From: Christopher L. Morrow (no email)
Date: Fri Feb 03 2006 - 11:36:56 EST
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Ivan Groenewald wrote:
>
> Earlier, Valdis scribbled:
> > There's also the deeper question: Why do we let the situation persist?
> Why do we tolerate the continued problems from unreachable companies?
> >(And yes, this *is* an operational issue - what did that 4 hours on the
> phone cost your company's bottom line in wasted time?)
>
>
> To a certain extent, it's simple economic logic.
> At the end of the day, I got my issue sorted and it cost me 4 hours of
> billable time. It cost the other party 15 minutes of time. Why employ
> another person full time to deal with queries or man an email desk, to save
> *me* 3h45min? It makes economic sense for bigger companies not to, well,
> "care". They aren't going to go away, you're not going to get in the way of
> the big Google/MS/BigCorp(tm) engine with gripes on your blog, so why bother
> spending more money on helping *you*?
>
> It might sound very black and white, but I can tell you now that a lot of
> these companies use that as a rationale even without thinking about it so
> directly.
actually, working for a largish company, I'd say one aspect not recognized
is the scale on their side of the problem... abuse at mci|uu|vzb gets (on a
bad month) 800k messages, on a 'good' month only 400k ... how many do
yahoo/google/msn get? How many do their role accounts get for
hostmaster/postmaster/routing/peering ?? Expecting that you can send an
email and get a response 'quickly' is just no reasonable unless you expect
just an auto-ack from their ticketting system.
-Chris
|
|
|