DISTRICT COURT OF ___________________________________

 

Insert name,                      Case No.:

Plaintiff,

vs.

Insert name,

Defendant

STATEMENT

Your Honor,

My name is insert name. I am a network engineer who performed the network evaluation for the Plaintiff, Impex Auto Sales. On April 22, 2016, I was asked by Impex Auto Sales for services to discover any irregular technical practices.After a thorough analysis I discovered several unconventional methods to set up a small network of less than 20 devices. The disaster recovery findings were the following:

1. The hardware layout was very complex with several fail points for a single office network.

2. Two standard home switches were set up to split networks. Typically this is done to avoid proper switch setup. (Please see Figure 1)

3. Impex Auto Sales did not have control of their internet or phone equipment. This is common to prevent local user access to the equipment although, when I requested support from the Defendant, Net Carrier, I was transferred back and forth between 2 other companies and my request to assist repairs for Impex Auto Sales was ignored by Net Carrier.

4. I detected open security ports that allowed easy access to possible attacks.

5. Tech support documentation including backups of router configuration and the network diagram turned out to be unavailable even upon request.

After the analysis which showed inability of Net Carrier to provide quality services I was asked by Impex Auto Sales to assist in transfer from their current internet provider to a new local internet provider.

I contacted Net Carrier and after several days of attempting to perform my duties I was misled and told that the transfer could not be done without a project manager. After many conversations with tech support, I received a call from Laura Bella who informed me that she was the project manager in charge. When I explained my frustration in moving forward with the transfer, I was told that Impex Auto Sales must stay with Net Carrier internet carrier instead of transferring to Time Warner Business Class service which Impex Auto Sales set up.

During the discussion with the representative of Net Carrier, I stated that Impex Auto Sales were performing the cut-over and that the client wished to utilize their own internet service while using Net Carrier’s cloud based phone system. Laura stated that I was not authorized to speak on behalf of the company before she ended the call with me. Following this incident, Impex Auto Sales promptly provided me authorization with Net Carrier via email. However, I did not receive a call back from Net Carrier.

Continuing working on the cut-over, I set up a new phone server with a different telco that was very cooperative with the Time Warner Business Class internet connection. We waited for support from Net Carrier to transfer the number for a month but still did not get any cooperation. As far as I know, and my knowledge is based on bandwidth reports, Impex Auto Sales has been paying for 2 business class internet connections.

The network analysis shows that one is provided by Net Carrier and the other one by Time Warner Business Class 10M circuit which is currently not used due to the situation. (See Figure 2 for Bandwidth report).

It is obvious that Net Carrier are attempting to keep the client by making it impossible to quit. Therefore, Impex Auto Sales are deprived of their right to choose and have to put up with poor quality of services.