February 05, 2004
(Updated) About This DSL Outage
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
It would bore everyone, us included, to recap the entire sequence of events in anything resembling a sort of real-time log.
So let's instead turn to the most current explanation, as taken from an update to the very long trouble ticket related to the incident which most recently knocked the official PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE server offline. "Partner" refers to Speakeasy, and identifying order and circuit numbers have been X'd out.
Verified that Covad received EDI SOC from Qwest on 12/23/03.
A circuit browser search by TN pulls work order XXXXXXX, a partner initiated disconnect: Disconnection Requested End User Moving.
Partner submitted disconnect request to Covad on 1/23/04, disconnect order completed on 1/30/04.
It appears that the partner created a duplicate account on 12/23. The original account (CKT ID YYY-YYY-YYY) was intended to be disconnected. However (CKT ID) ZZZ-ZZZ-ZZZ was disconnected because there cannot be duplicate lineshare accounts in ILEC systems. ILEC then saw the disconnect order to remove lineshare from this TN and did so.
Partner is supposed submit a disconnect order on an account first, await completion of that order and then submit a new order for a new account.
Per SOP a new order for line share will need to be submitted by ISP.
Please submit disconnect order to avoid further billing.
Please await for completion of disconnect order and then submit new order for lineshare otherwise the orders will cancel each other out.
A little decoding is in order. Readers will recall that last December, we got knocked offline because we managed to juggle our telephone bill one day too late and therefore lost service, which of course also killed off our DSL. In order to get back up and running, we had to place an entirely new DSL order with Speakeasy once our telephone service was restored. BY the end of December, everything was back up and running smoothly.
Then, it seems, Speakeasy submitted an order to the vendor (Covad) to remove the old DSL circuit no longer being utilized due to December's outage, which had been replaced by a new and active one in late December.
Reading through the above, you can see that some sort of proper process was not followed. Rather than going through that entire disconnection/removal process first, and then submitting a new DSL order, Speakeasy had us place a new order before the entire process had been completed.
And so, once the disconnect for the old circuit got passed through the Covad/Qwest process, Qwest removed the old and inactive YYY-YYY-YYY circuit and the new and active ZZZ-ZZZ-ZZZ circuit as well.
So, combine the alleged lack of proper procedure from Speakeasy with the strange decision of Qwest, and we end up with no DSL at all. It remains a mysterty to us why, if Qwest's issue was that "there cannot be duplicate lineshare accounts" they didn't simply remove the old and inactive one, as instructed, which would then remove the issue of having duplicate anything.
Either way, and regardless of that consideration, we have nothing to pass along by way of information as to when thigns will be righted. Speakeasy has yet to give us an update on how we proceed from here (despite someone over there supposedly being assigned to this situation), and no point in the chain -- Speakeasy, Covad, and Qwest -- appears willing to take responsibility, let alone culpability, for what transpired.
On the upside, the temporary hosting being provided for this site is coming via Speakeasy free of charge until our DSL is back. It's just that we have no earthy idea when that will be.
Update
It occurs to us that an alternative interpretation of the above is that when the new order and circuit were installed, the old one simply no longer existed in anyone's system. And then Qwest decided to disconnect whatever circuit happened to be active here, rather than noticing that the circuit ID specified didn't actually exist and pausing the confirm what it was meant to do.
For what it's worth, we already know from endless telephone conversations last week that in situations such as this one, Qwest appears to be entirely insulated from any liability. First, they told us that since a wholesaler was involved (that being Qwest), there wasn't actually anyone at Qwest we could talk to about some sort of, well, remuneration. Their assertion was that any such compensation would have to occur through Speakeasy/Covad, who would then have to turn around and get it out of Qwest in turn. None of that is going to happen.
So, yes. Qwest can royally screw you over and they are utterly and completely protected from actually being responsible for their actions. Not that this is news to anyone, but this is the first time we've had to confront this "spirit of service" so directly and completely.
Comments (2)
Matty on 05 Feb 2004
Things like that (including the time it took them 2 months to activate long distance on my old account) are why I long ago switched to a cable modem and a cell phone.
I gleefully told them "I'm firing you" when I disconnected the account.
Of course comcast is only marginally better, but at least it's not qwest.
The One True b!X on 05 Feb 2004
Unfortunately, cable providers don't take kindly to people running servers on their network. So I have little choice but to stick with DSL, which in my area means dealing, on some level, regardless of the actual DSL provider, with Qworst.