RE: Bluehost.com

[Kiriki Delany]

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-boun...@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 <b...@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 
>> <kir...@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 inve

Re: Bluehost.com

[Matthew Petach]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 8:13 AM, Bob Evans  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 
>> 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
>>
>
>

Re: Bluehost.com

[Matthew Petach]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Kiriki Delany  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

Re: Bluehost.com

[Bob Evans]

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 
> 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
>

RE: Bluehost.com

[Kiriki Delany]

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 workswith 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-boun...@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" <b...@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.
>>
>> Th

Bluehost.com

[JoeSox]

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

Re: Bluehost.com

[Brielle Bruns]

On 11/25/15 9:41 AM, JoeSox wrote:

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

Re: Bluehost.com

[Bob Evans]

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 <b...@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 <joe...@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
>> >> <bortzme...@nic.fr>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800,
>> >> >  JoeSox <joe...@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=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.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: Bluehost.com

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:06:30 +1100, Matt Palmer said:

> Except for the fuckups that the redundancy *caused*...

You can't have split-brain failures if there isn't enough brain to split? :)


pgpYyCs8TIJTE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bluehost.com

[Robert Webb]

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" <b...@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 
<b...@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 <joe...@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
>> <bortzme...@nic.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800,
>> >  JoeSox <joe...@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=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.
>> >
>>
>

Re: Bluehost.com

[Matt Palmer]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 02:24:05PM -0500, Andrew Kirch wrote:
> remember folks, redundancy is the savior of all f***ups.

Except for the fuckups that the redundancy *caused*...

- Matt

Re: Bluehost.com

[JoeSox]

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 <b...@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 <joe...@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
> >> <bortzme...@nic.fr>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800,
> >> >  JoeSox <joe...@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=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.
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
>
>

Re: Bluehost.com

[Keith Kouzmanoff]

Re: Bluehost.com

[Bob Evans]

dundancy is the savior of all f***ups.
>>>> >
>>>> > :)
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:21 PM, JoeSox <joe...@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
>>>> >> <bortzme...@nic.fr>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800,
>>>> >> >  JoeSox <joe...@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=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.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>
>

Re: Bluehost.com

[alvin nanog]

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

RE: Bluehost.com

[Bob Evans]

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 workswith 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-boun...@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

Re: Bluehost.com

[JoeSox]

Forgot to mention that their ETA was by end of today. :facepalm:

--
Later, Joe

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:21 AM, JoeSox <joe...@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 <bortzme...@nic.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800,
>>  JoeSox <joe...@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=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.
>>
>
>

Re: Bluehost.com

[Andrew Kirch]

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

:)

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:21 PM, JoeSox <joe...@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 <bortzme...@nic.fr>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800,
> >  JoeSox <joe...@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=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.
> >
>

Re: Bluehost.com

[Grant Ridder]

Their site and my site work
US west coast

-Grant

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Brielle Bruns  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=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
>

Re: Bluehost.com

[Bob Evans]

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 <joe...@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
>> <bortzme...@nic.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800,
>> >  JoeSox <joe...@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=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.
>> >
>>
>

Re: Bluehost.com

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800,
 JoeSox <joe...@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=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.

Re: Bluehost.com

[JoeSox]

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 <bortzme...@nic.fr>
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 08:41:55AM -0800,
>  JoeSox <joe...@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=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.
>