|
Dear Jamal,
Thanks for the speedy reply.
You have agreed till
point no.3
Hence the main problem lies at no.4
Who is going to moderate this and at who's cost ?
What about conflict of interest ?
People have gone to the level that our "virtual
ruling class" has started to probe and threat poor souls at
ITI...they (ITI) are poor creatures and not built and meant for that
kind of pressure!
This is where the trouble lies! This is where in house consensus required...SO ask trouble
makers to stop wherever they are and lets resolve it internally first and then
approach PTCL.
I hope you and THEY understand the hidden message
and be positive.
Regards
Ateeq
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 1:13
PM
Subject: Re: ISPAK: SOP STM-1 :Shared
bandwidth thru ITI
Ateeq:
I agree with all your points. However, what you are suggesting is a
modification of the product feature which is called "Shared Port". I guess we
need to take up these modification separately with PTCL. SOP only discusses
how to resolve any issue or problem and who will be coordinating on behalf of
PTCL for the provisioning of new circuit.
Regards,
Jamal
"Ateeq.M.Khan" wrote:
Dear Jamal, I refer to the point 2.1 Shared bandwidth through
ITI: Now to be fair with
all, the shared bandwidth pricing,delivery mechanism has to be justified
: 1. The sharing formula
should be 1:2 i.e. 50%. One third is difficult to guage and also at times
could be problematic..you know digital science is based on power of 2 hence
odd numbers(3,5,7,9...is it odd or even i never remember correctly) gives
uneasy feeling
Agreed.
2. Feature of atleast 50% (if not
100% ) burst should be there to compensate for the extra cost against clean
pipe of that value. For example if I get 512 Kbps clean for USD 5.3 K and
shared 2 MB with 1/3 formula comes out around 683 Kbps costs USD 7.2K then
obviuosly it is of no value to have 2Mb shared if it is to be FIXED at that
level without burst feature
Definitely.
3.
Roughly shared 2 Mbps (USD 7.2 K) cost half of full pipe of 2 Mb (USD
15K) hence as term level playing field implies that we should have a CIR of
50% of clean for this price. The extra benefit or risk is the burst of
remaining 50%
I agree.
4. I know some of the guys are
coming from the top and pressurizing to stop shared bandwidth... so wisdom
demands that in house consensus be built before we try out our muscles at
PTCL levels Expecting your
reply asap. RegardsAteeq
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 7:59
AM
Subject: ISPAK: SOP
STM-1 Mr.Jamal Nasir Khan,All other members
ISPAK. AoA,Please find attached a
proposed draft of SOP for STM-1 being adopted by
PTCLKindly review it and send your feed back , amendments
or suggestions to modify it for final preparation within two days to
Mr.Jamal Nasir Khan Chairman ,Technical Committee ISPAK
. Best regards,Sanaullah
Bhutta,
|
