Horrible Service Agreements

Sun Nov 30 06:18:09 UTC 1997

On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Phil Howard wrote:

> > Now, I understand the need to be able to terminate spam havens.  I also
> > understand the need to require your customers to use compatible and
> > reliable equipment. 
> 
> So do I.
> 
> So is the strange clause about hiding the backbone name the one you are
> worried most about?

Actually, no.  What I'm worried about is that under both contracts we've
seen so far (From two different providers) if a single customer sends spam
(or even flames another user, the way they're written) and our upstream
finds out, then they have the right to terminate immediately without
notice to us AND then require us to pay for the remaining service.

Sprint's policy is much better which basically states:

   "Complaints about customers or end-users of a Sprint IP customer
    will be forwarded to the Sprint IP customer's hostmaster
    for action. If irresponsible or illegal activity continues, then
    the Sprint IP customer's Products and Services may be
    subject to termination or other action as Sprint deems
    appropriate without notice."

> > Another example.  Lets assume that someone in our upstream decided that we
> > MUST have a $250,000 router to connect to their system.  If we can't
> > provide such a beast, we are immediately terminated and required to pay
> > for the remaining year term.
> 
> On a T1?  Not likely.  I can't see them requiring any kind of upgrade that
> isn't required of all other like customers.  More likely this clause is
> there to make sure that you don't run some buggy version of software and
> not do something about it.

I have no problem with that.  We'd just like to be able to get out of a
contract under the (unlikely) circumstance that we are either unable or
unwilling to comply with their requirements - Without paying up to
$20,000.

> > Both of the potential upstreams have been wholly unwilling to negotiate a
> > contract in good faith to resolve these issues.  
> 
> If they perceive you as a "mom and pop" outfit, they are likely to do this.
> What is your relationship to The Montana Internet Cooperative?

This is for the Montana Internet Corporation.  (Haven't changed the names
on the internic records yet.)  I'm on the board of directors and one of
the system administrators.

> Given the remoteness of Montana, local investment by the backbones does
> not generally give good returns.  I can't give you a T1+loop at that price
> because hauling the line in is too expensive.
> 
> There has to be a market there to make it worth while.
> 
> If you had ALL of Helena signed up as a customer, could you afford the cost
> of hauling your own T1 all the way to Denver or Seattle or Minneapolis to
> connect up to a major backbone there?  Would a T1 be enough for the town?

We could "afford" to drag a T1, although it would put a fairly deep
strain on our resources. That isn't the issue. Basically, if we
stick with MCI, AT&T, etc. (I.E telcos) we can easily get T1
service + loop for under $3k.  I'm just leery of getting 30 days further
down the road with ISP #3 just to find that they have the same terms in
their contract which they won't let us see until we agree to a proposal
which takes them 30 days to produce.

-forrestc at imach.com