Re: Finding clue at comcast.net

["Matt" <acheron () qwest net>]

Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:

> At 10:40 PM -0400 10/9/03, Brandon Ross wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Matt wrote:
> >
> > >   > I wouldn't recommend that actually.  The local folks do not have any
> > >   > control over the IP infrastructure, they only handle the HFC plant.
> > >
> > >  Do you think that may have anything to do with the complaints cited 
> > > here?
> >
> >
> > Nope, most of the complaints here seem to be about technical support.
> >
> > As far as networking problems, I think most folks on NANOG would agree
> > that to run a stable network, the network needs to be designed and
> > operated by a single organization.

     I guess it depends on your geographic definition of an 
organization.  I think it makes sense especially in larger organizations 
to have a centralized reporting structure and to geographically 
centralize other functions such as network monitoring and ordering. 
However, I don't believe it's often in customers' or an organization's 
best interests to move technical expertise to a national NOC.  I've been 
on both sides of the fence, and there are good examples of organizations 
that maintained a centralized reporting structure while maintaining a 
local market technical base (Mediaone was a good example of that model).

     From what I've seen, the closer you get to the customers (those 
ultimately paying our salaries), the quicker things get escalated and 
resolved.  Unfortunately, one large national change management center 
often ends up becoming a bloated, self-sustaining entity that quickly 
grinds innovation and responsiveness to a halt.  Call me crazy, but I'll 
take a qualified engineer in the same state any day to a multilayered 
bureaucracy 500 miles away (or in some cases, a nation away) to get the 
job done efficiently.

     You'll be surprised how quickly things are fixed or projects are 
tackled when you have a regional director's credibility on the line 
because his market's churn rate or MTTR or reliability numbers start to 
falter.

     With control should come responsibility.  In my opinion, placing 
direct pressure to bear on a market's ability to achieve their goals 
(with no excuses, and no finger pointing at a faceless NOC somewhere 
else) often strengthens this relationship to the advantage of the 
customers to which it provides service and to the shareholders as well.