I was just wondering how many hosting companies here have thier own bandwidth, own servers, own NOC, etc etc.

It seems to me that most of the users here are resellers or use co-lo's etc. (I'm not saying that's bad)

Just curious,

Aaron

I have meet quite a few people from here who own where own servers. Actually, when I meet people who own their own servers, they usualy just do not own one, they own several. It usualy ranges from 2 servers - 6 servers. Its quite surpricing.

I would supect that more people in this forum would have dedicated server(s) rather than there own servers. When I meet people who won dedicated servers, they usualy own 2.

I'm sure theres loads of reseller users here who have their own hosting company, but if they do I'm sure they have approx. 5+ GB Space aleast. i think that owning a hosting companys isn't very unique without a suitable amount of space/bandwidth.

Originally posted by DarrenK
I have meet quite a few people from here who own where own servers. Actually, when I meet people who own their own servers, they usualy just do not own one, they own several. It usualy ranges from 2 servers - 6 servers. Its quite surpricing.

I would supect that more people in this forum would have dedicated server(s) rather than there own servers. When I meet people who won dedicated servers, they usualy own 2.
Am I the only one completely confused by this reply ? :erm:

I am entirely confused :rolleyes:

I think what he's trying to say is larger hosts tend to co-lo and own 2-6 servers, pay a Telco for bandwidth.... smaller (and newer) hosts tend to own 2 dedicated boxes, and pay the dedicated hosting company for bandwidth...

Correct?

:confused:

THIS IS CHEWBACCA...Chewbacca is a 8-foot tall wookie from the planet Kishy. But, Chewbacca lives on Endor among 2-foot tall Ewoks.

That Does Not Make Sense !

THIS IS CHEWBACCA...Chewbacca is a 8-foot tall wookie from the planet Kishy. But, Chewbacca lives on Endor among 2-foot tall Ewoks.Don't you make fun! One of our best tech support guys; everyone's happy with him except some guy named Lando.

-Matt

Originally posted by WII-Aaron
I was just wondering how many hosting companies here have thier own bandwidth, own servers, own NOC, etc etc.

A few do :)


It seems to me that most of the users here are resellers or use co-lo's etc. (I'm not saying that's bad)

Just curious,

Aaron

Well, what's the going price for discounted bandwidth?? $100/month (with or without a server). Why would somebody with a large investment ($50,000+) want to start a price war with someone that's only pays $100/month and has little or no investment?

Do you think a company that spends $2,000-$100,000+/month just for the connection(s) itself would be willing to sell $2-5/month 400 MB/10 GB packages on it? That's all I seem to see here, so...

Originally posted by RackNine
Don't you make fun! One of our best tech support guys; everyone's happy with him except some guy named Lando.

-Matt

sorry.. Everyones reaction reminded me of the south park episode.

Where can i get discount bandwidth for $100?:confused:

RackShack. There is even a cheap co-location company too (about the same price, just can't think of the name right now).

Originally posted by johnallen


sorry.. Everyones reaction reminded me of the south park episode.

me too :) what a lawyer :)

Whoops! Sorry guys if you didn't understand. I must of got carreid away in my post or else I accidently posted it in the wrong place. :(

I think in all honesty there are very few hosting companies who own their own servers. Most are either resellers, or they lease their servers (as I do), from others.

It just seems so many of the hosting companies would prefer not to be too honest about it. It is just much more glamourous to claim you have this huge datacenter, and all of this equipment, etc.

I'm fairly new to web hosting, but not new to the "internet industry". I have quite a bit of successful business experience, and I can tell you that someone who really does own their own data centers, and have tons of employee's as they claim on here COULD NOT be offering the prices they do.

Some of the offers on here have an almost non existant profit margin. There is simply no way that someone can have such a low profit margin and have a data center, office, office staff, advertising budget, etc.

There are just so many on here wanting to claim to be something they are not.

There is nothing at all with being a small company. Many clients like the fact that when they call us, they get ME. They get the owner of the company.

So I guess that's a long answer to your question...and in case you didn't understand my answer.....it is this....I think the biggest majority on here are either leasing servers, or are resellers from people who are leasing servers.

Originally posted by EzHost
I think in all honesty there are very few hosting companies who own their own servers. Most are either resellers, or they lease their servers (as I do), from others.

It just seems so many of the hosting companies would prefer not to be too honest about it. It is just much more glamourous to claim you have this huge datacenter, and all of this equipment, etc.

I'm fairly new to web hosting, but not new to the "internet industry". I have quite a bit of successful business experience, and I can tell you that someone who really does own their own data centers, and have tons of employee's as they claim on here COULD NOT be offering the prices they do.

Some of the offers on here have an almost non existant profit margin. There is simply no way that someone can have such a low profit margin and have a data center, office, office staff, advertising budget, etc.

There are just so many on here wanting to claim to be something they are not.

There is nothing [wrong] at all with being a small company. Many clients like the fact that when they call us, they get ME. They get the owner of the company.

So I guess that's a long answer to your question...and in case you didn't understand my answer.....it is this....I think the biggest majority on here are either leasing servers, or are resellers from people who are leasing servers. Agreed enough to quote the whole post. With that said... we do own our own servers and the entire Data Center. It's brand new and took us quite some time to be able to get to the point of being able to do so. We could _not_ have grown to this level by charging what many of the resellers charge within these forums.

As has already been noted there is no profit margin with those prices. With no profit there is also no money to save up and put back into the company to grow and improve. It's important to price for the future. Important for your company and your clients. The goal is for you to be able to service them next year as well as you are this year. Even if you plan to continue offering your services via resold/dedicated/colo'd providers you must be prepared for your costs to rise and/or the industry requirements to change. If you are not prepared... a simple change could take you down :(

Some argue -- "Well bandwidth and disk space prices will only get lower as time goes on" -- IF I agree with that, it doesn't change the fact that wages, taxes, insurance, electricity, rent and other normal business expenses will continue to rise.

The smarter you are when you 'can afford' to bottom out your prices the better off you'll be when you can't later on.

---
I also totally agree that there is nothing wrong with being small. There is a great market for the smaller hosts IF they would only go out and grab it.

Many site owners appreciate the smaller business atmosphere. Small hosts that try to 'appear larger' are missing out on a great opportunity for a stable and loyal client base.

Why bother with virtual hosting when you can sell dedicated servers? It's alot of money and you have fewer customers to work with. It makes your responce time better.

then the people who buy servers from you turn around and sell the virtual hosting and resellers. Let them go after smaller fish.

I see alot of datacenters sell all the services. If i had a datacenter, I wouldn't try as hard to sell a $15, 50mb account as I would to sell a dedicated server.

I rent servers with different datacenters. I sell reseller plans. I don't even go after virtual hosting anymore. I just sell it off in bulk. My prices are below most places. I still make a profit each month. Since I have fewer customers, this allows me to focus on reseller's needs more.

just some input. mostly ranting.

just some input. mostly ranting. LOL

Our foundation is with shared hosting and we sort of need them to continue paying the bills since we are not yet established in any of the other areas. We are of course adding dedicated and collocation options but with such a presence in shared hosting and quite honestly dedication to our current clients, not to mention experience and a general joy out of servicing that sector, I have no intentions of 'dropping them'.

We are however prepping to add cages to the DC ;)

That would be crazy to drop them. I'd just start building some shelves. :)

We also still do virtuals and own our on DC.
Like Deb said its what got us to where we are today and we are not going to drop them.

There is not as much money in dedicated hosting as you think, you need to add up all the costs to offer this service. Servers are not cheap and in most cases you only make a few bucks from a server and do not recoup your costs of providing that server for several months where in virtual hosting a full server can bring in $1000s per month.

Now do not get me wrong we do make more off our dedicated side than our virtual side but the capital out lay to get there is much greater than the virtual side of things.


If your going to keep a DC going on dedicated servers and colo alone you better have deep pockets and lots of time :)

How much did you guys bring in a month before you started your datacenter?

Originally posted by johnallen
How much did you guys bring in a month before you started your datacenter?

I think that is a personal question that Paul wouldn't answer for obvious reasons.

-Steven

Thanks ms. cleo. You always have the answers.

I was just wondering how they knew they were ready to start a datacenter.

just saw this
http://www.cogentco.com/Fast/elegant_proposition.html
$1000 / month for 100 Mbps

Originally posted by intellec
just saw this
http://www.cogentco.com/Fast/elegant_proposition.html
$1000 / month for 100 Mbps

Sh*tty bandwidth, go with a good provider (like UUnet). And it's $1000/month for non-resellers, $3000/month for resellers.

Originally posted by the elf


Sh*tty bandwidth, go with a good provider (like UUnet). And it's $1000/month for non-resellers, $3000/month for resellers.

Ignorant much?

Originally posted by johnallen
Thanks ms. cleo. You always have the answers.

I was just wondering how they knew they were ready to start a datacenter.

I prefer to be called Mr. Cleo if you insist ;) . But I think that answer is predicated on some very important factors, including but not limited to the following:

1) Who your bandwidth providers are going to be?
2) What kind of connections are you going to have?
3) What kind of equiptment (routers, switches, cables)are you going to have?
4) Support Staff and techs
5) All other costs and expenditures

See I don't think that there is any magical number, it just is what your operating expenses and revenue can do for you.

-Steven

Originally posted by porcupine


Ignorant much?

No, if your going to go though the expense of starting and running your own data center, why use cheap bandwidth?? If your data center is worth less then $200,000 it’s not a data center! It’s like going and buying a sports car only to get the “generic” and cheap paint job (which looks crappy). Or like building a house but start to skimp on things like light sockets and such to lower the cost. If your serious about doing it right, do it right! If your customer know your using tier 1 bandwidth (such as UUnet or other tier 1 providers), I’m sure they’ll pay the extra for it.

Originally posted by the elf


Sh*tty bandwidth, go with a good provider (like UUnet). And it's $1000/month for non-resellers, $3000/month for resellers.


Please back up your claim with evidence

Originally posted by ClusterMania



Please back up your claim with evidence

Uhhh, it's a known fact that cogent has baaaaaaad peering. They tend to send traffic all over the place (unlike other providers).

Originally posted by the elf


No, if your going to go though the expense of starting and running your own data center, why use cheap bandwidth?? If your data center is worth less then $200,000 it’s not a data center! It’s like going and buying a sports car only to get the “generic” and cheap paint job (which looks crappy). Or like building a house but start to skimp on things like light sockets and such to lower the cost. If your serious about doing it right, do it right! If your customer know your using tier 1 bandwidth (such as UUnet or other tier 1 providers), I’m sure they’ll pay the extra for it.

I say it again, ignorant much?

If you had a ferarri would you drive it to and from work every day? i doubt it, you'd have a more affordable car take your beatings. Why should people pay a premium for a less stable company (fiancially), when they can get everything they need from a decent company like cogent?

Would you feed the poor caviar? I don't think so, you would feed them what would get them what they needed at the best price, and thats exactly what cogent is to webhosts.

Not every consumer has the option of purchasing more expensive services, so that statement and logic is completely flawed. Do you have your own Data Center :rolleyes:, and you think because people use Cogent they're lower quality? I can think of quite a few Cogent hosts people would pick over the rest because they provide what the client needs at a price they (the client) can afford.

BTW, you need to read the news. If you did, you wouldn't have suggested UUNet :eek:.

Originally posted by the elf


Uhhh, it's a known fact that cogent has baaaaaaad peering. They tend to send traffic all over the place (unlike other providers).

Dozens of providers have wacky peering at times. "baaaadddd peering" improoves daily as cogent buys up big boys, and has acceptable peering by most standards. Frankly i don't see it as cogent's fault their network is so much more advanced, faster, etc. then everyone else's and almost noones peering points can handle the traffic that cogent pushes through, it's the rest of the big boys that seem to be behind on this issue, because if they weren't behind, it wouldn't be an issue now would it?

Originally posted by porcupine


Dozens of providers have wacky peering at times. "baaaadddd peering" improoves daily as cogent buys up big boys, and has acceptable peering by most standards. Frankly i don't see it as cogent's fault their network is so much more advanced, faster, etc. then everyone else's and almost noones peering points can handle the traffic that cogent pushes through, it's the rest of the big boys that seem to be behind on this issue, because if they weren't behind, it wouldn't be an issue now would it?

Nice work Porcupine. Too many people talk crap about Cogent when they have no experience with them. Cogent is the only way to go if you want affordable bandwidth. It gets the job done especially if you have a website and tons of people download files from you.

With so many freeloaders on the internet now, it's one of the few options that you can use to cut cost. If you run a software site and offer demos for download, Cogent is perfect.

Originally posted by porcupine


I say it again, ignorant much?

If you had a ferarri would you drive it to and from work every day? i doubt it, you'd have a more affordable car take your beatings. Why should people pay a premium for a less stable company (fiancially), when they can get everything they need from a decent company like cogent?

The keywords in my post were "starting" and "buying", which you seemed to have missed. If I were to "buy" a ferarri and spend a few $100,000, why get a cheap paint job?? Really, go the extra mile! Same as spending $100,000's and backing it all with a cheap $3,000/month connection.

"decent"?? They have bad peering, are in the hole ($80,000 million or so) and it seems there going to "rise" prices (from what I seen on another forum).


Would you feed the poor caviar? I don't think so, you would feed them what would get them what they needed at the best price, and thats exactly what cogent is to webhosts.

Not every consumer has the option of purchasing more expensive services, so that statement and logic is completely flawed. Do you have your own Data Center :rolleyes:, and you think because people use Cogent they're lower quality? I can think of quite a few Cogent hosts people would pick over the rest because they provide what the client needs at a price they (the client) can afford.


I don't have/own a data center, however do have my servers on-site and use a tier 1 provider (Telus - http://www.telus.com). Cogent is "lower quality" yes, for the simple fact that cogents peering is bad. As to people that use it, what do you think?? Do you really think you can get "high quality" bandwidth for $.33-$1.00/GB?? They send traffic all over the place for no reason other then because they have few peering agreements. And not "at times", cogent has bad peering all the time, why? Simply because other providers don't want to have that level of traffic (for the amout they charge), so there peering is rather limited :) But I'm sure you knew that one.


BTW, you need to read the news. If you did, you wouldn't have suggested UUNet :eek:.

Sure do, but I don't think you really understand the "slap and run" laws the US uses. They'll just get a slap/fine and be on their way.

Let me guess, your another cogent customer?? :rolleyes:

Why would I suggest cogent over UUNet (really, no offence, are you that dumb)? :D Look how LARGE UUnet is, sure they have a small problem, but there not in the hole $80 million like cogent is.

Originally posted by ClusterMania


Nice work Porcupine. Too many people talk crap about Cogent when they have no experience with them. Cogent is the only way to go if you want affordable bandwidth. It gets the job done especially if you have a website and tons of people download files from you.

With so many freeloaders on the internet now, it's one of the few options that you can use to cut cost. If you run a software site and offer demos for download, Cogent is perfect.

I agree with that (the downloading part). But if I had a large on-line store making $10,000/month, I would not use cogent bandwidth to power it :)

:kaioken: Speaking of Telus, I get dsl from them and it was down for 10 hours two days ago. I had to use aol dialup cause I had no choice. Talk about a nightmare, I forgot how terrible :flamethr: dialup was.

Don't know how good their dedicated lines are though.

Originally posted by ClusterMania
:kaioken: Speaking of Telus, I get dsl from them and it was down for 10 hours two days ago. I had to use aol dialup cause I had no choice. Talk about a nightmare, I forgot how terrible :flamethr: dialup was.

Don't know how good their dedicated lines are though.

In the last 6 months… Two outages no longer then 10 min per outage. They lasted long enough for the monitoring service to freak and sound the "alarm" (little tweak I did to the PC speaker on the monitoring server) :)

Originally posted by the elf


The keywords in my post were "starting" and "buying", which you seemed to have missed. If I were to "buy" a ferarri and spend a few $100,000, why get a cheap paint job?? Really, go the extra mile! Same as spending $100,000's and backing it all with a cheap $3,000/month connection.

"decent"?? They have bad peering, are in the hole ($80,000 million or so) and it seems there going to "rise" prices (from what I seen on another forum).



I don't have/own a data center, however do have my servers on-site and use a tier 1 provider (Telus - http://www.telus.com). Cogent is "lower quality" yes, for the simple fact that cogents peering is bad. As to people that use it, what do you think?? Do you really think you can get "high quality" bandwidth for $.33-$1.00/GB?? They send traffic all over the place for no reason other then because they have few peering agreements. And not "at times", cogent has bad peering all the time, why? Simply because other providers don't want to have that level of traffic (for the amout they charge), so there peering is rather limited :) But I'm sure you knew that one.



Sure do, but I don't think you really understand the "slap and run" laws the US uses. They'll just get a slap/fine and be on their way.

Let me guess, your another cogent customer?? :rolleyes:

Why would I suggest cogent over UUNet (really, no offence, are you that dumb)? :D Look how LARGE UUnet is, sure they have a small problem, but there not in the hole $80 million like cogent is.

Of course im a cogent customer. Anyone who runs a Data Center and has access to be a Cogent customer, yet is not is an utter fool. Only a moron would pass up a good opportunity.

And it's not a "slap on the hand" that uunet is going to be facing, their stocks are below $1/share and are going to be removed from trading on the NasDaq if the shares do not level over $1.00 within 30 days (like 15 days now or something).

Why should anyone care how large uunet is? Maybe i can run over and get stuff done with Enron too? Cogent is more then 80 million in the hole, not sure where you draw that figure from, but im sure uunet is too (i dont follow them closely, only when theres a scandal or two).

Once again, let me make another comparison, UUnet is like loading your ford taurus with 97 octane fuel when your car runs fine on 87 octane. Why would anyone pay literally 20-30x the price for uunet bandwidth when Cogent will get the job done all the same? Cogent has had over 99.99% uptime for us, their financial stability is far superior to UUNet currently, and their price is 1/20-1/30 of UUNet's bandwidth, so i ask again, why in your right mind would you go with 97 octane when 87 will do?

Originally posted by porcupine


Of course im a cogent customer. Anyone who runs a Data Center and has access to be a Cogent customer, yet is not is an utter fool. Only a moron would pass up a good opportunity.

And it's not a "slap on the hand" that uunet is going to be facing, their stocks are below $1/share and are going to be removed from trading on the NasDaq if the shares do not level over $1.00 within 30 days (like 15 days now or something).

Why should anyone care how large uunet is? Maybe i can run over and get stuff done with Enron too? Cogent is more then 80 million in the hole, not sure where you draw that figure from, but im sure uunet is too (i dont follow them closely, only when theres a scandal or two).

Once again, let me make another comparison, UUnet is like loading your ford taurus with 97 octane fuel when your car runs fine on 87 octane. Why would anyone pay literally 20-30x the price for uunet bandwidth when Cogent will get the job done all the same? Cogent has had over 99.99% uptime for us, their financial stability is far superior to UUNet currently, and their price is 1/20-1/30 of UUNet's bandwidth, so i ask again, why in your right mind would you go with 97 octane when 87 will do?

For me, it's this simple, 87 octane won't do! If you want to use cheap bandwidth do so, however if I ran a data center and/or had the option between tier 1 bandwidth & cogent, I'd go tier 1. If I wanted to go head to head with RS penny hosts or run a large file service I'd go cogent.

Why? When you’re dealing with peoples only source of income (on-line store, other online type service) you use the best. You don't cut costs and use cheap bandwidth. For a hobby/download site, sure. But when you pay the bills with your site, absolutely not! I want the backing of a company I can trust, not a company with a cheap service that's in the hole. A tier 1 provider is more secure and will be around for years. The vision of my service is very clear (to me anyway). Offer a commercial product that companies can trust and rely on. If a customer with a personal site is willing to pay a little more, they get that level of service.

Let me ask you a question, what if cogent died today. What would you do? Move to another cheap bandwidth provider and have the same happen again (maybe), close down or go with a provider that has a secure future?

Bad peering = more hops, higher latency etc as the data is being sent all over the place. If one of your customers wanted to host a game server on a co-located box, guess what, with a ping of 75+, they won't be a customer long! For some things, cheap bandwidth is not a solution, and here is a good example (a game server where latency matters).

When I deal with a company, I look at the service, quality and support THEN the price. If I believe the service, quality & support equal the price. Then I go head and purchase. Most companies just look at the price and hope for the best.

It looks like the 100 Mbps cogent service will double in price. I'm not really sure on this, I could be wrong.

And just to make it clear, I *don't* hate cogent, I just think there are limits to what people should use cogent (and other cheap) bandwidth for that's all. When you lower the price, more people have access to it, and in this case, we now have thousands of unprofessional web hosting companies offering the world for $2/month selling as much as they can without regard or any level of service. They’re simply in it for the quick cash. They’re here this month, and the next month out of business. And there is nothing wrong with using cogent bandwidth either. It just comes down to what the person/customer prefers, a host/provider backed by a cheap network, or a network a bank would use. :D

"http://www.cogentco.com/Fast/elegant_proposition.html
$1000 / month for 100 Mbps"

Does that include unlimited use per month? Or is there a limit on the amount of gigs you and your sites can transfer?

Originally posted by MadCool
"http://www.cogentco.com/Fast/elegant_proposition.html
$1000 / month for 100 Mbps"

Does that include unlimited use per month? Or is there a limit on the amount of gigs you and your sites can transfer?

It's a $1000/month if your not reselling it, if your going to resell it (via web hosting, co-location etc) they charge $3000/month.

I would think it would include unlimited use with all the cogent powered networks offering 300/400 and even 500 GB per server.

Originally posted by MadCool
"http://www.cogentco.com/Fast/elegant_proposition.html
$1000 / month for 100 Mbps"

Does that include unlimited use per month? Or is there a limit on the amount of gigs you and your sites can transfer?

You cant get $1k for 100mbps unless you're an end user, which you're not (none of us would qualify).

Originally posted by porcupine


I say it again, ignorant much?

If you had a ferarri would you drive it to and from work every day? i doubt it, you'd have a more affordable car take your beatings. Why should people pay a premium for a less stable company (fiancially), when they can get everything they need from a decent company like cogent?


Because Cogent is very financially unstable. They currently do not bring in enough revenue to cover even the interest on their loans. What this means, is that they are using borrowed money to make payments on borrowed money. This is sort of like taking a cash advance against your Visa to make the monthly payment. It only works for so long. Also, don't forget that their auditor was (maybe still is) Arther Anderson.

Articles:

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=13641
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=15263

Cogent stock price (expected to be below $1 by the end of the year):

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=COI&d=t

Financials:

http://www.wsrn.com/apps/companyinfo/fund.xpl?s=COI&f=FUND

It is also rated a sell stock, so Wall Street has no confidence in Cogent either:

http://quotes.barchart.com/pl/wsrn/texpert.asp?sym=COI&code=XWSRN

In addition, from a technical standpoint, Cogent's peering is still abysmal, despite the acquisition of PSINet and NetRail (both of which had excellent peering). It seems apparent Cogent had no idea how to integrate the three backbones...and may not ever figure it out.





BTW, you need to read the news. If you did, you wouldn't have suggested UUNet :eek:.

Big difference. UUNET is the largest backbone in the world, and it has the best peering. Some people estimate that it carries 50% of the world's Internet traffic. Even if WorldCom were to file chapter 11, there is a good chance they will emerge from it. Even if they don't there are people salivating to buy it (read the reports about Warren Buffet's $500 investment into Level 3). The UUNET backbone is a money-generating entity -- and it will not be interrupted.

If Cogent fails, who would want it? Look at the problems XO is having recovering from bankruptcy...and they had an okay backbone. Given the mess that Cogent's backbone is in, I doubt they would get any offers...and they it is much more likely they will have to shut down part of their network, rather than emerge whole.

In addition, I am not the only one who feels this way...customer perception is very important. If you search through the archives of Nanog, most are surprise Cogent has lasted this long...who knows how much longer they can last.