Our Qwest Testimonial: qwestoutage.com

Greetings,

Simply put, they've put us through hell, so I've put a website up to
tell our story at qwestoutage.com. I'd be interested in
feedback--especially anyone that has had similar or different
experiences than we've had. I've heard from another customer (DS-3
customer) who has had fairly good experience. His comment was, "the
hardest thing to do is to get their attention--but once you do that,
they're fairly responsive." I heard from one more that is
decommissioning their Qwest circuits nationwide and moving back to
UUNET.

Thanks,

Allen

You should should call the website OUTAGE and include DSL.Net also.

neither www.qwestoutage.com nor qwestoutage.com works - must be connected to
one of those Qwest lines that is having an outage :wink:

is qwest-makes-my-life-hell.com available ? :wink:

here's a rough one year recap of our relationship with
qwest:

1. we're overbilled by 60K, for 3 circuits that have
been disconnected for 2 years, 1 year, 3 months,
respictively.
2. our account rep leaves qwest, orpahing our account.
3. we call qwest for 5 months, speaking to roughly 8
different people in billing, major accounts, support,
etc. we can't get anyone to call us back, even after
saying things like the following:

"Your company thinks we're late of 60 thousand dollars
worth of payments. Is there anyone at qwest who is
concerned about this?"
4. we get a new account rep, who spends 2 months
tracking down the various circuits and "internal"
disconnect orders.
5. two days after faxing us a breakdown of what
charges are legit, and which should be credited to our
account, our rep leaves qwest, orpahing our account.
the writeup she sends is accurate.
6. we call qwest to request a new rep.
7. someone from qwest collections calls us to inform
us that our service will be disconnected if we don't
pay the portion of our bill which is now 1 year
overdue. when weinform her that we've been trying to
reconcile our bill, she informs us that we should call
billing to discuss our "dispute".
8. we receive a new qwest rep, who sets up a 4 way
confrence call with us, himself, qwest's east coast
rep, and a controller. we fax them the 2nd account
rep's summary of billing errors. they all agree that
the document looks accurate. we never hear from any
of them ever again.
9. collections calls us again. they threaten to
disconnect a circuit if we don't settle our
outstanding invoices within 30 days. the circuit they
threaten to disconnect has been disconnected for 18
months.
10. we finally find someone at qwest who claims that
they can authorize our credits. he calls back 2
months later with the following gems: 1. he claims
that he needs our copies of the disconnect orders, and
gives us the qwest internal disconnect order codes for
the circuits. we ask him, if qwest has an internal
disconnect code for the lines, why does he need our
copies? 2. he tells us that the credits have been
approved, but that he couldn't provide immediate
written confirmation.
11. finally, one year after we first notified qwest
of the problem, we receive our credits. amazingly,
they appear to be correct. for one glorius month, our
account balance is reduced to zero.
12. the next month, qwest starts billing us
incorrectly again. we call the billing manager who
authorized our credits. he claims to not remember us
or our problems.

in short, we probably had 3 people spend about 40
manhours trying to inform qwest that should be
concerned that our company was not paying them.

lost in this whole mess is that their service (DS1) to
us was reasonably good. unfortunately, their
organizational sloppiness negates that for us - we'll
be dropping them as soon as other arrangements are in
place.

dan

If you think this is bad, a telco whom it would
be invidious to name but is known to me, did
the same thing with an 8 figure dollar some,
over a period of >5 years, and with more
iterations. So I think Qwest is far from the
only offender.

Recent financial problems within both the
telcos and their customers seems to have
focussed their minds slightly more
on accurate and timely billing.

I've yet to find any telco that can accurately bill for
services of a "business grade". This includes things from POTS
to ISDN (bri or pri) as well as any sort of dedicated
circuit installation (56k-OCn)

  - Jared

1 Great Exception.. our local KMC Telecom did a complex
install (Fiber/DDM2000.. etc) for both multiple ISP PRI's,
some PtP T1's and direct 800# access (T's direct from Qwest). Every bill
since the first one has been 100% correct. We reward them by paying their
bills first every month.

Our other LEC's and upstreams... well.... horror stories abound.
and KMC's local team (I dunno about elsewhere) is incredible.

  --Mike--

I would have to concur.

We have had long term billing issues with Qwest, MCI Worldcom, and most
recently Ameritech's DSL group. They just seem unable to fix bills, and
duck it by shuffling the case around so you constantly talk to someone
new. Our Worldcom folder is 3 inches thick with correspondence to various
people there in an attempt to get it fixed.

KMC has been superb in the billing department, and I must say that after a
few initial roadbumps, and some UNE issues, the service has been
excellent.

Jason

time with three different organizations, KMC is indeed quite the
exceptional LEC. They'll beat the ILEC any way they can, especially on
complex services.

-jeff

Could you elaborate on the "other arrangements" and who you contacted when you went shopping?

We have servers colocated in 8 locations, 4 each with 2 of the big-name colo providers, one of which made news today (no points for accurate guesses). We are looking at adding new server locations in a carrier neutral location like Equinix (who else is doing multiple carrier neutral locations and has available space? who is presently doing this in Europe, in Asia?), and thus need to consider who we want to contract with for our bandwidth. It is essential that the bandwidth provider be a Tier 1 backbone such as UUNET, C&W, Qwest, MCI, Sprint, Verio, L3, AT&T, Genuity (anyone else belong in this class?). Yeah, they all suck one way or the other. But we'd rather not jump out of the frying pan only to land into the fire. Thus...

Of those, who sucks least? Does paying extra for UUNET actually get you anything extra (better customer service, better billing/accounting service, better trouble ticket tracking and reporting)?

jc

We have servers colocated in 8 locations, 4 each with 2 of the big-name
colo providers, one of which made news today (no points for accurate
guesses). We are looking at adding new server locations in a carrier
neutral location like Equinix (who else is doing multiple carrier neutral
locations and has available space?

paix, for one.

Of those, who sucks least? Does paying extra for UUNET actually get you
anything extra (better customer service, better billing/accounting service,
better trouble ticket tracking and reporting)?

i've just got to say that uunet's monitoring and trouble ticketing is Great.
i don't know whether their backbone is good or not, but their proactive
monitoring and subsequent issue tracking is just Great, that's all, Great.
whoever set it up should definitely buy themselves a cigar, or whatever.

LOL! It's always sad to see gratuitous credit randomly dispensed. :wink:

-Jim P.

Paul,

Would you say UUNET handling of (non-direct customer) abuse complaints
tracking to be great as well ?

If the answer to the above Q is yes would said tracking be the same for
less well known net.persons than you ?

Thanks,
  Rafi

Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com> writes:

i've just got to say that uunet's monitoring and trouble ticketing is Great.
i don't know whether their backbone is good or not, but their proactive
monitoring and subsequent issue tracking is just Great, that's all, Great.
whoever set it up should definitely buy themselves a cigar, or whatever.

Do they manage tickets with Keystone? I've heard you mention
that as a decent trouble ticket system in the past.

Chris

In the immortal words of Chris Beggy (news@kippona.com):

Do they manage tickets with Keystone? I've heard you mention
that as a decent trouble ticket system in the past.

Keystone is, unfortunatly, indisputably dead at the moment. White
Pajama Software bought it from Stonekeep, and promptedly turfed it in
favor of their homegrown software. The source is "available", but it
was never released under any kind of OSS license, so you're stuck with
the last "official" release (which, while usable, still had tons of
bugs and usability issues), and there's no active development going
on right now.

But I'm not bitter, no.

-n, former small-time Keystone developer

------------------------------------------------------------<memory@blank.org>
"Usenet. Now I know how the Romans felt when the Vandals and the Visigoths
poured over the Alps."
<http://blank.org/memory/>----------------------------------------------------

> Do they manage tickets with Keystone? I've heard you mention
> that as a decent trouble ticket system in the past.

UUNET has some kind of localized commercial hybrid tracking system, it
doesn't look like Keystone from my outsider (former customer) perspective.

I really liked Keystone while it was growing.

Keystone is, unfortunatly, indisputably dead at the moment. White
Pajama Software bought it from Stonekeep, and promptedly turfed it in
favor of their homegrown software. The source is "available", but it
was never released under any kind of OSS license, so you're stuck with
the last "official" release (which, while usable, still had tons of
bugs and usability issues), and there's no active development going
on right now.

I've seen nothing I like better, warts and all.

I guess if there were a standard database schema and interchange format
for trouble tickets, so that folks could choose their front end and back
end systems from different sources (and maybe for different strengths), a
lot of duplicate effort could still be avoided.(*)

(*) I only said that to make Jerry and DRC <winge>. IRTS 'til it hurts, man.

> Keystone is, unfortunatly, indisputably dead at the moment. White
> Pajama Software bought it from Stonekeep, and promptedly turfed it in
> favor of their homegrown software. The source is "available", but it
> was never released under any kind of OSS license, so you're stuck with
> the last "official" release (which, while usable, still had tons of
> bugs and usability issues), and there's no active development going
> on right now.

For a while I tried WP's system. It was nice but buggy as all heck. And
slow too. They supposedly would only support T1s - any problem I had was
attributed to either my dialup or my cable modem. And when I requested SSL,
performance went straight down.

I've seen nothing I like better, warts and all.

I switched to using RT - www.fsck.com - which is actually an extremely good
system.

- mz