<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-AU" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">One of my old colleagues was famous for saying “We don’t need X monitoring system! If we know problems exist, we have to fix them!”
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Thank goodness he was primarily a people manager and not making business system decisions…</span><u><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#ED7D31"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark Smith<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 17 September 2015 7:21 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Paul Brooks <pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au><br>
<b>Cc:</b> ausnog@lists.ausnog.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [AusNOG] NBNco: "Let's start competing with our customers!"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><br>
On 17 Sep 2015 16:41, "Paul Brooks" <<a href="mailto:pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au">pbrooks-ausnog@layer10.com.au</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 17/09/2015 3:25 PM, Paul Wilkins wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> have a think about how local pizza<br>
>> shops manage to survive in competition to national pizza<br>
>> chains/franchises, who will have lower costs. They're all<br>
>> fundamentally selling pizza, so how do local pizza shops get away with<br>
>> not only selling the same thing, but probably make a much bigger<br>
>> profit when doing it?<br>
>><br>
>> Depends if you want something that someone has repackaged from an industrial toxic spill, or a pizza.<br>
>><br>
>> ISP's otoh largely can't differentiate their product.<br>
><br>
> Seriously?<br>
> iiNet/Westnet dined out on better customer care<br>
> Internode had a rep for excellent network, a premium service they could charge a premium price for.<br>
> DoDo has a different niche.<br>
> Some offer FetchTV over their network. A local/regional player could have a dropin-centre where customers can bring in their devices for cleaning/debugging/upgrading. Some have more peering than others.<br>
> Internode is (was?) the only major IPv6/IPv4 dual-stack service around - which is ridiculous, since anyone can supply IPv6 through Telstra Wholesale ADSL.<br>
><br>
> Differentiate yourself - turn on IPv6 for your customers, then shout it from the rooftops.<br>
><br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>IPv6 is important, but most customers are not going to see the value in it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>A simpler thing to do is to stop waiting for the customer to ring up with a line fault, meaning that your only contact with them is when they've got a fault and they've had to initiate getting it fixed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Instead, using your authentication database, identify customers who are authenticating often. They'll likely have a line fault, so *protectively* get it fixed. To make this visible to the customer, making them value your service, call them up during or
after dealing with the fault, letting them know you've discovered it and are arranging to have our have fixed it. They'll love that because you've fixed a problem for them that they may not have even know they had, or needed to find time to call your help
desk.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>That will also shorten help desk phone queues for those who do have to call you.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Another idea is to stop measuring help desk staffs' performance by number of calls answered in an hour. That creates a perverse incentive to tell the customer to reboot their router and to call back if that doesn't fix the problem. Rebooting equipment never
fixes the problem, it just makes it disappear for a while.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Instead measure help desk performance by how often the customer *doesn't* call back. If they only call once within a period of a week, that means the help desk person solved their problem on the first call. Solving problems is what help desk staff are there
for, not to increment call per hour counters.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Run network monitoring so that you can avoid congestion rather than waiting for customers to call you, asking them to do annoying and long testing procedures, as some ISPs seem to be doing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Teach management what congestion is and how it damages the customer experience. Even better, demonstrate those effects using a live demo where you introduce increased latency and packet loss. Show then why when you say the company needs to buy more bandwidth
it isn't to satisfy a bandwidth fetish they might think you have.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Think about customer pain points and problems and then see if you can be smart and avoid or mitigate them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The better you look, the more you see.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>><br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>> Paul Wilkins<br>
>><br>
>> On 17 September 2015 at 13:07, Mark Smith <<a href="mailto:markzzzsmith@gmail.com">markzzzsmith@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 17 September 2015 at 09:57, Noel Butler <<a href="mailto:noel.butler@ausics.net">noel.butler@ausics.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> > On 17/09/2015 09:37, Paul Brooks wrote:<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > On 17/09/2015 7:56 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > I am saying that while the CVC should be like $2.... if they aggregated<br>
>>> > their PoI's, you'd need a lot less because it would scale much much more and<br>
>>> > it would actually costs less.<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > Methinks you're confusing topology with charging model. If you negotiated<br>
>>> > your wholesale backhaul provider to just add up all the traffic on all the<br>
>>> > POI ports and charge you for the aggregate, rather than per physical port,<br>
>>> > it wouldn't matter how many actual POIs there were.<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > This whole mess also seems to hang on two assumptions:<br>
>>> > 1) every ISP needs to service the whole national footprint<br>
>>> > 2) every ISP needs to charge the same uniform retail price all over the<br>
>>> > footprint.<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > Are either of these true?<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > Of course they are - unless you want to be blasted into extinction<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > 1 - a necessity to compete/survive<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > 2 - a necessity to compete/survive<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > I'm truly amazed someone on THIS list assuming they have any RSP experience<br>
>>> > even asks such a question<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>>><br>
>>> If small players think they can out capitalise and out scale of<br>
>>> economise much larger players, then they're never going to win.<br>
>>><br>
>>> As a smaller RSP, If your only competitive advantage is your lower<br>
>>> price, then you're vulnerable to your competitors lowering their<br>
>>> prices. That is an easy and low effort decision by your competitors,<br>
>>> and if they have larger margins to do it, because their scales of<br>
>>> economy are larger and as they get larger volume discounts from their<br>
>>> suppliers, they have much more room to lower their costs.<br>
>>><br>
>>> It is a race to the bottom, and since you're starting much closer to<br>
>>> the bottom than your competitors are, you'll lose (they will probably<br>
>>> get in trouble for using their market power to crush you, however you<br>
>>> may suffer a fatal blow before they get taken to court, the court case<br>
>>> occurs etc., etc.)<br>
>>><br>
>>> You're far better off trying to find something that your competitors<br>
>>> can't or won't do, creating a barrier to entry. Then you have a unique<br>
>>> advantage (i.e., a natural monopoly), which means customers must come<br>
>>> to you to get it because they can't or can't easily get it from<br>
>>> anybody else, and you can charge what your customers are willing to<br>
>>> pay for your unique value, rather the same or a few percentage points<br>
>>> lower than your competitors' prices.<br>
>>><br>
>>> If you don't think this works, have a think about how local pizza<br>
>>> shops manage to survive in competition to national pizza<br>
>>> chains/franchises, who will have lower costs. They're all<br>
>>> fundamentally selling pizza, so how do local pizza shops get away with<br>
>>> not only selling the same thing, but probably make a much bigger<br>
>>> profit when doing it?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > _______________________________________________<br>
>>> > AusNOG mailing list<br>
>>> ><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net"> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
>>> ><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog"> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> AusNOG mailing list<br>
>>><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net"> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
>>><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog"> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> AusNOG mailing list<br>
>><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net"> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
>><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog"> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> AusNOG mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net"> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>
><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog"> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>