Is it unreasonable to ask a carrier to perform a site survey, before quoting out an install? I am looking to pull some fiber into a building that is off net, and I cannot get my potential carrier to perform a site survey. My reason for concern is that the NRC / install is 18k, and they have already conceded that the fiber is less than 40ft from my building, and that the install should be relativity easy (conduit / everything already in place). I am being quoted worse case scenario, and should the install not go as much as 18k, I still need to fork out 18k. I feel like I have a rep who is being greedy, and that I am subsidizing their business model for future tenants. Thoughts? Rob
I don't see what "reasonable" has to do with it. If you don't like it, and you have a choice, vote with your pocketbook by taking your business elsewhere. If you don't have a choice, and your carrier knows it, then you have little recourse except where it might affect business elsewhere. I would use whatever stick or carrot I could, but reasonableness only rarely enters into carrier business ethics. Robert Sherrard wrote:
Is it unreasonable to ask a carrier to perform a site survey, before quoting out an install? I am looking to pull some fiber into a building that is off net, and I cannot get my potential carrier to perform a site survey.
My reason for concern is that the NRC / install is 18k, and they have already conceded that the fiber is less than 40ft from my building, and that the install should be relativity easy (conduit / everything already in place). I am being quoted worse case scenario, and should the install not go as much as 18k, I still need to fork out 18k. I feel like I have a rep who is being greedy, and that I am subsidizing their business model for future tenants.
Thoughts?
Rob
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:49:55 EST, "Dwight A. Ernest" said:
I don't see what "reasonable" has to do with it. If you don't like it, and you have a choice, vote with your pocketbook by taking your business elsewhere.
If you don't have a choice, and your carrier knows it, then you have little recourse except where it might affect business elsewhere.
I would use whatever stick or carrot I could,
Favorite stick: "Remember, we can turn off the telephones, electricity and air conditioning in your NOC". :)
but reasonableness only rarely enters into carrier business ethics.
It all depends on the definition of "reasonable" - remembering that the carrier is likely a corporation, and thus has a duty to maximize profit, "reasonable" means "worth a try to extract more revenue from the customer with little chance of repercussions". It's similar to "ethics" when applied to lawyers - you may dislike being on the losing end, but it's rare enough that lawyers violate their code of ethics that it makes the news when it happens.
Does anyone know what issues global crossing might be having in LA area? All of my VPNs via global crossing were getting routed to europe and back, i.e. 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.11.1 2 9 ms 11 ms 15 ms 10.35.192.1 3 9 ms 7 ms 7 ms cpe-24-30-162-217.socal.rr.com [24.30.162.217] 4 8 ms 7 ms 7 ms srp2-0.orngca4-gsr1.socal.rr.com [66.75.161.190] 5 11 ms 12 ms 11 ms so-1-1-1.tustca1-rtr1.socal.rr.com [66.75.161.194] 6 13 ms 11 ms 11 ms te-1-4.car1.tustin1.level3.net [4.79.140.1] 7 13 ms 15 ms 21 ms ae-3-3.ebr1.losangeles1.level3.net [4.69.132.218] 8 13 ms 11 ms 11 ms ae-14-53.car4.losangeles1.level3.net [4.68.102.79] 9 12 ms 10 ms 11 ms globalcrossing-level3-10ge.losangeles1.level3.net [4.68.110.66] 10 158 ms 158 ms 155 ms te2-3-10g.ar4.lax1.gblx.net [67.17.107.42] 11 173 ms * 173 ms ip-208.49.147.102.gblx.net [208.49.147.102] 12 175 ms 172 ms 172 ms dcap04.pcap.lax01.tierzero.net [216.31.128.14] 13 178 ms 177 ms 184 ms mmic-gw.dcap6.lax.us.tierzero.net [216.31.188.94] 14 188 ms 178 ms 180 ms gateway.netsecdesign.com [66.6.208.1] 2 2ms 3ms 2ms gateway.netsecdesign.com [66.6.208.1] 3 10ms 6ms 6ms s1-1-11.dcap6.lax.us.tierzero.net [216.31.188.93] 4 8ms 8ms 8ms asbr3.bsap.lax1.ca.us.tierzero.net [216.31.128.133] 5 11ms 8ms 9ms ip-208.49.147.101.gblx.net [208.49.147.101] 6 31ms 9ms 8ms te8-1-10g.ar2.lax2.gblx.net [67.17.107.41] 7 207ms 216ms 221ms te1-2-10g.ar2.ams1.gblx.net [67.17.108.170] 8 * 165ms 166ms ge-6-17.car1.amsterdam1.level3.net [213.244.165.237] 9 167ms 169ms 170ms ae-32-56.ebr2.amsterdam1.level3.net [4.68.120.190] 10 172ms 168ms 170ms ae-2.ebr2.london1.level3.net [4.69.132.133] 11 173ms 170ms 170ms ae-4.ebr1.newyork1.level3.net [4.69.132.109] 12 175ms 169ms 169ms ae-3.ebr1.washington1.level3.net [4.69.132.89] 13 193ms 189ms 187ms ae-2.ebr1.atlanta2.level3.net [4.69.132.85] 14 179ms 169ms 170ms ae-3.ebr1.dallas1.level3.net [4.69.132.81] 15 170ms 170ms 167ms ae-4-4.car2.tustin1.level3.net [4.69.132.225] 16 191ms 170ms 173ms ae-11-11.car1.tustin1.level3.net [4.69.132.221] 17 168ms 169ms 170ms roadrunner.car1.tustin1.level3.net [4.71.104.150] 18 171ms * 170ms pos0-1.gdgvca1-gsr2.socal.rr.com [66.75.161.49] 19 171ms 171ms 170ms srp2-0.orngca1-gsr1.socal.rr.com [24.30.162.72] 20 174ms 171ms 170ms gig14-0.orngca1-bsr1.socal.rr.com [24.30.162.220] 21 181ms 182ms 208ms cpe-66-74-151-131.socal.res.rr.com [66.74.151.131] ------------------------------------------------------------- This mail was scanned by BitDefender For more informations please visit http://www.bitdefender.com -------------------------------------------------------------
participants (4)
-
Dwight A. Ernest -
Ed Ray -
Robert Sherrard -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu