Anyone have the scope on the outage for Bluehost? https://twitter.com/search?q=%23bluehostdown&src=tyah Cannot even move my DNS until its restored. :( I suggest moving the status page to outside your network as well. https://www.bluehost.com/hosting/serverstatus -- Later, Joe
On 11/25/15 9:41 AM, JoeSox wrote:
Anyone have the scope on the outage for Bluehost? https://twitter.com/search?q=%23bluehostdown&src=tyah
Cannot even move my DNS until its restored. :( I suggest moving the status page to outside your network as well. https://www.bluehost.com/hosting/serverstatus
I am in the last stages of getting rid of BlueHost for one of my clients. Go figure this would happen _today_ at the exact same time I'm getting the last bit of data off so I can cancel the account. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
Their site and my site work US west coast -Grant On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Brielle Bruns <bruns@2mbit.com> wrote:
On 11/25/15 9:41 AM, JoeSox wrote:
Anyone have the scope on the outage for Bluehost? https://twitter.com/search?q=%23bluehostdown&src=tyah
Cannot even move my DNS until its restored. :( I suggest moving the status page to outside your network as well. https://www.bluehost.com/hosting/serverstatus
I am in the last stages of getting rid of BlueHost for one of my clients. Go figure this would happen _today_ at the exact same time I'm getting the last bit of data off so I can cancel the account.
-- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
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.
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.
Forgot to mention that their ETA was by end of today. :facepalm: -- Later, Joe On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:21 AM, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. >
The bottom line is the value/price ratio. We should all be working to add value. By any means necessary. The pitfall of low priced "services", is that it's hard to balance the support level and lower price for services. If Bluehost and lower end web hosters can completely do away with the support aspect, certainly SAAS can scale. But if a significant part of your value proposition is support, it's real hard to get down this low if any human is ever involved, and if you pay a living wage to your workers. I really expect at the ultra low end you have to be willing to do away with live support, and just provide a product that works....with no support. Would people want to buy a web host for $3.95 but if they engage support pay $15/hour for it? Perhaps that would work... but I think the value proposition gets skewed in this sense. Those customers paying this little likely needs support in a variety of ways. The challenge is to do it all right, so they don't... I agree with Bob, more likely they are subsidizing costs with investment and hoping to provide a profitable model in the future with enough market share. Bottom line, is the industry needs to be increasing value, because the flip side.... working for no profit, surviving off investment only... there's no end-game. You see this cycle time and time again as market share is grabbed, then underperforming companies are rolled up. In this process value is destroyed. Ultimately this is also why it's extremely damaging for investors to constantly invest in companies that don't make a profit, and don't provide a successful economical model for the services/products provided. These companies largely live on investor money, lose money, and in their wake destroy value for the entire industry. Of course the end-game for the investors is to make money... I'm always surprised how strong investment/gambles are for non-profitable companies. I guess there is no end to those with too much money that have to place that money somewhere. As the rich get richer, there will only be more dumb money cheapening the value proposition. After all, who needs value when you have willing investors. Bottom line is that if it's not worth doing... then maybe it should not be done. Maybe the race to the bottom is not worth it. Maybe investments that lose value for an industry should be limited. The giant pool of money is now weaponized. -Kiriki -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Bob Evans Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 5:20 PM To: Robert Webb Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Bluehost.com 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. >
Kiriki, you nailed it. Explained this perfectly. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
The bottom line is the value/price ratio. We should all be working to add value. By any means necessary.
The pitfall of low priced "services", is that it's hard to balance the support level and lower price for services.
If Bluehost and lower end web hosters can completely do away with the support aspect, certainly SAAS can scale. But if a significant part of your value proposition is support, it's real hard to get down this low if any human is ever involved, and if you pay a living wage to your workers. I really expect at the ultra low end you have to be willing to do away with live support, and just provide a product that works....with no support.
Would people want to buy a web host for $3.95 but if they engage support pay $15/hour for it? Perhaps that would work... but I think the value proposition gets skewed in this sense. Those customers paying this little likely needs support in a variety of ways. The challenge is to do it all right, so they don't...
I agree with Bob, more likely they are subsidizing costs with investment and hoping to provide a profitable model in the future with enough market share.
Bottom line, is the industry needs to be increasing value, because the flip side.... working for no profit, surviving off investment only... there's no end-game. You see this cycle time and time again as market share is grabbed, then underperforming companies are rolled up. In this process value is destroyed.
Ultimately this is also why it's extremely damaging for investors to constantly invest in companies that don't make a profit, and don't provide a successful economical model for the services/products provided. These companies largely live on investor money, lose money, and in their wake destroy value for the entire industry. Of course the end-game for the investors is to make money... I'm always surprised how strong investment/gambles are for non-profitable companies. I guess there is no end to those with too much money that have to place that money somewhere. As the rich get richer, there will only be more dumb money cheapening the value proposition. After all, who needs value when you have willing investors.
