my provider beachcomber creations sent me this email after we complained of all the downtime we encountered last week:

Our downtime SLA is double the value of the service time lost as per our TOS, and we feel it is the strongest commitment to uptime in the industry.

Your server bill per month is $164.98

So if we take 164.98/30days = $5.50 per day

Then we would take $5.50/24 hours = $.23

So for two hours you would be due $ .46

We will credit this on your next upcoming bill.


Regards,


Sales Support
Beachcomber Creations Inc
Sales@ beachcomber net
beachcomber net
Relax..At the Beach

its just the principle of the matter, i personally feel, that when you have a customer that has been with you over a year and always pays on time, that you treat them a tad better then this.

Perhaps I'm only seeing this from my perspective though.

SLAs are basically a marketing gimmick. Most are completely worthless.

Your provider gave you the exact credit as stated in the agreement. It was your responsibility to read and understand the terms of this before purchasing service with them.

If the quality of service does not improve your only real choice is to leave.

hahaha that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

"the strongest commitment to uptime in the industry"?

Actually they're being quite generous--there are 31 days in March so you're getting 2 cents free! :)

Yeah, if they claim they have the *strongest* commitment, direct them to rackspace SLA, for example. "Rackspace guarantees that the network will be available 100% of the time in a given month, excluding scheduled maintenance. Upon experiencing downtime, Rackspace will refund the customer 5% of the monthly fee for each 30 minutes of downtime (up to 100% of customer's monthly fee)", so according to that they'll owe you $30.

Makes much more sense :)

If they have had good uptime the other 11 months why do you ask them to pay you money for 2 hours down time? Do you need them?

John

haha - sorry but their reply is a bit funny, i guess they are following what they said however.

So, why don't you as a customer for over a year ask them for free hosting for a month?? ;)

Originally posted by piramida
Yeah, if they claim they have the *strongest* commitment, direct them to rackspace SLA, for example. "Rackspace guarantees that the network will be available 100% of the time in a given month, excluding scheduled maintenance. Upon experiencing downtime, Rackspace will refund the customer 5% of the monthly fee for each 30 minutes of downtime (up to 100% of customer's monthly fee)", so according to that they'll owe you $30.

Makes much more sense :)

Ok, but if we're taking rackspace's SLA, let's take their pricing too. Comparing apples to oranges in this case is not beneficial, as picking this company's SLA, this company's AUP, and this company's pricing structure is not feasible for any provider to offer.

c3w.biz Have you replied to their e-mail message to discuss things further? I sincerely believe that Mark is far more understanding if a customer poses them with reasonable replies, but their response, IMHO is perhaps in conjunction with your e-mails to them? Were you polite in your communication with them, if not, then they can stand behind the SLA, however, they also can make exceptions too.

I know that Mark is out of town right now, so perhaps you want to await his return later on this week before commenting further, and see what he may be willing to work out as well.

In any event, posting company's replies in a public forum is most likely not the best route to take when a desire for something more is present. Citing from experience only, I'm often far more apt to work with clients that are amiable rather than harsh and demanding, but that's just me.

Thanks,

Just a quick note to add, I went onto Rackspace's site, and of course was greeted by a salesperson. We chatted for a few, I let him know who I was, and asked about the pricing of that config that you have. The pricing monthly, would be well over $500 a month, so taking both things into account over an 11 month period:

RS - 11 months @ $500 / month = $5500 spent
BC - 11 months @ $164.98 = $1814.78 spent

Difference in savings with BC over RS : $3685.22

Now, perhaps BC's SLA is not identical to RS's in this case, *however* the pricing difference and $ saved is also a huge factor as well.

Thanks,

hehehe funny.

Yes, you have a server with a pretty worthless SLA it seems.

Obviously not a problem if they rarely have downtime.

Originally posted by DedicatedNOW
Just a quick note to add, I went onto Rackspace's site, and of course was greeted by a salesperson. We chatted for a few, I let him know who I was, and asked about the pricing of that config that you have. The pricing monthly, would be well over $500 a month, so taking both things into account over an 11 month period:

RS - 11 months @ $500 / month = $5500 spent
BC - 11 months @ $164.98 = $1814.78 spent

Difference in savings with BC over RS : $3685.22

Now, perhaps BC's SLA is not identical to RS's in this case, *however* the pricing difference and $ saved is also a huge factor as well.

Thanks, I'm not a huge fan of Rackspace but in fairness to them what you are comparing here is not even close to fair. The level of support, uptime over the 11 months, level of management of the server and another dozen areas should be brought up and compared. You may be paying much more at Rackspace but there are plenty of reasons why you are paying more.

Bottom line is that the SLA at BC is hardly worth the time it takes to read it in the first place...

All he is saying is you get what you pay for.

Originally posted by Watcher_TVI
I'm not a huge fan of Rackspace but in fairness to them what you are comparing here is not even close to fair. The level of support, uptime over the 11 months, level of management of the server and another dozen areas should be brought up and compared. You may be paying much more at Rackspace but there are plenty of reasons why you are paying more.

Bottom line is that the SLA at BC is hardly worth the time it takes to read it in the first place...

2uantuM is correct, my point in that was not to the thread starter, but the inference made to have BC compare their SLA to Rackspace's. I completely understand the difference between the two companies, however, if the point was to compare the two companie's SLA's, then a price comparison in all fairness also needs IMHO to be pointed out as well. There are good reasons why someone would pay the addiitonal $ to a company for lack of a better phrase "total management" however, there are good reasons why one would not either. After viewing though the relative cost difference, vs. the inconvenience and any loss between the downtime, and SLA credit variances, ultimately it is left to the server owner to decide which business model best suits his/her needs both financially and professionally. We all take hits from downtime, that is guaranteed, but we must also weigh the cost of that downtime vs. what we pay for that service level as well, and that was all I was trying to state here.

Thanks,

You know my dedicated server company went down for I think was 6 hours one day (maybe less) and they cut my price for that month in half. They didn't have to do this and it wasn't covered in their SLA yet they still did it just out of good business sense. I like going with hosts that have high morals :)

Matt, I'm not the one who said that I have the strongest commitment to uptime in the industry :)

That, and only that, makes comparing BC's SLA to rackspace's valid. I know that RS costs more money, but it still is in the industry, right?

Originally posted by Dragoon
SLAs are basically a marketing gimmick. Most are completely worthless.


Tottally agree with that

Not all SLA's are gimmicks. If you get some serious cash back, scheduled downtime is not excluded and there is a schedule of payout then SLA's certainly can be a great benefit.

Matt I understand the point you are making but by BeachComber making the claim that "we feel it is the strongest commitment to uptime in the industry." they are the ones inviting the comparisons to be made against companies like Rackspace.

You can't say you have the *best* in the industry and then think you can start making exclusions to such a bold statement. It's very misleading at best...

I hate to say it, but when you sign up for a host, you should be fully aware of their SLA, especially when it lists it on their sites. Sometimes, providers will give more than their SLA even provides for. Recently, a host I have sites with had downtime that was caused by their fiber provider, which wasn't covered under their SLA. Even though it wasn't covered, they refunded a generous portion of my monthly fee. Sometimes, it's worth it to go the extra mile to please a customer, especially when it only involves a few dollars.

-Josh

Its all math.. they are doing what they are suppose to do.