North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
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: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Christopher L. Morrow Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 10:37 AM To: Ivan Groenewald Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu; firstname.lastname@example.org; '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@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