Much Ado about XO
September 24, 2008
Looks like there’s some back and forth commentary on a recent XO post. It all started with this comment:
I chuckle whenever I hear people suggest that PAET should buy XO. PAET is primarily a type 2 reseller. XO, on the other hand, has quality metro fiber assets throughout the country.
Which was followed by this:
And I chuckle whenever I hear that XO “has fiber all over the place”. We have ordered 1000’s of circuits from XO, and I will tell you righ now that 90% of them are Type II from ATT or VZ. Especially DS3 or below. Even their EOTDM product is delivered via Type II RBOC loops.
And here’s the rebuttal:
Hi Anonymous – Sounds like you have fallen victim to an overzealous XO sales rep. One of the many weaknesses in the industry (poor quality sales reps).
If you really have ordered 1000s of circuits in different locations around the country, the majority will be offnet (type 2). XO (or AFS for that matter) is a good fit in on-net locations, but not really a great carrier to use for a nationwide buildout. IMO, you’d be better going direct with ATT or VZ.
And EOTDM should always be type 2 by definition since CLECs don’t deploy copper plants (only fiber). At least i am not aware of CLECs deploying copper plants.
“Poor quality sales reps” — don’t get me started on that topic. Our industry has lazy management and lazy sales people. When I interview sales people, I give them a sales situation and ask how they would respond. If price comes out of their mouth within the first three sentences, the interview is over. We have an industry that delivers high value connectivity, but we allow “low price” sales slugs to discount the value of our services. CLECs don’t get it – you can’t price lower than your costs, and 90% of the time, some sales person is playing Chicken Little in your ear with falling prices. If you have a customer opportunity and that customer wants you to lose money, let the next idiot carrier have that customer on a silver platter. Is it really that hard to say “no”?
Value = Benefits minus Price. We need to stop selling technology and sell solutions. I have yet to see the proverbial “hardware box” sell a customer – though the box makers want you to think so. What would you rather sell? “Our network runs on ‘box brand X’” or “we have a track record of 100% on-time delivery and 100% network up-time for on-net, all optical customers”?
You can see the comments as they happen by subscribing via RSS here. If you’d like to add a comment or ask a question, shoot Dave an email or leave your thoughts and opinions below.
Written by Dave Rusin - Telecom Executive
Posted by admin | Filed Under American telecom, Fiber bandwidth, Telecom broadband, Telecommunications companies, Trends + telecommunications, Trends in telecommunications
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Comments
2 Responses to “Much Ado about XO”
Got something to say?
Feeds
How does AFS handle a sales situation like the following:
Bldg > Data Center or Carrier Hotel with multiple ON-NET providers. Lets say Level3, XO, ATT, Verizon, and AFS.
SLA > All are very similar regarding uptime, etc.
Provisioning > All promise 5-7 business day install intervals.
Price > Lets say L3 and XO are 15% less than everyone else.
What is AFS’s compelling value proposition in the above?
Separate question about 100% on-net network uptime for all optical customers. Does AFS have any on-net bldgs that are stubbed (no dual entrance)? AFS has never had a fiber cut to a stubbed bldg? AFS has never had ANY outage for an on-net all optical customer?