Re: non-op (Re: Definition of Tier-1)

[Travis Pugh <tpugh () shore net>]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, E.B. Dreger wrote:

> > Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Travis Pugh <tpugh () shore net>
> >
> > That sales BS is probably prompted by customers telling sales people
> > that they won't buy service from anyone but a "tier 1" provider.  This
> > leads to many creative definitions of tier 1.
>
> So, how firm is the "transit-free" definition?  (That's what I always
> thought was the proper definition, but it's been obliterated in the past
> couple of years...)  Firm enough to slap abusers with false advertising
> suits? ;-P
>
>
> Eddy

I also subscribe to the "transit-free" meaning of Tier 1, from a technical
standpoint.  However, when talking to suits, I find that I have to
constantly explain the difference between the technical definition and
some competitor's marketing definition.  Have you ever told the marketing
department that they can't call themselves Tier 1 but their competition
(which isn't tier 1) can?  If confusing people in suits makes you laugh,
it's a blast.

The part that really drives me crazy is that nobody seems to have played
the "tier 2 and proud" card from a marketing standpoint.  I can think of a
few reasons why I'd rather not be transit free right now, and could
probably successfully pitch those reasons to customers if I wanted to
change careers.

Since I'm not a lawyer, I really can't comment on a false advertising
suit, but you could file one against a lot of people if you got the urge.

cheers.

-travis