Hi,
I have been thinking about this issue because everyone knows there is no such thing as an unlimited hard drive threrfore there can not be unlimited web space. Another thing is unlimited bandwidth. This is impossible aswell so it must be false.

But onto the point of this post, most hosts say 'unlimited' as a marketing tool. So instead of saying 'unlimited' why not say 'unmetered?'.

Just a though,
Chris

Please do a search for "unmetered". You will get a lot of threads that were just recently discussed about this very topic.

The smart ones like JPC use unmetered it's the ones that don't know any better that use unlimited. Although the only thing that makes me wonder is that www.webhosting.com uses unlimited.

Originally posted by netsolutions
The smart ones like JPC use unmetered it's the ones that don't know any better that use unlimited. Although the only thing that makes me wonder is that www.webhosting.com uses unlimited.

Aaagh don't mention webhosting.com! They managed to keep my site up for a ground-breaking 80% for the year I hosted with them.

Regarding bandwidth or disk space, I don't think using unmetered is much better than unlimited.

JPC hosting is good.

Have a great day :)

regards
amar

Regarding bandwidth or disk space, I don't think using unmetered is much better than unlimited.

Care to explain why? Other then "It is just like unlimited in my opinion". Once you do, tell us how it is different from unlimited POPs or high CGI use restrictions?

Unlimited and Unmetered are false. Both are just marketing tactics, I would suggest doing alot of research on a host that offers unlimited bandwidth. There is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth/transfer/hits or really unrestricted/unmetered. Basically, there is a restriction and a meter because if you affect a servers quality, you get charged. Hard numbers are the only way to go.

Jim

Basically, there is a restriction and a meter because if you affect a servers quality, you get charged. Hard numbers are the only way to go.

So what you are saying is that we shouldn't have unlimited POPs anymore? No more unlimited forwarding? Should ALL host now limit cgi use with "hard numbers"? You know when you use to much scripts, you are forced to upgrade or move don't you when it effects resources?

jimb, I suggest you educate yourself about what is false and what is true, instead of posting BS to get people to visit your host bashing site. I don't know how many times I have seen you post that they are the same yet provide no proof. Your site is ignorant by placing unmetered host on it. You have no understanding of how unmetered works, and it is apparrent. Why don't you read this thred and see if you can intelligentally debate it -

http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=27443&highlight=unmetered

PS- As I have stated before "Because it is." is not a good reply.

UmBilly, I'm sorry but after reading through your posts I still don't see the difference. You said "Unlimited means you will encounter to limit from preventing you to use as much as you want. Unmetered says you will not be billed for it." As I interpret that, you're saying that unlimited and unmetered are similar, but with unmetered you can use as much as you want and not have to pay for it. But isn't that theoretically identical to unlimited? You used two examples, neither of which seemed to tie in directly to bandwidth measurement and billing (particularly the one about power).

There is no such a thing a unmetered bandwidth. Someone, somewhere is metering that bandwidth. Files just don't leave the server and magically float on to the Internet, someone is keeping track how much data is flowing through your pipe. If you're getting bandwidth so cheap that you're letting people use as much as they want, "unlimited" seems semantically better than "unmetered."

There was one other definition for unmetered, and it essentially equated unmetered bandwidth with a capped line. I'll buy that, but I don't see how it applies to a $9.95 virtual hosting plan.

UmBilly, I'm sorry but after reading through your posts I still don't see the difference. You said "Unlimited means you will encounter to limit from preventing you to use as much as you want. Unmetered says you will not be billed for it." As I interpret that, you're saying that unlimited and unmetered are similar, but with unmetered you can use as much as you want and not have to pay for it. But isn't that theoretically identical to unlimited?

Sorry you can't see any difference.

Also, I think you have not read my post correctly. I NEVER said unlimited and unmetered were the same.

You used two examples, neither of which seemed to tie in directly to bandwidth measurement and billing (particularly the one about power).

Power is a commodity. You pay for power, however it is not billed separately. Bandwidth is getting so cheap that it could even be called a commodity for some. Example...Gig-e users. Under $.07/GB. The comparison was you don't see a column for "power" with a price. It is included in the pricing. Why *can't* bandwidth be the same? Meaning it is included in the pricing. Not billed directly with a hard limit. Sure this is reaching, but again it was only an attempted comparison.

Unlimited = Lie. Nothing is unlimited. You will always have a limit.

Unmetered = Not billed. But limited by the same things that limit CGI use or database use.

The reason for the word unmetered instead of a hell of a lot limit like 50 GBs? 50 GBs may not be possible for some, but under the limit they can use for others. A site using a lot of scripts will burn resources before one not using scripts. So a non script user could use much more bandwidth.

Can you or jimb answer these?

1) Unlimited POPs? Are these OK?

- If you say yes, then how do you explain the fact you can not put an infinite number of pops on a virtual account with 5 MBs for example. You are limited by space.

2) Do you allow unlimited resource use on a shared server? Can I run huge cgi scripts that have to be on dedicated servers?

- If you say no, then why don't you have a hard limit on the resource use then?

3) Can I run as many connections to the MySQL server on a shared environment?

- If no, then where is a hard limit on host sites?

My point.

Bandwidth can be compared to cgi resource use. Until it effects resource use, you do not have to worry about it. CGI resource has an understanding within the hosting world that you can use as much cgis as you want. But if you over do it and effect the other sites, then you need to move or upgrade.

What if a host says - "unmetered bandwidth. You are limited to 75% of server resources." How is that the same as unlimited host? That is more detailed then what your company's terms state "Excess utilization of system or network resources, including, but not limited to the use of CGI scripts or programs which consume an *unreasonable* amount of Central Processing Unit ("CPU") usage or Random Access Memory "RAM")"

I understand not everyone will agree. That is life. But when you compare a unmetered host to a unlimited host, that is BS! Especially because someone might not have the same understanding of the word or vision or knowledge or marketing ideas, etc... Saying an unmetered host = unlimited is like me seeing a negative post about your company and saying your service reminds me of *****.

I don't care if you like unmetered or not. To me it is possible and should not be bashed and compared to a unlimited host. When ever I see this, I will post my opinion.

I think the issue has deeper roots to jealous competitor syndrome. "Hey, that other host pays $.07/GB and I pay $5/GB. I'll bash him for the use of a term and compare them to an unlimited sh**y host".

I personally see the difference as:

Unlimited:
No limits at all, you can use it all (yeah right, always a scam because of their ToS)

Unmetered:
There are limits but you are not metered! You use 5, 10, 20, 14GB/month, they won'T know because they are not checking it... however they are most likely checking CPU, number of hits, etc..


You see, there is no way that any of these word can really mean: as much as you want without ANY restriction. Simply because hosting costs money.

I agree with UmBilly. Unlimited and Unmetered are not the same. If a host is unmetered they are more than likley not worrying about the bandwidth but instead about CPU resources.

But with all the stigma around unmetered treating it like unlimited which it is not, I recomend any host using the word unmetered, make sure to spell out for the customer the difference and tell them what you do monitor.

meter
tr.v. me·tered
2. To supply in a measured or regulated amount: metered the allotted gasoline to each vehicle.

pref. un-
Not; opposite of; contrary to


So the argument is that there are actually hosts that provide bandwidth in a not measured or not regulated amount? My, that would be splendid.

Take two sites. One with a link to download my wedding photos, with one file being a zip of all of them, probably would get 200-300 hits. Take another site, siimilar, but many more hits (100K+) with the same set up, both on $5/mo. 'unmetered' plans.

Does anyone honestly think both sites would stay up? Does anyone honestly think a host is going to give you 3Mbps worth of pipe (approx. 950GB of data transfer), and the host is only going to go on CPU resources?

Check that TOS, as it is going to contain so many limitations, that I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't allowed HTML pages. Don't waste your time with these hosts people. All bandwidth on a shared server must be limited and metered for the sake of the server and the host's financial health.

I'd respect a host that offers shared server plans with up to 100 GB of data transfer* see below

*The following resource limits apply:
Blah, blah, blah, blah

If it wasn't hidden and buried deep within the overwhelming text of a TOS, but otherwise... :rolleyes: I'd love to be convinced, really, I'd be very open to that, and would change my views if someone was able to, but so far, I've only seen people make up their own definitions to words like 'unlimited' and 'unmetered' and say, "Seeeeee!", or provide explanations that simply don't wash. I'm not biased, I've formed this opinion (if you want to call it that), based on common definitions and common sense.


P.S. That definition is from dictionary.com quoting The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, but if you'd like to use another definiton, that is fine, just provide a link to it. They all have web versions now.

Chicken I couldn't even imagine trying to get any server to push 950GB of data so your analogy is way off base and has nothing to do with this thread. A server trying to push 950GB of data for a single server would probably not only take up 100x more resources then allowed but it will probably crash the server.

Also saying it is a $5/mth account is an insult by trying to lump hosts that offer unmetered with hosts that will never stay in business because they don't have a business plan and don't understand true business costs.

Do I think that the world of webmasters is ready to accept umetered bandwidth as being the standard or even possible? No.

Do I believe that in the future that as bandwidth prices drop even more that the GB of bandwidth will become irrelevant and the only thing taht will matter is resources? Of course. Unmetered bandwidth is the future. If you don't believe it then you will get left behind. The only question is not if you should offer unmetered bandwidth, but when should you start offering it. I am thinking in a few years for my own company but saying that it is not possible to offer now is just not true.

And one last point which I actually hate to point out myself. The really large players that can afford their own large dedicated pipes are can do this much easier than us small guys who have to buy from them. While we are paying $1 - $10 per GB the large players are paying pennies per GB. If I could pay $0.10 per gig as some companies do, I could offer Unmetered all day long and not care.

Heh, I have no doubt that a solid server could push 950GB of data, but again, I'm willing to be told I'm wrong (by someone who has been there and done that). I'm nearly certain that I'm not however. How to lose your shirt in hosting: don't measure or regulate the bandwidth of your clients. This is the future? I'm still unconvinced, to say the least.

A host will be adding to that TOS, faster than you can say, "Bob, we're in deep ****", when they get the first account that gobbles up bandwidth, but doesn't break the CPU resource barrier. Like I said, you can TOS the account to death, putting unreasonable limitations on the plan so that there is no way to actually use the plan as advertised. Won't be me rushing to sign up, but you might fool some people...

(side note: I'm not claiming to be 'right' about this. I'm just stating my views on the subject, I'd imagine there are people who will disagree with them though it would be nice to get some solid arguments. As a discussion forum, this seems to be a good venue to have discussions about the subject.).

Originally posted by UmBillyCord


Sorry you can't see any difference.

Also, I think you have not read my post correctly. I NEVER said unlimited and unmetered were the same.



Power is a commodity. You pay for power, however it is not billed separately. Bandwidth is getting so cheap that it could even be called a commodity for some. Example...Gig-e users. Under $.07/GB. The comparison was you don't see a column for "power" with a price. It is included in the pricing. Why *can't* bandwidth be the same? Meaning it is included in the pricing. Not billed directly with a hard limit. Sure this is reaching, but again it was only an attempted comparison.

Unlimited = Lie. Nothing is unlimited. You will always have a limit.

Unmetered = Not billed. But limited by the same things that limit CGI use or database use.

The reason for the word unmetered instead of a hell of a lot limit like 50 GBs? 50 GBs may not be possible for some, but under the limit they can use for others. A site using a lot of scripts will burn resources before one not using scripts. So a non script user could use much more bandwidth.

Can you or jimb answer these?

1) Unlimited POPs? Are these OK?

- If you say yes, then how do you explain the fact you can not put an infinite number of pops on a virtual account with 5 MBs for example. You are limited by space.

2) Do you allow unlimited resource use on a shared server? Can I run huge cgi scripts that have to be on dedicated servers?

- If you say no, then why don't you have a hard limit on the resource use then?

3) Can I run as many connections to the MySQL server on a shared environment?

- If no, then where is a hard limit on host sites?

My point.


Can I answer these? Yes.

1) Unlimited Pops - No they cannot be unlimited, but they are limited to the amount of space that it takes to program in these boxes. Im not too sure on how much space is required to name each box, (probably like 1/2 of a byte) so techincally you can have....i dunno...1,000,000 in a 500MB account???? Is it wrong? yes.

2)I am fully against the resources limit, and agree that hosts should tell the resource limits. Not too sure what your trying to say here, but a resource hard number should be included in a AUP.

3)MySQL is another resources limit, you can only go as high as the processor/memory.

I think their should be some sort of hosting PAC or something that would be able to weed out the bad hosts from the good hosts. Something that would approve hosts, and make sure all of the issues that we have been fighting over are solved. Would you like to do this UmBillyCord? We could get a lot of support from the members of this board.

Jim

Check that TOS, as it is going to contain so many limitations, that I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't allowed HTML pages. Don't waste your time with these hosts people. All bandwidth on a shared server must be limited and metered for the sake of the server and the host's financial health.

Chicken, lets say there are terms that state "Sites hosting downloads, forums, gaming sites and chat sites are limited to 15 GBs per month. All other sites are not metered." Is this wrong?

I would hope not. It is telling sites that could abuse bandwidth, you are allowed a limit. This cuts the number of cusomters to a fraction who could abuse system resources in the first place. This is no different them the Terms that say "No IRC or CGI Chat". You are limiting who can host. Of course no one minds the IRC limit, because the abuse it causes.

As far as bandwidth use you were talking about. 100 GBs can cost $7.00 total to a host! Who cares it this person uses 100 GBs. How many people like that are there? Also, a site using that will usually always want a dedicated server anyway. We see the trend that at about 50 GBs/mo, people start looking at more secure and dedicated solutions. Also, a site pushing 50 GBs always have some resource intensive scripts running like forums for example which limit the amount of bandwidth they will use anyway. I would love to find a site that uses 50 GBs or more of just HTML traffic.

I fully agree with JeremyL. I think bandwidth will soon be a commodity. It already is starting to be. Years ago, traffic was growing much more then what pipes could handle, hense the high price. Now days we have OC - 192 crossing the US, and last I checked, not a single one is *lit* into any colo. There isn't the demand yet. By the time there is, we will be at the next generation of pipes. Simple supply vs demand. Too much supply, less demand, lower prices. Last year if someone would have posted about Gig-e prices, they would have been called idiots or morons. Now it is a reality. 'Years' ago when the Internet went unlimited hours, people had these same exact debates on news groups. While not the same, it was still a paradyme shift. "What, I can stay logged on forever? No way".

Unfortunitally, people will abuse the word unmetred. This sucks. However, I think good host, with an honest commitment and spelled out Terms, can easy support unmetered.

Can I answer these? Yes.

Thank you. At least now your arguement for unmetered not being possible has meret to me. However, I can't think of a single host who clearly defines in the Terms a hard limit on resource use or who ever will. It has become a understanding in the community that the limit isn't set and it depends on each user. Unfortunitally, no one really knows how much is too much until it is too late. If the web hosting world starts providing "CPU or memory use" meters at the site level that tell their customers when they are close, then I think your arguement is good. However until that is done, I don't think segragating unmetered host is the answer. They use the same limiting factors.

Would you like to do this UmBillyCord?

Hell no. I am a host. I have posted before about this too. I do not think a host or group of host have the right to create a "Good/Bad list". What makes them their brothers keeper. To me it would be a group of buddy host who segragate others. This is wrong. I also think host who come here and bash other host are wrong. And again, I think host that promote sites that blacklist or bash other host arewrong. It is just bad business.

Something that would approve hosts, and make sure all of the issues that we have been fighting over are solved.

There are sites like this. Run by the big boys. I think Verihost is AIT, then there is the so called Web Host Guild. What a joke.

I think that a site that is neutral like this site are the best places. A customer can make an educated decision based of of numerous opinions or options.

What pisses me off about your site is that it blacklist host and leaves them open to ridicule by other host. Your site is like this to me - I create an "Anti-fast food restaurant" site. I then only put McDonalds and Burgerking on it. There are still numerous others, but because of my inabilty to do quality of research, I have now segragated two companies that are included on a half ass list. Now a new person new to fast food comes to my site and thinks these two places really suck and that because Taco Bell isn't on the list, it is OK.

We could get a lot of support from the members of this board.

I think if you had a site that is neutral, run by customers and their opinions, that also let a web host counter post, you would have more support. It is an open forum. A site that doesn't have a "hate list", but has a explainantion on your opinion about Unlimited that is used to educate would be much more effective because it doesn't have this hit-list so to speak. Eventually, customers with their horror stories about the so called unlimited guys would build and people visiting the site would read this. "Hey, XYZ Host says unlimited but charged 4 customers after 2 GBs, I won't use them". Also, this open forum would then test these unmetered guys. Because if they lie, then there customers would post the story about the lie.

I think there are a lot of people that are like me and refuse to support sites that band or bash other host. They are not as opinionated or boisterous as me, but they agree it is wrong to support a site like that.


The ironic thing is that you and I go back and forth all the time, but we both agree on unlimited being wrong and BS. :confused:

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Chicken, lets say there are terms that state "Sites hosting downloads, forums, gaming sites and chat sites are limited to 15 GBs per month. All other sites are not metered." Is this wrong?

I know what you are saying, besides this. While a busy chat site will kill the server quickly in most cases, a personal one probably won't. I don't see what is wrong with 'gaming sites', other than they use up bandwidth, so of course, you'd have a clause about it, download sites, as well. Like I said, you can TOS the account to death, saying you can't have this or that. It is all part of the unmetered, but not really, game.

Far as I'm concerned, I give people hard limits (up to xGB/mo.) without surprises (resource limits apply as well -they aren't paying for 100% of the server, thus they don't get to use 100% of any part of it). What they do with it is their business, not mine, so long as it is legal. If they want to use 1/2 their space to back up their hard drive and/or have downloads for their visitors, that is fine. This is what they are paying for.

Hey UmBillyCord,

I have been making strides to make my site more of a user friendly site and customer friendly. We have posted many people's views in the review sections. Some are not so good, others are 10 ratings and reviews that are glorifying the company that offers unlimited/unmetered.

UnlimBand.com at this point is neutral, and has no host backing or being run. I am not a host, and make no profits off of the industry, therefore I am a consumer like all other customers in this industry.

Also, the site has been changed from a "BlackList" to a simple "Unlim. Host List". Trying to get people educated, not turned off by the title.

I am also very open to suggestions, and work hard to implement suggested topics from unlimited hosts to plain old people that happen to visit the site.

If anyone has suggestions, I am very open to them. Email me or post.

Jim

Like I said, you can TOS the account to death, saying you can't have this or that. It is all part of the unmetered, but not really, game.

True, but does it make it wrong? Especially if you have a honest host who honors and has customers who can vouch for it. We all play numbers game in this business.

The next question, should unmetered be compared to unlimited host? I do not think so.

I am also very open to suggestions, and work hard to implement suggested topics from unlimited hosts to plain old people that happen to visit the site.

Remove the list. At the least the unmetered list until unmetered can be proven to be a lie. Right now I think there is too good of a chance you can find a host who will not bill for bandwidth and will use other limiting factors like terms (meaning - no download sites for example) or resources to limit use.

If you wish to have a list, then at least make it a list that was created by an *actual* customer who post his/her story to include the host on that list. Then allow a host to reply. This protects the host who gets the unreasonably upset customer who post to vent and bash because they had there account canceled for good reasions like - hosting porn. I don't know how many times I have seen X-customers post negeative things here about a compnay, then when the host calls them on it, you find out it was a lie.

I have made it clear that Unmetered Hosts are under their own category, and to be watchful of these guys.

Also, we do the best we can to weed out host submissions from actual client submissions. Hosting are allowed to reply to anything we post, and we have set up their own, online submission form. A few have used it, but not many.

If you take a look at some of the more recent posts, it seems to me that its now about 60% 40% with 60% bad reviews but 40% good. When we first stared out it was more like 95% 5% with 95% bad and 5% good. I think this shows that we are drawing more and more people into our site and the opionions and experiecnes are becoming more stable.

We continue to take comments and suggestions.

Jim

I would just like to make a note here. We do not state neither of these terms on our site in regards to bandwidth or disk space. What you see is exactly what you get, there are no confusing terms to work out. I just wanted to clear that up since we were mentioned in this thread as one of the hosts that claim unmetered resources which is not true.

Regards,
Greg