Josh Anderson's Blog

Too Big for the Channel?

2009-09-16T10:57:00Z

In the latest of my PHONE+ posts, I talk about some carriers' tendency to view the channel as the little guys, with no business pursuing large enterprise accounts. Read it on PHONE+, or see the reprint below:

Last week I found myself in the middle of a battle that’s all too familiar – trying to explain to a large carrier why an agent who brought a large enterprise deal should be paid on its growth. This battle has been waged before, even over this particular deal. By the end of it I couldn’t help but wonder if many large carriers simply believe that big deals just aren’t for the channel, as if the channel is only worth paying on deals that a carrier doesn’t want to hire internal resources to pursue.

In this instance, the agent has been paid on the deal for nearly a decade. Over that time, the decision-making executive has changed four times. The account has both grown and shrunk, sometimes by more than $50,000 at a time. The agent, for his part, arguably has continued to provide meaningful value, placing employees on-site to perform consulting services for free, sometimes for over a year at a time. This isn’t a case of an agent selling a small deal, then going on vacation while the carrier grows it and he cashes the checks.

Six months ago I met with an executive at the carrier in question and this account came up, along with a few others (our 10 largest accounts, in fact). The message communicated was that I would be wise to make sure our agents continued to bring value to the accounts or we might find ourselves muscled out. Most of these accounts were customers that this carrier had no knowledge of prior to the agent bringing it. In one case, what started as a single long-distance T1 ended up growing into a multi-product account billing more than $100,000 per month.

As agents, we are often at the mercy of our carriers, particularly on enterprise deals, and it seems like many carriers recognize this and use it as leverage. Very few enterprise deals can be successfully won by an agent without engaging the carrier, and that engagement often – rightly – turns into a relationship between the carrier and the customer. It seems like carriers understand that it would be suicide for an agent to attempt to leverage his relationship with a customer to encourage that customer to back him up in a compensation dispute. Not only do customers not want to get involved in that mess, it would be hard for the agent not to lose some credibility in the process.

Is this just the dirty nature of the beast? I know I’m not the only one in our industry to deal with these types of tactics, and although we generally succeed in protecting the agent, it’s guerilla warfare. There’s no hard-and-fast strategy I’ve found to prevent these types of attempts by carriers besides fighting tooth and nail with whatever tools are at my disposal. What have you experienced and what have you done to protect yourself? Are these types of disputes more common these days? Are some deals really just too big for the channel?

Tech Might Does Not Make Right

2009-03-25T18:16:00Z

In my last post, What Have You Done for Me Lately? (also on PHONE+), I discussed the impact of commoditization on the value proposition of our industry and how that commoditization, when paired with out-of-whack incentives that discourage long-term considerations, negatively impacts the ethical foundation of our industry. I outlined how the environment is such that “the system” appears to be designed to push for incremental account acquisition, often at the expense of retention and customer satisfaction.

These concerns are daunting alone, and even if we do take steps to resolve them there is still an ethical challenge built into our industry that is even more insidious – selling a technical product to a non-technical consumer imposes certain ethical challenges that are sometimes difficult to address, even for the most straight-laced among us.

I consider these challenges insidious because they are so easy to get wrong and they can do significant damage to the relationships we seek to forge with our clients. There is nothing that will kill a relationship – and your future sales prospects – faster than a customer suspecting that they were sold a bill of goods or were sold something they did not need. What’s worse is that such suspicions can arise not due to real wrongdoing, but simply because the client does not understand the solution.

Ethically, there is clearly some black and white, but the gray area dominates. None of us would dispute the despicability of the salesperson who willfully misrepresents a complicated technical product as the cure for all ills, relying on the uninformed client’s deer-in-the-headlights response to instill fear and take advantage of the client’s desire to do best by his company. Likewise, most would agree that the salesperson who takes the time to educate his client and to explain both the advantages and disadvantages of a new technology solution is ethically squeaky-clean. However, in reality most of us play somewhere in between.

The size of the gray area here makes it difficult to pin down what is ethical and what isn’t, and exactly what constitutes our responsibilities as service providers and consultants. The fact that we as an industry are experts in telecommunications and our clients are experts only in their field of business can make it easy to slip into some key ethical failures.

