nanog mailing list archives

Re: Bluehost.com


From: "Bob Evans" <bob () FiberInternetCenter com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:19:54 -0800

For an ISP type service - it's almost impossible the make it up in volume
- all you need is one phone call to cost you $10 in support on a $3.50
service. With that many customers you can imagine how many call to just
ask what happened or vent after the event is over.

I founded a cable modem business prior to docsis standard. Call center
with 150 people in it. People would call for help with their printer just
because we answered the phone. So support for a $3.49 web service must
make compromises somewhere in an attempt to reach profitability.

I know of 3 very big ISPs - all barely making money for years. Providing
crummy service , priced cheaply and expecting to make it up in volume.
Their solution was to merge and lose money together. Still providing a
lowball price for service , they then took the profitable parts of the
business and sold those to others so they can re-org and improve cash
momentarily. The re-org produced the same low prices and crummy service.
So it's a cycle some people play just to win money from hedge funds,
investors and finally the public. What do they call it when one keeps
doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result ?

Low priced services are difficult to make profitable - if you drove your
car the way most low priced business services operate you would have a car
that top speeds at the minimal freeway speed, wouldnt carry a a spare
tire, drive around until the empty light turns on and carry as little
insurance as possible. - Gee, come to think of it, I've been in an airport
shuttle van like that in new york.

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO




However, with thousands more users at that price point, you would think
the
income would be plenty for better services.

Who makes more, the store with smaller quantities at higher prices or the
store that sells more bulk at lower prices? Perception of value, I
believe,
wins.

Robert

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:00:37 -0800
  "Bob Evans" <bob () FiberInternetCenter com> wrote:
Yes, I agree with you Joe - a hasty generalization,  as "you get
what you
pay for" doesn't really apply to as many goods in the same way it
does to
almost all services. However, a $3.49 web site service should have
be a
good first clue.

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO


Walmart has cheap prices so "you get what you pay for."??
Hasty generalization but I can't disagree 100% with your opinion on
this
one.
I am learning about the non-profit world of IT and the challenges
are all
around me. :)

--
Later, Joe

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Bob Evans
<bob () fiberinternetcenter com>
wrote:


Gee, for $3.49 for a website hosting per month , it's a real
bargain.
While the network person inside me says, Wow that's a long outage.
The
other part of me is really wondering what one thinks they can really
expect from a company that hosts a website for just $3.49 ?  Such a
bargain at less than 1/2 the price of a single hot dog at a baseball
stadium per month. That price point alone tells you about the setup
and
what you are agreeing too and who it's built for. Goes along with
the
ol'
saying, "you get what you pay for."

If they are down for 10 hours a month out of the average 720 hours
in a
month - thats a tiny percentage 1-2 of the time it's unavailable -
in
service terms of dollars it's roughly a nickel they credit each
customer.
Do I need more coffee or is my math wrong about a nickel for 10
hours of
website hosing ?

However, maybe that is all many companies /sites really need. In
which
case, it should be easy enough to build in backup yourself using two
cheap
hosing providers and flip between them when the need arises. Or pick
a
provider that manages their routing well and works with you quickly,
but,
you'll have to pay more for that.

Yep, the math spells it out -  "you get what you pay for."

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO


remember folks, redundancy is the savior of all f***ups.

:)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:21 PM, JoeSox <joesox () gmail com> wrote:

I just waited 160 minutes for a tech call and the Bluehost tech
told
me
he
was able to confirm that it wasn't malicious activity that took
down
the
datacenter but rather it was caused by a "datacenter issue".
So my first thought is someone didn't design the topology
correctly
or
something.
Some of our emails are coming thru but Google DNS still lost all
of
our
DNS
zones which are hosted by Bluehost.
At least the #bluehostdown is fun to read :/
--
Later, Joe

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer
<bortzmeyer () nic fr>
wrote:

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800,
 JoeSox <joesox () gmail com> wrote
 a message of 9 lines which said:

Anyone have the scope on the outage for Bluehost?
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23bluehostdown&src=tyah

The two name servers ns1.bluehost.com and ns2.bluehost.com are
awfully
slow to respond:

% check-soa -i picturemotion.com
ns1.bluehost.com.
        74.220.195.31: OK: 2012092007 (1382 ms)
ns2.bluehost.com.
        69.89.16.4: OK: 2012092007 (1388 ms)

As a result, most clients timeout.

May be a DoS against the name servers?

bluehost.com itself is DNS-hosted on a completely different
architecture. So it works fine. But the nginx Web site replies
502
Gateway timeout, probably overloaded by all the clients trying
to
get
informed.

The Twitter accounts of Bluehost do not distribute any useful
information.










Current thread: