No easy answer in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r17739687 en Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:38:47 EDT Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:38:47 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17756224 Done_Posting : Certainly; I myself have 10+ years customer service experience, over five of which were in ISP / networking, and a little over two years experience training TSR's for deployment to a pseudo call center environment. Although my partner does not have any experience training, he has very strong networking credentials (CCNA, CCNP, and I believe CCDP) and similar practical experience in customer service related positions.

As for the customer education piece of my plan, the specifics have yet to be determined. I have what I believe are promising ideas, but my business design is still very much in its infancy. Initially, taking the time to properly inform customers of what to expect will be easy, as the customer base will be small. As more customers are added though, new methodology will need to be employed, and I freely concede that is an obstacle I'm not prepared for yet. As I said before though -- the whole venture will be a learning process, and I'm confident that we'll be able to roll with the punches.

- Tate

--
Disclaimer for the mentally impaired: My posts reflect my personal opinions and not the views of my employer. I may work for a cable ISP, but I'm still an okay guy. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17756224 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:01:02 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17753216 hobgoblin : Thank You for your comprehensive reply.

I am interested in how much experience you have in Customer support, training of CSR's and in particular the customer education piece.

Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17753216 Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:01:17 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17752894 Done_Posting : Hob, I'd measure speed the same way any network admin would; periodic measurements of the health of my network. If my equipment is operating correctly, then the issue would either have to be WAN or customer related. As dynodb pointed out, I never said I'm interested in creating some utopian broadband system that guarantees you'll have awesome bandwidth 30+ hops away, 24/7. I do plan to offer a speedtest tool to test both internal and external speeds, the feedback from which would help me determine what needs to be adjusted / beefed up / etc. I also would like to offer PC repair services not only to supplement income from the ISP side of things, but also to be able to offer folks an easy way to have virus and upgrade issues addressed. Sort of an ISP / "Geek Squad" (except competent and honest) all rolled into one.

Just to be sure that I don't commit the sin of not responding to every point you make again, I'll itemize:

1. How I'm going to measure speed - Constant automated network monitoring, internal and external speed test tools, customer feedback.

2. How I'm going to support (supply?) that speed - again, constant automated network monitoring, traffic shaping, willingness to listen to customer feedback, expand as necessary, and most of all, Customer education.

3. What I will do when customers call to complain that they cannot reach max speeds due to issues totally outside my control - Customer education

In fact, I'd like to elaborate on "customer education". I think many service calls, refunds, and complaints can be avoided by properly educating subscribers from the start on what they should expect from the service. Sales should always help customers understand what they're purchasing, and installers should always take the time to explain the product they're installing. "Drive-by Installs" don't set proper expectation with subscribers. Support should always have an open mind and be willing to work with customers, suggesting PC-tech service calls or escalating network issues internally when appropriate. In the end, I want an organic network... capable of both steady growth and the ability to evolve to meet customer needs.

If you feel the need to post again with your views on why my business is doomed to fail before it even starts, feel free to do so. Rather than continue to offer a piece-by-piece mission statement / prospectus, I just won't spend any more time responding.

- Tate

--
Disclaimer for the mentally impaired: My posts reflect my personal opinions and not the views of my employer. I may work for a cable ISP, but I'm still an okay guy. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17752894 Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:05:06 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17750419 hobgoblin :
said by dynodb See Profile :

Your point was absurd. The implication was clear that the speed made available to the customer would be guaranteed, not that every web server and virus/spyware infected computer is going to be able to take advantage of that speed.
Ok...but he never answered how he was going to measure that speed....how he was going to support that speed....and what he was going to do with the customers that continued to call stating they never reached that speed due to issues totally outside of his control.
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17750419 Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:35:12 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17750383 dynodb : Your point was absurd. The implication was clear that the speed made available to the customer would be guaranteed, not that every web server and virus/spyware infected computer is going to be able to take advantage of that speed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17750383 Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:27:54 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17746727 hobgoblin : Could not have said it better myself....he ignored every point I made.

Hob]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17746727 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:48:49 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17746495 PretendNerd : See.. You are missing what Hob said... You can in no possible way ensure that your customers obtain a minimum speed.. Even if you ensure that all your customers have state of the art computers with no slowdowns on your network, you are ensuring your customer that other networks will run at the same speeds as you and that every server on the internet will never get hammered by traffic, it is these that cause speed slowdowns as well. Sure people will be able to surf to your ISPs homepage and get good speeds on your network, but how will you ensure they get good speeds to places off your network that are not in your control?

To the customer good speed is not to your homepage.. it is good speed all the time to all the sites that they choose to go to. You will have either a very select customer base, ones that you cater to and in such a case you will never be a large enough entity to cover the costs of providing such levels of service, or you will change your business model to fall in line with the way all ISPs function because there is a reason they function that way]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17746495 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:12:38 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17743755 Done_Posting :
said by hobgoblin See Profile :

So let me get this straight, you will write into your TOS that you will consistently give every customer a stated percentage of their speeds....50% Or 85% which is it?

How are you going to do that with the plethora of speed tests, virus infected CPE's, slow outdated machines, javascript issues etc etc etc.

Your support costs from this will just eat your bottom line alive or you will have to factor this into your monthly fee's which will then make you uncompetitive.

Hob
No, you're misinterpreting what I've said. For non-SLA customers, the TOS will indeed have a clearly stated minimum service level that the customer will be guaranteed to be able to hit any time they test (probably in the vicinity of 1/6th the rate I qualify them for). When I referenced the 50-85% figures, I was saying that if they are not able to achieve these speeds most of the time (but not always), then there is a fault in my product which would require attention. It's a moot point anyway, because for my non-SLA customers I'd prefer to offer ranged tiering as opposed to the traditional "up to" convention. If this becomes unrealistic, then enter the possibility of enforcing generous monthly caps. I'm looking to set up shop in a fairly rural area down South, so traditional competition (xDSL, cableco) wouldn't be a factor.

My point is, any company serious about delivering a consistent product can do so, but they have to take an active interest in keeping the network running smoothly and securing the proper resources. If that means sinking additional money into infrastructure, redefining the terms of the product, or properly policing their traffic, then so be it. I know it won't be easy, but I'm determined to offer a service that I'd be willing to subscribe to myself.

Either way, thanks for sharing your opinion Hob!

- Tate

--
Disclaimer for the mentally impaired: My posts reflect my personal opinions and not the views of my employer. I may work for a cable ISP, but I'm still an okay guy. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17743755 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:52:08 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17743346 hobgoblin : "Speaking as a future ISP owner, I would take enough pride in my product to ensure that I could at least deliver a set amount of bandwidth reliably. If customers weren't consistently getting at least 50-85% of the speeds I qualify them for, I'd acknowledge that something needed attention."

So let me get this straight, you will write into your TOS that you will consistently give every customer a stated percentage of their speeds....50% Or 85% which is it?

How are you going to do that with the plethora of speed tests, virus infected CPE's, slow outdated machines, javascript issues etc etc etc.

Your support costs from this will just eat your bottom line alive or you will have to factor this into your monthly fee's which will then make you uncompetitive.

Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17743346 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:35:34 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17742991 Done_Posting :
said by dynodb See Profile :

I agree, though from a marketing standpoint I'm not sure that would go over well. Tell people they're only guaranteed they'll get 384k on a 1M connection from the outset and they'll assume the worst, even if in reality they'll get close to 1M 90% of the time.
You make another excellent point. I've seen at least one successful WISP that advertised ranged tiering (example - $50 per month for the 768kbps to 1.5mbps tier) as opposed to relying on the "up to" crutch. If memory serves, they also have a clear disclaimer stating the minimum guaranteed speed was 256kbps. I'll see if I can't find them again and post their addy.

Since we're basically talking about disclosure here, I'd also like to share my view that it's perfectly fine for an ISP to rate limit / traffic shape, but the parameters of said traffic shaping should be posted on the ISP's FAQ section of their website. Fair is fair.

- Tate

--
Disclaimer for the mentally impaired: My posts reflect my personal opinions and not the views of my employer. I may work for a cable ISP, but I'm still an okay guy. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17742991 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:17:39 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17742918 Done_Posting :
said by hobgoblin See Profile :

You are going out of business baby...

Hob
And you base your statement on...?

You have no idea what kind of business model I'm looking to implement or the capital I'll have at my disposal, what kind of services, prices, customer base, location, what kind of bandwidth management I'd employ, etc...

I'm willing to objectively listen to whatever point or argument you're trying to make, so please -- enlighten me.

- Tate

--
Disclaimer for the mentally impaired: My posts reflect my personal opinions and not the views of my employer. I may work for a cable ISP, but I'm still an okay guy. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17742918 Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:00:39 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17741737 hobgoblin : "Speaking as a future ISP owner, I would take enough pride in my product to ensure that I could at least deliver a set amount of bandwidth reliably. If customers weren't consistently getting at least 50-85% of the speeds I qualify them for, I'd acknowledge that something needed attention."

You are going out of business baby...

Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17741737 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:59:29 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17740427 dynodb :
said by Done_Posting See Profile :

I do want to say however, that I don't feel that advertising a clearly defined minimum line speed would be too much to ask. On a 1Mbps connection, why not at least advertise the bare minimum as 384kbps or 256kbps?
I agree, though from a marketing standpoint I'm not sure that would go over well. Tell people they're only guaranteed they'll get 384k on a 1M connection from the outset and they'll assume the worst, even if in reality they'll get close to 1M 90% of the time.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17740427 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:35:35 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17740234 Done_Posting : An excellent response!

Like you, I can empathize with folks that don't understand that a $30 - $80 Cable / xDSL connection cannot realistically perform the same way as a $300 - $5000 SLA'ed circuit does 24/7. To vilify a company for using the phrase "up to" simply isn't fair though. I've voiced my stance on this subject passionately here at BBR many times, so I'm not going to spout out my opinion regarding consumers that don't bother to research what they purchase again. I do want to say however, that I don't feel that advertising a clearly defined minimum line speed would be too much to ask. On a 1Mbps connection, why not at least advertise the bare minimum as 384kbps or 256kbps?

Speaking as a future ISP owner, I would take enough pride in my product to ensure that I could at least deliver a set amount of bandwidth reliably. If customers weren't consistently getting at least 50-85% of the speeds I qualify them for, I'd acknowledge that something needed attention.

Full speeds 24/7/365 though? Hell no. Get off my network or sign an SLA contract.

- Tate]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17740234 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:04:24 EDT Re: No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17740091 tschmidt : Apparently I've been lucky in that by and large Verizon has delivered the speed promised. They set marketed rate lower then sync rate to accommodate and hide network overhead. That way when a customers run performance tests resulting speed is close to advertised speed.

First-Mile access is difficult to market because so many variables affect user perception. What I think most folks are really upset about is when network slowdowns or instability persist for days or weeks and the company hides behind the its only a "best effort" service.

At the same time there may be many factors outside the companies control that affect end-to-end performance.

/Tom ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17740091 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:42:34 EDT No easy answer http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17739687 dynodb : Both sides- the broadband providers and consumer advocates- have valid points, but there's no simple answer here.

While the providers advertise their service as "up to X meg", I can understand why some would be frustrated that they weren't getting the full "up to" speed, especially when they often weren't told in advance what they'd actually get.

From the provider standpoint, you'd have to severely overbuild your network at much greater expense and/or test each and every line before it's even ordered to see what it can support.

In addition, nearly every aspect of pretty much every provider's network- and the entire Internet for that matter- is oversubscribed. It would only take a fraction of total customers to download a file simultaneously before both the provider and ISP facilities were maxed out.

The simplistic answer espoused by many BBR posters would be "just invest in more capacity you big greedy corporations!", but that comes at a price that must be passed on to customers if they are to make a profit- there's a reason that a 1.536M dedicated T1 costs $400/month while DSL and cable cost roughly one tenth that. Without oversubscription (which practically every provider large and small relies on), that simply wouldn't be the case.

Is it reasonable for a customer to expect the maximum "up to" speed 24/7 for $40/month? No. Is it reasonable to a provider to consistanly deliver far less speed than the full rate their line can support? No.

For now, subscribers should get used to the idea of "up to" a certain speed, while providers should work to make sure reasonable customer expectations are met.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,17739687 Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:43:00 EDT