When a host offers any of the top 2 features

1. Disk Space
2. Bandwidth

As Unlimited is this a bad business idea? Why?

Do you offer it, why? Or why would you never offer it? = Unlimited that is

That do you think on the idea period ? ? ?

Unlimited is bad simply because it does not exist.
Companies are selling non-existant services when they advertise "unlimited".

Unlimited is great. We offer unlimited space and unlimited transfer at unlimited price.

Originally posted by Incognito
Unlimited is great. We offer unlimited space and unlimited transfer at unlimited price.


can i have link to sign up pls ?

Do you offer it

NO!
why?

Because I can't offer it (anything unlimited)

cheers,
:beer:

We're assuming here that you're referring to unlimited plans at a limited price, right? Here's why that doesnt' work:

1. Disk Space
So if you have a machine with 80Gigs of hard disk space, and you give me an account allowing me truly unlimited space, then I can take up the whole disk system. Right? Try that out as a business plan. See if that works. What if I want 300Gigs? And I'm only paying, let's say $50 a month. You now have to pay for more hard drives to satiate my needs.

2. Bandwidth
Same issue. What if I want 1000Gigs of transfer. See, my site is a file download site, and I want my users to download huge movie files. You -- the unlimited provider -- have to pay for every gig from your service provider. What do you do? Charge me more? But we have a fixed price for unlimited. Right? Well, you're out of business if I want to exercise your truly unlimited features.

Come on. It doesn't work. And it's -- in my opinion -- a REALLY shady business tactic to advertise unlimited bandwidth or disk space when you really mean "more than you would usually ever use." Just tell it like it is.

Unlimited bandwidth and web space have never exist in reality because everyone, including data centers like us, has to pay for that.

Don't be fooled by so called unlimited bandwidth or web space if you don't want to get burned someday.

Originally posted by MarcD



can i have link to sign up pls ?

He did say you would be charged an unlimited price :D

You know, it's really simple to be honest.

The only thing in this world that is unlimited are two things:

1. Death.
2. Taxes.

There is no such thing as unlimited, as you can't offer an infinity amount of service, maybe the outerspace, you could say that might be unlimited since we can't see or have a clue if it ever ends.

Get my drift? When you use someone's services or products and they say unlimited, just know that SOMEONE has to pay for what you use. If you pay $10 for unlimited bandwidth and you use 100 Gigs, guess what, that company has to pay for it and they just lost a ton of money off of you.

There is no way you can have a good argument on this (It doesn't matter who you are), as if everyone use the power of the usage of unlimited that you offered, you will be the next host to close their doors. You can only loose so much money, and that is why the "BIG" boys do NOT offer unlimited. There is a reason behind this, or they would do it too!

Unlimited means that there is no set limit as to the amount of space you can use for the price of the plan (make sure to read fine print, sometimes there is a catch). But, there is still the limitation of hard drive space on the servers.

Why it's bad?

This greatly puts a unrealistic expectation on the customer. And causes hosting companies to lower their prices to compete. Because of recent "price wars", a lot of hosting business are having serious trouble, even shutting down.

There are costs involved to provide the hosting service, most customers will not even use the entire amount in the plan they have purchased. It's much better for consumer and hoster to have fixed amounts, which there are plenty of plans available that will suit your needs at a reasonable price.

Neofree

Is their any host who offers unlimited and honors it?

:rolleyes:

Let me know?

Read my above post again.

There may be a few out there that honor this, FOR NOW. They will either result in problems running out of space, or not making enough money to support the business. Then they wind up removing their unlimitied plans to fixed ones, or just going out of business.

Please understand that even though you may sign up for one and it works out fine for a few months, this is still considered "shady" and there is very little gaurantee that you will beable to continue hosting with them long term.

Why do you actually need unlimited space? Again, you will be surpised how little amount of space a lot of sites actually use. I can't imagine why you would need more then 100MB unless you had very high traffic with forums or files or something.

The old saying, "You get what you pay for." Definately applies here.

Neofree

He He

;)

there are a lot here, people ask for unlimited bandwidth and even some computer magazines suggest to choose a provider which offers unlimited bandwidth to avoid further charges.
hmm, how different the world can be..
i don't know how they handle abusers.

Any computer magazine that suggest to choose a provider which offers unlimited bandwidth does not know much about hosting or data centers ! ! ! !

:rolleyes:

I want to know how "No" got 7 votes :P...



"Only two things are unlimited, space and human stupidity" - Albert Einstien


EDIT: BTW, I don't think he meant disk space ;).

Originally posted by MarcD

hosted a site with xeran
unlimited bandwith
site was on a god awfull 60kbs connection
as noone could get any faster that 63kbs and the site was slow as could be

unlimited bandwith is a joke and a rip off and is not even cost effective
lol, servers connection just above a 56k modem:eek:

I think unmetered is better. You can say that you honestly don't keep track of the bandwidth and disk space. But you can't honestly say that there's so much that it would never run out.

Anyway, if anyone finds a truly unlim band and space site, I really want to put up that tucows mirror, but only for $3.99/month or less. :)

Oh, and they better be doing nightly backups of my unlim space!

No such thing as unmetered as well



:D

No such thing as unmetered as well

This is BS and I have posted this 1000 times and no one every gave a reason why it is not possible. How is unmetered not possible?

1) Don't give the lame "Cause it is" crap.
2) Explain how a host using resource use as a deciding factor to limit accounts is any different whether it was caused by cgis, ASP, or high traffic?
3) If your only reason for stating this is because you are a jealous competitor, then why post?


I still have yet to see a reason why a host not using bandwidth as a limiting factor, but resource use, can be classified in the same category as unlimited. Someone paying $.10/GB can easily support not billing for bandwidth. Especially when they state what *is* limiting and can be proved to a customer. Resource use is that limit.

If a host wants to use "unmetered" and truly DOES NOT bill for bandwidth, then how can that nbe wrong? Maybe for those stuck in a DC paying $3.00/Gb, but not those who know where to get lower priced BW.

I am actually very curious about this. I always see people post this yet they never explain why.

Unmetered = Unlimited = Same thing

"This is BS"
Why not just say the words because people know what it mean ?

:rolleyes:

Unmetered = Unlimited = Same thing

Ha Ha. Good one. I think that really helped settle this debate. :cartman:

How ISN'T it the same thing? A host not watching their bandwidth will hit the limit eventually, as will a "unlimited" host, either way they are both bad business if you ask me.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
2) Explain how a host using resource use as a deciding factor to limit accounts is any different whether it was caused by cgis, ASP, or high traffic?I think the distinction here is that many hosts make a big selling point out of unlimited transfer, when it technically isn't possible and also be 100% sure the books will balance.

You know hosts have to make pricing decisions based on all sorts of factors; transfer is just one of them. If you offered truly unlimited/unmetered transfer, and someone were to sign up for one of those accounts and use so much bandwidth that it made your business unprofitable, you'd be out of luck.

The real problem is that so many hosts offer unlimited/unmetered bandwidth but they don't really mean it. Unlimited really means "up to X gigabytes of transfer, and then we start charging you." And that's not what unlimited means.

I think the distinction here is that many hosts make a big selling point out of unlimited transfer, when it technically isn't possible and also be 100% sure the books will balance.

Good point. I agree with this.

What I don't like is when unmetered is grouped with unlimited. I can't stand unlimited. As I know nothing is unlimited. It is a lie. But I know for a fact a host can price their hosting to not bill for bandwidth. Some host who only pay $.10/GB (It would take 90 GBs to break even a $9.00/mo account!!) can almost look at BW as a commodity. What they can't turn a blind eye too is resource use. There is the limit.

I am with you guys on unlimited. But it always drives me nuts when others post stupid things like

"Unmetered = Unlimited = Same thing "

That is telling a newbie looking for a host that a unmetered host is in the same catagory as the unlimited guys. If a host offers unmetered BW and then bills for, then they should be pointed out in forums to warn others. But I truly believe there are host who honor unmetered.

Unlimited is always good. :)

But let's not be sophomoric or pretend to be naive for the sake of discussion. You have to remember that there is a distinction between marketing language and real-world language. It's the consumer's responsibility to expose it or the business' obligation to admit it. We're all bombarded by pie-in-the-sky claims every day. I think most reasonable people can sort it out.

Unlimited anything does not exist - there is always a frigging gotcha. Anyone who says so just want you in the door and they lie to get you in. They will define "unlimited" according to what works at a later time based on available resources.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
If a host offers unmetered BW and then bills for, then they should be pointed out in forums to warn others. But I truly believe there are host who honor unmetered. I think that really sums it up. I think all of us would agree that most of the hosts who offer unlimited bandwidth are at least misleading their clients (by putting the REAL limits in a subchapter of the AUP or TOS). So many of these businesses haven't run the numbers and are sunk in no time, leaving their clients screwed.

I think this is a good debate. I hope a lot of people read it and can better understand some of the finer points of the webhosting world.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
This is BS and I have posted this 1000 times and no one every gave a reason why it is not possible. How is unmetered not possible?

1) Don't give the lame "Cause it is" crap.
2) Explain how a host using resource use as a deciding factor to limit accounts is any different whether it was caused by cgis, ASP, or high traffic?
3) If your only reason for stating this is because you are a jealous competitor, then why post?


I still have yet to see a reason why a host not using bandwidth as a limiting factor, but resource use, can be classified in the same category as unlimited. Someone paying $.10/GB can easily support not billing for bandwidth. Especially when they state what *is* limiting and can be proved to a customer. Resource use is that limit.

If a host wants to use "unmetered" and truly DOES NOT bill for bandwidth, then how can that nbe wrong? Maybe for those stuck in a DC paying $3.00/Gb, but not those who know where to get lower priced BW.

I am actually very curious about this. I always see people post this yet they never explain why.

Ok, I'll take a stab at it...

Can you think of a host that is actually stupid enough to sell a $10 account and not measure bandwidth used by this $10 account? I can't. Doesn't matter if you are paying $3.00/GB or $0.10/GB. If the account is pushing 450GB of transfer, then it is costing the host $45. Is one person using this much enough to push a host off the charts? Doubtfully, but if a person is paying $0.10 then they are most likely buying bandwidth (not transfer), and if someone runs an ad and that 450GB comes within a few days, they aren't going to have the pipe to deliver the goods.

Any 486 can serve files, a crap load of them, and I assure you no host is actually dumb enough to use resources and nothing but resources as *the* limiting factor. A dual processor, correctly set up server, would be able to pump out more, and offering services this way simply doesn't make sense for the host.

You want to give away unthrottled, unmeasured bandwidth for $10/mo. then that's your business. Most people know better. Most clients should know that there isn't a magic bandwidth tree and they aren't going to get $3,000 worth of pipe for $10/mo.

If you honestly think you will then you'll be disappointed. Check the TOS and all the limitations of those unlimted/unmetered hosts and you'll see exactly how they 'offer' it.

Umbilly, post your URL so I can take a look at that offer and your TOS please. Maybe you offer what you say you offer and I disagree with your choice. Maybe I can find the limitations beyond resources in your offer. Let's have a lookie at an example and we'll see one way or another.

I agree with everything Chicken said, *hug*. :D

Can you think of a host that is actually stupid enough to sell a $10 account and not measure bandwidth used by this $10 account? I can't. Doesn't matter if you are paying $3.00/GB or $0.10/GB. If the account is pushing 450GB of transfer, then it is costing the host $45. Is one person using this much enough to push a host off the charts? Doubtfully, but if a person is paying $0.10 then they are most likely buying bandwidth (not transfer), and if someone runs an ad and that 450GB comes within a few days, they aren't going to have the pipe to deliver the goods.

Yes I can. And sorry chicken, but if you can not see the difference between $3.00/GB and $.10/Gb, then you need to educate yourself when it comes to numbers. That is like saying there is no difference between paying $3.00/Gallon of gas and $.10. Sorry, but I think you are off on this. Simple math.

Also, who cares if it is BW or transfer? You are assuming a host didn't plan ahead and is over selling or can't handle a burst. What if they have a 1000 MB drop from Cogent? Assume they have a cheap 10 Mbps drop that can scale.

Since you are doing "What if's", then I will. How many accounts will ever push 450 GBs on a shared platform? You assume it happens often, while I assume almost never. Fine, we get one. We lose lets say $35.00. That is a business decision decided upon consciously. If you offer unmetered, and you honor it, then you are bound to get burned once. The difference is that at $.10/GB it is a risk. At $3.00/GB it is a gamble.


Any 486 can serve files, a crap load of them, and I assure you no host is actually dumb enough to use resources and nothing but resources as *the* limiting factor. A dual processor, correctly set up server, would be able to pump out more, and offering services this way simply doesn't make sense for the host.

I say a dual PIII 1 GHz with 300 sites certainly would show the effects of a site pushing 450 GBs.


If you honestly think you will then you'll be disappointed. Check the TOS and all the limitations of those unlimted/unmetered hosts and you'll see exactly how they 'offer' it.

Fine. What are Terms for then to you? By the sounds of it, you shouldn't have any. Show me yours - does it say no IRC? does it say no CGI chat? Why does a host say in a host features "CGI-bin", yet in the Terms limit it by saying no high resource use scripts.? Why is a person advertising "unmetered" bandwidth that says "No download sites, no forums, no audio/video" in their Terms bad?

As a side note, what if this company made a conscious decision to prevent these type of sites from being hosted. Maybe it is one companies business plan to keep forums, audio/video, gaming sites, etc.. off their network. Perhaps this company really doesn't mind losing this business because they know they majority of issue come from these sites. Maybe that company looks at it like a bar with a dress code. Why is there a dress code? To keep a certain type a customer out. It is called filtering. Maybe because a host does such a good job filtering, that they drop the changes for a high BW site in the first place.

Umbilly, post your URL so I can take a look at that offer and your TOS please. Maybe you offer what you say you offer and I disagree with your choice. Maybe I can find the limitations beyond resources in your offer. Let's have a lookie at an example and we'll see one way or another.

Chicken, I have been posting here since Nov of 2000. I have never mentioned anything about our company, companies plans or services, and I have never tried getting customers here. I don't want a shared customer that comes from WHT. Why would I post my company and Terms here now? To me WHT is great for seeing what is up and coming. It is a great place to see what some damn good host are doing. It is a place to meet other professionals. For *me*, it is not a place to get business.

Also, if I offer unmetered, have Terms that say "No download, no forums, etc", then that is our business model. If you don't like it, don't buy. No one has a gun to your head. But to bash it because someone does not agree doesn't make sense.


I say this. If a company wants to offer unmetered, then let them. If a company truly does not bill for the BW, if the company has clearly written Terms as to what they define as "unmetered", and if they are members of the BBB online where any one who feels lied to or ripped off can go, then I say who cares what they offer. Just maybe someone has a well thought out a business plan. To me it is a case of jealous competitor syndrome when people bash it.

While people may never agree with the term unmetered, I think the industry is to young to assume the term unmetered will not come to be. I don't know how long you have been on the net, but I was in discussions on newsgroups about a very similar thing years ago. The "unlimited hours" for Internet Access. Sure, now people say "oh that was a no brainer". Well if you remember the debates, you will find some resemblance. Who knows. Maybe BW prices do not *continue to drop*, maybe Cogent/Yipes/XO go bankrupt. Until then, our model is set.

Thanks Chicken for posting. I really enjoying seeing a reply with clear thinking.

I can see the difference in the pricing. My point was that in terms of hosting a site, besides hardware (#2), the pipe is the most expensive factor in offering these types of services. (I'm leaing out rack rental and other things associated with DC operation, etc.) It is unwise for a host to offer not only their full pipe, but 'all the pipe you can eat' for $10. If you only base the restictions on server resources, then one customer could take you for a ride.

Since you are doing "What if's", then I will. How many accounts will ever push 450 GBs on a shared platform? You assume it happens often, while I assume almost never. Fine, we get one. We lose lets say $35.00. That is a business decision decided upon consciously. If you offer unmetered, and you honor it, then you are bound to get burned once. The difference is that at $.10/GB it is a risk. At $3.00/GB it is a gamble.
Overselling is one thing. Giving the whole cow away is another. You aren't talking about overselling. I'm not saying that most customers would use 450GB, I'm wondering what you are doing to prevent even one customer from using the whole pipe (which would be much more than a loss of $35.00 to your business).
I say a dual PIII 1 GHz with 300 sites certainly would show the effects of a site pushing 450 GBs.
A dynamic site absolutely yes, a static site absolutely not. You have to further restrict the site in order to make this work, but in my opinion, the restictions that you'd have to place would be unreasonable. I know, you get to that below a bit...
Why is a person advertising "unmetered" bandwidth that says "No download sites, no forums, no audio/video" in their Terms bad?
I don't think it is bad, so long as this is clear on the front page and not buried in the TOS. So long as people know what they are getting when they sign up, they won't be mislead.

I will say that 'download sites' is vague. Every link on a site leads to a file and I'd personally have a hard time justifying what a download site is or isn't. I also know that (from what you posted), none of my crappy small personal sites (I have a site that has pictures of my son and video clips of him) would qualify for your hosting services, so I'd have to look elsewhere.

In this day and age, not allowing media on a web site is a bit restictive in my opinion, and hosts restricting these types of files are stuck in the early 80's when this sort of thing wasn't possible. These days, people have digital cameras and video cameras and they want to be able to share those pictures with relatives.

As I said, you can consiously keep these types of sites off your network (filter customers), but in my opinion, when I can't host a personal site, the restrictions are too high. I think you have to balance things a bit better and reach a mid point that works for you and the client.

I don't think it is a case of 'jealous competitor syndrome', as I said, I think it is a case of, sure anyone could offer it if they placed enough restrictions on the use of it. To me, there is no sense in restricting things that aren't illegal.

I think this is a bit of a tangent, but since you mentioned it, I understand the problems with cgi chat (really it can work perfectly fine, but may take down the server quickly -if actually used by more than a few people, which is the point of chatting, so it isn't all that feasible on a shared hosting plan), and IRC (IRC in itself isn't bad, it just has the potential to be bad). You gotta do what you gotta do to protect the network and the server from monopolization and attack. Restricting file types goes beyond that however, and for me, I couldn't use it (as I said, for even my crappy personal sites).

the pipe is the most expensive factor in offering these types of services.

If you are talking standard pricing, I agree. However if you are talking bulk, gig-e pricing, then we put the next big expense as support, not BW.

You gotta do what you gotta do to protect the network and the server from monopolization and attack. Restricting file types goes beyond that however, and for me, I couldn't use it (as I said, for even my crappy personal sites).

Actually Chicken, we do not "restrict". Maybe the words "dress code" made it seem so. I didn't mention that all acccounts needing downloads, forums, audio/video, gaming, etc... we will host. However we place a 10/GB/mo limit on these plans - clearly written in our Terms. This does two things:

1) It ensures, honest users that are growing on our netork can use popular these features or needs.

2) It puts just enough limit that someone who knows they abuse, and trust me - someone who is a abuser, knows it - will find us too restrictive and not the path of least resistance. So they will find some host giving away the farm for $5.00/mo to host at. We also in our plans offer only (1) MySQL db. $5.00/mo/db. Some think this is nuts, but to most, 1 is plenty. But that is another way we "filter".


I kind of put the unmetered philosphy with the "Cheap hosting" one. I believe(d) that host offering cheap hosting are headed for trouble and have no business plan or skills. I even posted this maybe once or twice in replies in threads. Tina (affordablehost) comes on *everytime* and defends the cheap hosting model. Sweers up and down a company with well thought out business plan selling extremely low cost hosting can make it and shouldn't be bashed. I relealized that while I do not agree, who am i to say it won't work. She made me realize that there could be a quality host selling low cost that is quality. So I think there are host offering unmetered for its customers that say "you will not see a bill for bandwidth" and honors it.

I don't think it is a case of 'jealous competitor syndrome'

Not to you, but some people here have a bad case of this.

Unmetered = Unlimited = Same thing

Stupid things like this drive prices down so low that the companies can't afford to offer a good service, so in an effort to compete they start cutting corners

Any host who offers Unmetered or Unlimited = STAY AWAY

:rolleyes:

No there are actually two definitions for unlimited.

1. No metering of traffic and/or space, no aditional billing no matter how much you use.

2. The host will provide you any amount of space/bw, for a price! Since most do #2 anyway, it's better to not call it unlimited since it's assumed.

It's OK for hosters to offer unmetered, because that's just another competitor I don't have to worry about!

Look at the poll results of this thread. You don't have to be a host to have common since. Even Grandma and Grandpa have common since and basic knowledge of how a business works. "You get what you pay for."

Sure there is a mass of cheapskates out there that just shop and shop and shop just for the absolutely lowest price. But these don't make up the majority, luckily, most people have common since. Plus these people tend to complain a lot, or they may cancel when they find something they dont like in TOS.

Also, it doesnt matter if your site says unlimited, or unmetered, and it doesn't matter if your TOS explains restrictions. The people that are looking for a quality host (majority) will see that word and leave your site immediately. Prejudged, even if you are like everyone else and made the mistake of offering unlimited resources (at a price though, but they dont see that, unless you put prices first, and then explain there is no limit to what you can BUY).

Especially corporate customers who are willing to pay more for custom services. They want quality. They will be scared away by this, they know very well that you get what you pay for. They want to maintain their image, they will look for someone they feel confident about not letting them down.

Seriously, wouldn't you rather have a Stable customer base? And also the "get fewer customers, charge more, provide quality service" idea applies here, especially with large accounts.

But hey, please, if you disagree, that's fine by me, because I know that your business won't steal away much of users with common sense. And then I still have a chance!! :)

Neofree

Seriously, wouldn't you rather have a Stable customer base? And also the "get fewer customers, charge more, provide quality service" idea applies here, especially with large accounts.

I sure hope you are not referring to our client base. You see, we have been in business since 7/99 and have customers in almost 60 countries. Maybe you assume that we are some fly-by-night; that is your error in judgment.

Maybe you should take the time to review what was posted. As it is apparent you did not comprehend it. You see, some host are not trying target *everyone*. I know it is hard to believe.

Your advice is better servered for championhost or tacidblue.

It's OK for hosters to offer unmetered, because that's just another competitor I don't have to worry about!

Fair assumption. However I see it different. ;)

Originally posted by bahres
Unmetered = Unlimited = Same thing

Stupid things like this drive prices down so low that the companies can't afford to offer a good service, so in an effort to compete they start cutting corners

Any host who offers Unmetered or Unlimited = STAY AWAY

:rolleyes:

As stated to a few in PMs, I will not respond to ignorance like this.

Just a guess, but you are 15??? You could learn a lot from some of the other younger host owners who present themselves in a professional manner here.

I understand targetting markets. Our business will have some specific targetted markets, in addition to general hosting.

But you're really targetting one market in particular: People that don't have common sense.

They tend to complain and ask a higher amount of questions. Your support cost goes up.

Plus they're just cheap. If you want less money out of people, that's your choice.

Neofree

On the cheap hosting model:

Selling web space is a bit like selling airline tickets.

We have a few first class customers paying $100 - $200 per month for hosting
A large number paying $10 - $30 per month
and a very small number paying $3 to $10 per month.

They all contribute to the profitability of the business.

On the unlimited issue, I have said before on this board that if we were to change our plans to unlimited it would not affect our costs at all if we hosted all the sites we currently host.
However, it would attract lots of high bandwidth sites who would force costs up considerably so its not viable.

Some of you will know that we have a budget brand with a high bandwidth limit. Very few customers get anywhere near the limit and its working out very well. Highly profitable.

I would say stick with hosts who have clearly defined limits as they are going to be more stable long term.

Gordon

But you're really targetting one market in particular: People that don't have common sense.

They tend to complain and ask a higher amount of questions. Your support cost goes up.

neofree, you are making way too many assumptions. You know nothing of our pricing plans. Nothing of our support cost. Nothing of our customer base. And nothing of our business. Why even post what you "think we do" when you do not know. I do not think a company growing very fast since 7/99 would be in business if we were like you assume.

Looks like Marc just got burned :), anyone making popcorn, I look forward to Chicken winning his debate too :).

I would say stick with hosts who have clearly defined limits as they are going to be more stable long term.

Webhosting.com, *****, Bluehill, etc... are not stable??? They have been around longer then most host here.

Well if you strictly offer to a specific market, you may beable to pull this off succesfully. I know I dont know your details, But I dont care if my customer base was a Single corporation, I wouldn't offer them anything unmetered/unlimited.

Neofree

Also, isn't the fact that this is such a big controversy, and the majority disagree with this as being a good business plan, wouldn't that Alone be enough to convince you to rethink, that is that both Users and other Hosters think poorly of this in majority?

Neofree

Also, isn't the fact that this is such a big controversy, and the majority disagree with this as being a good business plan, wouldn't that Alone be enough to convince you to rethink, that is that both Users and other Hosters think poorly of this in majority?

So the majority is always right?

I guess the beauty of competition is that your customers will dictate what is successful or not. Not other competitors.

True.

I am more comfortable with the way the majority thinks, it makes a lot of sense, as it has to many types of businesses over many years.

You do things your way, I'll do things my way.

Lets leave it at that.

But don't expect to try to convince everyone that this is an ok business model without getting a lot of disagreements.

Neofree

But don't expect to try to convince everyone that this is an ok business model without getting a lot of disagreements.

Well, if i didn't want to get into debates or disagreements, I sure wouldn't come to WHT. :)

My intent is to point out, that unmetered is not unlimited. They are two separate things. Now if you do not like the word unmetered, then fine. Don't host there. But don't bash a host because you do not agree.

It is like comparing a lemon to a apple. You are telling me lemons are apples. I am telling you they are different. I am also not saying you have to like apples.

Of course, the point I was making was that any company that provided unlimited bandwidth would be unstable because it would be unable to ensure its income exceeded expenditure.

However none of the examples companies you listed actually provide unlimited bandwidth.
They say they do, but in the small print it is clear they do not.

Therefore we are talking apples and oranges.

Gordon

Ask any consumer; most will tell you "Unlimited" is the best.
It's not surprising that most hosts agree that it isn't.

Whoa . . . . Now I'm confused. :cartman:

Take it as simple as that, it is not possible in anyway for a company to handle unlimited bandwith, somebody will eventually reach the limit and get kicked or overcharged. The difference between and unlimited plan and a limited plan is that the limit in the first is undefined and pre-agreed upon, while in the second you guarantee that you will get exactly what you should expect.

unlimited = undefined

Originally posted by Ahmad
Take it as simple as that, it is not possible in anyway for a company to handle unlimited bandwith, somebody will eventually reach the limit and get kicked or overcharged. The difference between and unlimited plan and a limited plan is that the limit in the first is undefined and pre-agreed upon, while in the second you guarantee that you will get exactly what you should expect.

unlimited = undefined

Hey guys, it is not about unlimited we are in debate about. I think we all agree with that. We are debating unmetered.

However none of the examples companies you listed actually provide unlimited bandwidth.

I agree Gordon. My post was in reply to your statement no host offering it. They offer it. Whether the honor it is another thing.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord


Good point. I agree with this.

What I don't like is when unmetered is grouped with unlimited. I can't stand unlimited. As I know nothing is unlimited. It is a lie. But I know for a fact a host can price their hosting to not bill for bandwidth. Some host who only pay $.10/GB (It would take 90 GBs to break even a $9.00/mo account!!) can almost look at BW as a commodity. What they can't turn a blind eye too is resource use. There is the limit.

I am with you guys on unlimited. But it always drives me nuts when others post stupid things like

"Unmetered = Unlimited = Same thing "

That is telling a newbie looking for a host that a unmetered host is in the same catagory as the unlimited guys. If a host offers unmetered BW and then bills for, then they should be pointed out in forums to warn others. But I truly believe there are host who honor unmetered.

In that case, I would agree. Hosts are actually doing it now, in terms of CPU cycles. If CPU cycles costed as much as bw, then they would put a limit on it. They don't monitor it, though, there is no such an unlimited number of CPU cycles. Vice versa, if bw was as cheap as CPU cycles, you would have been able to offer unmetered bw.

The problem is that it is still undefined. The customer doesn't have a guarantee that he will get what he expect, because he might have something in his mind completely different than what is in the sellers mind.

Originally posted by XDude
I want to know how "No" got 7 votes :P...


heh, I read the poll, read some posts, then went back to vote against unlimited bandwith. When I went back, I skimmed again and saw unlimited bandwith in the question and a big NO in the answer, so I just go and choose NO. I guess I can't change it now :(

Originally posted by XDude
"Only two things are unlimited, space and human stupidity" - Albert Einstien


Actually, I think the quote you are looking for is:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Unlimited is pure marketing speak, not techical speak.

Is it bad? In this forum, absolutely. In the real world, probably not.

What does it really mean? When it's applied correctly and not just a lie, it means unmetered, and to the extent that you can consume the limited resources within the system configuration, that means unlimited.

Is it unlimited? Of course not. Only a fool would ever think it was.

If the host charges you for any excesses, then it's not even unlimited within the resources available, and then it's really a lie.

-t

Originally posted by uuallan


Actually, I think the quote you are looking for is:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
That's the one :).

What does it really mean? When it's applied correctly and not just a lie, it means unmetered, and to the extent that you can consume the limited resources within the system configuration, that means unlimited.

You are making huge jumps without explaining how you got there. You say a host offering unlimited is really unmetered which is really unlimited which is bad.

Explain how you can say "What does it really mean? When it's applied correctly and not just a lie, it means unmetered,"

Unlimited states use as much as you can because there are "no limits" This is of course impossible.

Unmetered never said there is "no limit". It says that the limit isn't on bandwidth but rather other factors like server resources. Unmetered if honor tells your customer "we promise you will never see a bill for bandwidth".

Why do people just make the link unlimited = unmetered without explaining how they got there? If it is just a personal belief then fine. Kind of like religion, it requires faith and personal opinion. But don't try to explain things by skipping the underlying necessities.

Ok, A Ford is a Chevy. Here is why. Both have four wheels. If they have four wheels they are Chevy's. Case proven. :cool:

Come on. :)

Originally posted by UmBillyCord

Unlimited states use as much as you can because there are "no limits" This is of course impossible.

Unmetered never said there is "no limit". It says that the limit isn't on bandwidth but rather other factors like server resources. Unmetered if honor tells your customer "we promise you will never see a bill for bandwidth".

Why do people just make the link unlimited = unmetered without explaining how they got there? If it is just a personal belief then fine.



I think you have people at a disadvantage by not posting your plans, or information about your company, because it makes it easier for you to dodge examples by saying "we don't do that".

Unmetered usage makes sense in a colocation, or dedicated server environment. I can run a hand-off to a server, set the limit on the switch port to 10/100/1000 and bill you accordiningly.

In a shared environment it does not make as much sense. The reason people, or at least I, equate unmetered with unlimited is that the end result is the same. When you say you offer unmetered bandwidth in a shared environment, you are saying that you can use as much bandwidth as you want, as long as you stay within these guidelines. Hosts who offer unlimited bandwidth are also saying that people can use as much bandwidth as they want as long as they stay within their guidelines. So, there really is not a difference in the outcome, just in the terminology.

Instead of comparing a Ford to a Chevy what you are doing is comparing Ford Taurus to a Mecury Sable, it's basically the same car, with a slightly different spin.

Simply put, Stay away from any host affiliated with the words;

Unmetered, Unlimited, UmBillyCord

:D

When you say you offer unmetered bandwidth in a shared environment, you are saying that you can use as much bandwidth as you want, as long as you stay within these guidelines.

How is this different then cgi restrictions. Show me a host with unlimited CGI use. You do not get billed for cgi script use, but if you cause server issues, you are shutdown or asked to leave.

Unmetered, to me, says it is not bandwidth that will be limiting. It NEVER says, you have unlimited use. It says we will not bill you for it. If you start causing server issues, then we will treat it like a high cgi resource script and provide other options.

So, there really is not a difference in the outcome, just in the terminology.

You are incorrect. There is a big difference. Unlimited says you have unlimited use, no matter what. As we all know, you will also get a bill for overage. Key word - *bill*.

unmetered says there is a limit. It is the one that governs resource use. But it also says, key words - * no bill*

How can you see this not being different???

Instead of comparing a Ford to a Chevy what you are doing is comparing Ford Taurus to a Mercury Sable, it's basically the same car, with a slightly different spin.

Tell that to a Mercury Sable owner. :) . However, if you believe what you posted as correct, then this statement is.. I however believe what I posted as truth, so the Ford/Chevy is a better description.

The customer doesn't have a guarantee that he will get what he expect, because he might have something in his mind completely different than what is in the sellers mind.

This is an excellent point! When faced with decision like this, it is up to the buyer to make the decision. If they want hard numbers, let them host somewhere with hard limits. If they want to use a more open means for limitation, then maybe unmetered isn't a bad solution for them.

I agree with umbillycord and disagree with bahres on this. I posted this in another thread, but it goes here too.

---

I think that unlimited is misleading, because there are limits. Unmetered, and you will get customers who need a dedicated server and want to use a lot of resources, not just bandwidth.

If you are offering unmetered, and you get that one customer that can use 200GB/month without using up the the server's resources, it's how you handle that situation that determines on whether you are being honest.

If you can accept that as part of your strategy, then it should be okay.

The problem is with hosts that say, "He's the one customer that is costing us the most money, we have to get rid of him."

What they should be saying is "We knew this would happen. We have one customer using 200GB/month, but it all evens out because most customers are using less than 1GB. Let's install mod_gzip for him or see what we can do to help him get the best service."

Originally posted by UmBillyCord

Unmetered, to me, says it is not bandwidth that will be limiting. It NEVER says, you have unlimited use. It says we will not bill you for it. If you start causing server issues, then we will treat it like a high cgi resource script and provide other options.

A host offering unlimited bandwidth does not necessarily say you have access to unlimited server resources. They are just saying that you can use as much bandwidth as you need, within the confines of their restrictions -- which is the same thing you are saying.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord

You are incorrect. There is a big difference. Unlimited says you have unlimited use, no matter what. As we all know, you will also get a bill for overage. Key word - *bill*.

unmetered says there is a limit. It is the one that governs resource use. But it also says, key words - * no bill*

How can you see this not being different???


Unlimited does not say that. As has already been established, any host that offers unlimited bandwidth always does so within certain confines. Unmetered does not, by default mean no bill, it might mean there will be no bill for bandwidth -- by your definition, but there is nothing inherent in the definition of unmetered that says that a customer won't be billed for additional disk usage, or CGI usage, etc. Just because you may not do it, does not mean that it is explicitly understood by the term unmetered.

I don't see the two as being different because to this point you have not shown them to be different. You have said that unmetered usage means no bill for using additional server resources. A host offering unlimited bandwidth would say the same thing.

Again, if you were to show us your TOS for unmetered accounts, we would be able to get a more accurate view of how your plans really compare to unlimited hosts.

Originally posted by XDude
I want to know how "No" got 7 votes :P...


I voted "no". Because unlimited is a good thing. Well unlimited amounts of a good thing is a good thing. IMHO. Should have worded the question differently, possibly.

Unlimited? hmmm.....


:uzi: unlimited



Jim

Unlimited does not say that.

Unlimited by its very definition states that. Look up the word.

I see where you are going. Maybe those unlimited hopst need to change the name to unmetered. Because there is a difference.

How many times have I posted this? If correctly and honestly listed and honored, unmetered states you will not be billed for bandwidth. Zero. None. Do you get a bill for the servers power use? No. Same thing with bandwidth if you say you will not be billed for it.

Now of cource you can not run up power like BW. So there must be some "limit" (unlimited HAS no limit by the very definition). Why not make it the same limit placed on cgis scripts? ASP scripts?

Again, do not assume that because host burn you with the unlimited terms, that automatically a host will with unmetered will do the same.

** Now here is the catch. Sooner or later dishonest host will start abusing that term. They will lie and give the host using it a bad name. Guilt by association. Once that day comes, well maybe it would be time to stick a limit like 50 GBs on there.

Again, if you were to show us your TOS for unmetered accounts, we would be able to get a more accurate view of how your plans really compare to unlimited hosts.

Actually, I may just do that. I'll mix it up a bit so you can't use Google to find what company I own. :)

As I stated with Chicken, I have been coming here since Nov of 2000. Never once did I use it as a time to bring in business. I like the fact that I can post freely without it being related to my company.

Originally posted by jimb
Unlimited? hmmm.....


:uzi: unlimited



Jim

Jim, I think we got that. It seems people enjoy jumping in here without reading. No where in this thread is anyone sticking up for unlimited.

UmBillyCord - I'll say it again just for you;

If something is Unlimited then why meter it .... Would you meter something Unlimited, NO ................ then you can call it Unmetered ! ! ! ! !

Daaaaaaaaaaa

;)

I think that umbillycord touched on this briefly.

I think that web hosts that have super low prices, where the profit margin per customer is incredibly low are just as bad as "unlimited" bandwidth hosts. They're taking just as big of a risk that no customer will require more technical support or customer service resources than they're paying for.

Of course the higher paid hosts are taking the same risk, but it's much less of a risk.

Maybe we should start placing limits on everything, starting with CPU time and ending with the number of minutes you can spend on our toll free phone number. Just to keep us all honest.

I think we've had enough of this. There's so much "unlimted" going around that it's never going to run out.

Sorry.. locked.