained
> by adding $WHIZBANG_FEATURE_DU_JOUR outweigh those potential support
> savings?
>
> -C
>
What's the upside to $ROUTER_VENDOR in reducing support cost? They already
make money on the support but can't make too much, so a reduction in cost
would probably imply a reduction in revenue. Also, given that network
engineering rarely make support cost a key issue in vendor selection and
negotiation, reducing support costs look like they have little payback to
$ROUTER_VENDOR in terms of equipment sold. With that,
$WHIZBANG_FEATURE_DU_JOUR, sure looks like a good profit decision.
To change this, stop buying gear from vendors that charge too much for
support.
just my jaded opinion,
jerry
