Followup British Telecom outage reason

Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil at
Mon Nov 26 16:43:45 UTC 2001

I'm referring to the _vendor's_ support costs - as in, you don't need as 
many people in the TAC if people don't keep running into IOS bugs; you 
don't need as large of a RMA pool if the hardware is more reliable, etc.

As the vendor would most likley decline to pass these savings along to 
the customer, I would see this as a profit opportunity for the vendor.


On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:31:06AM -0800, jerry scharf wrote:
> --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

Christopher A. Woodfield		rekoil at

PGP Public Key:

More information about the NANOG mailing list