Corporate & Business · NPO & Social Impact · Telecommunications & Technology
A cancelled service cannot also deliver an ongoing tariff saving
Which is why 31.3% plus 14.3% plus 10.1% is not an additive 55.8% of separate benefits. Old lines stay active, broadband overlaps, tariffs vary by service, and branch records do not match the provider's billing estate.
- 55.8%
- gross modelled opportunity, not realised
- 31.3%
- of baseline on no-use services
- 43.2%
- of records on the signed cancellation schedule
- ~30%
- modelled usage cut from rate alignment
Proof context: A legacy multi-site fixed-line estate of 37 active service records
The situation
Lines that outlived the reason they were installed
Legacy fixed-line estates keep charging for services that no longer support an operational requirement. Multi-site organisations are particularly exposed: old lines stay active, broadband services overlap, call tariffs vary by service, and branch records do not match the provider's billing estate.
The review was performed at individual service-record level rather than at account total — 37 active records, of which four turned out to be zero-spend administrative entries that needed classifying rather than being mistaken for chargeable lines.
The opportunity
Three levers, and why they do not simply add up
Scroll table sideways →
| Lever | Share of baseline | Evidence position |
|---|---|---|
| Dormant / no-use cancellation | 31.3% | Recurring charges on services with no operational usage. A signed cancellation schedule supports action on this population. |
| Overlapping service removal | 14.3% | Services where a second communications arrangement already existed. A gross modelled lever that overlaps other categories at service-ID level. |
| Call-rate alignment | 10.1% | Usage repriced by call category at aligned effective rates. Modelled, not provider-confirmed. |
| Gross total | 55.8% | The source workbook headline — and not a sum of mutually exclusive realised savings. |
Why the 55.8% is published as gross and modelled
A service that is cancelled cannot simultaneously deliver an ongoing tariff saving. Services selected for overlap cancellation also contribute to the call-rate alignment model, so those two levers compete for the same money.
One service record appears in both the no-use cancellation population and the usage-bearing analysis, so the categories are not fully mutually exclusive.
Different workbook generations use different averaging and annualisation bases for usage, which moves the usage-cost result between versions. A later worksheet labelled as a short-period saving calculates a spend proxy rather than a clean before-and-after delta.
Some derivative spreadsheet totals contain broken formula references. The published result therefore anchors to the final source summary and to line-level controls, rather than accepting every workbook formula chain at face value.
Estate metrics
What the register actually held
Scroll table sideways →
| Metric | Result | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Active service records | 37 | The review ran at individual service-record level, not account total. |
| Records on the signed cancellation schedule | 16 (43.2%) | A large part of the estate had no sufficient continuing operational case. |
| Usage-bearing lines in the cost comparison | 18 | Subjected to recurring-charge and usage modelling. One also appears in the cancellation population — which is where the overlap comes from. |
| Non-billable PBX-related records | 4 | Zero-spend administrative records needing classification, not cancellation. |
What KuTh did
Six controls that make the estate auditable
- Service estate reconstruction. Active lines, service types, recurring charges and site ownership reconciled into one auditable register.
- Call-rate economics. Local, national, mobile and other categories normalised, to expose inconsistent effective per-minute pricing.
- Usage validation. Billing-cycle usage tested, so genuinely operational lines separate from dormant or low-value ones.
- Overlap testing. Connectivity or voice services already supplied elsewhere isolated before any cancellation decision.
- Cancellation governance. Authorisation, supporting identity documents, service schedules and provider forms assembled as a controlled execution pack.
- Post-change verification. Bills re-tested after cancellation or re-rating, so a modelled saving becomes an evidenced one. This is the step the retained records do not complete.
What is claimed
That a defined group of service records was formally put forward for cancellation, evidenced by a signed schedule and provider cancellation form. That approximately 30% of modelled usage charges could come out of the analysed estate through rate alignment.
Not that any of it was realised. Complete provider confirmation and post-change billing for every action is absent from the retained evidence, and without it the gross figure stays gross.
Supporting documents