I dont know why people are against it. We host over 400 customers on each server and all of them combined donot use more then 30 gig transfer per month.

We charge each client about $7 so even if a few customers use a 100 gig a month it wouldent matter much (just $300/month extra).

So lets say 25 customers use about 125 GB a month of transfer. You wouldn't mind it?

Arsalan, it seems you forgot the "s" of https:// in your compare page, because the link is http://www.nexus.net.pk/signup.html rather than https://www.nexus.net.pk/signup.html . You should repair it or you might lose clients because the form is not secure :)

Originally posted by Arsalan
I dont know why people are against it. We host over 400 customers on each server and all of them combined donot use more then 30 gig transfer per month.

We charge each client about $7 so even if a few customers use a 100 gig a month it wouldent matter much (just $300/month extra). The criticism of hosts that advertise "unlimited bandwidth" has nothing to do with the fact that you could probably get away with doing so. It's simply because, without exeption, every host that uses the term actually does put limits on bandwidth use, but does so by hiding it within their terms of service.

Whether you restrict the types of files that can be served or limit bandwidth effectively by enforcing things your customers can't measure themselves -- like limits on cpu usage -- the point is that there are real limits. If yahoo came to you and asked you to host them on that $7 montly account, would you let them? Advertizing that bandwidth is unlimited is nothing less than an attempt to mislead potential customers. That's why it's criticized here.

Hey, I've got some sites I wanna host on your servers, 4 actually, they xfer around 375-400gb a month, hell yeah I'll pay $7 amonth for that.. Right now they are all on dedicated servers and the total bill is around 2000/month for all of them....

haha, look at his reseller box and then that other one - then go to *****.com :)

http://www.nexus.net.pk/unix.html
http://www.liquidweb.com

They both obviously stole it from someone.

Plagiarizing both text and graphics from *****'s site is a violation of copyright laws, and then to have the brass-plated nerve to put a copyright notice underneath the purloined content and claim copyright for it.

I didn't see a staff page, but I was sure looking for ol' Guadalupe Milk, this is just her style.

I can see why they offer unlimited bandwidth, that's part of the ***** reseller plan: 'unlimited bandwidth per domain'.

Originally posted by Arsalan
I dont know why people are against it. We host over 400 customers on each server and all of them combined donot use more then 30 gig transfer per month.

On the other end of the scale we have 10 sites that use more then that on one server.

You'll have to add those images to the grand shared hosting provider clipart gallery.

megahostingclipart.com :P

I didn't see a staff page, but I was sure looking for ol' Guadalupe Milk, this is just her style.

I think TacidHost should be credited for setting the standard for copyright infringments....


I also think that from now on we should refer to a host that infringes on another's copyright as a Guadalupe Milker....

http://www.vestris.com/sti/company.html

http://www.nexus.net.pk/about.html


It's amazing what search for a unique phrase on google can come up with...

also looks like vestris and nexus serve the exact same parts of the globe... are they partners or something?

Arsalan and all other hosts,

Do you agree that 30gig for 400 clients sounds reasonable?

How much transfer do you think under 800 sites should pull? averages please on average sites!

Whats wrong with Unlimited Bandwidth?

It's a lie!

Originally posted by Arsalan
I dont know why people are against it.

Now you know.

Many of us don't like being lied to. It's a sign of disrespect, among other things.

Originally posted by akashd

I think TacidHost should be credited for setting the standard for copyright infringments....


I also think that from now on we should refer to a host that infringes on another's copyright as a Guadalupe Milker....

I propose the Guadalupe Milk Memorial award for Conspicuous Copyright Infringement be given to all who follow in the footsteps of Tacid, and that each company nominated have their Tacidity measured to ensure that only truly Tacidic sites win!

I have this image in my mind of a trophy, a copy of the Superbowl trophy, only with a golden glass of milk in the center.

Last time I checked there wasnt a OC-Unlimited Backbone.

Not sure maybe they released it recently.

Another thing. 400 clients on one server, I mean are you trying to crash this thing. Thats not really a good idea.

I think sticking 250 on a server is ok depending on the CPU usage, but 400 is just squeezing out every dollar.

Joe

Originally posted by Dylan
Arsalan and all other hosts,

Do you agree that 30gig for 400 clients sounds reasonable?

How much transfer do you think under 800 sites should pull? averages please on average sites!


It depends on your clients. But taking an rough average you'll find that the 30GB should be fine. You will need to filter out bandwidth slurping sites. Keep the max bandwidth small.. say 2-5GB.

Hope this helps.. :)

Arsalan, you don't have much to worry about as long as you are reselling. You are as good as your host, but you will start getting in trouble (CI cancelling accounts) when you become well known and start to attract some of the bigger sites. Right now, your customers are probably mostly in Pakistan and have very little exposure to the internet as a whole. If you want to just concentrate on the Pakistani market, I think you will be ok (alleged copyright infringments are another story :D ).

I have been a member of this forum for 7 months now and enjoy reading the thoughts of other host. I have seen host vocal one minute, then gone the next. I have decided to sign up a new account to post this in order prevent the offended from acting. It regards bandwidth.

Unlimited Bandwidth is around the corner. Be ready. Most large host do it now. Remember when AOL went unlimited use for dial up? Holy C%#P how the world shook. People thought it was the end to *fast* connections. They posted on forums like this that it was a lie and would ruin IA. Now look. If you don't offer unlimited, you die.

Unlimited bandwidth is around the corner. It will soon be a commodity. Unlike "unlimited users", "unlimited disk space", "unlimited forwarding" - yes forwarding, we all know there is not unlimited forwarding. If there is, allow me to set up 6000 addresses to forward to from one account - unlimited bandwidth has no hard limit. If it is, tell me where it lies. Tier 1 providers can't even use the pipes they have. They have OC 48's waiting to be turned on. After that they bring in OC 192's. Verio says it has data centers with 5% use of the OC48's, but can turn on OC 192 in a few months if needed. Point - NO ONE can fill the pipes!! That means commodity. Hard drives, you can fill.

Calling unlimted host liers? How about the host that offer 200 MB's of space when they have only a 20 GB HD? 200 sites x 200 MB's, needs a 40 GB drive. That is a lie. To cover you play the odds. If you get burned, you say "you are dumping files". Unlimited bandwidth is playing the odds. We host 2500 web sites. Not one is billed for bandwidth as long as they don't have downloads, forums, media, chat, or large applets. Of 2500 web sites, 1 account pays for bandwidth and it is a download site. We get nailed often. We have one site that is a triva site. All html. Can receive 17,000 unique visitor/day. He hits some serious bandwidth. But the other 99 sites push only 1 - 3 GB's. It is a wash.

I just read a post where web host are telling another host to "Hide the back up" issue in the Terms. One host said add "we have the right to modify anytime". Come on. Your customer trust you with data. You lose it and say in your terms we are not respondsible is BS. However it seems OK in the post. Then I read a post here that host with unlimited bandwidth hide stuff in the terms so they are liars. What a bunch of hipocrites.

Here is the reason it is a big issue. Cookie cutter host can't think out side the cookie cutter which hapens to be a box shaped. These host (many here) have no clue how to run a server, business, or even know what Unix is. They live within the control panel. But the powers to be brought it to the masses. As it turns out these powers charge heavy for bandwidth. These reseller host get upset when they are one-uped. They offer tons of space, free extras, low cost hosting, and what ever else they can to compete. They see these unlimited host making money still. They get upset because the bar was raised higher then they can jump. Look who gets bent out off shape here. Other host, not customers.

If you are at a place that offers high fees on bandwidth to cover other loses in their offering (Alabanza, VDI), then go elsewhere. I found a company called Carinet in the local tech mag today. They offer UNLIMITED bandwidth for $4000 on a full rack. That means 21 servers have UNLIMITED bandwidth. Yes UNLIMITED!!! If this is true, i will call tomorrow, I am moving. The horn has sounded. Unlimited is coming. Don't be a hater, be an inivator!!! Why do large host offer unliited? Because they get bandwidth so cheap. How many of you get a call every day from a bandwidth provider? They need to sell bandwidth be cause there is a lot our there. We pay less then $1/GB right now.

Do the math, unlimited is possible. You just have to be ready to honor it. Many do not. I know. We have it printed in our contract exactly what unlimited is. We are force held accountable.

I know many will be offended because this topic makes their offering obsolete. Please be professional and post intelligentally, not by emotion. I would love to see what you have to say. Let me save you the odvious - yes my grammer is bad, my spelling terrible, I am a coward for not posting from my real account, etc...

PS - saying I have Yahoo who wants to host for $7. That is stupid. Saying you have a site on a dedicated server you want hosted on a shared server is too. By the time a site hits 30 - 50 GB's transfer, it uses so much resources and space from logs, it needs a dedicated solution.

Well, drop 100 - fire for affect........

Ah... well I guess the webmaster needs some spanking.. :)

As for unlimited bandwidth, Well send those 100 gig customers, our way, it wount be a problem. We get bandwidth @$10/10gig and since each server is giving us in access of $2500 it dosent matter at all.

Yahoo?? well their logs would be so huge that they will have to shift to our higher plans, and for such a high profile site like their, i dont think any hoster will mind paying out of his A$$.

Ok, The designer used a few clips from here and there and took a few lines. But how can we tell if we dont know, Thanks for identifing them. I will get them changed a.s.a.p.

Thanks HostAB.com for pointing out the error in the https.

And UnlimitedBW, this is exactly what we had in mind when offering unlimited bandwidth.

I started the conversation just to see whats wrong with the concept. Not to be flamed at...

Originally posted by UnlimitedBW
Unlimited Bandwidth is around the corner. Be ready. Most large host do it now. Remember when AOL went unlimited use for dial up?

That was unlimited hours of usage, a very different thing from unlimited bandwidth/transfer, which bears a cost.

Unlimited bandwidth is around the corner.
I'll be sure to look out my window to see if porcine creatures are flying yet.


Point - NO ONE can fill the pipes!! That means commodity.That has nothing whatsoever to do with the meaning of a commodity. The pipes are not meant to be filled, and always must have greater capacity than the actual flow.


Calling unlimted host liers?
Just the ones that offer unlimited bandwidth/transfer, and only because they are liars.

Unlimited bandwidth is playing the odds. We host 2500 web sites. Not one is billed for bandwidth as long as they don't have downloads, forums, media, chat, or large applets.
That's not unlimited then, is it? Are you beginning to see why it is a lie?

Here's a hint from your own words:

As it turns out these powers charge heavy for bandwidth.
Bingo. That's why unlimited bandwidth is a lie.


We have it printed in our contract exactly what unlimited is.
If you have to explain it, it can't be unlimited.

You can do the veracity side step and dance all around the truth and it still comes down to the fact that unlimited transfer is a lie. What you offer is not unlimited, but as much as most clients will need, which is not the same thing.

The one inescapable fact that cuts through the lies and deception like yours is that there is a cost in supplying bandwidth, the bandwidth suppliers, consequently charge NOCs based on their usage, who charge their customers (hosting companies) and they in turn must pay it, however they charge their customers and try to hide the fact that bandwidth is not unlimited.

(The availability of it is, though at additional cost.)

err... ok, this covers the unlimited part of unlimited.

You must remember that some of us rent/co-locate servers at a NOC, who in turn charge us for transfer. If I had to offer unlimited, I'll go bang.

It also depends on how much you charge per domain/month, if you charged $7.95 to $10/month, you should manage. Even better if you own the NOC.

If you charge under that, then you are very generous :) and like paying out of pocket.

:cheers: Duster!

You know, if there was such a thing as unlimited, then why would yahoo and all those people need there own dedicated servers and NOCs?

There would only be a need for one NOC in the world that contains one server. Not so?

I have been following this, so let me see if I have this.

Unlimited, if such, should mean (No charge for any amount you use)

limited should mean (charge after so many meg)

yep! haahaa

Dusty, look at your plans section

"We would rather say you get whatever space and bandwidth you need, within reason, which is probably more than you need. "

Another run around to fool customers. "within reason". Who's??? Mine says I need 100 GBs. That is reasonable to me and other bandwidth hogs.

"as many POP3 addresses as you require and much more " OK. I have a site which need about 1000 POP3's. I offer free POP3 accounts to my mtn bike club. They have friends too so it may increase to 2000 more. Can you handle it? If you say yes. Stand by. Because we do have a need for this.

To me Dusty you are a hipocrite. "as many as I require" is another way of saying unlimited. However you try to polish it up nice.

Dylan

"You know, if there was such a thing as unlimited, then why would yahoo and all those people need there own dedicated servers and NOCs? "

Come on. Give me break. Yahoo on a CobalyRAQ? Once your hosting company reachs 100 customers, you will learn about resource use. A site generating 30 GB's generates huge logs. These logs need to go somewhere. That reqiueres our $29.95 plan with 200 MB's. You grow them from there.

Why haven't the big dogs increased their offering to 200 MB's for their low end pachages? Think about it. It would be so easy for them to do so. It is called upsale.

Cobalt??? Hell, that's not a server!!!


"These logs need to go somewhere"

Darn, I though you were offering unlimited transfer and unlimited diskspace


"Once your hosting company reachs 100 customers, you will learn about resource use"

Who you directing this question to? If it's me, I might have to smack you silly.


"Why haven't the big dogs increased their offering"

Another unlimited trick. The less diskspace you give, the less transfer a site can squeeze - depending on the nature of the site. The more space you give, u know...

Im not sure where you guys get your info from but there are limits in connectivity.

I am interested to know of how a $12 account that uses 200gb of bandwith will remain profitable.

I think that it will never become unlimited. There is a bid difference between AOL offering unlimited access and a hosting company giving away unlimited bandwith.

Unlimited BW I think you are fighting a point that doesnt make sense.

The bottom line is there isnt a OC-unlimited backbone. Even a OC-192 backbone has limitations. Just like there isnt a unlimted hard drive. These are simply marketing tools, your taking a gamble a customer not using the resources, but if you look at the TOS of most companies that offer this they cap it somewhere in there.

There will never be a unlimited hard drive and there wont be a unlimited bandiwith. I just dont see you winning this.

I think if you can explain to me how there are no limitatiions to bandwith and hard drive space I would love to here it, and if you know where to buy a unlimited backbone, count me in...


Joe

Originally posted by JBIZ718
Im not sure where you guys get your info from but there are limits in connectivity.

I am interested to know of how a $12 account that uses 200gb of bandwith will remain profitable.

I think that it will never become unlimited. There is a bid difference between AOL offering unlimited access and a hosting company giving away unlimited bandwith.

Joe

Exactly, there are only a certain amount of hours in a month that can be used up whereas with 'unlimited' bandwidth the sky really is the limit.

UnlimitedBW - nearly everyone wants a forum nowadays, so basically you are saying I can have a crippled featureless site with you that probably had no chance of transfering large amounts of bandwidth?

Originally posted by Duster
If you have to explain it, it can't be unlimited.

Applause, Duster, that's it - the shortest possible way to show why unlimited is not possible!

Ok, my new web hosting company "Crapest Co" is offering the following

UNLIMITED HARD DISK SPACE
*unlimited is limited to 50 MB

UNLIMITED BANDWIDTH
*unlimited is limited to 4GB

UNLIMITED POP MAILBOXES
*unlimited is limited to 10 mailboxes

UNLIMITED DOMAIN NAMES
*unlimited is limited to 1 domain

UNLIMITED IP ADDRESSES
*unlimited is limited to 1 IP address

UNLIMITED SUBDOMAINS
*unlimited is limited to 2 sub-domains

UNLIMITED MAILING LISTS
*unlimited is limited to 1 mailing list

All UNLIMITED for such a great price of UNLIMITED $
*unlimited $ is equal to $1 per month (price may be increased without notice and charged to your credit card)

I see everyones arguments here and UNLIMITED should NEVER be used except for when something is truly unlimited, would the above deal not p-i-s-s you off ?

If you are limiting it ANYWHERE then its friggin well not unlimited is it you idiots! ??

The point is, Only a well known site will ever corss lets say 10 gig transfer a month , and sites like this are something good for the profile.

80% of the sites that take a lot of bandwidth offer stuff like warz or mp3 which any host can take down with a strong excuese. We have a site which has 500 mb of video contenet all legal and takes about 30 gig a month but still thats not something for us to care about, since its one of the main reason we signup 5-6 clients a day, simply because its a well known site.

As for 400 sites per server, its nothing extra ordinary when all of then have 50 mb space and 5 pop3 accounts.

Even the big companies (like communitech.net) have 500+ sites per server and each account has 350 MB quota and 100pop3 accounts.

This debate can do on... and on... and on... i think its mainly about who honours his policies and who dosent.

I think its about your target market, and cant be generalized ever where.

By the way most hosts use this trick "The less diskspace you give, the less transfer a site can squeeze - depending on the nature of the site. The more space you give, u know...", so any one who offers unlimited disk space is a gonner... get the idea ?

Well let me congratualate you....

Ive been in the hosting business long enough to know that sticking 500 sites per server is what gives the big companies bad names...

Its your company you can do what ever you want, but some companies, some like to treat there clients well, and stick at most 250 on a server, not overloading a machine and looking good..

When you say even the big companies, well there is a reason big companies have problems and get bad rap...

I think there are many fine owners of hosting companies on here that know the business. Im not looking for a lesson, i know how to run one.

Heres a lesson:
Joes Log: If you take care of your clients, you wont loose them to the other thousands hosting companies out there...

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.....

Joe

Hey, every company which runs its own servers knows how to handle clients. We have 400 clients each on the servers that have plans ranging from $3-$8, 200 for plans ranging from $8-20 and only 50 on bigger plans. I dident mean to say 400 of every type of customer.

All I can say is that you'll be sorry one day for not charging your clients for that extra transfer.

But sites tend to grow, not to become smaller. If you put 400 sites on a server and everything is alright now you may find yourself later buisy moving sites to other servers.

all i say is the same, take care of them, they came to you for a reason and dont make them think anything other than their expectations.

and dont use "unlimited" unless thats what you realy mean, use it for its real reason, (www.dictionary.com)

un·lim·it·ed (n-lm-td)
adj.
Having no restrictions or controls
Having no boundaries or limits; see infinite
Having or seeming to have no boundaries; see infinite

get it?, its like using a word for something other than what it means, aka: deceit, lying, untruthful

it doesnt matter if its what you "think" prople will use, just dont f-u-c-k-i-n' well use words where they are not due! (sorry for the language, but its a strong feeling)

your arguments to the latter are pointless, you are trying to prove a point which proves you wrong in any ENGLISH DICTIONARY. I would like you to find me an english dictionary that states there is a limit to "unlimited", point proven, there frigin well ISNT thats why the damn word exists in the first place!

LIMITED and UNLIMITED

the effin word wouldnt exist if it didnt mean the complete opposite of LIMITED!

*ANGER VENTED* - *POINT PROVEN*

THREAD CLOSED!

ok, I get the point. As I said earlier, its about the market you are going for. Here when the average sallery is just $60/month, and we offer some customers rates as low as $3/month some times for their sites, its hard to make profits without placing alot of sites on our servers. So to keep the costs down (each server costs $5000+ and needs to be upgraded twice a year) we have invested in backup solutions so that even if a server goes down we can have it up in less then 3 hours.

We have had our share of misfortune. Have given clients over $6000 in hosting over the pay 4 years, but every one has his moments.( One thing that we have learned the hard way is that if you want to run a proper hosting company, Cobalts are not the way to go, they might sound good, but their backup solutions will let you down)

Dont take it personally or think of it as something against your company, every one has his own ideas and no general rule can be applied to any business, every one learns from time, and we have invested quite a lot in our business, your target market is diffrent so your exprience might tell you otherwise.

How much would a telnet/ftp access account on your box be, im interested in having an account with you, it would be as follows.

I will be uploading 100Mb of data to the server, then downloading it then uploading another 100Mb and downloading it. The data will transfer as fast as your connection allows it to happen and will be continuous, I see myself using about 900GB + per month, under your unlimited scheme, this should not be a problem.

what do you say ? standard fee ?

thanx :-)

Well servers with better and more decent hardware specs can hold more clients isn't it? Right a cobalt can hold 40 clients max. in my opinioin. A Linux server with dual 1GHZ processors, 2GB RAM, 36GB harddrives RAID can hold 300 clients without problems I think. It can even go further for 600 clients with quad Xeon processors and 4GB RAM.

Whenever the server is "overloaded" with the number of clients, we can upgrade the hardware. Some hosts use Pentium 3 550 with 512MB RAM for all their servers that's why they promise they will host only 150 clients per server

Originally posted by Arsalan
ok, I get the point. As I said earlier, its about the market you are going for. Here when the average sallery is just $60/month, and we offer some customers rates as low as $3/month some times for their sites, its hard to make profits without placing alot of sites on our servers.

1. Regarding sites per server: sites tend to grow and moving sites to different servers takes a lot of work. If you take this and others risks, it's probably fine for you.
2. But regarding unlimited many of us will not see where you "get the point" - as Duster said "If you have to explain it, it can't be unlimited".

Mr. Walter, I am not explaining the unlimited bandwidth clause. It IS unlimted. Sue us if you think it isent

xtstrike, no problems. Singup for any account. Just follow the terms and conditions of use (http://nexus.net.pk/terms.html) and you will be fine.

Entemedia, Yes a better server can handle more clients.

As soon as we our usage is over .05 we upgrade. We dont wait for the servers to get a year old and then upgrade, and a upgrade takes less then 30 min.

Ok, The designer used a few clips from here and there and took a few lines. But how can we tell if we dont know, Thanks for identifing them. I will get them changed a.s.a.p.


I agree with what you said, however, I think it is your responsibility to check a unique phrase on google to see if it comes up with any exact hits. If it does, tell your designer to make a new one...

If you do not check it, IMO, you are partly to blame. To prevent yourself from getting flamed, put the designers name and e-mail address underneath your copyright notices, so I can e-mail him not you.....

BTW, the image of the globe was taken too...

Tell me this thing then, How can a host offer lets say 10 gig of transfer on a $14.95 account when only the bandwidth will cost it $20+

Also how can you remain compatitive when the host next to you is offering Unlimited bandwidth and taking away your own clients just because you are offering a hard limit.

I started the topic to know that why are people against it, Not to make a fuss out of it, All companies have diffrent policies, our will be diffrent from yours, the pricing strucure would be diffrent too, same goes for the type of clients, you cant apply one sets of rules on every company.

We have about 2mb ram for each client, so on a server which we have 400 clients we have 1ghz RAM, your policy might be diffrent.

New Hosting companies are opening every hour, they do what they can to get clinets, Clients got for the benifits, not the features. Its basically a risk to offer unlimited bandwidth but risks are what make or brake a business.

Originally posted by Arsalan
Tell me this thing then, How can a host offer lets say 10 gig of transfer on a $14.95 account when only the bandwidth will cost it $20+

Overselling. As the average site, as you know, uses less bandwidth, it works. The big difference to "Unlimited" is that if the customer really uses this amount the host will pay the bill, not the customer.

I started the topic to know that why are people against it, Not to make a fuss out of it, All companies have diffrent policies, our will be diffrent from yours, the pricing strucure would be diffrent too, same goes for the type of clients, you cant apply one sets of rules on every company.

Agreed.

We have about 2mb ram for each client, so on a server which we have 400 clients we have 1ghz RAM, your policy might be diffrent.
:) If you count it this way my actual server has ~ 250 clients at 2GB RAM, so I have 8 MB for each client. LOL. There is really no way to compare this.

New Hosting companies are opening every hour, they do what they can to get clinets, Clients got for the benifits, not the features. Its basically a risk to offer unlimited bandwidth but risks are what make or brake a business.

Good point - but personally I think I don't want to offer something I can't deliver.

Overselling. As the average site, as you know, uses less bandwidth, it works. The big difference to "Unlimited" is that if the customer really uses this amount the host will pay the bill, not the customer.

This is what we are doing too... It comes down to who keeps his word and who dosent.

If you count it this way my actual server has ~ 250 clients at 2GB RAM, so I have 8 MB for each client. LOL. There is really no way to compare this.

As I said earlier, As soon as our CPU usage on a server is over .05 at all times, we upgrade. We dont wait for the servers to get old or stick to a policy.

ok, i may actually take you up on that offer, i think i have some money to spare for a test to prove you wrong :-)

think about it my friend, my account is going to cost you almost $1000 per month in bandwidth, you give me the account for : $7.95 per month, you sure your company can afford this?

Hello
Our customers use very little bandwidth.
with 200 on a server we use perhaps 20 - 30 GB per month (with most of that being down to the one heavy site we put on each box).

In theory we could just start making it unlimited.
We have server deals that include 100GB per month so there's not much chance of those customers going over that limit.

However, the reason for not offering it is that, as sure as fate, we would be innundated with people who want lots of bandwidth and our costs *would* rise.

It would be a different market that we don't want to get into.
I think we have only ever had 2 people go over bandwidth ever and both have upgraded.

Gordon

Take it up, xtstrike, but remember it should be a production class website, not a website which you would be just uploding/downloading your stuff. We provide webhosting, not backup/filestorage services.

Hey, by the way, the guys who host this forum offer, - Unlimited POP3 E-Mail Accounts (http://www.wizardshosting.com/plans.htm), so the person who was looking for the 1000+ pop accounts could shop here instea of any where else.

Originally posted by UnlimitedBS
Dusty, look at your plans section

"We would rather say you get whatever space and bandwidth you need, within reason, which is probably more than you need. "

Another run around to fool customers. "within reason". Who's??? Mine says I need 100 GBs. That is reasonable to me and other bandwidth hogs.
It's another example of being honest with customers. You might want to try it. According to technical and practical limitations, it is unreasonable to expect to run 100 gbs through a shared server plan, and to do it without expecting to may for greater bandwidth usage.


"as many POP3 addresses as you require and much more "
I can handle as many POP 3 addresses as any of my clients require. I've said it before, most any business or organization will reach a practical limit long before any theoretical technical limit will be reached.


To me Dusty you are a hipocrite. "as many as I require" is another way of saying unlimited. However you try to polish it up nice.

It's not the same thing at all, Unlimited BS, especially taken in context. I discuss the needs of my clients with them and say so on my site. Here's just one instance, with the full text around what you quoted, that you conveniently omitted.
Many sites advertise "unlimited" for many resources knowing full well that most are not unlimited at all. It's not until you hit the limit on those supposedly unlimited resources, when they disable your account or charge you more, that you find that out for yourself. We would rather say you get whatever space and bandwidth you need, within reason, which is probably more than you need. Special features like video and large audio files eat up huge amounts of space and bandwidth, like a great white shark devouring seals. If you should have such specialized needs, we can discuss other options so that your performance does not suffer.


If any should ever have need for inordinate amounts of resources, I would probably suggest their own dedicated server, in which case they can have as much of anything as they may require. That makes what I say entirely honest and ethical.

What you are doing is handing us a sack of male bovine manure and trying to convince us it is air freshener. You can use whatever terms you like "100% natural, organic" and we can still smell the truth.

Making ad hominem attacks on me is easier than countering the facts I stated about unlimited bandwidth being a lie. Redirection is an act of desperation in turning attention away from the truth. In this case, that simple truth is that unlimited bandwidth is a lie and any host offering it is lying.

Originally posted by Duster
What you are doing is handing us a sack of male bovine manure and trying to convince us it is air freshener. You can use whaterver terms you like "100% natural, organic" and we can still smell the truth.

That fresh, barnyard scent...of UnlimitedBS.

Come on, lets all be professional. No use of flaming some one or some hoster. Every one has his own thoughts, lets not get personal here.

I wonder how much of this stuff - both this thread and the lying thread - is cultural.

In some cultures, it's OK to misrepresent yourself - lie if you will - and in other's is paramount to a sin.

I find I'm lied to regularly by citizens on one particular country (not named intentionally) and they tell me it's to protect my feelings. Sheesh. I'm thick skinned... :cool: tell it to me straight!

-t

What is wrong with the concept?

Don't you get it? It does not work!

What happens if now that you have made these comments here on WHT, everyone starts recommending your business to these high-traffic sites just to play a bad joke on you?

You know what? I had a customer last week who called me because he wanted to get my Premium plan and he wanted to stream 200 to 300 gigs a month. You know what I told him? To go and get a dedicated server for that! You know why? Because even if he pays for the additional bandwidth our servers would literally go down if we put 2 or 3 sites like that, let alone 400!

You are just basically taking chances, and you are right, most customers will only use 300, 400, 500 MB a month, but as I said earlier what happens if you start getting sites that use 20, 30, 50 or even 100 Gigs a month? Are you going to tell them "well, we changed our mind about unlimited bandwidth"? I don't think so.

This is just my opinion. Nothing personal! ;)

Ah... well... its already started. some one already reffred an adult site. I guess its better to post anonymously instead of getting the company you work for flamed for nothing.

Well, even though I disagree with your business practice, I respect it and respect you. I wouldn't do that to you, however, a lot of people will, that is why I said that you shouldn't have advertised it (specially here in WHT)

Good luck! ;)

This UnlimitedBW is a troll.

Every single one of his posts has been an attack on another host -- and while I'm not a host myself, I think it's pretty annoying. I'll call it like I see it.

Alright, everyone, let's keep this civil and polite. I will be throwing out any posts that do not pertain to the discussion.

Originally posted by Arsalan
Ah... well... its already started. some one already reffred an adult site.

Errrrrrrrrrrr....... Has it occurred to you that any host will get occasional referrals for adult hosting unless :

1. you explicitly state on your site (or front page!) that you don't allow adult/warez/whatever sites;

2. that the unlimited bandwidth clause isn't there?

Quite frankly, if you set limits for your plans then you are much more likely to avoid this kind of crap. :)