Am I the only one who takes signed contracts seriously (as a customer)? :)

I'm trying to deal with one of the providers on this forum and their contract borders on insane. It is unfriendly to small business, restrictive, they must have hired 5 lawyers to all add their own lines to it. It is something like 15 pages.

In contrast, Weinbar and Pegasus have what I consider to be reasonable contracts.

Another provider I worked with didn't even require a signed contract (which isn't necessarily a good thing).

================

I get the impression that most customers just sign whatever they are given and aren't concerned with anything other than the length terms. But I take every line seriously.

Potential concerns I have seen:
-- Contracts that require $1 or $2 million in insurance.
-- contracts that say you can't visit the co-location facility on weekends
-- contracts that don't offer YOU anything in terms of a promise to return the server to you, keep packing material for the eventual mail back of the server, etc.
-- contracts that say you must give two business days written notice to go in and do any kind of upgrade or equipment swap.

Am I the only one who notices that the ISP's have huge differences in how they approach contracts?

For dsl, and personal software type stuff I never read contracts. As for colocation, I started reading them too. I honestly havent found the ones I read to be so bad. Most do not want any liability.

I agree, most are very good -- but this one provider has an ideal location, ideal price, seems flexible -- but their contract is way too complicated and restrictive.

I guess I'm the only one to ever complain about it, as they haven't taken my concerns seriously. I really want to go with this provider for all other reasons -- but compared to the other places I have hosted (5 other ISP's) it is just out of line...

The contract in question also has one of those "any agreements made outside of this written contract are not valid" clauses too! So, despite knowing the provider is flexible, it just seems foolish.

Originally posted by StephenRS
Am I the only one who takes signed contracts seriously (as a customer)? :)

I'm trying to deal with one of the providers on this forum and their contract borders on insane. It is very unfriendly to small business, very restrictive, they must have hired 5 lawyers to all add their own lines to it. It is something like 15 pages.

In contrast, Weinbar and Pegasus have what I consider to be reasonable contracts.

Another provider I worked with didn't even require a signed contract (which isn't necessarily a good thing).

================

I get the impression that most customers just sign whatever they are given and aren't concerned with anything other than the length terms. But I take every line seriously.

Problems I have seen:
-- Contracts that require $1 or $2 million in insurance.
-- contracts that say you can't visit the co-location facility on weekends
-- contracts that don't offer YOU anything in terms of a promise to return the server to you, keep packing material for the eventual mail back of the server, etc.
-- contracts that say you must give two business days written notice to go in and do any kind of upgrade or equipment swap.

Am I the only one who notices that the ISP's have huge differences in how they approach contracts?

Have you seen WorldCom contract? That is only the beginning! They also want to know what car you will be driving, copy of the insurance, and the list goes on!

Pretty soon they are going to want hair samples on the way into the data centers!

Yes, I've seen UUNet/Worldcom contracts. They are just terrible. Yha, I know you aren't even JOKING about that mess. I've seen similar ones from big players.

Flexible contracts that don't require me to hire an attorney are part of the reason I like smaller ISP's :)

Not just co location contract. Even server lease contract can be very doggy. I am not going to name the provider. Also they told you that you are on monthly contract. Then you need to inform them 30 days in advance when you are leaving. Yet they can rise the pricing without notice. Thats just piece of crap.

Originally posted by StephenRS
Am I the only one who takes signed contracts seriously (as a customer)? :)




While I have not had the pleasure of reading a colo contract (yet), I do read all the contracts I sign. I'll even cross out sentences and/or paragraphs that I find, hmmm, distasteful.

On one of the credit card contracts I signed a few years ago, I didn't like the interest rate they were charging. So I crossed out the rate, wrote in one that was more to my liking, and initialled it. The bank gave me the lower rate.

Just because someone gives you a contract to sign does not mean that you have to sign it as is. If you don't like something, change it. If they do not let you change it, you probably don't want to do busines with them anyway.

Thats the most obsurd thing ive ever heard, you can just go changing contract terms without talking with the person who presented the contract first.

Just wait until you open a business and people start doing that to you and see how YOU like it.

Yha, that is absurd - you do have to make sure the other party understands you need to alter it and work with them. A contract is to be taken seriously. Hence why I think it deserved a thread. A lot of ISP's differ radically on thei spirit and complexity of their contracts.

An ISP's lawyer may have them write 50 clauses to protect themselves as a host - but if it gets too complicated, they are gong to scare away customers.

In the case of the "problem ISP" that I started with, I believe we have worked everything out - and the ISP has a reputation for being flexible - so I think ultimatly I will be happy.

If the ISP doesn't take your concerns seriously, then you have to question why they wrote the contract in the first place. Do they have a history of disputes, and is it too one sided?

One of the big reasons I tend to go with tier2 and tier3 providers is for their flexibility. Technical matters are just part of a complete hosting selection...

Originally posted by StephenRS
Am I the only one who takes signed contracts seriously (as a customer)? :)

Am I the only one who notices that the ISP's have huge differences in how they approach contracts?

You are my hero for speaking about this out loud!

