Top 10 Telecom Contract Mistakes
When it comes to telecom negotiations, most telecom managers have a difficult time. I see far too many contracts riddled with unacceptable clauses and limitations, shackling companies with sub-par terms and conditions, bloated pricing, and even obsolete technology.
Wed, February 09, 2011
Network World — When it comes to telecom negotiations, most telecom managers have a difficult time. I see far too many contracts riddled with unacceptable clauses and limitations, shackling companies with sub-par terms and conditions, bloated pricing, and even obsolete technology.
This isn't really the telecom manager's fault. Like many of us, most came up through the ranks of engineering, architecture, and design -- none of which provides optimal training for carrier contract negotiations. And frankly, there's no great way to learn how to negotiate contracts -- other than by trial and error. In the interests of learning from others' errors, then, herewith a "top 10" list of the most common telecom negotiations mistakes.
No. 1: No "out" clauses. The single most powerful clause in a telecom contract is the "termination without penalty" clause, invocable in a range of situations, which gives companies leverage when making requests from carriers.
No. 2. No business flexibility. What if your organization merges with another, or divests part of its business? Your contract should flex to accommodate changes in business.
No. 3: Overly granular minimum-annual-revenue commitments (MARC). Why is it any of the telco's business how much you spend on wireless vs. wireline, or voice vs. data? If you have to have a MARC (and they're decreasingly required, see No.4), it shouldn't stipulate how you spend money with a carrier -- just how much.
No. 4: MARCs that are too large. The purpose of a MARC is to provide the telco with a guaranteed revenue commitment throughout the duration of the contract. But not all telcos require such a guarantee -- emerging and alternative providers, in particular, are often willing to forego MARCs. And even traditional telcos will often step down from the size of their MARCs when pushed.
No. 5. Missing service-level agreements (SLA). The purpose of a network is to get your traffic from point A to point B reliably, securely, and in a timely fashion. But too often, the carrier doesn't commit to doing any of the above. SLAs ensure that they do -- or suffer the consequences.
No: 6: Sub-par turnup times. Even when SLAs exist, many carriers won't commit to specific circuit installation times. Instead, they weasel-word with promises such as, "circuits are typically turned up within 60 business days". First off, 60 business days is 12 weeks (84 calendar days). And second of all, the "typical" turn-up time means exactly nothing if it's your circuit that's six weeks late.
