Yes, they are. They might not know it but they are. All contracts where dollars change hands are competed for on price.
Not really... contracts are competed based on many other factors other than price. In the case of a network, reliability would be top consideration.
But along with the rest of the context, it reads to me as though they are denying the importance of price in any contract. Price is what it's about and how the value is measure. This is warning number one.
If they have a great new super-efficient product, price should be a number one part of what they offer.
I don't think one can draw "warnings" in strategy deficiencies based on perceived inferences from Casey's speech.
If they have a super-effient product, price shouldn't be number one consideration. OTOH, if GX's network is no less unique than other networks, then price would be an important consideration.
The big issue is whether GX's global IP network is indeed unique and will clearly differentiate itself from the others. Management frequently states that indeed the network is a "differentiation" from the other non-integrated networks. The market seems to imply "no big deal" whether a network is global and integrated, or whether it is made up of different segments from different vendors. Does it really make a difference for a customer to place its IP needs with a integrated supplier like GX, or with Qwest or WCOM, providing same end results by coordinating/consolidating many networks?
The understanding (or perception) of customers to the technical issues of dealing with a network such as GX, or a network such as WCOM, would directly influence pricing. |
