Followup British Telecom outage reason
Christopher A. Woodfield
rekoil at semihuman.com
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.
-C
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 semihuman.com
PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
More information about the NANOG
mailing list