Leased Lines - Common Practice
Discussion
Posting here rather than computers as its more of a commercial question.
Having a disagreement with a supplier and would like some input on what would be considered 'normal'.
We have numerous BT/Viring lines with a supplier, all connected back to the suppliers core network, before being presented to us (we colo in the same data centre). We recently contracted them to provide 2 additional circuits into a supplier, one in each of the suppliers locations so we had a redundant solution.
Both lines were installed a number of months ago, but one was provisioned incorrectly and unusable. We pointed out numerous times where we thought the fault was but the supplier was adamant the issue related to our termination equipment and fobbed us off, as opposed to being proactive in resolving the issue.
Fast forward a number of months and they've finally admitted to a provisioning error, and the second circuit is now functional.
However... they have been invoicing both circuits since the installation date. My argument is we ordered a redundant solution and neither line should be chargable until the full solution is delivered, they disagree. Equally they disagree that the second circuit should only be chargable from the point they corrected the provisioning error.
So, am I being completely unrealistic and just learnt an expensive lesson about sharp practices in this market, or are they trying it on?
Having a disagreement with a supplier and would like some input on what would be considered 'normal'.
We have numerous BT/Viring lines with a supplier, all connected back to the suppliers core network, before being presented to us (we colo in the same data centre). We recently contracted them to provide 2 additional circuits into a supplier, one in each of the suppliers locations so we had a redundant solution.
Both lines were installed a number of months ago, but one was provisioned incorrectly and unusable. We pointed out numerous times where we thought the fault was but the supplier was adamant the issue related to our termination equipment and fobbed us off, as opposed to being proactive in resolving the issue.
Fast forward a number of months and they've finally admitted to a provisioning error, and the second circuit is now functional.
However... they have been invoicing both circuits since the installation date. My argument is we ordered a redundant solution and neither line should be chargable until the full solution is delivered, they disagree. Equally they disagree that the second circuit should only be chargable from the point they corrected the provisioning error.
So, am I being completely unrealistic and just learnt an expensive lesson about sharp practices in this market, or are they trying it on?
grumbas said:
Posting here rather than computers as its more of a commercial question.
Having a disagreement with a supplier and would like some input on what would be considered 'normal'.
We have numerous BT/Viring lines with a supplier, all connected back to the suppliers core network, before being presented to us (we colo in the same data centre). We recently contracted them to provide 2 additional circuits into a supplier, one in each of the suppliers locations so we had a redundant solution.
Both lines were installed a number of months ago, but one was provisioned incorrectly and unusable. We pointed out numerous times where we thought the fault was but the supplier was adamant the issue related to our termination equipment and fobbed us off, as opposed to being proactive in resolving the issue.
Fast forward a number of months and they've finally admitted to a provisioning error, and the second circuit is now functional.
However... they have been invoicing both circuits since the installation date. My argument is we ordered a redundant solution and neither line should be chargable until the full solution is delivered, they disagree. Equally they disagree that the second circuit should only be chargable from the point they corrected the provisioning error.
So, am I being completely unrealistic and just learnt an expensive lesson about sharp practices in this market, or are they trying it on?
I would say that if the first circuit has been operational and was being used then they can legitimately charge for that but they should not be charging for the non-operational period of the second circuit. If the first circuit had failed and their incorrectly provisioned backup circuit had caused business losses you could have held them liable. Usual IANAL disclaimer.Having a disagreement with a supplier and would like some input on what would be considered 'normal'.
We have numerous BT/Viring lines with a supplier, all connected back to the suppliers core network, before being presented to us (we colo in the same data centre). We recently contracted them to provide 2 additional circuits into a supplier, one in each of the suppliers locations so we had a redundant solution.
Both lines were installed a number of months ago, but one was provisioned incorrectly and unusable. We pointed out numerous times where we thought the fault was but the supplier was adamant the issue related to our termination equipment and fobbed us off, as opposed to being proactive in resolving the issue.
Fast forward a number of months and they've finally admitted to a provisioning error, and the second circuit is now functional.
However... they have been invoicing both circuits since the installation date. My argument is we ordered a redundant solution and neither line should be chargable until the full solution is delivered, they disagree. Equally they disagree that the second circuit should only be chargable from the point they corrected the provisioning error.
So, am I being completely unrealistic and just learnt an expensive lesson about sharp practices in this market, or are they trying it on?
Grunt Futtock said:
I would say that if the first circuit has been operational and was being used then they can legitimately charge for that but they should not be charging for the non-operational period of the second circuit. If the first circuit had failed and their incorrectly provisioned backup circuit had caused business losses you could have held them liable. Usual IANAL disclaimer.
I'd agree with that in principal. However we didn't use the first circuit as these lines were replacing an old/expensive BT IP Converge ADSL solution that is redundant so would have been a backwards step despite the faster/better line.
It depends on what you contracted from the supplier if your contract is for a single redundant/resilient circuit then yes you have case to dispute the lot. However if you contracted two circuits then pay for the working one and dispute the non functional one.
In terms of redundancy I take it you've contracted a diverse path as part of the provision.?
In terms of redundancy I take it you've contracted a diverse path as part of the provision.?
It's your redundant solution, not theirs (assuming you didn't enter into a bespoke contract), they've supplied 2 separate "things" for you. The first one that has been available for use since installation is yours to pay for, IF you ordered the 2nd circuit correctly and they just duffed up the delivery then I'd be looking to pay from the day they sorted the problem out.
Jim
Jim
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff