RE: Yahoo, Google, Microsoft contact?

From: Frank Bulk (no email)
Date: Fri Feb 03 2006 - 12:11:23 EST

  • Next message: Martin Hannigan: "Re: Yahoo, Google, Microsoft contact?"

    I'm sorry, but being a larger company requires more resources to support it.
    Our upstream provider has only 3 to 5 people in their NOC during the day,
    but they only serve a couple dozen ITCs. A bigger company generates more
    revenue and accordingly has increased responsibilities. Largish companies
    benefit from economies of scale (their overnight crew *actually* has calls
    to take) and will likely have better processes in place to handle things
    efficiently.

    What do you think the messages:NOC man-hours ratio is? I would argue that
    smaller operations provide better service, but it costs them more per
    message, or whatever metric you want to use.

    Frank

    -----Original Message-----
    From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of
    Christopher L. Morrow
    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 10:37 AM
    To: Ivan Groenewald
    Cc: ; ; 'Gadi Evron'; 'n3td3v'
    Subject: RE: Yahoo, Google, Microsoft contact?

    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


  • Next message: Martin Hannigan: "Re: Yahoo, Google, Microsoft contact?"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD