this question has dollars attached to it

Post #155,122 by boxley 5/14/04 8:30:48 AM Reply	this question has dollars attached to it I open a connection to another companies network, my application looks for an established connection before opening a new one. The other company has a firewall rule that sez if an established connection doesnt have traffic over x amount of time it will throw all further packets on the floor. My app doesnt know this and after a period of time will assume the established connection is ok and send traffic that fails. Now each failed transaction has a dollar amount attached, the agreements dont talk about timeout values, so who pays for the failure. Trying to keep this vague deliberately but any help is appreciated. thanx, bill Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #155,128 by jbrabeck 5/14/04 9:03:59 AM Reply	If you must keep the partner 1. Eat the costs. 2. If you can negotiate - split the costs. 3. If you want to lose the partner, sue for full costs. I's start with 2 and back up to 1.
Post #155,129 by boxley 5/14/04 9:12:59 AM Reply	not costs exactly but FCC fines who is responsible for the traffic not getting to the endpoint thanx, bill Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #155,131 by jbrabeck 5/14/04 9:48:48 AM Reply	Both parties made an assumption Them - connections always time out You - connections always stay open Or you didn't ask and they didn't tell. The current and future relationship should determine who should pay. Ask them to absorb all the fines. If they refuse, ask for split. If they refuse, pay the fine and look for another partner. IANAL, so that may be just too much common sense. Of course this is just IMHO. You may need to question the IT person who reviewed the SLA and failed to raise the timeout question.
Post #155,141 by boxley 5/14/04 10:58:22 AM Reply	fun part, no SLA, just a handshake agreement to connect there is an FCC mandate that has their folks forced to communicate with our folks, and vice versa. Our position at this point is we are sending comms, they are dropping them so its not our issue. Just trying to get opposing viewpoints so I can discuss them thanx, bill Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #155,147 by ben_tilly 5/14/04 11:27:25 AM Reply	Ah, so you don't WANT to do business? You just have to, right? Then start off by saying that it is their fault, they are dropping your connection without cause. Back off from that if your side doesn't think that they can win with that argument. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #155,159 by jbrabeck 5/14/04 1:09:25 PM Reply	Agree with Ben Since this is a "forced" partnership, then they should have told you about the line timeout. Since there is nothing in writing, start by blaming them, but back off to a split if legal becomes involved. With legal, it's "your" word against their word, with nothing to support either side. Fines should be then split and "forgotten". Document everything for next time/issue.
Post #155,150 by Steven A S 5/14/04 12:00:09 PM Reply	Can't you send a keepalive? ~~~)-Steven---- "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..." General George S. Patton
Post #155,157 by jbrabeck 5/14/04 1:06:35 PM Reply	Guessing Yes, but the discussion is what to do about the fines incurred 'cuz nobody told them that they needed to send a keepalive.

Welcome to IWETHEY!