I’ve recently completed my migration from Webhost4Life!  Woohoo!  For a long time, I’ve felt a bit captured because they’ve hosted my blog, email for a few domains, etc.  It’s difficult to make the move.

I’ll say this upfront:  if you need $10/mo hosting, it’s hard to beat and easier than hosting at home.  So right away, before I slam webhost4life too much, I understand the cheap price and you can’t really expect the moon.  If you’re hosting your kid’s sports league site, the neighborhood website, etc., it’s a nice option.  But it ends there.

I've been using Webhost4Life since 2004, so I’m a long time customer.  I’ve had a few speed bumps along the way (like getting shut down with no notice due to high volume when I hosted Worldmaps on the site), or arguing over using too much file space when I was still way under the account limit.  Webhost4Life also went through a migration back in February that was a bit painful.  This past weekend, there was a solid 48-72 hour outage that, due to the more than 48 hour response time after I submitted the ticket, it was simply easier to accept the outage and migrate elsewhere.

What bothered me about this outage in particular was that it was clear my files were being messed with.  For example, each of my sites looked a little like this:

Here’s another:

Obviously I last deployed the site back in the migration in late Feb.  I noticed the outage late Friday, 5/7/2010, and it was probably down most of the day.  So sometime earlier that day, my web.config files were messed with.  Not only that, but each of my sites (some of which were legacy, and had no App_Theme / Ajax had these added:

And, even further, my global.asax.cs file was modified and namespace was changed, as if updated by a tool or opened in VS.  Many folders had an App_Themes folder – all new.  Things get a tad more interesting when I crack into specifically what was changed (this is what leads me to believe it’s Webhost4Life, not a hacker, making the changes).  First, this is what my web.config looked like locally … I use 3 databases.  The default/logging databases are the same, the warehouse is my local server (at home) where I store archives of the logging data, where the SQL Server is on the same box:

Once deployed, the Warehouse server isn’t used at all.  I just keep the setting there so the settings are side by side.  When I opened the modified file, I saw this:

My connection strings were modified!  First up, my Warehouse setting was something I only used locally at home – it seems some tool has likely replaced it.  Also, the sql399 site was replaced with VCNSQL86 connection.  When I log into the Webhost4Life control panel, I see that VCNSQL86 is the correct server name – obviously at some point, the name was changed from sql399.  

I don’t have a problem with name changes, but I do have a problem with the files being changed for me and not being notified of a change.  In fact, I think a better approach is to just let my app die than modify it for me.  Shared hosting or not, I think someone going into the files without explicit permission is a violation.  Besides, like most developers, I work locally and FTP my changes to the site, so any changes they have would be overwritten next time I deploy.

Even though I redeployed the applications, all sites were still broken.  Something still wasn’t working … the subdomain to folder feature wasn’t working correctly which prevented the sites from starting.  I know the site was working Thursday, so it had to be related to all these changes.   After more than 48 hours, I did finally get a reply back on my original ticket, and the reply sums it up: 

I have checked the domain 'structuretoobig.com' and sub domain 'blog.structuretoobig.com' and noticed that it is not pointing to our server.

I’ve asked for more details, so we’ll see what happens. 

I’m on a FAIL kick lately, and this one deserves a post.  I used to be a huge fan WinRAR, a file compression tool that was easy to use and supported a wide array of options like file spanning and encryption.

I’m all for integrated ads – that is, ads that leverage the same font/color scheme of the site.  Now, both of these ads in the page below are for the same product, RegistryBooster 2009.  The ad in the top right is obviously an ad, but it’s pretty close to crossing the line.  What do I mean by crossing the line, and how integrated is too integrated?  Crossing the line is when there’s a strong likelihood users will accidentally or inadvertently click on a link, not realizing it’s an ad. 

