Tired of Being Screwed By Cox (no pun intended)

[Shadow]

Adrian Mink wrote:
 > Yes, but that would also increase their workload, probably to the
 > point of needing to hire more people with the expertise to determine
 > effectively secured servers. This would increase costs, and prices,
 > all to provide a service that probably less than 1% of their use base
 > would even understand, much less take advantage of. If that was my
 > decision to make as a business owner, it would be a no brainer.

Why would it have to cost that much more in support costs?  As IT 
professionals, our job is to automate as many tasks as we can to improve 
customer service while reducing manpower costs.  The exception system 
could and should be fully automated.  A web based application, an 
automated vulnerability assessment, random periodic assessments and spot 
traffic checks would make most of the system self regulating.  The only 
time a tech should get involved would be during a complaint or dispute.

A system like this could also **increase** their customer base.  When a 
company puts forth the effort to please thier customers, thier customers 
repay them by referring more customers.  Over the past few years Cox has 
lost better than a dozen potential customers to FastQ DSL because I 
could not recommend them.  Most company managers don't realise how much 
business is lost when they implement policies that alienate part of 
their existing customer base.

And yes, I was a Cox customer at one time.  I have nothing against them 
as a company.  I just can't recommend them because of thier history of 
poor treatment of thier customers.


-- 
Chris Lewis
shadow@digitalnirvana.com
----------------------------------------
If it compiles, it is good, if it boots up it is perfect.
      - Linus Torvalds
----------------------------------------