Even if the provision Randy desribes isn't written in there, there is a fair amount of law that supports it. IANAL, but basically you can't agree to something like a price change you have no idea of in advance, so you can't agree to a 3-year term on it, (or 18 months) in advance. But as a practical matter, if they gave you 30 days to leave, you probably wouldn't sue them anyway... 3 years in litigation for damages you could easily (in most cases) avoid won't win you anything. But if you are looking for Level 3 to make any sense, you are going to be waiting a long, long, long time with the rest of us. They have never successfully "sold" much in their brief history. They have successfully acquired lots, and lots, and lots of revenue and then burned it off fabulously quickly. And there isn't even much value in short selling their shares.... alas. My $0.02, DJ Randy Epstein wrote:

James,

There should be a clause in the contract that allows you to cancel services if they change the terms and conditions of the agreement.

I know that doesn't help you much, but at least it gives you an out.

Randy

-----Original Message----- From: up@3.am [mailto:up@3.am] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 7:37 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: [NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts?

In 2006, I signed a 3 year contract with Broadwing for a 1 cabinet colocation with 6Mbs dedicated for under $1,000/mo. A few weeks ago, about halfway through this contract, I get a letter from Level 3's "Director of Colocation" that they are going to raise my price by several hundred dollars a month.

I spoke with my new Level 3 rep, and he just notified me that their legal deparment confirms that all they have to do is give me 30 days notice to increase their price.

This does not make sense to me. I am bound to a 3 year contract, where I have to pay them the rest of the term if I were to leave early, but they can jack up the price by 40-50% during that time, arbitrarily? I do not see that provision in my contract, and would rather avoid legal expenses if possible. Has anyone else had to deal with this sort of thing from Level 3?

TIA,

James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor up@3.am http://3.am =========================================================================

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

On 29 Apr 2008, at 10:09 , Chris Owen wrote:

It was clear from the conversation that he never considered for a moment that we might actually pay the new rate. He just assumed we were gone as soon as it happened. Obviously I don't have a business degree because I don't understand the business model of buying up business and then going out of your way to chase off their customers. The Level3 higher ups must see something I don't.

From recent threads, the increasing price of power and cooling makes me think that colo providers would far rather have half the tenants paying double the price than have to retrofit facilities that are full to meet increasing demands for watts in and out. Joe _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Edward B. DREGER wrote:

But the facility Chris referenced is half-full -- at best. Not only is space plentiful, but cooling and electrical have plenty of reserve. The price still would be reasonable at a higher rate.

We would disagree. In fact, if we had not done so already this would have convinced us to take the previous poster's advice and built our own facility (just across the hall). Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Owen ~ Garden City (620) 275-1900 ~ Lottery (noun): President ~ Wichita (316) 858-3000 ~ A stupidity tax Hubris Communications Inc www.hubris.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Public Key: http://home.hubris.net/owenc/pgpkey.txt Comment: Public Key ID: 0xB513D9DD iEYEARECAAYFAkgXSVAACgkQElUlCLUT2d3jPwCglycZnjBKI7SoJnDpTkkzjAPK +b4An1VTV7biLcpiF6F1lgfjisEyZY8L =N0Rn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

They will then focus on the "NFL cities" for colocation and only provide bandwidth/transport/other network services to everyone else.

Can we discuss how ridiculous the "NFL cities" model is? Yes, I get it. NFL cities meet a certain size criteria in terms of business, population, talent, etc. [feel free to replace NFL cities by: Tier "1" Cities/Metros, Major passenger or cargo airports, historic Train locations, Blockbuster Locations, Fedex depots, etc] But when you compare your business plan to *every* other National/International player that has the EXACT same plan and city map... um... where is your differentiation? (Even if one calls its NFL cities and one calls it "Major Airports") The ridiculous part of the plan is that a) it does not obviate the need for in-between depots of connectivity [for regens, ROADMs, etc] and b) each city has a different specific mix of data/colo/IP/voice/what have you based on local demographics (and incumbents)... and there is no planning of right-sizing capex and revenue. Oh well, I think I'll be concerned when a company actually has a real business plan rather than something recycled from the bottom of a box of Cracker Jack's. Operational Content: While there are significant opex costs to removed by making places like WDC, SFO, JFK/LGA, LAX and others great hubs of interconnectivity there is a) an over-concentration of SPOFs and vulnerability to localized infrastructure threats, and b) hyper competition in some markets and gross under competition in others. The profits many of these carriers seek may come from running a few colos in "2nd tier" cities at much higher prices than they can charge in the "1st tier" cities. But then again -- if these guys had to show profits, they wouldn't be the guys they are today... They might even have executives with a proper business pedigree (you know MBAs or better from places that don't advertise on billboards and at professional sporting events) and not need to piss away billions in revenues to meet their use guidelines. Does Level3 have a stadium yet? I think they need one to brand so they can finally file for that BK that's been hanging around their neck for years. Deepak Jain AiNET _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

At 12:08 PM 4/29/2008, you wrote:

The Broadwing Norristown facility is perhaps 25% used....a lot of empty space there. I have no idea what they are thinking...maybe Level 3 has big plans for it, or wants it shut down, because it's hard to see how it's profitable at a utilization rate that low.

We are getting rid of our rack at L3's Norristown facility next month too. At the old price it was a good deal. At four times the price, we'll move our two PRIs left to another facility. Our AS5300 is using maybe 150W total. The rest of the rack is empty. -Robert Tellurian Networks - Global Hosting Solutions Since 1995 http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog