Why Rushing Your Business Telecom Decisions Could Cost You Dearly


Over the past three decades, one constant in the telecom industry has remained unchanged, despite the shift from analogue and ISDN lines to VoIP and cloud-hosted services. That constant is the puzzling trend of businesses leaving their telecoms planning to the last minute. Given the critical role that telephone systems play in any business, large or small, one would assume that this would be a priority task on any business restructuring checklist. Yet often, it isn’t.

Take a very recent case that turned into a bit of a fiasco.

We were introduced to a business setting up new premises, adding to its eight existing locations, each with its own separate telephone system. By the time we were introduced to them, they had spent over £250,000 outfitting their new site (and it looked fantastic), which was set to open in just ten days. Only then did they start considering their telephony needs – specifically, a new telephone number and how to advertise it to attract new clients.

The situation escalated when the provider for the previous tenant’s phone and broadband services offered their help – at a significantly inflated price and committing them to a five-year fixed contract.

After a fact finding discussion with the client, we provided cost-effective alternatives and realistic timelines to get everything up and running, even offering a temporary solution to bridge any gaps. However, the stress and pressure from the incumbent provider led the client to accept the original costly offer, despite our efforts.


Sometimes the stress and pressure of rushing a decision, can cost you more money and slow down your technology advancement over time


A Costly Decision:

Choosing the wrong telecom solution locked our client into paying £220 per month over five years, totalling £13,200. If they had opted for our proposed solution, the cost would have been just £3,500 over the same period. That’s nearly a £10,000 difference, not to mention the unnecessary stress endured.

A Suboptimal Solution:

1. The chosen broadband solution will require an expensive upgrade before 2025 due to it being end-of-life technology.
2. The solution is only viable for this one site, whereas our suggested option could have integrated all nine locations, enhancing overall efficiency and reducing costs further.

In Conclusion:

The chosen path not only saddled the client with outdated technology but also cost them nearly four times more than necessary. It has done little to assist with the clients other business operations and has brought a considerable amount of undue stress.

From our perspective at Time Communications, while this experience cost us some time and effort, the greater disappointment was in seeing a client miss out on a fantastic opportunity to enhance their technology and save a considerable sum of money.

If you are considering a project and need guidance on how to avoid similar pitfalls, we are here to help.

You can contact us by clicking here.

May 2024