I just canceled my earthlink account ... why, for those that don't know, Most ISP can filter addresses and prevent you from viewing web sites. I encountered such a problem durring a regular web site review ( consulting on a job and they came up on the seach engine )

so what did I do, I joined Road Runner ( they don't filter unless you ask for a filter type package) Earthlink will just filter whatever they want. Also I could not find the road runner max bandwidth clause on their web site or on the 9 pages of the contract. but i found terms that stated what types of system or platforms I could use ( no servers or using my system as one )

As for the Credit card contract. Well they are desperate for new accounts, so the supply / demand curve was in your favor. ( I won't go into the back office processing people )


as for : Contracts that require $1 or $2 million in insurance....might be ok if it was for the reasons... If your server started a fire and killed your rack and those to the left and right, you might ( and maybe / should ) be held accountable for other losses. or where they had to destroy your server inorder to prevent total loss the rest of the other racks.
In shipping, we have a type of contract clause which has to be with your insurance called general average. GA was defined as (quick summary): losses occured to a party, on a voyage, where the parties cargo had to be toss overboard ( by storm or captains orders to save the rest of the vessel). the losses will be shared by all surviving cargoes parties. EI: they tossed mine to save yours, you'll have to pay me back on what I lost. Everyone has, what can be called a fair share based on the value of cargo or cost of transport ( whichever is greater and declaired prior sailing )

I won't say more than, if your hosting facility does not require you to carry a reasonable insurance line then you might want to think of others. $500,000 - 750,000 line sounds about right ( 32 servers x 3 racks x $3000 per server + headaches of buying quickly to replace losses and have the backup NOC facility come online full time ) Because if they are down do to a fire or someone elses equipment failure, I want to know that I'm up and running at little to no cost to me.

contracts that say you can't visit the co-location facility on weekends ... Would not sign on this one. I'd test my server on weekdays and install it weekend ( when traffic was lowest )

contracts that don't offer YOU anything in terms of a promise to return the server to you, keep packing material for the eventual mail back of the server, etc.... I think this is iffy at best, yes return the server to you at your own expense is an ok term. but keeping your packaging, storage on the wasted space would kill the bottom line.

contracts that say you must give two business days written notice to go in and do any kind of upgrade or equipment swap... this seems fair, and I would like it to be written ( security for the other servers is in mind with this clause )


- Michael

Originally posted by cbaker17
Thats the most obsurd thing ive ever heard, you can just go changing contract terms without talking with the person who presented the contract first.

Just wait until you open a business and people start doing that to you and see how YOU like it.


Look at the example that I gave and tell me why that example is absurd. If the credit card company wanted my business, they had to get it at the rate I wanted. If they did not want to provide a service at that rate, I would go elsewhere. As I said, the credit card company accepted my alterations to the contract without question.

When I bought my house, I sat down with my broker and crossed out parts of the sales contract that I did not like. The sellers did the same thing with some of my changes. At each point during the contract negotiation process, I made a decision whether the contract was suitable for me and, if it was not, I changed it so that it was suitable for me. If the seller did not like it, they had the option of walking away. Same for me.

Regarding whether or not the seller understands my changes, well, bluntly, is it my responsibility to supply legal advice for the seller?


My main point is that you do not have to accept the contract as it is presented to you. You do have the option to change it to fit your requirements. If the vendor does not like your changes, then you would more than likely be better off with a different vendor.

Well.......

It's very easy for people in the other side of the fence to complain, but once it's your money invested, you do start being a little paranoid

I don't agree with 2 days notice for upgrades and such, but it is good to have some notice, unless you have an un-managed area in the noc, that the customer can just walk in

I agree with the screening of customer that might have access to the noc, trust me, when that's your bread and butter, as well as the same for 1000's of other people, you become very afraid of any sabotage or malicious people

We screen very careful any hardware that customers send in, like a friend of mine told me "threat every box (computer) as if it was meant to bring your NOC down" ... and if you think that's being paranoid .. you should see the owner of Server Vault in a recent interview on WHM ;)

sqposter - ok, the insurance issue - but it is SO ONE SIDED!

They make you cover risk if your server causes problems, but almost all ISP's don't cover you if they do anything wrong. that is what I think is unfair.

Most ISP's say they aren't responsible for outages, disasters, accidental hard drive formats, etc. -- but they make you responsible for what I consider be equivlent (unforseen) acts.

Trust has to be a two way street, and most ISP contracts offer nothing to the customer :) Every ISP I have worked with to date doesn't make any promise to return your (co-located) server, and I always have to bring that up. That seems to be a basic "customer friendly" clause in the contract to add.

There just needs to be more balance...

hehe, now those are valid points .. indeed in the contracts there is not a clause that says the ISP will return the box back to the customer

hummm ............... ebay !! .. here I come !! :D

Originally posted by StephenRS
...Trust has to be a two way street, and most ISP contracts offer nothing to the customer :) Every ISP I have worked with to date doesn't make any promise to return your (co-located) server, and I always have to bring that up. That seems to be a basic "customer friendly" clause in the contract to add.

There just needs to be more balance...


Another thing to keep in mind is that most contract disputes occur in those hazy, grey areas around the fringes of what the contract spells out in writing.

As an example of the above: the contract specifies that the host has to return your (co-located) server. You both agree to that. However, the contract does not specify the timeframe, or the manner of shipping, etc. The dispute for that item of the contract will most likely occur when the vendor takes a year to return the box to you, and finally returns it in a brown paper bag shipped via parcel post. The terms of the contract were fulfilled, or were they?

On the other hand, if you really feel you have to get into that level of detail with your vendor, you have selected the wrong vendor.