One, business sense when you getting E-Rate $, is to be multi-homed,
even if only to cover half of the E-rate bandwidth.
Two, I am pretty sure that there is more to this story than what was
written.
And if Said Inc. was talking to L3 Security as often as implied, it
would seem they had some issues that they did not want to own up to.
- Peter
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.
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 are in a day, where we shouldn't have to protect ourselves from our
partners. Our partners should be a component we can count on without
doubt or sudden surprises.
I guess what it comes down to is, "Who do You trust"? Thats who one
should do business with. Not the "Big name". Not the "Best Priced".
Not the Guy that is doing you the "big favor" to take your order. NOt
the guy that leverages every thing they can get out of you when you
are in a weak spot. You need to pick partners (vendors) that also put
skin in the game upfront, and demonstrated an unconditional history of
honoring their word and acting in good faith, and offers good value
before they are forced to. In other words... "Someone you can Count on".
Events like this one from "Level3" are a discrace to the industry.
And let their true colors show. If Level3 is smart, they'll do an
about face on this one, make a public appologee, blame it on a mistake
and misunderstanding that went under the radar of management
initially, and help immediately fix the problem. Any other action,
would shed a very negative light.
The reason is that its not about the Provider, the WISP Client, or who
is wrong or right. Its about the well being of the public. And the
Public is the biggest loser in this deal. And that doesn't go over
very well in the "Press" or Public opinion. And ISP Buyers clearly
don;t want to advertize their afiliation with custoemrs that consumers
hate, or have no remorse or caring for the public.
This is a clear case of why Network Neutrality is important. People
with Power think about how something effects themselves, and not how
their actions may effect another.
Sorry about the preaching, but this type of thing just enrages me.
There should never be a situation where consumers get shut off without
notice, period. I send the operators of "Saidcom,Inc" and the
residents of "PA" my condolances.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/