Career path: Service providers vs. ??

I'm interested in your opinion guys.

I'm thinking in the long run, which career path is better in terms of: money, job stability, and 'normal working hours'(i.e. less than 12 hrs a day!)

Do you think the Service provider side or the client based side ? For example, is it better to work in a consulting position in a bank or in a service prodiver ? Project Manager in a Service provider or in an investment company ?

(my background is Unix administration/Support/installation, Backup solutions, High Availability solutions, and Disaster Recovery ).

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

MickQ

I would say banking because of the 9-5 nature of their business which they've kept to for so long. The SP side would be more shift oriented until you get to the very high echelons (my assumption).

phantasm

MickQ wrote: »

I would say banking because of the 9-5 nature of their business which they've kept to for so long. The SP side would be more shift oriented until you get to the very high echelons (my assumption).

Right here. The SP side, which I've worked for Comcast and EMBARQ (now Centurylink) is all shift work until you get high enough in the food chain to work 9-5. When I worked for EMBARQ even the engineers were on shift work unless you happened to be the very top of the engineering department in which case you got an "8-5 shift". Sucks.

UnixGuy

I agree with you guys, working for Service Providers is really exhausting, and it's difficult to get a Team Lead position because you are just one of the many technical people there. While in a non-IT firm, you have a better chance, and I think you have a better chance for more money too.

phantasm

UnixGuy wrote: »

I agree with you guys, working for Service Providers is really exhausting, and it's difficult to get a Team Lead position because you are just one of the many technical people there. While in a non-IT firm, you have a better chance, and I think you have a better chance for more money too.

There is more money to be made in a non-IT centric company, that is correct. The SP side of the industry is great... I enjoyed it all but the hours are exhausting. But that's the case in all the NOC's I've worked in.

networker050184

I'd much rather be on the SP side of things than working in-house IT. I prefer the large scale and complexity of the networks and services. Is it stressful and a lot of work? Sure, but I don't really mind that. I understand if you are working on the lower levels it can be a bit of a drag, but thats true of any place, not just a provider environment. Once you work your way up there is plenty of interesting and challenging work to keep you on your toes.

ehnde

Seems like SP jobs would have some job security. Not that you can't get laid off, but there will always be a demand for SP oriented jobs.

Cisco Inferno

networker050184 wrote: »

I'd much rather be on the SP side of things than working in-house IT. I prefer the large scale and complexity of the networks and services. Is it stressful and a lot of work? Sure, but I don't really mind that. I understand if you are working on the lower levels it can be a bit of a drag, but thats true of any place, not just a provider environment. Once you work your way up there is plenty of interesting and challenging work to keep you on your toes.

same, my goal is to be working for a large ISP one day. plenty of challenges await me. and i do understand that if you screw up somewhere, people ARE going down.

phantasm

Cisco Inferno wrote: »

same, my goal is to be working for a large ISP one day. plenty of challenges await me. and i do understand that if you screw up somewhere, people ARE going down.

I've worked the SP side and all I can say is God it sucks some days. When you lose a whole redback or a damn chassis, your day goes to hell quick.

UnixGuy

Cisco Inferno wrote: »

same, my goal is to be working for a large ISP one day. plenty of challenges await me. and i do understand that if you screw up somewhere, people ARE going down.

If you manage a big environment in a non-SP, it's the same thing, you will have critical tasks, and you will be responsible for critical data

networker050184

phantasm wrote: »

I've worked the SP side and all I can say is God it sucks some days. When you lose a whole redback or a damn chassis, your day goes to hell quick.

Only if you let your day go to hell. After a while you realize stuff happens and you don't let it stress you out. Just get it fixed and move on. At least thats how I handle it. Now if it goes down because you messed it up, well that is pretty stressful.

bertieb

networker050184 wrote: »

Now if it goes down because you messed it up, well that is pretty stressful.

Doing this once is more than enough. I reckon I've lost 10yrs on my life expectancy when I was a noob during the first 6 months of my first job after University by managing to kill a core router during peak times that had many, many, many leased lines hanging off it. Oh the shame - and the subsequent arse kicking I rightfully got.

Completely agree though. People break things (very frequently), things break of their own accord (much less frequently) and investigating and fixing them doesn't cause me any stress. But theres not much worse a feeling than waiting on a hanging screen/ssh/GUI session during a change though - even a planned change - when you know you could be wiping out hundreds of customers in the process. I hate paperwork and drawn out change processes but I have to admit that unauthorised, badly planned changes or engineers quickly deciding to upgrade something 'just because they can' has caused me no end of pain.