Bluehost.com

Bob Evans bob at FiberInternetCenter.com
Thu Nov 26 02:49:55 UTC 2015


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





More information about the NANOG mailing list