"... making Amazon one of the few on-line shops that could still process payments" is a huge overstatement. Mastercard.com and Visa.com being down has no material effect on almost all eCommerce (I don't remember the last time I had visited either). PayPal does, but that affects Amazon as well since they accept PayPal at places like Zappos and Diapers.com.
I'm not sure what the point of comparing Amazon to Goldman and Google, as the latter two are way more profitable than Amazon is. Is the comparison to show that they're in the same league as these two companies, or are you just looking at the stock price alone?
The information is spotty but from what I gather it seems someone (SimpleCDN) took the "unlimited bandwidth" claims on 100tb.com a little bit too literally - and tried to build a business around them.
The question remains why a supposed infrastructure company thought it'd be a good idea to rely on a single other company to provide their... infrastructure.
If you're going to sell "unlimited" bandwidth, you'd damned well be ready to deliver it. It's arguably very naive of SimpleCDN to build a business on an "unlimited" provider (there's no free lunch, after all), but selling services as "unlimited (unless we decide you're actually using what we sold you, in which case we're going to kick you off)" is not cool.
I hope that's the case, honestly, and I hope that it does go to court. I'm frankly sick and tired of the 'unlimited' advertising model, wherein unlimited really means limited to some arbitrary amount that is not disclosed.
As a customer who has been kicked off of a number of unlimited hosting services for a site that only does ~30Gb or so in traffic in a month, I'd love to see hard limits advertised rather than 'unlimited'.
I know that Dreamhost oversells on purpose, and that's fine, but I think they can still do that (though perhaps not quite as effectively) by just stating their upper limit. Of course, this means that more people are likely to hit or approach that upper limit, but at least they'll know when they need to grow into another 'slice' as it were, or whether or not to relocate from Dreamhost altogether.
Presumably because they could sell bandwidth below market price? This would also explain why they aren't scrambling to put up alternate data centers, but instead sending their customers over to MaxCDN.
Unlimited bandwidth is easy to provide. Just rate-limit the port once they exceed a certain amount of bits transferred. They still have unlimited bandwidth, but at 128kbps instead of 128000kbps.
On a side note, I haven't heard a single good thing from anyone about the ISP in question. One of their brands, VPS.NET, was an absolute nightmare and almost tanked the launch of one of our projects. A friend who made the mistake of going with them as well, had nothing but headaches. The main issues were reliability and poor customer care.
Seriously, as much as their team "care" their product is absolute shit. My experience with vps.net has put me off UK2 for life, some of the things I've seen in the customer forum are just plain scary. Like the admission they don't have the infrastructure to handle DDoS attacks because it's "too expensive".
* A server reset itself to a 3 month old backup overnight, their support was unable to explain it.
* Random disk I/O issues bringing throughput to < 1 MB/sec
* My favorite: Some internal routing issue on their end would randomly route my ssh attempts to another machine on their network. Their solution? Grant me access to this machine which was rented by another customer!
Oh and of course, there was plenty of downtime thrown in for good measure.
That being said: I really like their offering in theory, I just wish they could pull it off in practice.
We will not provide services to those that are using our services for:
A content delivery network or content distribution network (CDN) is prohibited from running on our network. Special requests to run CDN services may be approved on a case by case basis. Failure to comply with this policy will result in the disabling of all hosting services.
Are they now going to blacklist bandwidth intensive business models one by one until only blogs and "under construction" pages are left on their "high bandwidth" plans?
I was a client of both Softlayer and 100TB/UK2 whatever you want to call them. Both instances were separate occasions and my experience with Softlayer was nothing but spotless.
I had 2TB monthly bandwidth allotted, and the server was using up close to 80% of that. We were hosting 4 TF2 game servers, forums etc. Their customer service and services provided were top notch.
100TB on the other hand was not as pleasant. Even though we ended up not going with them in the long run, I have to say that the process of signing-up, managing the servers and canceling was ok. Nothing great. The factor that pushed us to another carrier was network speeds. There were moments when we were getting 10% of what we were paying for and that wasn't a fluctuation worth the risk.
Everyone knows 100TB can't afford you to use the included bandwidth.
When you start actually using your bandwidth then you cut into their profits and they'll want to get rid of you.
When you start actually using the bandwidth _and_ undercut their own CDN using their _resold_ infrastructure, then they're losing out twice.
It's important to remember that UK2 = OnApp/UK2/Midphase/VPS.NET/100TB/Hosting Services Inc/etc/etc. UK2 doesn't own much infrastructure, they're just a reseller and overseller.
