What if No they meant synchronous as in same path. They made that clear, but it clearly indicates they don't know data outside an office.
Assuming they wanted an nda before we could quote them indicates a lack of knowledge and pure asshattery, a really good indicator of what they would be like to deal with Demanding a change to business models (dia gets a business hours tech support, 4 hour response, no on-site time guarantee) even going with an answering service for 24/7/365 would probably cost close to the revenue off this. Demanding all this with the expectation of no cost increase or penalty for non payment (that wasn't even a request to change the 15 days to 30 before service is interrupted, it was a demand the entire text be removed from the contract) is fucking insane. Individual or groups of some of the demands could be done, but to have it written into a contract that if you lose an entire pop you will go to a new one is insanity, demanding path control on the wild internet isn't even real, and topping it off with demanding the right to terminate a contract if an outage exceeds 4 hours is worthy of a gold helmet. I was trying to find the sla terms for Verizon's low latency financial network between Chicago and New York to see if that's where they got their ideas from. All theoretical On Aug 28, 2015 7:41 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]> wrote: > Regarding “synchronous”, half the world seems to say that when they mean > “symmetric”. > > > *From:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2015 5:24 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Ridiculous SLA request > > I never turned one of these down. It is the drug dealer model. Once they > are hooked, they are hooked. They need you so bad they will behave when > the times comes, if it comes. Treat them right, be courteous when they do > have problems, apologize profusely and keep them informed as to the nature > of the problem and they are generally pretty reasonable. I never had an > onerous SLA ever actually call upon the terms, they just wanted things > fixed. Of course I always prorated the outage plus a bit extra. > > > > *From:* Mike Hammett <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, August 28, 2015 4:14 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Ridiculous SLA request > > Oh, I missed the non-payment stuff. Yeah, efff off. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Friday, August 28, 2015 3:05:52 PM > *Subject: *[AFMUG] Ridiculous SLA request > > (hypotheticals in case on top of the following in case we had to sign an > NDA before giving them service) > > > so if we were looking at doing a connection in an area to a customer who > currently is suffering DSL woes. And say we put up an AP for them so we > could confirm the ability to connect them, its on the far end of our > network, traversing some small backhauls because of the few customers, and > say we would have to upgrade a minimum of two backhauls to deliver a WISP > reliable service/ > > And if we quoted them something like 350 a month for the connection, just > recouping the buildout on this would take some time as it wasnt really an > area of the network we forecast any growth on. > > Remember we are a sub 1k subscriber network, with in the scheme of ISP > offerings cover a small footprint. > > So they were to come back with a change to the contract (note this was not > an SLA, its a DIA, which to us is the same as an SLA to some degree, > without the strict requirements or guarantees) > > First, maintaining the 350 dollar a month cost > Change the Terms to SLA > Syncronous connectivity (whatever this means in their heads), apparently > we might need to run fiber to every end point on the planet to ensure this) > 99.5% uptime and full capacity bandwidth guarantee > 24/7/365 tech support > one hour maximumum call back time > 4 hour on site guarantee 24/7/365 > 4 hour resolution guarantee or they can terminate the contract on the spot > remove invoice payment terms, no disconnection for non payment > If our access site goes down we are required to seek a replacement > site(not sure what the expectation here is) > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > >
