|
List Info
Thread: Site Survey...
|
|
| Site Survey... |
|
2007-01-25 12:55:49 |
|
|
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
|
| Re: Site Survey... |
|
2007-01-25 13:49:55 |
|
|
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
>
>
|
| Global Crossing issues, traffic routed
from Los Angeles to Orange County via
Europe |
|
2007-01-25 14:14:46 |
|
|
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
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Re: Site Survey... |
|
2007-01-25 14:21:38 |
|
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.
|
[1-4]
|
|
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )
|