Password Complexity, Good or bad?
-
The problem with an SLA is that it is non-optional in these cases. The SLA doesn't change what was paid for or what was delivered or what is ethically owed to whom... it's purely a means of proactively hurting the consumer via the law, the law being the enemy of the citizenry in this case. There isn't an option for an SLA around what the consumer was buying the service for, the SLA is part of the service and so legally is an SLA but ideologically is not, it's just what there is. The consumer has no option but to agree to it in order to hope to get the service that they want.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Of course - non of this matters. The SLA of the service should dictate what the vendor has to provide during service outages.
If the vendor says, sorry sir.. you get nothing because our SLA says you get nothing for an outage less than 24 hours... the vendor simply hopes that the customer won't leave them.
Unless there is a monopoly in which case an SLA should be illegal.
What does that gain you? The ability to sue? In a consumer case like this, you'll have a hard time showing losses for more than the mins that John's talking about.
-
@Dashrender said:
What does that gain you? The ability to sue? In a consumer case like this, you'll have a hard time showing losses for more than the mins that John's talking about.
Losses are pretty easy to show... it's the amount paid. If you pay $100 and don't get to watch the television that you paid for, it is the amount of the service that is in dispute.
-
@Dashrender said:
Can I ensure the phone won't be calling them while sleeping/travelling/vacation - yeah, assuming they aren't trying to log in during those times LOL. Yes it would be limited to 2FA only.
If you can ensure that it will never go off unless they have possession of the device and are they themselves trying to log in, you don't need 2FA
The only value to 2FA is contacting them when they are NOT trying to log in.
-
The point of the whole discussion around .001% loss of service is....
If the change in work requirements force me to...
- Always carry my phone
- Always keep my phone charged
- Buy specific types of phones or be on specific carriers
- Modify my phone plans
- Take calls or texts at times that I am not working
- Protect my phone in a different way that before
- Buy more batteries, chargers, etc.
- Not travel to where my phone doesn't work
Or things like that, what is a .001% of the time thing can have big impacts.
It's like the US government in the 1930s. Sure, they only let cyanide into .01% of the alcohol going into food products. What's the big deal?
-
Another example... you pay for television and it turns out that it only works during business hours or the middle of the night. 50% of the time. You can never use it during the morning or evening hours. So anytime you are not at work, it is off.
I don't understand this. Did you know that the service only worked during those hours? How is a percentage a red herring, but not this convoluted scenario?
What if I get power that never goes off during the day but often goes out at night... when I need my CPAP to work. I'm paying the same power as people who are home during the day, but I need it at night. Would you say "well, but they need it during the day so you don't need it at night?"
No you're not. You only pay for what you use with power. So if they power goes out, you didn't pay for it.
You keep comparing 30 minutes of TV service to life altering scenarios like pace makers and large production databases that only have one backup. Or cyanide some how, which is not a service that anyone paid for.
Losses are pretty easy to show... it's the amount paid. If you pay $100 and don't get to watch the television that you paid for, it is the amount of the service that is in dispute.
Which is exactly what I said. Their loss was around $0.07. They paid for the whole month. Whether they only watch 30 minutes or 720 hours worth of TV, they paid for the whole month.
-
@johnhooks said:
Another example... you pay for television and it turns out that it only works during business hours or the middle of the night. 50% of the time. You can never use it during the morning or evening hours. So anytime you are not at work, it is off.
I don't understand this. Did you know that the service only worked during those hours? How is a percentage a red herring, but not this convoluted scenario?
No, the idea what that you paid for 100% service but this is all that was delivered.
-
@johnhooks said:
What if I get power that never goes off during the day but often goes out at night... when I need my CPAP to work. I'm paying the same power as people who are home during the day, but I need it at night. Would you say "well, but they need it during the day so you don't need it at night?"
No you're not. You only pay for what you use with power. So if they power goes out, you didn't pay for it.
That's not a valid way to look at it. Metered services are easy to excuse as "you only use what you paid for" but that's what you are doing to the other services - converting them to metered in your head then applying this logic.
But my willingness to pay $1/kW might be dependent on it being there when I need it, not just when it is convenient.
-
@johnhooks said:
You keep comparing 30 minutes of TV service to life altering scenarios like pace makers and large production databases that only have one backup. Or cyanide some how, which is not a service that anyone paid for.
.The point of all of them is that it is OBVIOUS that while all of those things were 99% okay, the one case where they were not was the one that mattered. Which for all you know, is how the television situation works.
-
@johnhooks said:
Losses are pretty easy to show... it's the amount paid. If you pay $100 and don't get to watch the television that you paid for, it is the amount of the service that is in dispute.
Which is exactly what I said. Their loss was around $0.07. They paid for the whole month. Whether they only watch 30 minutes or 720 hours worth of TV, they paid for the whole month.
This is just simply untrue. You cannot know what they were paying for. You cannot personally determine the histogram of value to the customer. The idea that the value is flat is simply absurd. We know that it is not.
We are in IT. No one should be more aware of this than us. Downtime at night is trivial, downtime during the day is big. The value is not flat.
Television at 3am is often trivial, television on Thursday night at 9PM is big. The value is not flat, you can't even begin to suggest that it would be flat.
The only case, ever, where you could suggest that they lost $.07 is in the one situation where you are assuming that the customer actively watching television 24/7 for the entire month. If you are not assuming that, i don't see how the $.07 can even be suggested.
-
I don't have television nor do I like sports. But imagine if I did and the only reason that I pay for television service is to watch the Superbowl. Now imagine that the only outage is during the Superbowl's last thirty minutes. The value lost is very large.
The value of services is not flat. Plain and simple. There might be legal protections around that to keep companies from having to pay more and it is hard to know what consumers actually wanted to use it for, but you can't suggest to know how much value was lost to someone.
If the average family watches four hours of television a day (that's a LOT) then the idea that this was $.07 on that alone can't be true.
-
And, of course, for tons of customers, the value of what was lost was $0. Just nothing. Tons and tons of people likely never turned on their televisions and had no idea that there was an outage.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
This is just simply untrue. You cannot know what they were paying for. You cannot personally determine the histogram of value to the customer. The idea that the value is flat is simply absurd. We know that it is not.
No, that is what they paid for. Until you can purchase minutes of cable TV at a time, you paid for the whole block. You may not use it all, but you paid for the whole thing.
The point of all of them is that it is OBVIOUS that while all of those things were 99% okay, the one case where they were not was the one that mattered. Which for all you know, is how the television situation works.
Still not comparable because the 1% of those scenarios are either death or an almost complete loss of business. A 30 minute TV window is at the worst, a loss of 30 minutes of television.
But my willingness to pay $1/kW might be dependent on it being there when I need it, not just when it is convenient.
So if this 30 minutes of TV is that life altering that you could possibly die or lose your business, then you would do the same here. You would spend more money and have a satellite dish or some other way to watch this television program.
We are in IT. No one should be more aware of this than us. Downtime at night is trivial, downtime during the day is big. The value is not flat.
You're right, it's not. So comparing downtime of a pace maker and critical database backup to a television program is ridiculous. One is trivial compared to the other.
If the average family watches four hours of television a day (that's a LOT) then the idea that this was $.07 on that alone can't be true.
You're right. So let's take it from that perspective then. It would be $0.80. A far cry from a whole month's payment for a 30 minute slot.
Then you have to come at it from the angle that, there is no way to prove that's all they watched. You would still have to prove that you have a loss of that amount. How do you prove that you only watched 30 minutes of TV that month?
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
This is just simply untrue. You cannot know what they were paying for. You cannot personally determine the histogram of value to the customer. The idea that the value is flat is simply absurd. We know that it is not.
No, that is what they paid for. Until you can purchase minutes of cable TV at a time, you paid for the whole block. You may not use it all, but you paid for the whole thing.
Okay, the did they receive the whole thing? No.
So paid for X. Did not receive X. Should they have to pay at all?
If you look at it as "they paid for the whole thing", then they are owed all their money back as they didn't get the product purchased.
-
@johnhooks said:
The point of all of them is that it is OBVIOUS that while all of those things were 99% okay, the one case where they were not was the one that mattered. Which for all you know, is how the television situation works.
Still not comparable because the 1% of those scenarios are either death or an almost complete loss of business. A 30 minute TV window is at the worst, a loss of 30 minutes of television.
Sure, but the scale doesn't matter. The point remains that it might be "all that matters." Within the scope of course. But .1% of the time death from cyanide or missing "all the shows you were paying to see" is the same... total loss of useful services in the end within the scope.
-
@johnhooks said:
You're right. So let's take it from that perspective then. It would be $0.80. A far cry from a whole month's payment for a 30 minute slot.
Then you have to come at it from the angle that, there is no way to prove that's all they watched. You would still have to prove that you have a loss of that amount. How do you prove that you only watched 30 minutes of TV that month?
It's not how much they watched either, it's the value of what they are watching. You paid for more than you wanted so you use it, doesn't mean that it has value. You can't project value.
You don't need to prove what you watched. There is no proving, which is tough, but you can't ask for proof unless you ask for it up front (and in that case you might have to alter what you provide and what people pay based on the answer.)
Imagine it's you as the consumer, imagine any product or service that you buy for one purpose and can't avoid getting other things (like packaging or service at times you can't use it) and you get those things but not the parts that matters to YOU. The things that were why you were willing to spend the money. How much of a discount do you feel you should get when you buy something for an agreed upon about of money and the value delivered to you is dramatically different than agreed upon, but the value delivered is perceived to be effectively the same?
-
If the idea was like... they ordered 100 apples, we delivered 99 apples, we don't charge for 1 apple, it would be simple. The service is pretty much apple by apple.
And MAYBE that is how it applies to a specific customer.
But to another customer it might be like a road. A road from point A to point B isn't useful if it goes 99% of the way, if it doesn't go 100% of the way traffic can't make it through.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
The point of all of them is that it is OBVIOUS that while all of those things were 99% okay, the one case where they were not was the one that mattered. Which for all you know, is how the television situation works.
Still not comparable because the 1% of those scenarios are either death or an almost complete loss of business. A 30 minute TV window is at the worst, a loss of 30 minutes of television.
Sure, but the scale doesn't matter. The point remains that it might be "all that matters." Within the scope of course. But .1% of the time death from cyanide or missing "all the shows you were paying to see" is the same... total loss of useful services in the end within the scope.
Scale has to matter. If it doesn't matter, then money means nothing. If 30 minutes costs that company $5 million dollars, why isn't this TV service worth $5 million?
Imagine it's you as the consumer, imagine any product or service that you buy for one purpose and can't avoid getting other things (like packaging or service at times you can't use it) and you get those things but not the parts that matters to YOU. The things that were why you were willing to spend the money. How much of a discount do you feel you should get when you buy something for an agreed upon about of money and the value delivered to you is dramatically different than agreed upon, but the value delivered is perceived to be effectively the same?
Ok, up front you you purchased this service that it's for a certain amount of time (1 month). You knew that you were paying for ~720 hours of service. The agree upon amount isn't drastically different. The agreed upon amount was ~720 hours. If the agreed upon amount was 2 hours, then yes it would drastically different, but that's not the case. This is where scale has to be applied again. You can't say things like drastically, and not have some kind of scale.
-
@johnhooks said:
Sure, but the scale doesn't matter. The point remains that it might be "all that matters." Within the scope of course. But .1% of the time death from cyanide or missing "all the shows you were paying to see" is the same... total loss of useful services in the end within the scope.
Scale has to matter. If it doesn't matter, then money means nothing. If 30 minutes costs that company $5 million dollars, why isn't this TV service worth $5 million?
Why? Why can't it matter by percentage?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If the idea was like... they ordered 100 apples, we delivered 99 apples, we don't charge for 1 apple, it would be simple. The service is pretty much apple by apple.
And MAYBE that is how it applies to a specific customer.
But to another customer it might be like a road. A road from point A to point B isn't useful if it goes 99% of the way, if it doesn't go 100% of the way traffic can't make it through.
The road analogy isn't fair. The whole 100% has to be functioning for the road to work. Which in this case, if you're arguing that all 720 hours aren't equivalent, then you can't use that argument.
