April 25, 2017

Ani, do you think companies should manage by minutes or by attempts?

Wow, that’s a really interesting question. Our customers are so smart. Hmmm… minutes vs. attempts view on your network. Which is better? Well, I guess it depends on your perspective. By that I mean, “how do you look at your network and the marketplace?”  Do you look at your network as a fixed asset that you need to maximize your return on or do you look at your network as a variable asset that you need to maximize from a monetization standpoint?

See, fixed assets have a different tolerance level of variability. In our experience here, we have seen that most carriers with large fixed networks, typically seek to diminish variability. In fact, they will sacrifice margin (or invest as our marketing guys like to say) in order to have stable, reliable, and predictable traffic flowing through their fixed asset. They are the minute seekers. They want to manage their business by the minutes that flow through their network.   

Contrast that with carriers with more variable infrastructure (pure play wholesalers with virtual network capacity that fluctuates). Their very nature forces them to participate in the variable, chaotic, and dynamic world of a fluid marketplace such as interconnect voice. They seek to maximize the utility of their network asset on a daily, almost moment by moment, basis. They are constantly seeking opportunities that may, inadvertently, cannibalize opportunity or capacity on their network from existing customers. They are seeking attempts on their network. They manage the business by attempts. They chase anyone who can generate attempts.

Now, of course, these aren’t mutually exclusive. Attempts are required to get minutes and, attempts with little duration (dialer traffic) are the enemy of every telco network (but they all take it). So thicker minutes are always desired.  

So, which is the better way to manage your voice interconnect by minutes or attempts?  In my humble opinion, both. Why choose?

See ya next week,