Cheap Bandwidth?

[Public_Enemy]

Hey Guys, I got approached by this guy about buying his extra bandwidth that he doesn't use, he's got a 100mb pipe.

He's looking for a few ppl to take up some of it, what would you consider a good price for say, 1MBS worth of traffic?

Also, would anyone be interested in coming in?

Thanks!

[SpeakEasy]

He really shouldnt have committed to a full 100 meg line
but anyway your question requires more info ie what provider is the BW? and support with it?? will he renew the BW after his current contract is up??

[Public_Enemy]

Okay, he tells me it's a tier one provider, so really fast, and he just started this new contract. He already has another 100meg pipe, and thought he needed another. Which he doesn't.

Does 100 bucks for 1mb/s sound good? That's like what? 700MB of transfer traffic right?

[Herb Kornfield]

1mpbs = 320GB.

Where is the BW terminating at? ( colo facility?, his premesis? )

[Disco_Stu]

If you only need 1 mbps then buy a T1 line for your house

[Magg]

In the real world 1Mbps = about 200gb of actual transfer.

[Public_Enemy]

The bandwidth is at his colo.

For 100 bucks, it sounds to be a good deal. A T1 into my house would cost way more.

[Magg]

You're just trying to sell bandwidth for your company or something you douche.


$100/mbps is a rip off - you cant even tell us who the carriers are, or what the colo facility is.


if anyone wants bandwidth, I'll offer it to them at $60/mbps with internap, mci, level3, nac, savvis, reach and globix in bgp4.

[FiberNexus]

A) First of all, what are you going to be using this bandwidth for?
B) Ask him what providers he has for his 100mbps - if it's cogent, then you're getting ripped off.
C) I can provide you far better pricing on colo/bandwidth - and I can almost guarantee it'll be better bandwidth, as we have 6 major backbone providers.

If you're interested, please contact me via ICQ, or [email protected].

[Public_Enemy]

Not mine, I was actually trying to see what the pricing is. Talk about being an asshole. I wouldn't buy from you just for the insult. But thanks for the price, I'm gonna go back to him now and let him know what he has to beat.

[Brad Mitchell]

Originally posted by Magg
In the real world 1Mbps = about 200gb of actual transfer.

It's possible but far from being true across the board.

Did you get your site design from templatemonster?

lol

It's not an unreasonable thread there wasn't any reason for you to jump in here and start spamming your shit. Besides, I'd guess you're just a reseller of someone else yourself.

Cheers,

Brad

[Magg]

Uh, no its not from templatemonster, it cost a couple thousand to have it custom made douchebag.


www.webprosys.com made it - hes worked with ceonex before on contracted projects.


SinEmpire - The average webmaster will not get more than 200GB or so out of 1Mbps.

320GB is the technical equivalent but you wont get that.

[FiberNexus]

*Poke* Public Enemy, what's your ICQ?

[Brad Mitchell]

ok first things first

I asked if it was done by template monster because it looks like their work and they are notorious for NOT using pictures of real servers on their website - just like yours doesn't use photos of rack mount servers.

If you paid a few thousand you definitely overpaid, you should try Twin Dreams next time.. or perhaps ask those designers to use photos of actual servers.

With regard to the "REAL" usage with 1 megabit on average being 200+- gigs... man, eat this MRTG chart, this client got 327 gigs out on .98/mbit average usage.



Cheers,

Brad

[Magg]

I did say, the *average* webmaster would only get 200gb or so out of it.


It is of course possible to, but with normal traffic and usage patterns itll most likely be 200gb.


And where were we speaking about 1Mbps on average?

[FiberNexus]

http://twindreams.com/display.php

Is that them?

They don't look very good... maybe they're cheap?

Or maybe you were talking about someone else? I went to check it out as I'm *ALWAYS* looking into getting my many sites re-designed lol.

[Magg]

www.twindreams.com ?


