https://www.channelfutures.com/wp-content/themes/channelfutures_child/assets/images/logo/footer-new-logo.png
  • Home
  • Technologies
    • Back
    • SDN/SD-WAN
    • Cloud
    • RMM/PSA
    • Security
    • Telephony/UC/Collaboration
    • Cable
    • Mobility & Wireless
    • Fiber/Ethernet
    • Data Centers
    • Backup & Disaster Recovery
    • IoT
    • Desktop
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Analytics
  • Strategy
    • Back
    • Mergers and Acquisitions
    • Channel Research
    • Business Models
    • Distribution
    • Technology Solutions Brokerages
    • Sales & Marketing
    • Best Practices
    • Vertical Markets
    • Regulation & Compliance
  • MSP 501
    • Back
    • 2022 MSP 501 Rankings
    • 2022 NextGen 101 Rankings
  • Intelligence
    • Back
    • Galleries
    • Podcasts
    • From the Industry
    • Reports/Digital Issues
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
  • Channel Futures TV
  • EMEA
  • Channel Chatter
    • Back
    • People on the Move
    • New/Changing Channel Programs
    • New Products & Services
    • Industry Honors
  • Resources
    • Back
    • Advisory Boards
    • Industry Organizations
    • Our Sponsors
    • Advertise
    • 2022 Editorial Calendar
  • Awards
    • Back
    • 2022 MSP 501
    • Channel Influencers
    • Circle of Excellence
    • DE&I 101
    • Channel Partners 101 (CP 101)
  • Events
    • Back
    • CP Conference & Expo
    • MSP Summit
    • Channel Partners Europe
    • Channel Partners Event Coverage
    • Webinars
    • Industry Events
  • About Us
  • DE&I
Channel Futures
  • NEWSLETTER
  • Home
  • Technologies
    • Back
    • SDN/SD-WAN
    • Cloud
    • RMM/PSA
    • Security
    • Telephony/UC/Collaboration
    • Cable
    • Mobility & Wireless
    • Fiber/Ethernet
    • Data Centers
    • Backup & Disaster Recovery
    • IoT
    • Desktop
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Analytics
  • Strategy
    • Back
    • Mergers and Acquisitions
    • Channel Research
    • Business Models
    • Distribution
    • Technology Solutions Brokerages
    • Sales & Marketing
    • Best Practices
    • Vertical Markets
    • Regulation & Compliance
  • MSP 501
    • Back
    • 2022 MSP 501 Rankings
    • 2022 NextGen 101 Rankings
  • Intelligence
    • Back
    • Galleries
    • Podcasts
    • From the Industry
    • Reports/Digital Issues
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
  • Channel Futures TV
  • EMEA
  • Channel Chatter
    • Back
    • People on the Move
    • New/Changing Channel Programs
    • New Products & Services
    • Industry Honors
  • Resources
    • Back
    • Advisory Boards
    • Industry Organizations
    • Our Sponsors
    • Advertise
    • 2022 Editorial Calendar
  • Awards
    • Back
    • 2022 MSP 501
    • Channel Influencers
    • Circle of Excellence
    • DE&I 101
    • Channel Partners 101 (CP 101)
  • Events
    • Back
    • CP Conference & Expo
    • MSP Summit
    • Channel Partners Europe
    • Channel Partners Event Coverage
    • Webinars
    • Industry Events
  • About Us
  • DE&I
    • Newsletter
  • REGISTER
  • MSPs
  • VARs / SIs
  • Agents
  • Cloud Service Providers
  • Channel Partners Events
 Channel Futures

Telephony/UC/Collaboration


Carrier Contracts: A Minefield of Avoidable Risk

  • Written by Neil
  • July 31, 1999

Posted: 08/1999

Carrier Contracts: A Minefield of Avoidable Risk
By Neil S. Ende

i981p48.gif (11549 bytes)

Carrier agreements are intended to set forth the terms and conditions under which
resellers purchase the essential commodity of their business: telecommunications services.
Sadly, however, it is a rare instance when the reseller has read or truly understands the
essential terms and conditions of its agreements. Even more troubling is the fact that few
resellers use their agreements to facilitate their business interests and to protect
themselves against undue risk. As a result, rather than being a roadmap to success and a
shield against risk, carrier agreements often become minefields through which resellers
unwittingly wander until the inevitable misstep is made and damage is done.

While it never is possible to eliminate all risk, it is possible to disarm many of the
land mines found in carrier agreements and to identify and map the remaining land mines so
they can be avoided where possible. With knowledge and care, it also is possible to
anticipate where explosions are most likely to occur and to limit the injury to a
reseller’s business.

Contract land mines take many forms and are found in all types of telecom agreements.
The following is a list of contract land mines where particular caution is required.

Filed Rate Doctrine

Many telecommunications agreements contain an innocent-looking term stating that the
agreement is subject to the carrier’s tariff. As explained in PHONE+ article, "Unholy Contract: The Legacy and Abuse of the Filed Rate
Doctrine" (May 1999)
, since carriers generally are obligated to provide service
pursuant to their tariffs, inconsistent contract terms generally are null and void. Thus,
even the most carefully considered and negotiated contract terms are meaningless in the
face of inconsistent tariff provisions. Specific legal strategies are required to ensure
that the terms of carrier agreements are and remain legally binding on both parties. Put
simply, if a reseller fails to properly implement these strategies in its carrier
contract, it is at the mercy of its carrier and its ever-changing tariffs.

Take or Pay/Minimum Usage Requirements

These terms generally require a reseller to pay for a predefined number of service
units regardless of whether it actually uses those units. Needless to say, these terms are
dangerous in any circumstance, as they can require the reseller to pay for service it has
not taken and from which it is not deriving revenue. Extreme caution should be exercised
before agreeing to such terms. If, however, it is necessary to agree to a take or
pay/minimum usage term to obtain an attractive service arrangement or rate, it is critical
that the agreement properly addresses a number of issues, including the following:

Quality/Availability of Service. As amazing as it may sound, agreements
containing take or pay/minimum usage requirements almost never have corresponding terms
obligating the carrier to ensure the ongoing quality and availability of its services.
Indeed, quite the contrary, most carrier contracts with take or pay/minimum usage clauses
specifically limit or exclude any warranty regarding the quality or availability of
carrier services. This means that the purchasing reseller can remain liable for the full
take or pay/minimum usage obligation even when the reason that it is unable to purchase
the required volume is because the services are of poor quality and/or are insufficient to
handle the required purchase volume. Appropriate protective language is required to ensure
that take or pay/minimum usage requirements do not apply when the failure to take the
minimum amount is the carrier’s fault or is due to reasons beyond the reseller’s control.

Rate Protection. The issue a reseller usually negotiates most carefully is
rates. However, in negotiating rates, it is critical to do so in the context of any take
or pay/minimum usage requirements. Most carrier agreements provide the reseller little if
any protection against rate increases. Carriers often can increase rates on as short as a
week’s notice. And there often is no limit on the amount or frequency of rate increases.
This creates the troubling possibility that a carrier could, either innocently or
otherwise, increase a rate to the point that the reseller no longer is able to meet its
minimum commitment. Nonethe-less, absent appropriate protective language, the reseller
remains liable to pay the charges associated with the full minimum commitment (at the
higher rates). Keep in mind that this same take-or-pay problem can arise even if the
carrier does not raise its rate. Indeed, today’s attractive rate quickly can become
unmarketable in tomorrow’s competitive market. But, of course, the reseller’s purchase
commitment remains. Thus, it is critical that a reseller carefully consider rate issues in
the context of take or pay/minimum usage requirements and that adequate protections be
built into agreements (such as most-favored nations clauses, rate caps and termination
clauses) to ensure that the reseller is not required to pay for services that it cannot
resell or does not use.

Unclear or Inappropriate Payment Terms

Disputes over terms of payment most often result from poor contract draftsmanship
and/or inadequate consideration of relevant issues. At a minimum, carrier contracts should
clearly address the following issues: (1) How frequently invoices are rendered; (2) The
time period each invoice covers and the form(s) the invoices are in (paper, tape, CD-ROM,
bulletin board, etc.), including any charges applicable to any of these forms; (3) The
manner of delivery (fax, overnight, etc.); (4) The content of the bill and supporting data
(call detail records [CDRs], etc.); (5) The so-called "grace period" before
payment is overdue; and (6) The right to and manner of dispute. The last two issues are
discussed briefly below.

The "Grace Period." This is the period in which payment is due before
any applicable interest, penalty or termination rights apply. In addition to assuring that
this term is clearly drafted and provides an adequate time period (normally 30 days), it
also is critical that the start date for the grace period be well- defined. Most carrier
agreements tie the grace period to a number of days following the invoice date. The
problem with this arrangement is that the "invoice date" often is an arbitrary
date generated by the carrier’s billing system that bears little or no relationship to the
date the bill is actually delivered to the reseller.

Indeed, it is not uncommon for the invoice to arrive weeks after the "invoice
date" and at or near the end of the grace period. To address this concern, we
strongly urge the grace period and payment date be tied to the date the bill is received
by the reseller (which can be established by a fax or overnight delivery record).

Disputes. Most carrier agreements severely limit dispute rights (the time to
lodge a dispute) and/or require full payment at the time the dispute is lodged. These
terms are very dangerous, particularly in combination. To protect a reseller, dispute
provisions should, at a minimum, contain the following terms: (1) An adequate period to
lodge the dispute in writing (at least 90 days following receipt of complete billing
records in a standard electronic format); (2) No loss of dispute rights when the carrier
has committed fraud or withheld data necessary to uncover the billing error; (3) No
obligation to pay disputed amounts (escrow arrangements may be acceptable); (4) Carriers
must respond in writing within 90 days of a dispute; (5) No right to terminate for
nonpayment of disputed amounts; and (6) Near-term arbitration/litigation of all disputes.
In addition, resellers should have procedures and staff in place to address disputes as
they arise, to document them properly and to issue dispute notices as required by the
carrier agreement.

Aggressive/Punitive/ Open-Ended Deposit Requirements

Many carrier agreements contain very aggressive and open-ended deposit requirements.
These requirements often give the carrier enormous discretion on the circumstances in
which deposits can be required, the amount of required deposits and the notice it must
give. As a result, these provisions are very dangerous, even if used in good faith, and
especially when used by carriers as a lever to impose other punitive terms on resellers.
Careful drafting is necessary here to identify the circumstances under which deposits can
be required, the amount of such deposits (such as a multiple of one to three months’
bills) and the advance notice required.

Aggressive Limitations of Liability

All carrier agreements contain very comprehensive provisions limiting the carrier’s
liability for most damages, including lost profits. While these terms often are difficult
to negotiate, several issues should be considered.

First, a reseller needs to evaluate the quality of the carrier and the reliability of
its services carefully before agreeing to any limitation of liability. In making this
evaluation, it is important to understand that courts generally will enforce limitation of
liability terms to the letter of the agreement.

Second, if a reseller enters into an agreement containing an aggressive limitation of
liability provision, it needs to do so with the understanding that it is likely forgoing
most, if not all, rights to damages in the event of a service failure. At the same time,
it is critical that reseller agreements with its customers take these limitations into
account. For example, a reseller should not leave itself exposed to liability to its
customers caused by the carrier’s failure to provide promised services where the reseller
cannot recover from that carrier.

Finally, if possible, try to have the carrier’s gross negligence and willful misconduct
excepted from the limitation of liability. Most carrier tariffs already contain this
exception, so it should be possible to negotiate the same exception into carrier
agreements. This exception will help protect a reseller against the most egregious
misconduct.

Fraud Liability

Fraud exposure is a major concern for carriers and resellers alike, expressly because
the potential loss can be so large. To the extent that carrier agreements address the
issue, it’s not surprising that full liability is normally assigned to the reseller. The
concern here not only is the open-ended nature of this exposure, but also the fact that
the reseller often is completely blind to fraud and cannot take measures to limit or
prevent its exposure. Thus, fraud terms need to be considered carefully and appropriate
language included.

Again at a minimum, the agreement should specify the following: (1) The carrier
represents that it has systems in place to detect and prevent fraud; (2) The carrier will
use those systems for the reseller’s traffic; (3) The reseller is not liable for fraud
before it is notified of the fraud; (4) The reseller can instruct the carrier to shut down
service to any line or service evidencing fraud; and (5) The reseller is not liable for
fraud on any line or service after termination is requested.

Nondisclosure/Noncircumvent Terms

Few, if any, carrier agreements provide adequate protection to the reseller for its
customer information. This is particularly critical with 1+ resellers, although it also is
an important issue for debit card providers, particularly with respect to their
distribution networks.

Resporg Issues

In cases which 800 access is at issue, the reseller should either retain all
responsible organization (resporg) rights or assign them to a third-party resporg. When
this is impossible, the agreement must clearly specify resporg rights upon termination by
either party. When the reseller is the terminating party, the agreement should specify the
immediate resporg of all 800 numbers and the transfer of all databases containing customer
information.

Neil S. Ende is founder and partner of Technology Law Group LLC, a Washington-based
communications law firm. He can be reached by phone at +1 202 895 1707 and by e-mail at [email protected]

Tags: Agents Telephony/UC/Collaboration

Most Recent


  • Mergers acquisitions m&a goldfish crackers
    Latest M&A: IBM, Vonage, Nokia, GoTo, Nitel, Ensono, Huntress, More
    One cybersecurity company's $22 million July acquisition was its largest to date.
  • Integration puzzle pieces
    Kyndryl, Five9 Partner to Offer Cloud Contact Center Solutions
    They will help new and existing customers move legacy contact centers to the cloud.
  • application portfolio modernization
    Adaptiv Networks' SD-WAN Joins OTG Consulting Portfolio
    Adaptiv Networks SD-WAN will help OTG agents move customers from PSTN to UCaaS.
  • partner portal
    GoTo Promotes Chief Product and Technology Officer to CEO
    He will accelerate innovation and growth in the SMB space, the company said.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

