|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Horrible Service Agreements
Jon Lewis writes... > I don't think anyone disagrees that spam is a major problem and not an > acceptable thing to have customers doing. What Forrest was complaining > about was much too harsh an anti-spam policy. I doubt Forrest would have > a problem with "If your network is repeatadly used to distribute spam and > no effort is made to stop this, service may be terminated." What he was > complaining about was that they were basically saying "If your network is > ever used to distribute spam, we have the right to terminate service > immediately and levy severe financial penalties." This would mean that if > they ever have a customer spam, even if they nuke the account as soon as > they know about the spam, they might lose that T1 and a lot of money. > Whoever wrote those clauses was either way too naive, militant, or just > entirely without clue. But it is very common for lawyers to write the terms that way for many contracts. It gives them leverage. They don't usually exercise it, but should there be some extremely severe case, they want to make sure they have the power to do so without having to balance it against the losses relative to their financial planning. I don't like it, but that's the way it works. If you are in a position to be able to bargain terms, most businesses generally do so. It sounds like Forrest's problem is that he is not in such a position. > > You make contract clauses all your customers have to sign that requires > > them to pay all costs and overhead for any problems they cause. > > Good luck collecting on that when some 12 year old sends out make money > fast. Are you willing to bet your connection to the net on that? I didn't agree with it. I just pointed it out as a fact of life. You'll find lots of lousy contracts in business when you look at them in terms of what _might_ happen. The pendulum certainly has swung the other way as providers have discovered that they are getting stung bad with regard to spam. Even AGIS has discovered they are sinking in the quicksand and are trying to get out. Maybe we should take an assessment on just what terms are in NEW connection contracts being let these days. > Especially considering his remoteness. $2500/month for port and loop sounds > pretty good to me. Many of the "bigger" backbone providers charge that just > for the port fee. I'd let him have a T1 port into my two T1 ports for just $1000/mo if he would haul his own line here to Texas. But he'd be the fool to do that. Given that price, it might well be a near loss for the backbone. He needs to find the price level that will get his sales rep dialing up the legal department. -- Phil Howard | [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] phil | [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] at | [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] milepost | [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] dot | [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] com | [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
|