The most common failure is that of glossing over a solution’s shortcomings in an effort to win the sale or to satisfy the customer. As salespeople we will always push the envelope by over-committing, but we have to be able to recognize when we’re taking advantage of our clients’ inexperience to force a sale. We know when the client is relying on our expertise as guidance, and for us to breach that fiduciary duty is unethical.

Similar, but less clear, is the tendency not to learn enough about the client’s requirements to be able to produce a suitable solution. We have to resist the urge to listen for what we want to hear, becoming in the process the guy with the hammer to whom every problem looks like a nail. A warning sign of this thought process is the belief that we know the client’s business needs better than they do.

The best guide is to remember that we in the indirect channel are generally expected to be advocates for both our carriers and our customers. We should not forget that we have at least some responsibility to represent and guide our clients – we shouldn’t be blindly drinking the Kool-Aid fed to us by carriers about the latest and greatest product being the end-all and be-all. A healthy dose of skepticism helps us to maintain our intellectual honesty, a critical component to the effectiveness of anyone performing a consultative sale.

It’s not always easy since most of us have a deep understanding of the technical aspects of our industry, but recognizing that our clients’ relative lack of understanding creates a responsibility for us (not an opportunity) will help to keep us in line. If we’re doing our jobs then we will know when we’re pushing the limits of ethical conduct.

PHONE+ Blog Post: What Have You Done for Me Lately?

2009-02-17T15:00:00Z

As part of my participation in the PHONE+ Advisory Board, I'm writing blog posts for the Peer-to-Peer blog on the PHONE+ site. The latest can be read on the PHONE+ Peer-to-Peer page and is reproduced below:

My initiation into the ethics in the telecommunications industry was not unlike a fraternity hazing. I began as a subagent of a master who ultimately decided that my commissions were better suited to his bank account than mine. I then moved to another master and within a year was told that they couldn’t pay me because, well, they needed the money more than I did. Surmising that simply operating ethically could be a major competitive advantage, and not wanting to continue buying Italian sportscars for the CEOs of slimy master agents, I decided to found Telephony Partners and try to do it right.
Since then the industry has grown up a lot, but it seems like the question of ethics is still lurking beneath the surface. The nature of the business and the way the incentive systems work, it’s naïve to believe that simply talking about ethics will bring about change. In this and my next two blogs, I’ll discuss some of the characteristics of our industry that appear to encourage ethical abuse, and I’ll make some suggestions on how we as an industry can try to turn the tide.
It’s important to start by looking at how ethics can be so seemingly unimportant to the main actors in our market. Our industry – like most other technology industries – sows the seeds of its own demise by commoditizing its products and services. In a commoditized industry, soft values like customer service and pre-sales support lose their luster, and what’s left is a rabid focus on more and more new sales. How often have you had the “what have you done for me lately” conversation with your carriers or agents?
The resulting culture is not unlike that of a stereotypical car salesman, whose common refrain is, “What can I do to have you drive this baby home tonight?” However, even the auto industry has picked up on the problem and begun putting incentive systems in place that meticulously measure and reward customer satisfaction and loyalty. In telecommunications, the incentives that are being stressed are almost entirely based on sales accomplishments – our inboxes overflow with SPIF offers, but when is the last time you saw an SPIF tied to retention or to customer satisfaction? Indeed, we can all recall instances where carriers specifically penalized renewals with lower commissions.
When we do see incentives based on retention or customer satisfaction, they usually comprise the stick portion of the carrot-and-stick system. We suffer the consequences of poor customer service by losing the customer and are penalized for poor retention rates. Even if your business is based on residual incomes, as ours is, the security of our collective incomes is driven fundamentally by the acquisition of new business.
We’re not going to stop the commoditization of technology products and services, but we as an industry have control over the market we make. We will always have commodity sellers, but it’s not inconceivable that the rewards system could be changed to move the focus away from the churn-and-burn status quo and favor instead a longer view. The question is whether the industry as a whole could achieve such a change.

Interesting 1960's-era Bell Pamphlet

2008-07-31T19:40:00Z

These scans of an early Bell Telephone pamphlet give some interesting suggestions on how to properly display phone numbers.

How to avoid the top ways VARs fail as telecom agents - Part 2

2008-03-25T18:54:00Z

In my prior post, I discussed the integration of carrier service sales into the VAR business model and how it is prone to failure if the VAR doesn't avoid making some common miscalculations. The first I explained was the misconception that carrier service sales can just be dropped into an existing business model. For this post, I'd like to discuss another key misconception:

Misconception #2: "I don't need to understand the technical aspects of carrier services to be successful."
Although there are some circumstances where a VAR can simply throw a lead over the fence and earn a small referral commission, that's not the way a VAR is going to reap the kinds of rewards necessary for carrier service sales to make a meaningful impact on the business. Almost without exception carrier services are all about the application.

