The CoreNetworks.net (fixed) Scam
- May 10th, 2012
- Posted in Networking
- By كارما
- Write comment
UPDATE CoreNetworks.net has responded and reacted to my criticisms below. Please read the comments on this article to see our exchange.
It has been 30 days since I first told you about CoreNetworks’ unfortunate bandwidth test file placement, which they have still not bothered to correct. Against my better judgement I decided to give them a second chance this morning when, upon configuring my order for 100mbit/s port (+$10) and 3300GB (+$55) add-on I was surprised with this error:
NOTICE: You cannot select 3300 GB transfer and 100Mbps transfer. Your selection has been updated.
Well, why not? That doesn’t seem to make much sense. Since they called the 100 meg port “transfer” and the amount of bandwidth “transfer” as well I assumed some dolt that didn’t know what he was doing was behind this glitch in the order process. So I called.
“3300GB is by definition an unlimited 10mbps port”
In the same breath their rep told me:
- I couldn’t get more than the 2000GB package plus per-GB overages on 100mbit/s despite the fact that they could “technically” give 3300GB to 10mbps port users
- I guess we are to assume their network is so poorly constructed the extra TB at 100mbit/s would crush them
- If you went with the 10mbps port and the $55 1.3T add-on (3300GB package) the only way to get your money’s worth would be to saturate the connection 100%, 24/7, all month long.
- If 3300GB is synonymous with an unlimited 10mbps port we’re working in terms of egress traffic only
Let’s verify the math to make sure I’m not jumping to any conclusions:
Seconds in a month: 2629743.83
Bits in 3300GB: 28346784153600
Bits per second: 10779294.9
Mbits per second: 10.2799367 (binary) 10.7792949 (decimal)
The fact is no matter how you slice your megabits they are selling you more transit than you can possibly use on a 10mbit/s port. Even if we start with a decimal gigabyte you would have to transmit at 39Kbit/s faster than your port speed all month long just to reach your quota.
It’s not just false advertising. It’s a scam.
Made worse by the fact that their FAQ misconstrues the truth:
What type of connection will I have?
This depends on the type of connection you choose. All servers are connected to 10Mbps switch ports (100Mbps ports are available for certain plans). You are able to select flat-rate capped bandwidth on a per-Mbps basis, or you could opt for burstable metered bandwidth. We make both options available to help you find exactly what you’re looking for. You can upgrade from a 10Mbps port to a 100Mbps port for an added $10/month. This does not change your allowed data transfer amount, and care should be taken to avoid unexpected overages if you decide on this option.
It’s also interesting to note that “flat-rate capped bandwidth on a per-Mbps basis” no longer seems to be available (it was when I was with them aeons ago).
Despite all the nice things I’ve said about their support, their level of sloppiness and shadiness makes CoreNetworks.net inadequate for serious hosting.
Yes, you pointed out our bandwidth test files were hosted on a system that was throttling their connection speed, and we appreciate that and have remedied the issue.
There may be some confusion on the bandwidth options, we thought they were clear, but have modified some of the text in our FAQ to better describe current offerings. To put it simply, those who use the most sustained bandwidth must pay for it. Our total transfer permitted in each package is listed, and we provide certain upgrade packages up-to 3,300GB/mo @ 10Mbps port speed, and up-to 2,000GB/mo at 100Mb port speed. That’s pretty much it.
If you want to look at cost, and why we do it this way, I can elaborate. Say your server uses a sustained 10Mbps for 48 hours. Lets put our cost of bandwidth at a *low* $5/Mbit, that traffic will increase our cost for your bandwidth on your server alone by 5*10=$50. Now let’s bump your port speed up to 100Mbps and do the same cost calculation 5*100=$500 cost in bandwidth just for your server, which you are paying nowhere near for your entire package let alone bandwidth. If you would like us to switch your server to 95th percentile billing like the transit connections get billed at, we could certainly accommodate that, unfortunately you would pay full-rate if you utilized your full connection speed for more than 36 hours the entire month. We give you those same 48 hours at full line-rate of transfer bundled with your server. If you’d like us to give away more bandwidth for free without covering our costs, I’m afraid we’re not currently willing to do that. If there is just some confusion on what we are offering, and why, I apologize for the confusion.
Regards,
-Russell
Indeed, as of today it looks like you have fixed the test file placement.
If there is confusion I’m afraid it’s on your part, it is not the cost of the bandwidth that is the issue but the fact that you offer what would require MORE THAN full utilization on a 10mbit/s port and at the same time refuse to provide the same add-on for 100mbit/s port users.
I realize the 2T quota is there to protect you from somone using 100mbit/s sustained for 2 days. Your math is good for illustrative purposes but is oversimplified; any time we are dealing with 95th percentile we are looking at shades of grey. This is not a realistic usage pattern, especially when the objective is to avoid overages. I’m not aware of any sites that are active for only 2 days of the month.
I’m not asking for 100mbit/s port unlimited. I’m asking for 100mbit/s port with the cheap 3300GB upgrade instead of paying per-GB overages after 2T. There is no reason you can’t offer the same deal to 100mbit/s users that you do to 10mbit/s users when THE SAME AMOUNT OF TRANSFER is used in the end and could actually represent less than 10mbit/s at 95th percentile anyway – other than the fact that you never expect a 10mbit/s user to ever fully use a 3.3T quota, which is the reason I’m crying foul.
I could bump your tranfer costs up with the 2T allotment sustained alone, the extra 1.3T is not going to kill you – once averaged with the rest of your traffic. It doesn’t matter what my 95th percentile is, it matters how my usage pattern affects yours. If I use only 1T at 100mbit/s during peak hours I am affecting your 95th percentile much worse than, say, 2T at 100mbit/s during the off-hours.
Defining your quotas based on individual 95th is faulty logic. Any time you buy traffic in bulk then sell it individually (at 95th or GB quota) you are opening yourself up to fluxuations. Additionally, I would have to shoot my entire quota in one go to significantly affect your costs – but then I would be out of bandwidth for the rest of the month. Whether I use 10mbit/s sustained all month or 1mbit/s with 40mbit/s spikes your combined 95th percentile is likely going to be affected roughly the same way as long as I am mindful of the quota.
To demonstrate how the individual 95th percentile logic is faulty consider that if I were to just break 5% at 100mbit/s then stop utilizing, the overages would not be enough to cover the cost that I have incurred – you would NEED me to keep using 100mbit/s all month just to get your money’s worth for the 100mbit/s you are going to be charged for regardless, nevermind recoup the loss. Fortunately, even this scenario is mitigated by the fact that I am not the only client drawing on your connection and my long burst merely contributes to the already up-and-down overall traffic pattern; if I were to use 100mbit/s all month long it would actually serve to bump your real, combined 95th percentile by fully 100mbit/s. The longer it runs the worse it gets; my personal 5% does not necessarily translate into a directly proportional increase in your 95th percentile.
I don’t want a 100mbit/s port because I want to use 100mbit/s ALL THE TIME, or even 5% of the time. I want a 100mbit/s port so if needed I can serve two dozen video streams all at once now and then, and I want the transfer upgrade to make sure I don’t go over my quota. If I have a 10mbit/s port I can only serve a few streams at any single moment.
I may well end up using all 100mbit/s now and then but I might only do it in a few short bursts over the course of the month, potentially causing the 95th percentile to actually be < 10mbit/s. If I were to use 100mbit/s every time I was utilizing the connection I would only have about three days of service (with the upgrade) before I'm into overages anyway.
Capacity and transfer are two different things. Marketing your 10mbit/s unlimited feature as "3300GB add-on" is disingenuous at best.
Anyway, I do appreciate your reply, but as many dedicated providers with packages in the >$100 range start with 5 or 10T of transfer I’ve realized it’s really not worth the $55 for 1.3T upgrade with you even if I didn’t have to fight you the whole way to get it.
Double checked, and yes, I see your point on the 3,300GB. I believe it was a conversion error from MB to GB that resulted in the current 3,300 number.
10 Mbit * 60 * 60 * 24 * 31 = 3,348,000 MB but 3,269 GB as there is 1024 MB in a GB, not 1000, so yes, the numbers are slightly off by 32GB. I apologize for the mistake, and the correct number of 3,269 now shows.
We both understand how bandwidth is sold, and we do have some tighter controls than some of our competition. As you state, you can increase our bandwidth costs with the existing 2TB provided. The question is how far out do we want to stretch that possibility as a provider. It’s a balancing act that has brought us to the offering we have today.
That being said, we likely won’t keep this model forever, and we’re open to seeing what works and what doesn’t work. We’ve made several changes over the years, some which you have noticed, and will very likely continue to make more. Input is valued as it helps us to be more accurate, and provide the services that others are looking for.
Regards,
-Russell
It’s not so much the specific number that rubs me the wrong way. It is that marketing 10mbit/s unlimited as a quota upgrade implies that the quota is reasonably attainable, when in practise nobody is going to be using all 10mbit/s all of the time, day and night – god help their load times if they are.
It’s truthy, but not entirely up-front.
I think that’s fair. Instead of confusing things with total GB of transfer, we’ll just call it “Unmetered 10Mbps”.