New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Nobody can sustain a free DDoS Mitigation Service
DDoS mitigation service can cost a lot and we today had confirmation that nobody can do it for free. No matter how big you are
Comments
So OVHs DDoS will cost in the future 1 euro/month for Kimsufi dedis, 2 euros/month for SoYouStart servers and 5 Euro for standard OVH servers and +10 euros for bigger pipes per month. My french isn't good enough to understand the terms and if they apply for current customers.
Correct for prices, but it will affect new and existing customers. Prices for new orders will be in place within 2 weeks, existing customers will be informed by email. @drivexdrivex
And the prices are completely fair :-) I don't mind paying 5 or 10 euros if a provider can protect me from a 1Tbps attack
Also they never said it would be free, and it have been free either, they increased the prices by two euros back in 2013 - to cover some of the investments - so people have actually been paying for it, just as a part of the price for the server.
Still cheaper than seflow tho
Next price change: additional IPs will be charged monthly. Gonna be fun to watch that drama
Anyway, the price increase is fair and no big deal if you need it.
I see what you did there. Well, at least @matteob tried... ;-)
Let's see when CloudFlare starts to charge... Oh, wait...
https://blog.cloudflare.com/unmetered-mitigation/
(Yeah, I know that their DDoS mitigation is not really comparable to what OVH or maybe seFlow do.)
I hope not, or is this already confirmed?
Please @Amitz @AlexJones keep my company out of that discussion, we have different services and is off topic.
@Zerpy this is fine but for my point of view only new orders should be increased and existing customers should be able to take decision and not be forced.
What about hetzner adding free anti-ddos to everything?
Hetzners protection is not even nearly as good as OVH´s protection
For the sake of fairness: OVH expressly mentions that current clients can go up to 12 more months at the current price (i.e. without the added anti-ddos fee).
Translation of the relevant part: Existing customers can renew their service for 3, 6, or 12 months at the *current* price.I don't have an account with OVH since some years now because then they were bad; shooting quickly, bad support, insane bureaucracy, etc.
That said, I don't consider their approach (re. anti-ddos) unreasonable. If you don't care, there are many providers without that extra-cost (and protection). If, however, you need the protection, and many do, those fees are not unreasonable; actually I find them cheap (for that market segment, not for LET).
The point I fail to see is the connection to or comparability with seflow.
Yes, but to keep same price you need to pay in advance. I agree with you that still a reasonable price, but you force people with production projects to review their business model or budgets and not all really need a powerfull protection.
If you talk about 1 server is not much, but if you do a little cluster with 4 servers, you have to pay 480€/y more. Are not peanuts for only 4 servers
It's a fair price increase IMHO. This could have been far worst...
Sure they can, it is called raising the bar, ok so perhaps it is reflected internally in the total cost of being able to provide the service.
They may have seen the volume of man-hours spent dealing with it in an alternate way as an offset that is no longer viable so are charging now.
I really do dislike DDOS mitigation as an extra, in this day and age DDOS protection should be fairly standard, at least some level of it.
Dinasores will die.
Indeed i have one OVH Gaming server i7 4790K but that is excluded from price increase already but for others paying in advance will help for at least 12 months
OVH currently runs with 311k physical servers, by introducing an average of 2 euro per month per server (probably more to be honest), it will generate a 622k revenue instantly.
Now if it was only done for new customers (read servers), to reach the same number, you'd have to either sell a whole lot of new servers or make the price higher than 2 euro average (or whatever the average would be).
By doing it for all servers, existing and new, you decrease the amount you have to pay for each individual server - thus actually benefitting everyone on the longer run.
Because eventually when old servers have to be replaced, either prices doesn't change much (because you have 300k servers that pay for it), or you'd have maybe a 20 euro bump instead of 2 euro - because you have to cover the costs regardless.
Also in case old customers should not get a price change, they also shouldn't get a better protection, or SLA? :-)
Sounds silly.
At the already low price for the hardware and if people run a cluster of 4 servers they should generate some profit to justify a 480 eur price increase, else you can always go to Hetzner or switch to Kimsufi if price is really a concern.
@matteob said:
No. For a start what you wrote suggested that existing customers are somehow forced. They are not.
Nor are projects. 12 more months at the current price should be plenty time to make up ones mind or to change hosting for a project.
Finally: you chose the highest add on fee (10€/month) x 4 servers to arrive at those "frightening" almost 500€/year. But those are 4 x 10 Gb pipes and if your projects needs 4 x 10 Gb pipes and 40€/month are a showstopper for your project, you have way larger problems in the first place.
Btw, how much do you/seflow charge for 1+Tb Anti-DDOS protection? Less than OVH? And you offer the option to rent dedis without A-DDOS protection? Just interested.
No, but it wouldn't surprise me if they will at some point.
Which would be reasonable too
I understand that this is best solution to have immediate revenue burst, but you think that this is correct? On my view no.
@bsdguy
Yes, if you want protection you will pay an extra. If not you have free 500Mbps protection and automatic 4 hours blackholing.
No, but i never increased prices to my customers and we give knowledge support to protect any service and correct on fly filters during new attacks, but this is a different story.. Please, really keep my company out of that discussion, it make no sense.
My point is: is the third time they increase price to existing contracts because the previous service model is unsustainable. Keep out that they can do on contract, but as customer respect, you find this correct? I mean one time because they include DDoS protection, second time for the EU <-> GBP, now to increare the DDoS protection power, and tomorrow? You say me that they are cheaper, ok, but they need to increase time to time something and new ovh servers are not so cheaper like time ago, or i wrong?
Well, since the mess up with the kimsufi being too cheap and people with old machines getting a new one to save money they changed the CEO. The new one seems to know a bit how capitalism works and have working ideas to make (more) cash. The company growth during the last years has been impressive, isn't it?
They're just keeping it that way: make more cash, grow bigger. And they don't focus on the low end segment of the market. We all know it's not where you make the most cash as a provider anyway, even more so in the long run. They want to be a huge actor globally, with their own network. At some point somebody has to pay for it. They'll then take the profits in the long run way better, and avoid technological debt compared to other big/bigger companies.
I don't think it's fair / nice to impose the change on current customers. But from an economical perspective as well as the possibilities for the future of the company, it do seem like a smart move. (Their pricing will still be cheap compared to what the other providers offer, anyway...)
I think it's the correct way, why? Because people misunderstood the fact that it's not new vs old customers, but new vs old servers.
So a small example.
Let's say I run a setup with 200 SP-32 - that's a total of 13998 euro a month excluding VAT.
Now the price ddos protection for 1 gigabit machines would be 5 euro, so my total cost would become 14998 euro per month, or 539928 euro over a 3 year period.
If it only affected new servers, the price would have to be higher to actually cover the investment for their network-wide protection, and the adoption would be slower, so it would be fair to say that the pricing would maybe be 4x, so 20 euros for protection per month per server. (online.net wants 20 euro for Arbor protection).
So suddenly over a period of 3 years, my price would suddenly be 647928, that's 108k euro additional costs for me.
A very few people would benefit from it being only new servers, because eventually everyone will have to replace their hardware, and in most cases we'd want protection, so why should I - that want newer hardware, suddenly have to spend 108k euro more over 3 years because some customer are butthurt because of a slight price change for DDoS protection?
If you can come up with a valid point, that benefits both the customers (on short and long term) and investments into better protection without affecting old pricing - please share it :-)
maybe not consider customers as sheeps and start doing a real and sustainable business plan in long term? I mean, they are great and have all my respect because are growing fast, increasing price on existing customers every year and people still defending them.
But i'm not too inside capitalism and i have my ethics that is bad for business.
Depends on how you handle price increases, and how you run your business, there's a few ways of doing so:
You can get a high margin by either charging a way higher price (often 2-4x of OVH), or save money some other way (hardware, network etc).
Now - in my case I have been a customer of various companies where the prices has been 4 or even 8x the OVH prices for the same hardware specs - and to be honest, the quality of service haven't been 4 or 8x in any of the cases.
As a customer I'd rather use OVH, and see a price increase now and then when there's a legit reason for it (exchange rate was a legit reason, introduction of ddos protection as well, and RAM/SSD pricing going up as well), I'll save money anyway compared to the 4x or 8x charging competitors.
Customers have no issue with a price increase as long as the increase is well explained and justified, and OVH actually tend to justify their price increase where other providers send out an email 3 months before new year and say: "We'll do our annual 3% price increase" - without ever telling where those 3% price increase will go.
I've increased prices multiple times for my customers, I've never had a single one complaining about it, why? Because I was able to justify for the customers that the increase will be for the greater good and that it will only benefit them also when looking at the long term.
A lot of companies do not do price increases, because they're afraid of angry customers - and to me it just tells the company don't know how to justify it.
Sure hardware gets cheaper and cheaper every year, sometimes prices increase like with SSD and RAM prices currently, there's something in this world called inflation rate which is a real thing as well, and companies wanting to offer better and more reliable services to their customers - even when the EUR/USD exchange rate goes to sh*** - all of that .. if people care to explain, then customers also understand if you do a slight price increase every now and then.
I don't know what's bad about it?
So why can hosting providers as one of the only business types in this world not increase pricing if they're just fair?
The alternative for OVH to not increase pricing would to decrease quality of hardware and do a online.net or Hetzner and use consumer grade equipment :-) I'd pass in that case.
Guess I will stick to Hetzner as I do not like DDoS Protection being an extra. Ofc it is fine for them to charge for though.
I don't like being billed for DDoS protection. It's not expensive but I still don't like to. I guess their DDoS hardware was choking unlike Cloudflare's...
Cloudflare doesn't even have a proper anti-ddos, their network capacity just allows attacks to happen without too much trouble.
At least your guess is wrong :-)
I’m glad I don’t have to pay for DDoS protection I don’t need. Why should I subsidise it for all the cunts that run attack magnets.