BTW those servers on the site were custom 3d made at additional cost.. (the ones in the flash and theres more which you cant see because I disabled the dedicated server order pages)

[Public_Enemy]

Thanks everyone for the help and pricing. I got a better deal than I expected. I usually don't deal with tier 1 type of bandwidth, mostly overseas stuff, so the pricing info helped a bunch.

[Public_Enemy]

Originally posted by FiberNexus
*Poke* Public Enemy, what's your ICQ?

dont' have icq, email me please [email protected]

Thanks.

[FiberNexus]

E-mail is on the way, thank you.

[Brad Mitchell]

FiberNexus -

I can't speak to the samples on their web site but I'm sure if you ICQ sharky he'll show you some nice designs. If I'm not mistaken, they're busy all the time with orders and I wouldn't be surprised if they simply haven't made the time to add more samples to their web site.

Magg -

When someone is talking about the "theoretical" usage on 1 megabit, they would only be talking about on average. Obviously not 95th percentile. Why would you have "special" server renderings done instead of showing clients what you're actually using? That's shady!

Brad

[Magg]

You're a dumbass for trying to use this as a way to promote yourself.

[VeriSexy]

Originally posted by Public_Enemy
Okay, he tells me it's a tier one provider, so really fast, and he just started this new contract. He already has another 100meg pipe, and thought he needed another. Which he doesn't.

Does 100 bucks for 1mb/s sound good? That's like what? 700MB of transfer traffic right?

Dude some guy on another board is offering MB/s of bandwidth for $2000 a month (Non Cogent) $100/mbs is not good

[VeriSexy]

Originally posted by Magg
www.twindreams.com ?


BTW those servers on the site were custom 3d made at additional cost.. (the ones in the flash and theres more which you cant see because I disabled the dedicated server order pages)

I think http://www.foundrynap.com/ looks great

[Magg]

Just so you guys dont get conned into crap bandwidth, here are the top leaders of crap bandwidth:


Williams
HE.net
Yipes
Cogent


From worst to not so worst.

[VeriSexy]

Originally posted by Magg
Its HE.net which is worse then Cogent

Weird, then why does Thehun.net use He.net? I think He.net is better than Cogent

[Magg]

Because its cheap


They offload almost all, if not all, transit to Wiltel which is pure crap

[VeriSexy]

10 50 ms 50 ms 51 ms 50 ms 50 ms 51 ms 188 ms 206 ms 50 ms 51 ms 50 ms 50 ms sntcca2lce1-gige7-0.wcg.net [64.200.149.21]
11 56 ms 50 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 52 ms 50 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms sntcca1wcx1-pos9-0.net [64.200.240.217]
12 52 ms 51 ms 52 ms 51 ms 52 ms 53 ms 52 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 52 ms sntcca4lcx1-pos12-0.wcg.net [64.200.149.46]
13 50 ms 50 ms 50 ms 50 ms 51 ms 51 ms 50 ms 51 ms 50 ms 51 ms 50 ms 50 ms sntcca4lce1-hurricane-gige.wcg.net [64.200.150.106]
14 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 50 ms 51 ms 52 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms pos2-3.gsr12416.pao.he.net [66.220.13.42]
15 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 51 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 51 ms 52 ms pos2-0.gsr12012.fmt.he.net [64.62.249.121]
16 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms powerapp1.ehpg.net [64.71.165.210]


Looks good to me. Thehun.net would not trust his servers to something cheap and not reliable

[VeriSexy]

Here are my pings to your server

10 112 ms 113 ms 112 ms 113 ms 112 ms so-0-0-0.bbr1.NewYork1.Level3.net [64.159.0.234]
11 113 ms 113 ms 112 ms 114 ms 114 ms so-9-0.hsa1.Newark1.Level3.net [4.68.113.46]
12 105 ms 105 ms 105 ms 104 ms 105 ms [4.78.136.6]
13 103 ms 104 ms 104 ms 104 ms 104 ms 626.gig3-6.cr1.nyc01.hahahahahaha.net [207.99.54.141]
14 104 ms 104 ms 105 ms 105 ms 104 ms 626.gig1-3.cr2.jrcy01.hahahahahaha.net [64.237.32.25]
15 105 ms 104 ms 105 ms 105 ms 104 ms 626.gig1-1.cr1.jrcy01.hahahahahaha.net [64.237.32.54]
16 104 ms 104 ms 105 ms 105 ms 104 ms jrcy1.foundrynapcom-hahahahahaha.com [64.237.32.10]
17 107 ms 105 ms 105 ms 104 ms 104 ms web.foundrynap.com [66.55.137.82]

hahahahahaha = C H O O P A

[Magg]

www.webhostingtalk.com


Go to the colocation forum; ask about HE.net

[Magg]

Originally posted by VeriSexy
Here are my pings to your server

10 112 ms 113 ms 112 ms 113 ms 112 ms so-0-0-0.bbr1.NewYork1.Level3.net [64.159.0.234]
11 113 ms 113 ms 112 ms 114 ms 114 ms so-9-0.hsa1.Newark1.Level3.net [4.68.113.46]
12 105 ms 105 ms 105 ms 104 ms 105 ms [4.78.136.6]
13 103 ms 104 ms 104 ms 104 ms 104 ms 626.gig3-6.cr1.nyc01.hahahahahaha.net [207.99.54.141]
14 104 ms 104 ms 105 ms 105 ms 104 ms 626.gig1-3.cr2.jrcy01.hahahahahaha.net [64.237.32.25]
15 105 ms 104 ms 105 ms 105 ms 104 ms 626.gig1-1.cr1.jrcy01.hahahahahaha.net [64.237.32.54]
16 104 ms 104 ms 105 ms 105 ms 104 ms jrcy1.foundrynapcom-hahahahahaha.com [64.237.32.10]
17 107 ms 105 ms 105 ms 104 ms 104 ms web.foundrynap.com [66.55.137.82]

You do know you are probably on the west coast, or someplace far off?


Here are my pings:

Reply from 66.55.137.82: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=50
Reply from 66.55.137.82: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=50
Reply from 66.55.137.82: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=50
Reply from 66.55.137.82: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=50

[VeriSexy]

Originally posted by Magg
www.webhostingtalk.com


Go to the colocation forum; ask about HE.net

Dude if I know about the $2000 deal I know about webhostingtalk. I been on He.net for a long time also

[VeriSexy]

Originally posted by Magg
You do know you are probably on the west coast, or someplace far off?


Here are my pings:

Reply from 66.55.137.82: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=50
Reply from 66.55.137.82: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=50
Reply from 66.55.137.82: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=50
Reply from 66.55.137.82: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=50

Yes, Westcoast. What are your pings to TheHun server?

[Magg]

Reply from 64.71.165.210: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=47
Reply from 64.71.165.210: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=47
Reply from 64.71.165.210: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=47
Reply from 64.71.165.210: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=47

[lallang]

Hurricane Electric (HE.net) is IMHO, a very respectable provider that doesn't skimp on quality equipment or customer service.

They've always had rock solid bandwidth, delivered over their own nationwide network. They're no internap, but definitely orders of magnitude superior to cogent.

[Magg]

heres from that box you were pinging of mine

root@webserver [~]# ping 64.71.165.210
PING 64.71.165.210 (64.71.165.210) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=79.0 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=78.8 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=79.1 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=79.0 ms

[Pornwolf]

$19.90

At least that's what you would pay per meg at Webair for the 10mbs unlimited plan.

[Magg]

Originally posted by lallang
Hurricane Electric (HE.net) is IMHO, a very respectable provider that doesn't skimp on quality equipment or customer service.

They've always had rock solid bandwidth, delivered over their own nationwide network. They're no internap, but definitely orders of magnitude superior to cogent.

OK, now tell me what knowledge you have that you can stand by that statement of utter crap?

