Here's a new topic for a change. Many of us have seen one sided and inequitable contracts, as well as operating policies that lack a sense of fairness.

Rather than complain about the bad ones, in this discussion, let us define what we think are fair terms.

For instance, in another discussion, it was mentioned that a host had refunded the unused portions of the service fee when a customer moved to a new server.

What else would we like to see and come to expect? Remember, it must be fair, that means fair to host and customer alike.

*gets out notepad and waits for replies to add to his dedicated server contract*

This is a good thread and I agree with duster that contracts are mostly one sided. I tried to make mine as fair as possible but any posts here will be taken into consideration and probabbly added into my 6 page contract to add to its context and make it as fair as possible :).

------------------
Sincerely~
Daniel Pearson
UltraSpeed USA http://www.ultraspeedusa.com
AIM: UltraSpeedUSA
ICQ: 7021831
Email: dpearson@ultraspeedusa.com
Phone: 1-205-785-1872

[This message has been edited by DanielP (edited 06-30-2000).]

Well, the biggest problem I have with hosts are:-

1. 90% of the host never give their clients, the stated uptime. Why should I pay the full bill, when I am not provided the full service ?

2. If the client even goes 1 mb over the bandwidth limit, he/she is charged for a full gig of bandwidth (thats the case with most hosts). Ok if the host gets to do that, then I should be refunded for the bandwidth I didn't use for the previous months I was with the host.

3. the Term unlimited should not be used on anything in the tos of any host, no host can provide unlimited amounts of any service, its just that simple. The best solution to this should be an accurate estimate.

Well, this about it.

Iam currently hosted with site5.com, and I love them. last month I had about 11-20 hours downtime; site 5 decided to give that month to me with out any charge, now thats what I call a host. Also the tech icq's me whenever I am about to breach my bandwidth limit, thus I can take measures to decrease my bandwidth usage.

Well one thing I personally DON'T believe in, is having a time period or complicated procedure in canceling accounts.
If a customer wants to cancel there account they should be able to do it simply. And be refunded for any time that they have paid for and have not used.

Also support staff should be able to offer responsible Tech support for no cost. (As most hosting companies do, However some don't or charge outrages prices)

One of the most complicated things to put in the TOS in my opinion would be the over usage of CPU. Its hard to say "Its up to us" :) with out sounding unfair, but really that's what it comes down to. A server may have very low CPU usage, and a client may be using 20% of the CPU on that server. Which in those circumstances isn't much of a problem. however you could then have a server with everyone running CGI. so of course you couldn't allow one single user 20% usage of the cpu.

Is suppose these are more of guidelines that I believe in. And not exact wording of what should be in the TOS.

------------------
[ Jason Berresford | Admin]
[ http://www.can-host.com ]
[ Admin@can-host.com ]
[ (905)765-8140 ]

Hey Duster!

This is another great thread you started - a really important issue most web hosting firms look into.

Here's one piece of caution:

It's easy to lift off and modify pieces of TOS's of other firms... that may do just fine. But I'd really advise any firm serious about staying in the web hosting business for a long time to at least get their TOS reviewed by an Internet savvy lawyer who is well versed with the country's ecommerce and internet laws in which the web hosting company is incorporated/registered/doing business in.

It wouldn't be much use to have a TOS worded primarily for another country in which ecommerce and internet laws aren't the same.

This lawyer could even be a personal friend... one needn't spend a huge packet on legal fees.

In short, a little money spent on a legally well-worded TOS would save a lot of harassment, time and money if the occasion arose, in future.

Also, since laws are continually changing, one must make sure that their TOS is also taking such changes into account as and when necessary. Failure to do this could land some unforesighted web hosting company into a small or big bowl of very hot soup tomorrow... possibly with criminal implications/penalties... God forbid.

And as was said by the others above before me, both resellers and clients are getting smarter and smarter. Many of us (I for one am very particular about this) go through a TOS with a fine comb before we arrive at a decision to host with a particular company.

Smart web hosters, who want to play the long term, should have a TOS which assures the reseller that he will not be penalized "unfairly" or "overly" for anything he is not directly responsible for.

Though it would be imperative for a web hosting to include clauses such as "immediate termination of account" should a reseller's client abuse their services, I think such clauses should be mentioned in a firm but softer tone.

It would be better, in such cases, to "temporarily shut down services" followed by an email to the reseller with a rider that the penality will be more severe the next time similar abuse of services occur. In this way, the reseller could instruct the client in turn.

This would save the reseller's face, especially if the reseller is working under his own personalized name server (which many hosting companies now provide as an incentive).

Really am looking forward to some healthy opinions and criticisms in this thread!

Also, would some web hosting firms who are regularly visiting this forum please comment on their reasons for having or not having the suggestions mentioned by others in this thread.

A TOS is a sticky issue, and obviously a web hosting company is entitled to take necessary precautions to save itself in the event of any possible future litigation. I am sure many suggestions made in this thread will be argued upon by others who run web hosting companies themselves.

It is these arguments which will ultimately show us the true pros and cons of a TOS.

[This message has been edited by Learner (edited 07-01-2000).]

I believe I get what you mean, but the problem with a lot of TOS is that they were written by lawyers (and I could show you a common clause reviewed by lawyers regarding minors that won't hold up in court). It's not the job of a lawyer (as many see it) to write an equitable contract. It's their job to protect their client. That's probably why the most equitable TOS I've seen apparently started from scratch instead of copying others. It takes a business person with a sense of fairness to set the terms of business.

One should listen to their accountant and lawyers, but never let them set the policy for a business.

One needn't cover every single detail if the overall intent is clear, much like the Declaration of Independence (which many of us celebrate next week).

It also isn't necesary to write it in "legalese", plain English is better and more easily understood by a greater number of people.

The one sure way of not having any problems with customers and their contracts is to take care of them properly. However, even some companies that are good in practice have terrible contracts. That brings us back to the point of this discussion, to come up with an equitable contract and terms of service (since contracts aren't always required).

Although not a term itself, I believe the TOS or AUP or contract should be linked on the sales terms and order pages, and the site should be constructed in such a manner that one must acknowledge reading them before being able to place an order.

This benefits host and customer alike. They can't pull new terms out of a hat (usually when you exceed something) and the customer will have been made aware of all terms and can;t righteously complain about expectations they don't cover.

[This message has been edited by Duster (edited 07-01-2000).]

"2. If the client even goes 1 mb over the bandwidth limit, he/she is charged for a full gig of bandwidth (thats the case with most hosts).
"
Well I have to agree and dis-agree to that point :)

If they charge for just 1mb over the limit is nuts, now if I see a client @ 100-200mb over their limit 1-2 weeks from the end of the month you bet i'm going to inform them that their going over and will need to be charged what was used for the remainder of the month.

Now onto the second item you pointed out.

"Ok if the host gets to do that, then I should be refunded for the bandwidth I didn't use for the previous months I was with the host."

I really REALLY have to disagree with that.
When purchasing bandwidth you purchase it for what you expect to use not what you use. Dedicated or Otherwise.

It's basically just like you having your local ISP run a line capable of lets say 50gb per month. And you pay a flat fee for it. Well are you going to ask them for some of that fee back if you only push 10gb through the pipe each month ?

Not to meantion the fact of a billing nightmare to fund/refund bandwidth by the month, its just not worth it.



------------------
Sincerely~
Daniel Pearson
UltraSpeed USA
http://www.ultraspeedusa.com
AIM: UltraSpeedUSA
ICQ: 7021831
Email: dpearson@ultraspeedusa.com
Phone: 1-205-785-1872

Agreed. This type of thing is actually pretty common. Take your cellular phone plan ($30/mo incl. 100 minutes). If you go over that, you are charged extra. Same thing.

Companies have to listen to their lawyers, and use them to form TOS. After all, the lawyers will be the ones having to defend the company against lawsuits.

I think it is a good topic as well, though I am not sure customers have much concern about protecting the host company (though many companies do have some concern for the customer). One sided I know.

I really hate the "We reserve the right to change the TOS at any time for any reason"


Maybe should be more like "We reserve the right....but will give you 1 month notice of any TOS changes"

into my 6 page contract This about sums up my biggest pet peeve on the issue of TOS. It's truly a shame that in order to cover all of the bases for both parties we have to include so much. Case in point: "No Adult Content" is not near simple enough. Once you 'lay down the law' the law must be defined. What is adult content? What is porn? What is nudity? You mean I cannot show fine nude art on my site? Who defines "fine art"? Etc. etc. etc.