A VAR offering carrier services as part of the solution is most likely going to be selling equipment or services that are tied to the carrier services being offered. The only way to ensure that the combined solution not only works, but effectively addresses the client's needs, is to have a firm grasp of the technical components of the carrier services being offered.

Opportunity: If you're a VAR selling carrier services, your top competitor is going to be direct carrier sales reps. These folks may understand the intricacies of the carrier products, but it's unlikely they will be able to understand the application as deeply as you would.

As the equipment vendor, be it routers or phone systems, you have intimate knowledge of your client's business requirements and of the capabilities of the equipment you're selling. If you can pair that expertise with a technical understanding of the carrier services, you will consistently win against a competitor offering only carrier services. Begin with your core business.

Become an expert at the typical applications to which your core business applies
If, for example, you are a softswitch VAR with a specific sales focus on multi-site businesses, map out the carrier services typically required to implement that solution. If your clients overwhelmingly implement private WANs utilizing quality of service, become an expert on MPLS and VPLS and demonstrate to your client that you have the expertise to make the parts work together perfectly.
Follow through with training for your technical staff
If your technicians are already implementing your equipment into clients' carrier service networks, chances are they understand a lot of the technical aspects. Leverage this built-in expertise by formalizing their approach and training them specifically on troubleshooting circuits, performing turn-ups, etc.
Maintain the knowledge
To use the example above, staying up to date on the latest WAN trends is as important as staying up to date on the latest VOIP trends. Almost every VAR offers some sort of technology that depends in some way on the carrier network, be it for voice communication, Internet, or WAN connectivity. Changes in the carrier services industry can make a big difference in a VAR's business, and staying on top of them will give you a definite edge.

The underlying point here is that technical expertise in carrier services allows a VAR to expand accountability to a customer. If you can convince your client to utilize that, you have a greater chance of becoming the go-to resource for a wider variety of customer needs. Not only will this let you increase the business you do with your clients, it will insulate you from competition from carriers.

Qwest's Q4 profits up 89%

2008-03-10T18:53:00Z

The AP reported last month that Qwest's 4Q profits were up 89%. It's comforting to see this reward for Qwest, one of the last tier-one carriers truly focused on simply doing business rather than digesting acquisitions or positioning to be acquired. A big part of me wonders how much the Qwest channel integration program drives this type of performance.

Meanwhile, across town, Level3's cofounder resigned, amid their continuing difficulties dealing with their rash of acquisitions and the provisioning and customer service issues they created. Here's to hoping they pull through — we've thrown plenty of business at them, but nothing seems to stick.

How to avoid the top ways VARs fail as telecom agents - Part 1

2008-03-10T14:20:00Z

During our XO agent event in February, Peter Radizeski and I found ourselves in a conversation about master agents and how they qualify and develop productive sub-agents. This conversation ultimately spawned a podcast he and I created, but this subject carries special significance for us at Telephony Partners and probably merits some deeper discussion.

For the most part, the background of our staff (myself included) lies in the VAR space. In fact, Rick and I were once agents through our VAR companies, so we've gone through the learning curve of integrating services into the sales of related products. Most VARs at least intellectually understand the value of diversifying their revenue streams, especially as they watch their margins go down with increased competition from national outlets like CDW and Dell, but for many the execution fails miserably.

Why is this? There's no simple answer. As with most things, it seems that there are far more ways to fail than to succeed.

In my opinion, one of the biggest reasons so many VARs ultimately abandon their agent aspirations has a lot to do with the expectations either purposefully or inadvertently set by their master agent. This is the first of four articles outlining common — but incorrect — expectations VARs often have, and how to turn them into opportunities.

Misconception #1: "This plugs right into my sales model."
The truth is that the VARs who are most successful selling carrier services worked very hard to change their sales model to incorporate effective service sales strategies. VARs focus their sales model on hardware and support services. Carrier services brings another element altogether.

Opportunity: Understand that carrier services materially impacts the value proposition you articulate to your customers. There are a number of ways we see VARs leverage this.

Sell the total solution. Make the components incidental to the sale
While this may sound like the same tired sales-speak everyone spouts, VARs that can offer and control a variety of products and services are not selling with a narrow agenda. They can sell the results, and focus on impact dollars rather than rates and costs.
Represent service management as an intangible value-add
It's inevitable that someone has to manage the connection of your hardware to the services it uses. Make it more difficult for a customer to nickel and dime you with quotes from online mega-retailers by introducing a "free" service as part of your package. If everyone's selling apples, offer your customer an orange.
Separate equipment and service sales in order to use each as a gateway to the other
Particularly effective when used by VARs with large, mature sales infrastructures, segregating the sales processes related to equipment and carrier services allows you to up-sell customers with the secondary focus. Leading with an equipment sale allows for an add-on of services. Leading with a services sale allows for an add-on of equipment.

Overall, VARs should understand that, in order to be successful integrating carrier services into the business model, focused work is necessary to integrate them into the sales model. If a VAR is told that selling services is "easy" or otherwise an afterthought of the primary reseller business, they're being set up for failure.

Why Information Technology Sales Fail to Close

2007-08-17T17:47:00Z

Picture this: It's the middle of the month and you are sitting at your desk reviewing the preliminary monthly sales forecasts submitted to you by your sales representatives. You note for about the eighth month in a row, you see the same prospect you've seen lingering, month after month, again, forecast to close. This is the same prospect you authorized the multiple "four-legged" sales calls, prototyped the "must have, or we won't buy" reports and hosted a full day visit at your corporate headquarters. Your company has put a lot of time and expense into selling this account. You are under increasing pressure to close this sale. Having considered all these things, you decide to place a telephone call to your sales representative to determine what else needs to be done in order to insure that this prospect closes this month…as forecast. Upon reaching your sales rep he informs you that he has just spoken with the prospect and they have decided to do business as usual; they have simply elected to do nothing. He tells you that he has been encouraged to follow-up in about three months. The opportunity has been lost to 'No Decision'.

Have you experienced this lately? If you have, you are not alone. One of the chief concerns we are hearing from the senior sales executives with whom we have worked is their frustration with the large number of qualified sales opportunities that are lost to 'No Decision' after long and expensive sales cycles. Our research shows that between 60 and 80 percent of all losses are due to 'No Decision.' That's more losses to 'No Decision' than to any single named competitor, making your number one competitor…No Decision, Inc.!!

Why do your prospects elect to do nothing, despite you and your sales representatives best efforts? We see primarily four major reasons.

1. No Goal
CustomerCentric Selling® is helping the buyer achieve a goal, solve a problem, or satisfy a need. It should go without saying that if a buyer is unwilling to share a goal with a sales person (much less a problem) then the seller doesn't have a prospect. It is as simple as that. When we help our clients define their sales process, an opportunity typically goes from "Inactive" to "Active" status when the buyer shares a goal. We use to define a prospect as a buyer who had admitted a problem or "pain". Over the years we discovered there were very few sellers (particularly young sellers) who are able to get a C level executive of a public company to publicly admit a problem. As my partner Mike Bosworth likes to point out: As we approach middle-age, it is much easier for us to 'volunteer' that we'd like to lose a few pounds (a goal), than to get us to admit that we're fat (a pain). Think about it.

Business executives don't authorize the spending of large sums of money just to be the proud owners of whatever it is you are selling. As a result, we subscribe to a core concept, "No goal, no prospect." At the very minimum, the buyer must be unhappy with some aspect of his business, and want to fix it, to engage and initiate a "buy cycle" with a sales person.

TIP: Sales people who fail to take the time to diagnose and understand their buyer's goal, and the business issues/obstacles that are preventing them from achieving that goal, either lose the sale to no decision or, get outsold by the sales person who does.

2. No Solution
Despite your best efforts (the four-legged sales calls, the "must have, or we won't buy" reports, corporate visits, etc.), the buyer still does not have a clear understanding of how he will achieve his goal(s) by purchasing your product or service. Again, this is a result of the sales person leading with product feature and function, before first taking the time to understand the goal that the prospect wants to achieve, then diagnosing and understanding the business issues and obstacles, and then relating how the capabilities of the product or service can be used to eliminate the prospects business issues/obstacles allowing them to attain their goal.

TIP: The key to selling is the ability to converse. If your salespeople are unable to have a meaningful conversation, an intelligent two way dialogue, with a targeted decision maker about the use of your offering to achieve a goal, solve a problem or satisfy a need, and document that conversation succinctly, then all the training on prospecting, qualifying, presentation skills, closing, handling objections, negotiating, etc., are a waste of money! The conversation is where the sale takes place.

3. No Power
How many times have you spent months selling to someone who told you early on that the decision to purchase your offering was their decision, only to find out later they couldn't purchase ten sharp pencils without someone else's approval? While end-users and recommenders are fun to sell to, their needs and requirements may be altogether different than the ultimate decision maker, the person with the power and authority to buy. If they don't have the authority to purchase your products and services, you're not selling; you're simply providing this person with a free (but expensive for you) education.

TIP: Senior executives are charged with identifying and solving problems. Gaining access to the decision maker(s) early in the sales cycle can help eliminate the risk of no decision, protect your expensive corporate resources, cause unbudgeted money to be spent, and dramatically shorten the sales cycle.

4. No Value
We've already established that for a company to change how they are currently doing business there has to be a goal. Remember, "No goal, no prospect." The goal has to be related back to dollars - reduced cost, avoided cost or increased revenue, among other factors. If you are asking a company to pay $100,000 for your product, the value of achieving the goal(s) better be at least $200,000. It makes sense, doesn't it? Would you spend $100,000 to solve a $50,000 problem?

I'm amazed at the number of sales people who don't take the time to understand the value of their products and services to their prospects and, more importantly, don't actively participate in helping their prospect prepare a cost/benefit analysis. Your prospect is not the only one who is competing for his/her company's potentially limited funding. You need to equip him with the logic and rationale to support his request for funding.

TIP: Think of the tactical advantage a sales person has going into price negotiations when he knows exactly how much his prospect will save and when he will achieve a return on his investment. It makes it very easy to say 'No', in response to a request for a discount.

Now, let me ask you a question. Think of all of your 'year-to-date' missed opportunities. What would it have been worth to you and your organization if your sales people could have reduced their losses to 'No Decision' by twenty, fifty, or even seventy-five percent? Isn't it time to enroll in a CustomerCentric Selling® workshop?

Gary Walker is managing partner of CustomerCentric Systems, LLC and coauthor of the CustomerCentric Selling® sales methodology.

Brooktrout Fax over IP webinar tomorrow

2007-04-23T20:59:00Z

Cantata, the company that now makes Brooktrout fax boards, is hosting a webinar discussing fax over IP. Anyone wishing to check it out can register online.

For those of you unfamiliar with VOIP and FOIP, it's actually more complicated than you might think. Compressing and uncompressing a QAM data stream can result in minute changes to the audio that can cause the fax transmission to fail, but there are VOIP-specific transmission methods like T.38 and T.37. I presume this webinar will explain those options and tell you that there are a number of Brooktrout boards that are up to the task.

The Impact of ChipPCs and Thin Clients on the Network

2007-03-31T16:37:00Z

We recently completed a roll-out of a large TeleVantage system for a financial services call center and had a chance to see some of their future plans for their technology infrastructure. Their IT staff has really bought into the concept of virtualization and presently uses VMware to maintain a series of virtual servers on their network.

The most interesting thing they showed me, though, was their plan for taking that concept of virtual machines to the desktop level. They had a test set up with a JackPC made by ChipPC. This device is a small Windows CE-based block, probably two inches square and an inch and a half deep, designed to fit inside a standard wall jack. The network connection is at the rear, and the only connections visible are USB, sound, and video connections. There are a variety of models available supporting multiple displays.

The Windows CE OS ran an RDP client that would connect to a Terminal Server, but also supports VDI, a VMware protocol that allows virtual desktop images to be hosted by a single server, providing insulated OS environments for the individual desktops. This allows you to avoid the conflicts of a shared platform like Terminal Server.

The possibility of utilizing a purely thin-client environment has definite impacts on the WAN design. Companies looking to roll out an enterprise network can achieve centralized management and avoid resource issues at the desktop, but a smart WAN setup is a must. Particularly if the enterprise design includes centrally-hosted VOIP (as it will for this particular customer), an advanced transport technology like MPLS is almost a requirement.

