I don't have any particular insight on McLeod USA, but a couple of points jump out from this thread.

First, this situation illustrates the importance of redundant paths. A fully redundant path should have physical, logical, and business diversity from the primary path. If this isn't possible, the order of importance is physical, then logical, and then business. A McLeod USA customer who implemented redundancy before now has a redesign effort in order to restore redundancy, but is not facing a disruption of service issue.

Next, this situation illustrates the importance of business continuity planning (BCP). If McLeod USA ceases to function, the scenario is extended circuit outage for the business. This should be part of the BCP and a well defined action plan should exist. This means the enterprise with a BCP knows what to do while implementing new circuits so that business continues. The situation with McLeod USA becomes an inconvenience of some magnitude, but not a disaster.

Another point is the need for good partnerships. It sounds like McLeod USA is facing a cash flow problem rather than a technical or service level problem. If their customers are more partners than simply billable units, there may be opportunities to resolve the issue. If the McLeod USA employees are partners instead of simply resources, the opportunity may exist to reduce costs internally. If the McLeod USA suppliers are partners instead of simply vendors, credit or deferred payment options may be available. Of course, if McLeod USA has a corporate mentality where the focus is on shareholder and senior team profit, there might be no options.

Finally, there is the issue of critical mass and perception becoming reality. What began as a question regarding McLeod USA financial status based on actions at NASDAQ has become a rumor that it is about to go under and customers need to bail out ASAP. The speculation of possible failure drives the reality by costing the company loyal customers and reducing the revenue stream. McLeod USA may lose any opportunity to continue operation based only on the perception that no opportunity exists.

I would hope that any McLeod USA customer would first discuss the situation and risks with McLeod USA before considering a change in provider. If the conclusion is that a change is the best decision, they should revisit the objectives and requirements that made them select McLeod USA to begin with. If these are still valid, they become the criteria for finding a new provider. If not, change them and then use the new criteria when finding their next provider.

Private Reply to Ken Hilving (new win)