Then of course, there is no guarantee these people speak and understand english perfectly.
The reality is that top talent, even if remote, is competitive whether they are in NYC/SFO/SEA or not. And DO has some pretty talented people on staff.
And then, having people in all timezones is definitely an advantage for 24/7 support. I'd say it's not negligible, and not an after thought.
Now about english fluency, it's only that important to english native locations. And really, most of tech does not necessarily have english as a first language - I certainly don't. So I'd say that encountering support engineers with imperfect english shouldn't be a problem to anyone, and definitely not a sign of cheap labor. In fact, I'd say bitching about someone's english proficiency in tech is kind of counterproductive and I find it discriminatory.
Anyways. DO doesn't hire international employees to get cheap labor, that's a preposterous proposition. And with datacenters around the world and a large presence and customer base, it makes sense to have staff on board from many of these areas. And that staff might answer your tickets at night when they're on shift. Shouldn't they?
That said, I disagree wholeheartedly that it's okay for support staff to not be completely fluent in the language they're providing support in, regardless of the language.
There is functionally no difference between trying to interact with talented support staff who aren't fluent in your language, and trying to interact with illiterate support staff. The end results are identical.
There are people who are very talented and very fluent in more than one language. Those people tend to be more expensive. So, many companies forego hiring those workers and instead hire others who are cheaper and "about as good". My multiple experiences with DO support have suggested that that's what they're doing.
As other commenters are suggesting, it may just be instead that DO is expecting its support staff to meet metrics that are causing them to spend only a minute or two per ticket and send out scripted replies.
People who would make gratuitous grammatical mistakes but have read more classics than the average American college graduate. I can easily count many just thinking of it.
> There is functionally no difference between trying to interact with talented support staff who aren't fluent in your language, and trying to interact with illiterate support staff.
That statement reeks of ignorance. It seems you have almost no experience with other languages than your own, or you would know that communicating while being non-fluent or with a non-fluent works just fine most of the time. Sometimes misunderstandings happens and it can be a bit slower but that is all.
fluency is a high barrier to clear. it took me 5 years of speaking/reading/writing english daily to come even close to "fluency".
before that, i had a really good advanced english, but i wasn't fluent. and it didn't mean i was "illiterate".
So your position is that support that's a bit slower, with some misunderstandings, is exactly as good as fast support without misunderstandings, even in downtime-sensitive applications.
Well, okay then.
isn't a native English speaker, or speaks in different dialect doesn't mean that they are any less capable