death to Wordpress

[dank]

Last month, I received a FQ notice of blog spamming on a client's account. Unable to contact the client, I went in and closed off user registration and the ability to post responses. Today, I get the $49 bandwidth overage fee, which I'm probably stuck with if I can't get ahold of the client soon (already owing on the account). I took a look at the site stats just now and was shocked by just how out of hand the problem is:

Month Hits Files Pageviews Sessions KBytes sent
May 2006 177887 101357 66327 35272 20,563,890
April 2006 135242 89945 49109 24871 9,625,647

No. Hits 304's KBytes sent URL
1 56608 31.82% 0 0.00% 20533244 /blog/
2 6513 3.66% 0 0.00% 556 /blog/wp-comments-post.php
3 1956 1.10% 336 43.58% 8964 All images
4 1626 0.91% 0 0.00% 155 /blog/wp-trackback.php
5 1153 0.65% 0 0.00% 103 /blog/wp-trackback.php/4
6 1029 0.58% 0 0.00% 91 /blog/wp-trackback.php/9
7 895 0.50% 0 0.00% 28 /robots.txt
8 861 0.48% 0 0.00% 76 /blog/wp-trackback.php/38
9 664 0.37% 0 0.00% 59 /blog/wp-trackback.php/71
10 646 0.36% 0 0.00% 55 /blog/wp-trackback.php/42
11 621 0.35% 0 0.00% 54 /blog/wp-trackback.php/67
12 616 0.35% 0 0.00% 53 /blog/wp-trackback.php/10
13 609 0.34% 0 0.00% 52 /blog/wp-trackback.php/21
14 592 0.33% 0 0.00% 51 /blog/wp-trackback.php/75
15 580 0.33% 0 0.00% 50 /blog/wp-trackback.php/76
16 573 0.32% 0 0.00% 48 /blog/wp-trackback.php/51
17 569 0.32% 0 0.00% 47 /blog/wp-trackback.php/56
18 561 0.32% 0 0.00% 48 /blog/wp-trackback.php/43
19 560 0.31% 0 0.00% 48 /blog/wp-trackback.php/53
20 556 0.31% 0 0.00% 47 /blog/wp-trackback.php/55
21 552 0.31% 0 0.00% 47 /blog/wp-trackback.php/24
22 548 0.31% 0 0.00% 46 /blog/wp-trackback.php/17
23 546 0.31% 0 0.00% 46 /blog/wp-trackback.php/12
24 540 0.30% 0 0.00% 46 /blog/wp-trackback.php/63
25 529 0.30% 0 0.00% 46 /blog/wp-trackback.php/92
26 518 0.29% 0 0.00% 44 /blog/wp-trackback.php/18
27 517 0.29% 0 0.00% 44 /blog/wp-trackback.php/2
28 492 0.28% 177 22.96% 3726 /blog/wp-rss2.php
29 483 0.27% 0 0.00% 42 /blog/wp-trackback.php/95
30 451 0.25% 126 16.34% 131 /blog/print.css
The thing's getting absolutely hammered. It looks to me like it's from reading as much as posting, but maybe the 2nd URL is misleading in that respect. Obviously, the thing needs to be removed. Maybe the whole account, too. Nothing like having a fairly large percentage of your annual reseller profits eaten up in one fell swoop. Seriously makes you question if it's even worth bothering.

Dan

[dank]

Not that it's related the thread title, but how is it justified that bandwidth is available for as little as $9 for 10GB in a reseller package but 10GB overage costs nearly $50 more? The discrepancy is even larger when you factor in everything else that goes into that base package price... $18 total gets the full 20GB in a larger package plus all the extras. What kind of accounting spin came up with those numbers?

Dan

[Joseph]

Not that it's related the thread title, but how is it justified that bandwidth is available for as little as $9 for 10GB in a reseller package but 10GB overage costs nearly $50 more? The discrepancy is even larger when you factor in everything else that goes into that base package price... $18 total gets the full 20GB in a larger package plus all the extras. What kind of accounting spin came up with those numbers?

Dan

You may want to read this post (http://www.aota.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=95997#post95997).

[dank]

Already read it, long ago. I'm not completely sure you did, however... That discussion is about the extra cost of purchasing just bandwidth (or other resources) a la carte, as opposed to extras on top of a shared resource package. Even so, the example numbers there are a fair bit lower than what I posted above. I realize the thread is nearly 3 years old, but $30 as an "expensive" a la carte pricing option sounds a lot better than $50 on top of a full package. What's the real cost and how much non-automated time actually went into metering and billing it?

Dan

[Deb]

Already read it, long ago. I'm not completely sure you did, however... That discussion is about the extra cost of purchasing just bandwidth (or other resources) a la carte, as opposed to extras on top of a shared resource package. I wrote it. Does that count as reading it too? :P Purchasing "just bandwidth a la carte" is the same as purchasing just bandwidth to add-on to a package ;)

Bandwidth included with a package, as the previously referenced thread explained, is covered by _shared_ resources. The packages that DO NOT use all of their resources help to cover the costs of the resources that ARE being used.

I can put a bowl of nuts out on the table of a potluck and not run out of nuts while still ensuring everyone at the potluck had enough nuts to satisfy their desire. This is not possible because I had enough nuts for EVERYONE but it is possible because NOT everyone wanted nuts. IF EVERYONE wanted nuts... I'd have to buy more nuts and I'd have to charge everyone accordingly for the nuts. It's those folks that did NOT eat nuts that allowed me to buy "less nuts" (spending less overall) thereby permitting me to offer more nuts to the ones that wanted them for less. The same concept applies at all-you-can-eat buffetts. If everyone ate everything the buffett business would become extinct.

Bandwidth -- We buy what's needed to satisfy all of the clients as a whole. Those who don't use it are what make it available for those that do and this allows everyone to receive it for less overall... in a package shared community hosting setting. If, however, you want to pay "cost" for it then it's actually going to be higher for you because there's no sharing of costs and usage going on. Carpool to work vs driving yourself.... sharing the cost of gas and vehicle maintenance is always going to be cheaper... Unfortunately, if you and your stuff fills up the entire car, thereby leaving no room for someone to share those costs... you're stuck with the larger bill... :hrmm: Not that it's related the thread title, but how is it justified that bandwidth is available for as little as $9 for 10GB in a reseller package but 10GB overage costs nearly $50 more? The discrepancy is even larger when you factor in everything else that goes into that base package price... $18 total gets the full 20GB in a larger package plus all the extras. What kind of accounting spin came up with those numbers? Beyond, using more for just you and not sharing it with others ending up costing more, the other issue was not choosing to upgrade. Had you have upgraded the package when you received the warning which gave you the advise of doing so, then you would have likely saved some money. Choosing not to upgrade to a package that included more is why you had to pay for more "extra bandwidth" (which is more expensive) rather than paying for "included package bandwidth" (which as you noted and was explained is cheaper).

FutureQuest pays more than three times the worth of each GB of bandwidth because we buy it from multiple providers in such a way that ensures us/you that if one goes down the other can continue providing it to you. Gig for Gig we pay more than we charge you per extra gig.... We, however, just as you, are able to cover it via the shared community effort to cover the fees and share the resources which also allow us to buy in bulk for everyone.

When someone goes over what's allocated it skews the scales for everyone. IF FutureQuest did not buy enough bandwidth to allow for sites like the one you describe to go over... we'd all be in big trouble. Every month FutureQuest pays for bandwidth that no one uses just to ensure that IF you do need it it'll be there and to ensure there is no line saturation to slow you down. When you go over what we all agreed you wouldn't go over... higher fees come into play.. this is how we recoup the costs of having to pay for extra every month "just in case" rather than just buying exactly what's needed and agreed upon at the beginning of the month. What's the real cost and how much non-automated time actually went into metering and billing it? Let's see....

1) The use of the actual bandwidth... which costs us Gig for Gig more than we charged

2) The cost of bandwidth unused month after month so months like this one for this one package don't harm your other packages.

3) Host pays in triplicate to ensure that had the primary provider of bandwidth not been available the secondary (etc) is....

4) Someone to monitor the usage and yes, believe it or not, manually hit the button to ensure you get an email notice

5) Often times the human to explain the notice to the client that received it and wants further clarification and/or help understanding what caused it to happen

7) All done with a smile albeit... late to the show on the forums do to an error in to-do lists :safegrin:

Hopefully that clarifies it a bit better.... though I know it's always difficult trying to understand how business is run in areas outside of our expertise especially in an industry as diversified as this one.

Deb
- If Walmart is lowering prices every day, how come nothing is free yet?

[dank]

Purchasing "just bandwidth a la carte" is the same as purchasing just bandwidth to add-on to a package
I can buy that to an extent, but it should truthfully be somewhere in between. The resource sharing is already taken into account and the extra trunk room (to use your example) is there just in case, so instead of charging for an entire add-on trailer, there should just be a modest surcharge for filling the trunk to the point there's less extra room for others. When gradients are left out of the equation, nothing is equitable.

Beyond, using more for just you and not sharing it with others ending up costing more, the other issue was not choosing to upgrade.
I didn't exactly "not choose" to upgrade... I haven't been able to contact the client, which happens frequently with her travel schedule. That, combined with your black and white outlook on the situation, makes me think I'd be better off sending a bit less business your way. And in case you're wondering, I did inform you guys of that dilemna at the time.

FutureQuest pays more than three times the worth of each GB of bandwidth...
Which cost are you referring to? The shared resource cost or the "a la carte" cost? You never did quite answer that underlying question, although it was an excellent Terra impression. ;)

Dan

[Deb]

The resource sharing is already taken into account and the extra trunk room (to use your example) is there just in case, so instead of charging for an entire add-on trailer, there should just be a modest surcharge for filling the trunk to the point there's less extra room for others. The extra room is paid for by those who go over the amounts pre-allocated... hence the reason those amounts are higher. I didn't exactly "not choose" to upgrade... I haven't been able to contact the client, which happens frequently with her travel schedule. That's one of the pitfalls of your job as a reseller... Taking on that responsibility. It's not easy in these situations...I'd have to completely agree. Stuff like that is part of the reason you get a discount... It's not just because we like giving stuff away for less..but because you take on the task of working with the clients etc...

If you have not already, I strongly encourage you to ensure you inform your clients that if they use more than their package is allocated that they will be notified and charged accordingly to avoid wondering if you will be able to pass on this fee.
Which cost are you referring to? The shared resource cost or the "a la carte" cost? You never did quite answer that underlying question, although it was an excellent Terra impression. I do my best not to impersonate Terra. We're completely different people with completely different skills... it wouldn't do any of us any good for me to try to be like him. However, if you feel I am trying to avoid your question directly I apologize as that is the last thing I am trying to do. I am simply trying to help you understand where we are coming from while trying to avoid saying something to the affect of "These are the terms you agreed to when you signed up, and you had the opportunity to make a change to avoid the higher fees, deal with it, thread closed." --- Though I see some hosts do that... I can't imagine behaving that way and it is absolutely not my goal nor would you still be here if I did :P

Dan...I have always tried, if nothing else, to at least explain to you where we are coming from honestly and sincerely. I know you don't always like what I have to say or the way it turns out (and when the shoes are traded I assure you I understand why you don't like it... and can only hope you could understand why it is the way it is) but sometimes it just is what it is and all I can do is the best I can. If it's not enough then yes, taking your business elsewhere would make sense. I don't like that concept one bit and it only makes it more difficult for hosts like us to compete on the lower prices..but all we can do is keep giving it our all and hope it will be enough to provide you and your clients what you require and then some. If it's not, then the "wal-marts of the hosting world" will prevail... Until then, I'll continue trying to keep the community going the best I can noting that I cannot, will not, and would be stupid to try to just lay the books out on the table for all to review or the employee wages out for all to scrutinize -- e.g. I cannot/will not share with you (and the rest of the world) exactly what places such as Internap and Level3 charge FutureQuest for our local loop and bandwidth usage etc. The best I can do is assure you that it's likely more than you think and that FutureQuest simplifies the billing for you by including the power, and local loops, and hardware, and wiring, and business insurance and and and etc into the costs you see clearly posted on the website. The "big ticket items", are of course bandwidth and disk space, since they are easily quantifiable by the end user and can be charged by amount used... unlike many of the other aspects that go into hosting. As such.. that's where it lands.

Maybe I just don't understand your question and if I'm not answering it could you please re-state it simply? I'm not one to try and avoid it. The cost I am speaking of is that we pay more than one provider for bandwidth to achieve redundancy. So rather than one DS-3 we buy at least two DS-3s. You only buy one GB of bandwidth but we ensure there are at least two available in case that one fails for you...and then several more just in case you need more and to ensure it works at top speed for you. So to recoup those extra fees, the packages that use more than what is included, pay a premium for the overage to help offset the costs and keep the base packages at a lower cost for everyone. E.g. the over usage fee you pay for this one package sort of goes to cover the lower costs all of your other packages. Last month someone else paid it... It's just the way shared hosting works. And, just as we get 'sort of a discount' for buying in bulk... we pass that on to you by giving more with the larger packages. Nevertheless, our providers nail us hard if we burst our usage (use more than paid for) and to keep us from doing that we also have to ensure there is a quantifiable usage by our clients. Placing limits and charging accordingly for over usage is part of how that is accomplished.

Deb
- It is difficult, but not impossible, to conduct strictly honest business

[farlane]

Thank you Deb for your frank discussion. It reaffirms my belief that the day I started working with FutureQuest was a Very Good Day Indeed for me and my business. ;)

(can we change it to "death to WordPress trackbacks?")