Tom DeReggi wrote:
It does make you wonder why the ISP in question wasn't multi-homed.
Although, I recognize being multi-homed would have protected the WISP
in this situation... That is not really the issue.
The issue is that Businesses often build strategic partnerships, and
togeather they grow. There is often a need to extend trust to
partners, and expect that trust to be honored. There are to many
Suppliers out there that are just "Vendors" and can't see past end of
their nose, and in my mind very poor business men. What this event
shows is that Level3 is not a worthy "Partner". They are someone that
reads the text of their contract with a higher weight than common
business sense that will profit them. Its insaine, that a Goliath
like Level3 would inject the MASSIVE harm to the samll WISP over such
a small infringement which would cause next to know harm to the
Goliath Level3, if it was not seized. This is the problem with the
Egotistical mammonth provider. They forget about the core
fundamentals of business, stengthening partnerships, and fostering
their partner's growth for mutual benefit. They have the, I'm to bug
to worry about the small fish syndrom.
Regardless of whether Level3 was in the wrong it doesn't alleviate some
responsibility from the ISP in question. For example, I carry uninsured
motorist insurance, which protects me should my car be in an accident
with someone without insurance. Am I required to have this insurance?
No. Do I consider it a small price to pay to protect myself? Yes.
Now I understand that my analogy is not the best, but I can't imagine
having my company in the position that a single 3rd party could put me
out of business. I feel like it is my responsibility to protect from
company from such an event and recognize that it is a cost of doing
business.
Lets position it another way... Many small WISPs outsource their
backbone to someone that does it better. They take a "partner" that is
multi-homed. They pay an inflated price per MB, to compensate the
partner for providing a service behind multiple backbones. Aren;t you
in that Business, Matt? If you were to turn off your client, would you
use the same arguement that your client should have been multi-homed,
and not relied on just you?
We have turned off customers that defaulted on their contract with us.
If those customers had been multi-homed the effect on their business
would have been significantly less. Then again, had they not defaulted
on their contract it wouldn't have been an issue. Regardless, most
operators don't become multi-homed to avoid contract disputes; they do
it to protect their business in case of unexpected outages that can and
will happen from time to time.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