Bottom line is that if it's not worth doing... then maybe it should not be done. Maybe the race to the bottom is not worth it. Maybe investments that lose value for an industry should be limited.
The giant pool of money is now weaponized.
-Kiriki
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Bob Evans Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 5:20 PM To: Robert Webb Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Bluehost.com
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. > > >
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Kiriki Delany <kiriki@streamguys.com> wrote:
[...]
Bottom line, is the industry needs to be increasing value, because the flip side.... working for no profit, surviving off investment only... there's no end-game. You see this cycle time and time again as market share is grabbed, then underperforming companies are rolled up. In this process value is destroyed.
Ultimately this is also why it's extremely damaging for investors to constantly invest in companies that don't make a profit, and don't provide a successful economical model for the services/products provided. These companies largely live on investor money, lose money, and in their wake destroy value for the entire industry. Of course the end-game for the investors is to make money... I'm always surprised how strong investment/gambles are for non-profitable companies. I guess there is no end to those with too much money that have to place that money somewhere. As the rich get richer, there will only be more dumb money cheapening the value proposition. After all, who needs value when you have willing investors.
I'm confused. If these companies largely live on investor money, lose money, and destroy value...how is it that a scant two sentences later, the rich are getting richer, and there is _more_ dumb money? I would posit the rich get richer because they *do* see value in the investments they make. That is, value is being created in these deals...just not for everyone. Matt
I think he means to say the rich get richer on the other side of the investment by playing the shorting and the buying of stock in the gambling marketplace. As the stock itself can create a new currency.... so they make more money playing with that than the actually investment. They are on the inside hence the saying the rich get richer. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Kiriki Delany <kiriki@streamguys.com> wrote:
[...]
Bottom line, is the industry needs to be increasing value, because the flip side.... working for no profit, surviving off investment only... there's no end-game. You see this cycle time and time again as market share is grabbed, then underperforming companies are rolled up. In this process value is destroyed.
Ultimately this is also why it's extremely damaging for investors to constantly invest in companies that don't make a profit, and don't provide a successful economical model for the services/products provided. These companies largely live on investor money, lose money, and in their wake destroy value for the entire industry. Of course the end-game for the investors is to make money... I'm always surprised how strong investment/gambles are for non-profitable companies. I guess there is no end to those with too much money that have to place that money somewhere. As the rich get richer, there will only be more dumb money cheapening the value proposition. After all, who needs value when you have willing investors.
I'm confused. If these companies largely live on investor money, lose money, and destroy value...how is it that a scant two sentences later, the rich are getting richer, and there is _more_ dumb money?
I would posit the rich get richer because they *do* see value in the investments they make. That is, value is being created in these deals...just not for everyone.
Matt
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Bob Evans <bob@fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote:
I think he means to say the rich get richer on the other side of the investment by playing the shorting and the buying of stock in the gambling marketplace. As the stock itself can create a new currency.... so they make more money playing with that than the actually investment. They are on the inside hence the saying the rich get richer. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
Ah! So there's two types of value being discussed; network value, vs dollar value. While dollar value is being made, and the rich are getting richer, the value of the network resources may indeed be destroyed. Unfortunately, it's very hard to steer behaviour when the incentives are not aligned with the desired outcome, and in these cases, the incentive (get richer) is often at odds with what the technical community might desire. As much as we might wish it to be otherwise, the primary job of public companies is to make money, not create network value--at least, as long as the majority of your voting shares are held by investors rather than technologists. I look at companies like Google, Alibaba, and Facebook as interesting anomalies because they've structured their corporate ownership in a way that doesn't cede control over to the institutional investors the way the vast majority of public companies have. It remains to be seen if that separation allows them to prioritize creating network value above making money. (I suspect Google sidestepped the question when picking their motto--"Don't be evil" doesn't define the nature of evil; for investors, not doing everything possible to make a profit might be seen as 'evil'. ) Thanks! Matt
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Kiriki Delany <kiriki@streamguys.com> wrote:
[...]
Bottom line, is the industry needs to be increasing value, because the flip side.... working for no profit, surviving off investment only... there's no end-game. You see this cycle time and time again as market share is grabbed, then underperforming companies are rolled up. In this process value is destroyed.
Ultimately this is also why it's extremely damaging for investors to constantly invest in companies that don't make a profit, and don't provide a successful economical model for the services/products provided. These companies largely live on investor money, lose money, and in their wake destroy value for the entire industry. Of course the end-game for the investors is to make money... I'm always surprised how strong investment/gambles are for non-profitable companies. I guess there is no end to those with too much money that have to place that money somewhere. As the rich get richer, there will only be more dumb money cheapening the value proposition. After all, who needs value when you have willing investors.
I'm confused. If these companies largely live on investor money, lose money, and destroy value...how is it that a scant two sentences later, the rich are getting richer, and there is _more_ dumb money?
I would posit the rich get richer because they *do* see value in the investments they make. That is, value is being created in these deals...just not for everyone.
Matt
I was more stating the macro economics, and specifically commenting on the effects of the losing investments if the product/service itself is being sold at a loss. Slim margins on the long-tail of high-volume low end is to be expected. The rich are getting richer, was a generally observation that there is a trend of more money coming down from the top. I *think* there is more losers than winners in general, but the point is about how businesses survive. They either have to be profitable, and typically providing value in the "free market" or are being subsidized in some way (by investment). The constant subsidy of investment, before there is an actual value-add to the service/product, damages the rest of the value proposition for the industry. I don’t claim to have the answers, just observations from our perspective as a privately held, profitable service company. These issue are at the heart of conversations about the value of services like YouTube (Paid for by Google but a successful business model?) and Streaming radio services like Pandora, Spotify, Tidal, etc... Typically those conversations are about the value of the content, vs the revenue paid to the content creators, and who is doing more "work" i.e is Google getting the content out there? Or is it destroying the value of the content by providing access. These are content examples, but I think it’s the same conversation for the web hosting and networks. I'm also saying more energy needs to be put into increasing value and being able to raise the prices of a service. After-all if you are supplying a higher value, it's worth more to the customer, and they are actually saving money in the long run paying for a more valuable service. As networks and web-hosting becomes more of a commodity, I wonder how the service side is being addressed. It's certainly a struggle for most large operators, just look at Telco's and Cable operators, some of the most hated support provided. Even the airlines are horrible. No one's solving the problem of how to massively scale and keep up the quality of your support services too. -Kiriki -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 1:13 PM Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Bluehost.com On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Bob Evans <bob@fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote:
I think he means to say the rich get richer on the other side of the investment by playing the shorting and the buying of stock in the gambling marketplace. As the stock itself can create a new currency.... so they make more money playing with that than the actually investment. They are on the inside hence the saying the rich get richer. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
Ah! So there's two types of value being discussed; network value, vs dollar value. While dollar value is being made, and the rich are getting richer, the value of the network resources may indeed be destroyed. Unfortunately, it's very hard to steer behaviour when the incentives are not aligned with the desired outcome, and in these cases, the incentive (get richer) is often at odds with what the technical community might desire. As much as we might wish it to be otherwise, the primary job of public companies is to make money, not create network value--at least, as long as the majority of your voting shares are held by investors rather than technologists. I look at companies like Google, Alibaba, and Facebook as interesting anomalies because they've structured their corporate ownership in a way that doesn't cede control over to the institutional investors the way the vast majority of public companies have. It remains to be seen if that separation allows them to prioritize creating network value above making money. (I suspect Google sidestepped the question when picking their motto--"Don't be evil" doesn't define the nature of evil; for investors, not doing everything possible to make a profit might be seen as 'evil'. ) Thanks! Matt
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Kiriki Delany <kiriki@streamguys.com> wrote:
[...]
Bottom line, is the industry needs to be increasing value, because the flip side.... working for no profit, surviving off investment only... there's no end-game. You see this cycle time and time again as market share is grabbed, then underperforming companies are rolled up. In this process value is destroyed.
Ultimately this is also why it's extremely damaging for investors to constantly invest in companies that don't make a profit, and don't provide a successful economical model for the services/products provided. These companies largely live on investor money, lose money, and in their wake destroy value for the entire industry. Of course the end-game for the investors is to make money... I'm always surprised how strong investment/gambles are for non-profitable companies. I guess there is no end to those with too much money that have to place that money somewhere. As the rich get richer, there will only be more dumb money cheapening the value proposition. After all, who needs value when you have willing investors.
I'm confused. If these companies largely live on investor money, lose money, and destroy value...how is it that a scant two sentences later, the rich are getting richer, and there is _more_ dumb money?
I would posit the rich get richer because they *do* see value in the investments they make. That is, value is being created in these deals...just not for everyone.
Matt
hi On 11/25/15 at 05:19pm, Bob Evans wrote:
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.
a painful reality ... support costs are NOT cheap if one is trying to keep customers happy more customers usually requires more support expenses too and hopeully, support expenses would start to go down after some critical levels
I founded a cable modem business prior to docsis standard.
congrats..
What do they call it when one keeps doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result ?
"the internet" "there's NO sheriff in town" "there's a (new) sucker born every second" "dumb money" "tax deductions - tax write offs" "i wanna get involved, me too syndrome" ...
Low priced services are difficult to make profitable
- pricing strategy vs customer volume is always a tradeoff - one can always give well behaved customers their discounts from "normal pricing" - one cannot give "good service" when starting from "lowest possible pricing" magic pixie dust on dah turkey alvin
participants (13)
-
alvin nanog -
Andrew Kirch -
Bob Evans -
Brielle Bruns -
Grant Ridder -
JoeSox -
Keith Kouzmanoff -
Kiriki Delany -
Matt Palmer -
Matthew Petach -
Robert Webb -
Stephane Bortzmeyer -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu