RE: Yahoo, Google, Microsoft contact?

["Frank Bulk" <frnkblk () iname com>]

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: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of
Christopher L. Morrow
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 10:37 AM
To: Ivan Groenewald
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu; nanog () merit edu; '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