Frank,
This contract for the IRU referenced in this post: Message 15687786 indicates to me how sensitive this contract is for isolating ATT from the potential damages resulting from ATHM's "entangling alliances" with other carriers, and other carriers' poorly executed responsibilities.
One of the greatest concerns of my business is communications; I even carry redundant ISPs for my home, and I have nobody else using those systems. I can extrapolate: as MNCs become more interdependent in their world-wide ops, and as decision-making can still be centralized, the need for high QoS becomes more urgent.
I rather imagine that the costs of high QoS (SLA) balance out at some point with losses due to the next lower grade SLA. Herein would be, for myself, the differential for choosing one provider over another, given free choice.
I continue to seek info on how to properly evaluate the market's willingness to pay for high QoS. A well-managed MNO can offer good QoS, *if the economics for the MNO allow*. Needing to hit a lower price point in order to stay afloat with a particular business model is often achieved via higher volume of business, lower QoS. (Costco Model)
If I have presented this concept clearly, I would like to know how I can properly evaluate its financial impact on MNOs, and their potential market share WRT serving a higher QoS niche in the overall market. If I have not presented this concept clearly, please ask, or correct, as required.
Regards,
Martin Thomas |