When I spoke with our attorney about a TOS rewrite he was adamant about filling it full of "outs" because any statement can be defined in many different ways. :( I find it depressing at best when I try to do something seemingly simple and it becomes extremely complex because of definitions needing to be so thorough and even then, they can be questioned and torn apart piece by piece...

With that said:

Why should I pay the full bill, when I am not provided the full service ? You shouldn't! If the host is down more than their specified allowance for it (and we should allow the host a bit of leeway for standard operations, reboots, upgrades etc) then they should refund. These are usually defined within the uptime guarantees. Whether in the TOS or in the service listing all site owners really should dive in to make sure the uptime guarantees are honored and find out what steps need to be taken, if any, to receive the refund. I wrote a lil something about this issue a while back at http://hosthelp.com/guarantee.php

I should be refunded for the bandwidth I didn't use for the previous months I have to totally disagree with this one. Not because of billing or confusion or anything of that nature but because of the whole foundation of Shared Hosting. To put together your own high speed lines and servers etc just to host a single website would make the idea of having a web site out of the question for a vast majority of individuals and businesses online.

The key to shared hosting lies within the "PACKAGE DEAL". Everyone is sharing the resources, which in turn lowers the cost for everyone on the server. If the host was to charge only for what you use, I guarantee the prices of hosting would go up. Consider the fact that more than just bandwidth is being paid for with your package. There are the server resources, POP accounts, FTP blah blah, humans, technical support, offices, lines, administration, the list goes on and on. Often times these costs are covered by the bandwidth fees and various other "extras". If the "Package Deal" were to be broken up for bandwidth it would also need to be broken up for all of the other features it includes. Imagine paying per POP account, Per FTP Login, Per Telnet Login, Per Megabyte of Disk Space, Per Tech Support Contact, etc etc Be careful pushing for the "pay only for what you use" concept as that would surely raise your overall costs.

Sharing the fees with all involved allowing those who use less to cover those who use more and vise versa is big reason why so many are able to have an Internet Presence today.

If a customer wants to cancel there account they should be able to do it simply. Agree and disagree. It SHOULD be as simple as possible at the same time it should not be so simple that any "joe blow" can come along and have your account cancelled. A host can get into some trouble if they delete an account because it "appeared" as if the site owner made the request only to find out it was not the site owner. However, I do not see a need for retina scans and calculus equations to get an account cancelled either.

One should listen to their accountant and lawyers, but never let them set the policy for a business. Very true. Our attorney starts off every conversation with "It's your business, my job is to ensure what you are wanting said is said in such a way that it is clearly understood in the court of law". E.g. If I say "No Porn" his job is to clarify that in 110 different ways so when I have not so fine "fine art" on the server I can legally remove it.

I really hate the "We reserve the right to change the TOS at any time for any reason" I do to. However, I have been consistently told "We reserve the right" should be there for many things. This business is changing so rapidly new things pop-up almost daily it seems and some of those things can be very dangerous for the host and their clients. Hence the importance of "reserving the right". I do agree that it would be best to try and ensure a fair warning. Even better may be a notice going out requesting the site owners review the new changes and acknowledging them. This helps the site owner to be aware and make a valued decision of whether or not to remain with the host as well as allowing the host a way to ensure "everyone on the servers has actually seen the new terms and acknowledged them". This would prevent a case of "Well those weren't the terms I agreed to when I signed up."

My vote on a new TOS would be to have two copies - The Legal Version and The Layman Version.

When I read the TOS by our attorney I get lost in it. I would much rather the site owners understand in plain English the basics of what it is saying and for those who require the ability to "dig in", the legal version is also there. Mind you, everyone would be agreeing to the legal version but it may make it easier to understand it if we, as the hosts, took the time to offer a less complex one for review side by side with the TOS.

Deb
-
Yet another mini-forum-book filled with dimes... Http://www.FutureQuest.net

I will give you the best explanation of what deb was talking about with "we reserve the right to change the TOS..."

A new format of music becomes widely accepted. Not Mp3, but similar. You have to update the TOS to include this new format (either way, but especially if you won't host it). Case closed.