-or-

Log in with your Channel Futures account

Alternatively, post a comment by completing the form below:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Content

  • Conflict Boxing Gloves
    Channel Conflict, Controversy: SolarWinds Hack, Racism, Layoffs, Zoom-RingCentral
  • PlanetOne Gainey Golf Event Feature
    PlanetOne Golf Event: In-Person Channel Networking Makes Big Comeback
  • Lawsuit
    FTC Lawsuit: Frontier Communications Misled Customers About DSL Speeds
  • SaaS provider
    8x8 XCaaS Eliminates Silos, Optimizes Customer Experience

Upcoming Events

View all

MSP Summit

September 13, 2022 - September 16, 2022

Channel Partners Conference & Expo

May 1, 2023 - May 4, 2023

Galleries

View all

Oracle Cloud & AT&T, AWS Lead Cloud News Roundup

August 12, 2022

Latest M&A: IBM, Vonage, Nokia, GoTo, Nitel, Ensono, Huntress, More

August 12, 2022

Partner Program Updates: Microsoft, TD Synnex, AppSmart, Cisco, Verizon

August 11, 2022

Industry Perspectives

View all

How to Take Shared Responsibility for Securing Cloud

August 11, 2022

Seize the Application Modernization Opportunity

August 2, 2022

A Growth Mindset: Your Organization’s Strategic Differentiator

August 1, 2022

Webinars

View all

Outsmarting RaaS: Implementation Strategies To Help Your Clients Before, During, and After a Ransomware Attack

August 23, 2022

Why it is Important to Upgrade Aging Servers and How to use Live Optics to Upgrade Efficiently

August 25, 2022

Executives at Home are Not Alright: An Intro to Digital Executive Protection

September 8, 2022

White Papers

View all

Work Goes Remote – (and Other Top ITOps Trends)

May 25, 2022

The New Bottom Line: How MSPs Can Meet the Healthcare Crisis While Evolving Their Businesses

April 19, 2022

How to build a Security Operations Center (on a budget)

April 4, 2022

Channel Futures TV

View all

ThreatLocker Preaches Zero Trust, Addresses Industry Competition

ScienceLogic Debuts New Partner Portal

August 9, 2022

Vonage a ‘Single Communications Stack Provider’ for Partners, Customers

June 27, 2022

IBM, Partners and the $1 Trillion Hybrid Cloud Opportunity

June 26, 2022

Twitter

ChannelFutures

Missed the news this week from @OracleCloud and @ATTBusiness? We've got it here. Plus, news from @AWSCloud and… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

August 12, 2022
ChannelFutures

Huge channel-impacting acquisitions in the past month. We've got details on @IBM, @nokia, @GoTo, @EnsonoIT,… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

August 12, 2022
ChannelFutures

Boost privacy by design with #shiftleft mindset and add #security to cloud deployments from start, says… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

August 12, 2022
ChannelFutures

Say sayonara to contract renewals - @KaseyaCorp responds to mounting customer concerns with significant changes.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

August 11, 2022
ChannelFutures

.@Kyndryl, @Five9 partnership will focus on cloud-based #contactcenter solutions. dlvr.it/SWTFPx https://t.co/WGQedUjSB1

August 11, 2022
ChannelFutures

How cloud providers and customers can work together to safely share and secure responsibility in the cloud. @Cisco… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

August 11, 2022
ChannelFutures

See the latest updates from @verizonbusiness, @GetNerdio, @AppSmartcom, @CiscoPartners and other companies.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

August 11, 2022
ChannelFutures

.@nutanix said to lay off 4% of workforce by October, as company cites macroeconomic issues. dlvr.it/SWSMDN https://t.co/w6JeqkI7r6

August 11, 2022

MSP 501

The industry's largest and most comprehensive partner awards program.

Newsletters and Updates

Sign up for The Channel Report, Channel Futures Update, MSP 501 Newsletter and more.

Live Channel Events

Get the latest information on the next industry-leading Channel Partners event.

Galleries

Educational slide shows and images from live events.

Media Kit And Advertising

Want to reach our audience? Access our media kit.

DISCOVER MORE FROM INFORMA TECH

  • Channel Partners Events
  • Telecoms.com
  • MSP 501
  • Black Hat
  • IoT World Today
  • Omdia

WORKING WITH US

  • Contact
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • Newsletter

FOLLOW Channel Futures ON SOCIAL

  • Privacy
  • CCPA: “Do Not Sell My Data”
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms
Copyright © 2022 Informa PLC. Informa PLC is registered in England and Wales with company number 8860726 whose registered and Head office is 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG.
This website uses cookies, including third party ones, to allow for analysis of how people use our website in order to improve your experience and our services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the use of such cookies. Click here for more information on our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.
X