Overall, the design could be constructed so as not to consume inordinate amounts of bandwidth, and indeed should result in a sizeable increase in efficiency in all areas of the business. The whole idea behind virtualization is the efficient utilization of server resources, and that same economies of scale apply to the network as well. In a previous article the cost-per-MB of various data connections was discussed, and this type of centralization could allow an enterprise to leverage that efficiency by consolidating Internet access and relying on relatively lightweight connections to the satellites.

Efficiency aside, some enterprises love this idea for the control it allows. Centralizing the processing allows a consolidated IT staff to manage security, support users, and control network performance.

XO SIP Trunking Successfully Tested on TeleVantage

2007-02-28T00:17:00Z

Yesterday Telephony Partners successfully tested SIP trunking from XO on a TeleVantage system. We expect a full certification to be forthcoming, but as it stands now we're comfortable with the performance. Even on a straight Qwest 1.5Mbps Internet pipe with no QoS the quality was on par with a good cellphone call. I'm sure with QoS or with the IP traveling over an XO circuit it would be even better.

SIP trunking is a voice over IP service that allows SIP-based VoIP systems to get dial tone over a data connection. For IP-PBX systems like TeleVantage, this means that you can have a full-featured PBX without requiring any PSTN trunk cards. The connection between the PBX and the phones can be IP, and the connection between the PBX and the outside world can be via IP. With HMP (host media processing), certain systems could employ a completely software-based system comprised of only a server and TeleVantage software.

If you are an existing TeleVantage owner wishing to take advantage of this new voice service, or if you're considering a VoIP system and like the idea of being able to have a 100% software-based switch, contact our sales department.

AltiGen Interactive Demos

2007-02-22T16:09:00Z

These have been on their site for some time, but I still think they're pretty well done. Unlike video demos that seem to never go at the pace I want, or downloadable demo versions that require installation, AltiGen's interactive flash demos are lightweight, easy to use, and do a pretty good job giving you an idea of what the system is like.

The AltiAgent interface interactive demo is one of the more robust. Be sure to click the config button and run through the tabs.

The Economics of Bandwidth

2007-02-14T14:37:00Z

Jeff Atwood of Coding Horror posted an interesting article after news of the disappearance of Turing award-winning researcher Jim Gray. In this article he analyzes the economics of bandwidth when sending large amounts of data.

Jeff cites an ACM interview in which Jim Gray describes "TeraScale SneakerNet" boxes he created to transmit 40 TB of data across the country. He found that the cost and time to send such a large amount of data was actually lower using a scaled-up version of SneakerNet – the old-school version of networking that involved physically running floppy disks from computer to computer. They created these high-capacity, ruggedized external drives that they would fill with data then ship via FedEx.

JG We built more than 20 of these boxes we call TeraScale SneakerNet boxes. Three of them are in circulation. We have a dozen doing TeraServer work; we have about eight in our lab for video archives, backups, and so on. It's real convenient to have 40 TB of storage to work with if you are a database guy. Remember the old days and the original eight-inch floppy disks? These are just much bigger.

DP "Sneaker net" was when you used your sneakers to transport data?
JG In the old days, sneaker net was the notion that you would pull out floppy disks, run across the room in your sneakers, and plug the floppy into another machine. This is just TeraScale SneakerNet. You write your terabytes onto this thing and ship it out to your pals. Some of our pals are extremely well connected—they are part of Internet 2, Virtual Business Networks (VBNs), and the Next Generation Internet (NGI). Even so, it takes them a long time to copy a gigabyte. Copy a terabyte? It takes them a very, very long time across the networks they have.
DP When they get a whole computer, don't they still have to copy?
JG Yes, but it runs around their fast LAN at gigabit speeds as opposed to the slower Internet. The Internet plans to be running at gigabit speeds, but if you experiment with your desktop now, I think you'll find that it runs at a megabyte a second or less.
DP Megabyte a second? We get almost 10 megabytes sustained here.
JG That translates to 40 gigabytes per hour and a terabyte per day. I tend to write a terabyte in about 8 to 10 hours locally. I can send it via UPS anywhere in the U.S. That turns out to be about seven megabytes per second.
DP How do you get to the 7-megabytes-per-second figure?
JG UPS takes 24 hours, and 9 hours at each end to do the copy.
DP Wouldn't it be a lot less hassle to use the Internet?
JG It's cheaper to send the machine. The phone bill, at the rate Microsoft pays, is about $1 per gigabyte sent and about $1 per gigabyte received—about $2,000 per terabyte. It's the same hassle for me whether I send it via the Internet or an overnight package with a computer. I have to copy the files to a server in any case. The extra step is putting the SneakerNet in a cardboard box and slapping a UPS label on it. I have gotten fairly good at that. Tape media is about $3,000 a terabyte. This media, in packaged SneakerNet form, is about $1,500 a terabyte.

This prompted Jeff to perform an impressive analysis of the exact economy of data bandwidth, and the results were quite surprising. The article is definitely worth the read, but the costs he cites appear to be without loop charges. Based on my experience, here is a more likely cost structure:

	Cost/mo.	Transfer Rate
T1	$550	192 KB/sec
DS3	$4,000	5.4 MB/sec
OC-3	$14,000	19 MB/sec

Adjusting his cost assumptions to include loops as above, here are the results he found to transmit a 20GB file:

	Download 20 GB		Upload 20 GB
56K Modem	49 days	$24.27	61 days	$30.34
DSL	1.25 days	$1.26	10 days	$10.11
Premium DSL	15 hours	$1.05	5 days	$8.43
Cable	19 hours	$1.35	8 days	$13.48
Premium Cable	10 hours	$1.08	4 days	$10.79
T1	1.25 days	$22.92	1.25 days	$22.92
DS3	1 hour	$5.56	1 hour	$5.56
OC-3	17 minutes	$5.51	17 minutes	$5.51

I found it interesting that a DS3 is so significantly less expensive in this scenario than a T1, in terms of operating expense.

Also interesting is the comparatively low cost of DSL and cable, which often attracts most small businesses using their connection primarily for surfing the Internet. What these costs don't demonstrate, however, is the uptime statistics and the result of oversubscription, a standard engineering strategy for most broadband connections.

Even still, if a company is utilizing their connection for meaningful data transmissions, either for file transfers, remote applications, or hosting; DS3 seems to provide the most bang for the buck.

The Qwest MIS increase and standard Business Partners

2007-01-22T21:05:00Z

According to Qwest's new MRA, all business partners will operate under MIS requirements that have been expanded by a third. While most Premier partners like Telephony Partners tend to maintain enough volume to exceed those requirements, standard partners who are on the fringe may feel some pressure under these expanded performance requirements. Since failure to perform to the MIS requirements will result in a decrease in commissions, this understandably has several partners concerned about their ability to avoid commission hits.

Standard partners who are worried about this should consider rolling up under a Premier. With the proper agreement performance requirements can actually be decreased, allowing some breathing room. Telephony Partners can usually pay agents via ACH within 48 hours of Qwest's payment to us, so standard partners rolling up under us can still continue their sub-agent programs without introducing additional payment delays typical of other agent programs.

An added benefit of such an arrangement is the option of outsourcing agent management. Telephony Partners can avail online access to account and commission reports for agents, can pay sub-agents directly, and can allow online access for our agents' subs. For agents with existing sub-agent management systems in place, our reporting is comparable to Qwest's native reports.

There are some intricacies associated with executing the roll-up. Standard partners looking to create such an arrangement must currently be MIS-compliant, and some paperwork must be completed to enable the transfer of existing business. Overall, though, it's not tough. Standard Qwest business partners interested in participating in this type of program with Telephony Partners should submit an application and indicate in the comments that you're interested in a master agent roll-up.

Can the iPhone compete in the business market with no keyboard?

2007-01-12T00:44:00Z

After watching the iPhone introduction, I was pretty impressed by the sexiness of the iPhone. Apple definitely flexed its design muscles, showing that their leading-edge interface designers are still at the top of the heap, but I have to wonder if Apple expects to compete effectively with the market into which they appear to be positions themselves.

Watching Steve Jobs poke around on the touch-screen keyboard made me wonder whether I could stand using the phone. My Treo is effective precisely because of the interface flaw Jobs cites: the "bottom 40." The Treo keyboard is in my opinion its biggest asset. Most avid Treo and Blackberry users can type as fast on their phone as they can on a PC keyboard, and I believe that's because of the tactile feedback you have with those keys. Typing on a flat piece of touch-screen glass, regardless of the advanced error avoidance or whatever the Apple engineers have whipped up, is going to be pretty frustrating.

In any case, the device isn't even FCC approved yet; Cisco is suing Apple over their use of the word "iPhone," a trademark of theirs; and it's not even slated to be available for another six months. Guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.