On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 22:17, Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
You can mitigate some of that by getting contract language in place that says a carrier must maintain the circuit on the specified and agreed pathway, and if it's later discovered that it has been moved, you don't pay for the circuit from the time it was moved until it is restored.
It's a nice bit of leverage to make sure they *DO* pay attention when they regroom to avoid surprises. :)
Who is selling this product? I know SLA compensations on service disruptions is a thing, but there the downside seller is carrying is limited to MRC, that is seller gets higher margin on SLA products than nonSLA, when when outages are factored in. I don't see the business case for the seller in contractual terms you are proposing. The amendment has to make more money for the seller, otherwise there is no point for them to sell it, unless of course the product is unmarketable without the amendment. I would anticipate if this product is available the seller limits downside in the contracts in such way that it will always be profitable to the seller to sell the insurance to you. -- ++ytti