Also Microsoft doesn't give a shit if you're down past a status page and profuse apologising and perhaps a pro-rata refund if you complain like a bitch and wave a big "fuck you, AWS next time" at your licensing contact. That's not how to do business.
Our guys actually get up at 2AM and drive to the DC and fix shit if it goes wrong, which it inevitably does (less often than Azure I will say).
Downtime costs you more in reputation than you can gain from the cost savings of not having your whole world under your control.
I don't know who sold you Azure as a solution to your hosting, but whoever did it didn't take enough time to investigate your case. This comment and your others show that your requirements and architecture aren't a good match for a cloud host.
http://blogs.gartner.com/kyle-hilgendorf/2012/03/09/azure-ou...
The SLA would have been fine if it was accurate, which it wasn't.
It's important to note though that an SLA for any host isn't a strict guarantee. Almost all are set up on the best-effort-with-refunds-if-we-fail principle. They're promises, not hard lines. MS does not have a habit of failing to deliver on their promised number, but like any other host it can happen. These are important things to remember when considering a hosting model.