You know their Fremont location gets DDOSed daily and has had many downtimes.

Doesnt skimp on quality equipment? What about that 6 hour long(i forget exactly how long) down-time they had only 1 or 2 months ago... not including all the ddos downtimes they have had....

OR the fact that a ton of their IPs are listed in spam databases and HE.net isnt doing anything about it.

[Magg]

Originally posted by VeriSexy
10 50 ms 50 ms 51 ms 50 ms 50 ms 51 ms 188 ms 206 ms 50 ms 51 ms 50 ms 50 ms sntcca2lce1-gige7-0.wcg.net [64.200.149.21]
11 56 ms 50 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 52 ms 50 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms sntcca1wcx1-pos9-0.net [64.200.240.217]
12 52 ms 51 ms 52 ms 51 ms 52 ms 53 ms 52 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 52 ms sntcca4lcx1-pos12-0.wcg.net [64.200.149.46]
13 50 ms 50 ms 50 ms 50 ms 51 ms 51 ms 50 ms 51 ms 50 ms 51 ms 50 ms 50 ms sntcca4lce1-hurricane-gige.wcg.net [64.200.150.106]
14 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 50 ms 51 ms 52 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms pos2-3.gsr12416.pao.he.net [66.220.13.42]
15 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 51 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 51 ms 52 ms pos2-0.gsr12012.fmt.he.net [64.62.249.121]
16 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms powerapp1.ehpg.net [64.71.165.210]

What about those high spikes I have highlighted?

Where on the west coast are you?

Arizona/Nevada/Seattle?

Ping JupiterHosting.com and tell me what you get

[VeriSexy]

Originally posted by Magg
What about those high spikes I have highlighted?

Where on the west coast are you?

Arizona/Nevada/Seattle?

Ping JupiterHosting.com and tell me what you get

8 32 ms 32 ms 32 ms 32 ms so-5-0-0-0.gar2.Seattle1.Level3.net [65.57.72.9]
9 33 ms 33 ms 32 ms 32 ms so-0-0-0.gar1.Seattle1.Level3.net [209.247.8.161]
10 33 ms 33 ms 32 ms 32 ms so-7-0-0.mp1.Seattle1.Level3.net [64.159.1.81]
11 49 ms 49 ms 49 ms 48 ms so-1-0-0.bbr1.SanJose1.Level3.net [209.247.9.118]
12 50 ms 49 ms 49 ms 49 ms ge-6-0.ipcolo2.SanJose1.Level3.net [64.159.2.4]
13 50 ms 49 ms 49 ms 50 ms [4.79.42.10]
14 50 ms 50 ms 80 ms 80 ms E1-1.BI8-2-TELCO3-COLO7-SPSC.jupiterhosting.com [64.255.167.10]
15 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms 51 ms www.jupiterhosting.com [64.255.160.20]

[VeriSexy]

Originally posted by Pornwolf
$19.90

At least that's what you would pay per meg at Webair for the 10mbs unlimited plan.

Besides the setup fee, that's a pretty good deal

[FiberNexus]

I used to have a rack with HE.net - it's decent, nothing more. Bandwidth is not high quality, yet the service was fairly excellent.

However, the networks listed by Magg are examples of the lower end bandwidth providers.

Check out some of the prices on the "high end" bandwidth providers. What a difference. lol.

[Brad Mitchell]

This is a funny thread!

So Magg why don't you tell everyone exactly about your relationship with C H O O P A? Making it look like you actually own a network infrastructure isn't honest.

Oh, and by the way, I'll be sure to call Switch and Data tomorrow to let you know that you have photos of the inside of the colo - that's a violation of the terms of service. Oh, that's right, you don't actually have an agreement with any of the bandwidth carriers or the facility because you're just a reseller.



amateurs.

Cheers,

Brad

[VeriSexy]

Originally posted by SinEmpire
This is a funny thread!

So Magg why don't you tell everyone exactly about your relationship with C H O O P A? Making it look like you actually own a network infrastructure isn't honest.

Oh, and by the way, I'll be sure to call Switch and Data tomorrow to let you know that you have photos of the inside of the colo - that's a violation of the terms of service. Oh, that's right, you don't actually have an agreement with any of the bandwidth carriers or the facility because you're just a reseller.



amateurs.

Cheers,

Brad

Well everyone is really just a reseller of the major networks. There's only a handful of big guys that really own fiber.

[Magg]

Tell me where I told anyone I owned a network infrastructure?
Even on our site, I specify we buy bandwidth from an upstream provider - no where do I say that we have contracts direct with the carriers.

Although we do operate our own internal and edge infrastructure - including our own switches and routers.

Go ahead and call Switch and Data considering that isnt even the datacenter those pictures are from. (smartass)

Secondly, those pictures are direct from an executive sales rep at the company with which the datacenter we're in is.

(I wont tell you the name of the datacenter company considering your a complete jerk off)


You're trying to take jabs at me when I have done nothing to provoke you.

Not to mention, you keep trying to insinuate things out of things I never said or using words to manipulate the situation.

How sleazy! Do you think this kind of attitude helps gain customers?


Jeez.

[FiberNexus]

Time to separate you boys.

*Stands in-between them*

lol.

Seriously though Sin, enough taking shots at Magg. And let?s just walk away from the thread.

[Los]

well if anyone is interested here are my pings to thehun and jupiterhosting.

-bash-2.05b$ ping www.thehun.net
PING www.thehun.net (64.71.165.210): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=0 ttl=58 time=3.435 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=2.989 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=3.094 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=2.987 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=4 ttl=58 time=3.367 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=5 ttl=58 time=3.177 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=6 ttl=58 time=2.850 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=7 ttl=58 time=3.738 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=8 ttl=58 time=3.120 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=9 ttl=58 time=3.379 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=10 ttl=58 time=2.891 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=11 ttl=58 time=3.154 ms
^C
--- www.thehun.net ping statistics ---
12 packets transmitted, 12 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 2.850/3.182/3.738/0.246 ms




-bash-2.05b$ ping www.jupiterhosting.com
PING www.jupiterhosting.com (64.255.160.20): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=2.542 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=2.355 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=2.453 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=2.357 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=2.438 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=2.367 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=2.493 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=2.450 ms
^C
--- www.jupiterhosting.com ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 2.355/2.432/2.542/0.064 ms
-bash-2.05b$

[Brad Mitchell]

The mistake about thinking you were in S&D I apologize about, it was my understanding that was where your upstream c h o o p a is.

I find your site to be misleading, you just admitted that the datacenter pictures aren't of your cage or cabinets. Being honest is as much about what you don't say as what you do say.

When you are responsible for people's livelihoods as a host, I think it is important to give them as much information as possible so that they can make an informed decision. So yes, when you put yourself out there as a top shelf host on a public forum like this I'm likely to point out some of the many things that differentiate your company from larger hosts such as the advertisers on this board.

Otherwise, I wish you both luck. The hosting market is large and if your clients are satisfied at the end of the day that is all that matters.

Cheers,

Brad

[Magg]

Brad -

You'll notice I never claim that the pictures are anything of our own equipment.

The only comments I make about them on the site are, "Datacenter Pictures".

Anyways, I thank you for the encourangement.
We are only one ladder step lower than you are as hosting providers, and we do provide a feature added experience. One that you wouldnt receive going straight to choo pa so I believe the experience and hosting with us is a differant one.

[Big Ray]

Ohh Yeah! Check this ping out to www.jupiterhosting.com..


www# ping www.jupiterhosting.com
PING www.jupiterhosting.com (64.255.160.20): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.062 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.047 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.033 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.041 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.033 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.035 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.037 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.044 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.040 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.042 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.035 ms
^C
--- www.jupiterhosting.com ping statistics ---
11 packets transmitted, 11 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.033/0.041/0.062/0.008 ms