The way I see it is, if UK2 wants to fuck customers out of the service that UK2 advertised and the customers paid for, the customers are welcome to fuck right back.
It's just like insurance, you are required to have it but when you need it and have to use it the insurance company jacks up the price from that point on.
While they may very well win in court - their business will be destroyed.
Why on earth was their CDN built around a single provider? Had they had multiple providers,this would have ended in reduced capacity, with buffer time to re-deploy elsewhere.
Sounds like a good lesson learned - when I need bandwidth X for Y years, I make sure I have solid contracts to that effect - not just relying on a simple clause about severability. If your business depends on your providers, you make sure your providers know what business you are in and make sure the contracts are solid.
It looks like they built it around two: UK2 (under multiple brands of theirs too) and Softlayer. But both colluded to shut down SimpleCDN at the same time.
The main problem is they went to the datacenter providers first, not the network providers. DCs make their money over the long term by selling hardware cheap up front (just a monthly fee) and hoping ongoing costs remain low. CDNs put a high operating cost on the system, so it is one place they end up losing out big time.
What they should have done is partnered directly with a network provider. I was looking over at the MaxCDN offer they linked to on the page and they appear to have partnered with Mzima. That's a smart move (Mzima's an awesome network; akin to Internap, but a lot cheaper). Maybe if SimpleCDN recovers from all of this, they'll start approaching things differently and stop trying to put stress on a business relationship where it hurts the most.
As you would expect unmetered bandwidth from 100TB is truly unmetered and unshared, with no limits and no small print. Unmetered servers use exactly the same SoftLayer network as their 100TB equivalents and are fitted with 1000Mbit ports.
My company had a server hosted with UK2. We bailed when they had no answer to why our server restarted randomly and made absolutely no attempt to look into the problem. The lack of respect from them, that our company depended on a reliable server, just astounded me.
After reading this I'm doubly glad we moved away from them.
If you promise 100TB of data transfer on 1Gbps, you have to keep your word (not matter what). Otherwise, don't venture in offering such deal. Essentially, they're kicking out the tail end of the "distribution". A lot of SL clients have been reporting network latency and sometimes packet drops over the last few months. SL is most likely seeing this in their MRTG graphs and have no choice but to enforce the ToS, which does have a CDN clause by the way. The right approach would be to expand their network and purchase additional bandwidth. But I guess they're there to increase their margins.
I have to confess that, as a provider, one has to anticipate things like this for the sake of keeping the business afloat and the clients. The upstream could at any moment pull the plug on you (literally). There's so much one has to watch out for. These are things one loses sleep over.
It's unsettling to say the least. I'm reevaluating SL/UK2 as a possible partner (it used to be high up there in the list but no more).
SimpleCDN has provided fairly consistent service until now. Their customer service was always non-existant, but they were exceptionally cheap. We were forced to switch yesterday when SimpleCDN went down -- I actually wasn't aware what happened until I saw this.
[+] [-] tybris|15 years ago|reply
-It's December
-Mastercard.com and Paypal.com went down making Amazon one of the few on-line shops that could still process payments
-Since no Amazon service went down under DDoS, big companies will come crawling to them to use AWS
-SimpleCDN goes down, no doubt driving lots of customers to bigger parties like AWS
-They are making boat loads of money http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=AMZN+vs+GS+vs+GOOG
Boycott? Pfff. I predict record revenues.
[+] [-] jonknee|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brown9-2|15 years ago|reply
I'm not sure what the point of comparing Amazon to Goldman and Google, as the latter two are way more profitable than Amazon is. Is the comparison to show that they're in the same league as these two companies, or are you just looking at the stock price alone?
[+] [-] mdaniel|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] moe|15 years ago|reply
The question remains why a supposed infrastructure company thought it'd be a good idea to rely on a single other company to provide their... infrastructure.
[+] [-] cheald|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bmelton|15 years ago|reply
As a customer who has been kicked off of a number of unlimited hosting services for a site that only does ~30Gb or so in traffic in a month, I'd love to see hard limits advertised rather than 'unlimited'.
I know that Dreamhost oversells on purpose, and that's fine, but I think they can still do that (though perhaps not quite as effectively) by just stating their upper limit. Of course, this means that more people are likely to hit or approach that upper limit, but at least they'll know when they need to grow into another 'slice' as it were, or whether or not to relocate from Dreamhost altogether.
[+] [-] lwhi|15 years ago|reply
In any case, I don't understand why the ISP wouldn't choose to send any communication about the termination. Seems like reckless behaviour.
[+] [-] jacquesm|15 years ago|reply
This only goes to show that if it is too good to be true it probably isn't.
[+] [-] bobds|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoachimSchipper|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidu|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acangiano|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] citricsquid|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] felixge|15 years ago|reply
* A server reset itself to a 3 month old backup overnight, their support was unable to explain it.
* Random disk I/O issues bringing throughput to < 1 MB/sec
* My favorite: Some internal routing issue on their end would randomly route my ssh attempts to another machine on their network. Their solution? Grant me access to this machine which was rented by another customer!
Oh and of course, there was plenty of downtime thrown in for good measure.
That being said: I really like their offering in theory, I just wish they could pull it off in practice.
[+] [-] joshfraser|15 years ago|reply
We will not provide services to those that are using our services for:
A content delivery network or content distribution network (CDN) is prohibited from running on our network. Special requests to run CDN services may be approved on a case by case basis. Failure to comply with this policy will result in the disabling of all hosting services.
http://www.100tb.com/tos.php
[+] [-] moe|15 years ago|reply
Are they now going to blacklist bandwidth intensive business models one by one until only blogs and "under construction" pages are left on their "high bandwidth" plans?
[+] [-] wildmXranat|15 years ago|reply
I had 2TB monthly bandwidth allotted, and the server was using up close to 80% of that. We were hosting 4 TF2 game servers, forums etc. Their customer service and services provided were top notch.
100TB on the other hand was not as pleasant. Even though we ended up not going with them in the long run, I have to say that the process of signing-up, managing the servers and canceling was ok. Nothing great. The factor that pushed us to another carrier was network speeds. There were moments when we were getting 10% of what we were paying for and that wasn't a fluctuation worth the risk.
[+] [-] carl_|15 years ago|reply
Everyone knows 100TB can't afford you to use the included bandwidth.
When you start actually using your bandwidth then you cut into their profits and they'll want to get rid of you.
When you start actually using the bandwidth _and_ undercut their own CDN using their _resold_ infrastructure, then they're losing out twice.
It's important to remember that UK2 = OnApp/UK2/Midphase/VPS.NET/100TB/Hosting Services Inc/etc/etc. UK2 doesn't own much infrastructure, they're just a reseller and overseller.
[+] [-] shub|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhughes|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dedward|15 years ago|reply
Why on earth was their CDN built around a single provider? Had they had multiple providers,this would have ended in reduced capacity, with buffer time to re-deploy elsewhere.
Sounds like a good lesson learned - when I need bandwidth X for Y years, I make sure I have solid contracts to that effect - not just relying on a simple clause about severability. If your business depends on your providers, you make sure your providers know what business you are in and make sure the contracts are solid.
[+] [-] timdorr|15 years ago|reply
The main problem is they went to the datacenter providers first, not the network providers. DCs make their money over the long term by selling hardware cheap up front (just a monthly fee) and hoping ongoing costs remain low. CDNs put a high operating cost on the system, so it is one place they end up losing out big time.
What they should have done is partnered directly with a network provider. I was looking over at the MaxCDN offer they linked to on the page and they appear to have partnered with Mzima. That's a smart move (Mzima's an awesome network; akin to Internap, but a lot cheaper). Maybe if SimpleCDN recovers from all of this, they'll start approaching things differently and stop trying to put stress on a business relationship where it hurts the most.
[+] [-] robryan|15 years ago|reply
Hosting plans page though has:
Unmetered Bandwidth (324TB) add $399 / month
[+] [-] chrismiller|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mbreese|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xd|15 years ago|reply
After reading this I'm doubly glad we moved away from them.
[+] [-] foobarbazetc|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carl_|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjoe|15 years ago|reply
If you promise 100TB of data transfer on 1Gbps, you have to keep your word (not matter what). Otherwise, don't venture in offering such deal. Essentially, they're kicking out the tail end of the "distribution". A lot of SL clients have been reporting network latency and sometimes packet drops over the last few months. SL is most likely seeing this in their MRTG graphs and have no choice but to enforce the ToS, which does have a CDN clause by the way. The right approach would be to expand their network and purchase additional bandwidth. But I guess they're there to increase their margins.
I have to confess that, as a provider, one has to anticipate things like this for the sake of keeping the business afloat and the clients. The upstream could at any moment pull the plug on you (literally). There's so much one has to watch out for. These are things one loses sleep over.
It's unsettling to say the least. I'm reevaluating SL/UK2 as a possible partner (it used to be high up there in the list but no more).
Regards
Joe
[+] [-] sadiq|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] loganlinn|15 years ago|reply