The second arrow (the ad in the middle) crosses that line.  While it’s true that it’s marked as “advertisement,” it’s done in a clever enough way that attempts to trick the user to click on the link (let’s face it: we usually skim pages).  This is because the placement of the wording would make users feel that clicking “download now” is actually downloaded the intended WinRAR application.  Further, the green “run system scan” link implies I’ve clicked this link before, and consciously or unconsciously, we feel safer in clicking previously visited links.

So what do you think?  I’m not claiming this is the worst I’ve seen, but it’s enough that makes me question the integrity of both RARLabs and Uniblue (makers of RegistryBooster). 

In general I try to avoid overly political/critical posts but in this case, I’m making an exception.  Recently, Time Warner Cable (TWC) decided to expand some metered bandwidth trials, and one market they decided to test it in is Greensboro, NC (my market).   This has gone around in the press (online, newspapers, and even on the evening news) so much, it’s hard to not know about this even in other markets.  Clearly, going from an “unlimited” plan to a metered plan will raise a few eyebrows (and a few protestors), and TWC in this case didn’t do their already low customer service ratings any favors. 

To recap the situation (briefly), the current internet plans are basically unlimited, with a few different speed tiers.  The proposed change meant that caps be instituted on the amount of bandwidth users could consume, ranging from roughly 5GB to 40GB per month, with overages of $1 to $2 per GB.   That’s pretty shocking. 

The good news is that TWC has decided to temporarily shelve its plans.  The disturbing part is the apparent lack of understanding on Time Warner’s part, insisting the problem is a lack of understanding from the consumers:

Time Warner Cable (NYSE:TWC) today announced it would alter plans to test Consumption Based Billing, shelving the trials while the customer education process continues.

Time Warner Cable Chief Executive Officer Glenn Britt said, “It is clear from the public response over the last two weeks that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about our plans to roll out additional tests on Consumption Based Billing.”

Actually, I think the only misunderstanding is with the TWC executives, and any victory of having TWC shelving these plans is likely to be short lived. 

So, let’s begin with the crux of the problem.   This is my bandwidth usage over the past few months (note, April is only half over):

The router firmware I’m using (Tomato) has the option to keep these numbers.  TWC said it will be providing a “gas gauge” so users can see how much bandwidth they are using (even though they’ve temporarily ditched the metered plan).  Having these numbers (caps or no caps) is a good thing.

I consider my usage moderate but reasonable for what I pay.  I work quite a bit from home, download the latest bits and connect via VPN.  I stream some Netflix, use LiveMeeting and do quite a bit of videoconferencing, play some online games from time to time, and … use VOIP and DirecTV VOD (more on that in a second).  I certainly don’t consider my usage abusive.  But under the original proposal from TWC, I’d be exceeding my $60/mo allotment by around 35+ GB, increasing my bill to nearly $100.   TWC eventually increased the caps nominally to 60 GB for their top tier (which I’m on), which means my bill would instead be around $80/mo.  That’s too high for the value I’m getting. 

And, this will only increase over time due to more and more content delivered online.  To address my earlier point, this definitely smacks of net neutrality (good article on that here).  Clearly, I’d be facing a decision where I’d need to stop using DirecTV/Netflix VOD and my VOIP provider, in favor or TWC’s own VOIP and VOD offering, since – even though they are more expensive – would end up being cheaper as they wouldn’t count against my bandwidth cap.

Of course, TWC points out (here and here) that usage is on the rise, and “something must be done” … right?  Er, no, at least not in this fashion.  As a technologist, I’ll say this clearly:  I’m not _against_ consumption based billing -- if it’s reasonable and not abusive.  But even though usage is increasing, costs are dropping rapidly as well.  And it’s pretty obvious why Time Warner chose the markets they did for these trials:  they say it’s because the markets have a strong demographic mix that suites the trials, but the reality is, the markets have no competition – they wouldn’t do this in FiOS / Cablevision country, I assure you.

Since TWC likes to use so many apples to oranges comparisons, I’ll offer my own: the metered trial that TWC proposed is similar to having an unlimited cell phone plan, only to be told that – on the maximum plan – you’d be capped at 60 minutes per month with 25 cent per minute overages.   For this reason, cell carriers have a large array of plans to work with whatever you need – and they also offer free weekends/evenings (that is, cheaper or free during non-peak time). 

I like this analogy because my wife uses only minutes per month on her cell phone, needs no data, text, etc.  So the fact that she pays less and I pay more is desirable – and in this spirit, I support tiered pricing.   Suppose you have a second home and just want high speed internet for very light usage – wouldn’t it be nice to pay $15 or $20/mo for such a plan?   Or, perhaps you’d like a second line as a backup (one DSL, one cable).  Maybe you only check email and don’t need anything else.  As a power user, I’m stymied that TWC offers a max 512K upload and I’d certainly be willing to pay a bit more for larger upload.

So what is the right way TWC can institute a tiered system?  Here’s what I think:

1)  Stop insulting the intelligence of the community.  Certainly there are many non-technical users, but the majority of those who spoke out against the caps are generally more technically inclined. 

2)  Start offering the “gas gauge” so users can gain insight into their bandwidth usage.  Put it on the bill.  Even without caps, this is good info.

3)  KEEP THE UNLIMITED PLAN IN PLACE AS IS, but begin offering cheaper, lower usage tiers.  Allow customers to select that $15/mo, low-speed/volume plan if they’d like.  If users in these tiers consume more data and go over, cap the fees at the unlimited price.  That way, no user will ever pay more than they are paying today.  This sends the message that tiered pricing can work and save consumers money. 

4)  Start using some of those profits to roll out DOCSIS 3.  Start giving some reasonable, more cutting edge speeds.  When FIOS/Cablevision customers can get 50/5 plans (or more) for less, a 384k upload with a low cap is barely a notch above dial up and is embarrassing.   Before instituting any other caps that may make service more expensive, have added value/speeds such as DOCSIS 3.

5)  Tiers need to have reasonable caps.  The original 40GB (then 60GB) max caps are WAY too low.  A “standard user” tier, at an absolute minimum, should be at least 100GB, and I think 125GB or 150GB is more reasonable: low volume tiers (1GB, 5GB, etc.) are fine, as long there are higher tiers for those who want them.  These numbers can vary if the overages are more reasonable, too -- $1 per GB is an insane markup, particularly in the age of VOD and online rentals.  A standard tier of 125GB should be roughly 25 cents per GB, at most.   Power tiers (turbo and up) should offer 175GB, 200GB, and 250GB caps at various prices.   I could see an “ultra” tier of the fastest speed they can give, with 250GB caps, 25 cent overages, for $89/mo.   While TWC may think these caps are high, create it with the idea that these numbers will work for a couple of years before needing adjustment and just look at what the competition can offer without caps. 

In any event, create plans that cater to everyone.  I always wonder who needs the cell phone plan with 10,000 minutes per month with free weekends, but hey, someone is buying it.

6)  During low usage times (weekends, mid-day, etc.) turn off the meter and make those times known.   Some of us who use moderate amounts of bandwidth do so off hours.  (I have a few apps that do backups and what not at 4 am, for example).  “Reward” off-peak usage or meter only peak usage.  Let’s not pretend that it’s cumulative usage of the network that is a concern – it’s concurrent load.   That’s why phone carriers vary the pricing the way they do.

7)  You really want to wow the customer?  Auto-adjust the customer plan based on usage.  Maybe I travelled 3 weeks this month and had no usage – why note cut me a break?  Not willing to do that?  Offer roll-over “minutes.”  

Would I rather not have any tiered pricing?  Probably.  But, if it can be done in such a way that it offers me more value (that is, higher speeds, priority routing, etc.) I’d be supportive, even if I had to pay a little more.  But to pay more (in some cases, more than double: the 10/1 unlimited plan would essentially be $175/mo!) for the same?  No thanks. 

Create an exceptional value for the consumer, and it will work.

Every company at some point makes a mistake (Microsoft has made their fair share).  Netflix has been wildly successful and the rise of online streaming will only continue.  But I can’t help but think that Netflix may have made a mistake here.  

Like many people, we’ve (my family) been looking hard at the cost of TV and other non-essentials, and that’s why we got a Netflix subscription.  It was (overall) a good deal.   But back in October, Netflix increased the rates for blu-ray movies:

This is reasonable, but it does cause some grumbling in the community.    But now, 6 months later:

Wow!  Another price increase?  Not just a small one, either -- one that is about 25% of the plan cost to begin with. 

This is a blunder on many levels.  First, just as they say “cut once and cut deep” with layoffs, the same is true for rate increases.  This one now pushes many plans into the $20/mo range, and I’m sure people will drop or change their plans in response.  If the comments over on the Netflix blog are to be taken as any indication (over 300 posts as I write this, nearly all negative), it will be interesting to watch their response. 

The problem that many in the comments have stated and what I've heard from people I’ve talked with is:  many people with blu ray access receive a small number of their movies on blu ray.  Many titles are simply not available, and many prefer the portability of DVDs … I only get blu ray for blockbuster movies where the hi-def really makes the experience.

So, what happens next?   For me, the value proposition drops.  It can be cheaper to get 2 plans, one with blu ray access, the other without, since I never need more than 1 blu ray out at a time.   So, we’re likely going to go from 3 out unlimited (w/ blu ray) to 3 out (w/o blu ray) … and then, because I’m not really satisfied with that and would like to see some blu rays from time to time, drop the plan to 2 and then altogether, since I’m not getting the value out of it anymore. 

I’m not sure what the right solution is here – perhaps a “pay as you go” model.  I’ll be looking forward to seeing how they react.

Maybe it’s because I just returned from Vegas.  Maybe it’s because I used to live in Idaho.  Maybe it’s because I’m not part of the 20% who can’t locate the US on a world map, but geez, how do graphics like this get on air?   

I've noticed a disturbing trend lately and not quite sure if it's just me, or happening more in the industry.  Or, maybe it's because my credit card, for the 2nd time in less than 2 years, was compromised by someone (Visa won't tell me who -- and with today's BI, it's pretty easy to figure out I would image). 

So, I'm seeing a number of sites on the internet not using SSL when capturing PII.  Clearly, this is crucial for credit card transactions, but it's also important for PII.  Of course, SSL only encrypts the traffic between you and the domain, and ensures the domain is who it says it is -- what the host does with your data is out of your hands.  It's a little like going into the kitchen at a restaurant. :)

The other day I was lamenting with a colleague about my lame internet connection while we were playing around with the cool sharing features in Office Communicator.  (Bottom line was my connection chokes on camera and desktop sharing.)  The best I can do on my internet connection is, sadly, 512k upload:



The chart is fairly amusing on various levels but seeing that I'm out of luck in going beyond 512k, I decide to contact customer support to see if there's anything I can do.  Heck, even 768k upload would open a lot of opportunities.

But when I go to ask a question on the support page, I see this page:



No SSL?   No credit card information but surely enough PII to make me feel SSL should be required here.  Now, this scenario is a bit different since I'm a customer, so I did a traceroute to see where my data was going:



So, fortunately, as long as I'm sending the data from my house, it seems my data is reasonably secure as it's staying within Time Warner's domain and frankly, that's the best you can get from SSL. 

I didn't submit the data, but it made me realize how many sites I've run into that don't use SSL, or access points that are insecure.  I recently permanently borrowed Glen's HTC Touch Pro, and it has built in wifi.  I left it on and as I drove around, I was completely stunned at home many times the phone would ding that a new wireless network was available -- and most were insecure. 

So is this my imagination, or is security really this bad?