Friday, January 03, 2014

Sloppy Work

So a certain client had an internet upgrade, a speed increase, installed on the morning of New Year's Eve. I get the call from the client, their internet isn't working, incoming phone calls aren't coming through, and the internet service provider says our router needs to be reconfigured to "full duplex 100". I come over, check out the router, determine that the particular model we have cannot be reconfigured to full duplex 100.

I pick up a faster router for them, and a faster switch too, at Office Depot. Nope, internet still doesn't work. The new router complains that it doesn't see a a good internet signal. It sees a signal, but not a good one. The "net" light is yellow, not green.

So, New Year's Day, I come in, try hooking the new internet connection directly to my Windows 7 laptop. Windows 7 doesn't like the internet signal either. Complains that it's not configured properly to supply my laptop with an i.p. address.

The morning of January 2nd, we call the provider again, tell them we think that they did a bad install. No, they don't think so, they think our router and laptop were configured wrong... but they will doublecheck at their end. An hour later, the internet actually starts to work, and we start getting phone calls from the outside. Without us doing anything new. Without them coming into our office.

Something had been wrong at the provider end, after all. They installed it wrong, and clearly never did a clean test while they were at my client doing the install. I mean, they are an internet service provider. Don't they have specialty testing equipment? Couldn't they have tried plugging it into a laptop of their own, one they knew was configured correctly, just to prove the internet was being delivered? It's ridiculous my client had to pay me to investigate this.

I'm not even a real network expert. I can just pass as one, when there aren't any real ones around.

But after all
it was New Year's Eve
so perhaps the guy who did the install
was in a big hurry to leave
and therefore thought it best
to skip a thorough test.

No comments: