One of the thinks that may drive companies to use MSP is the sheer
lack of talented people in the locations required by small business to
support itself. The government (all levels from local to federal) has
a problem since they cannot pay enough to get sufficient numbers of
quality people, and retain them.
Personnel turn over is a big problem everywhere, but if the MSPs can
pay and make the jobs worth keeping they may be able to reach the
critical mass of talent required.
Of course if the MSP cannot get enough high quality people and they
allow a compromise of a customers servers, the customer is on the hook
to its customers and the gov't. Even if the contract is written to
have the MSP pay for all damages and legal costs, it is the customer
that gets the bad rap to the end users. The MSP gets a bad rep in the
industry. Yet the damage is done.
I doubt that a company would be able to dodge the bullet for liability
by using an MSP. Of course the reply to "I was paying XYZ Corp to
handle that." is "You paid them, they were acting on your behalf, ergo
you are still liable".
I just finished going through the same sort of stuff with an ASP, who
ended up closing their doors on short notice. Which just points to the
next problem of what to do if the MSP closes shop on you.
Another thing this vendor did, promise Hot Fail over to a remote
location (Main site NYC, secondary site St. Louis) then close
St. Louis to save money and have not real plan on how to recover. I
found out about this change during a 3 day service outage.
Do you think my customers (internal and external) cared that the ASP
was down? They never even heard of the ASP, but they were calling me
about it and busting my stones about why I picked that ASP (I didn't,
but they did not care).
my $.02
Andy
--
Andy Murren
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Firewalls mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls
