Ok, so everyone has had their shot at an "unlimited" host or two, and everyone has seen the 8+ pages of flames that show up anytime a host uses any word that begins with the letters "un" anywhere on their website.
So here's my question. What word *should* be used for a host that doesn't want to set a hard limit for their hosting? Suppose you don't want to hassle others or yourself with iron clad limits that you don't intend to enforce? Maybe you're a host that is targetting small personal sites, or internet newbies, and just want to give people access to your disk space and bandwidth, with the understanding that if they start straining the resources then they'll be asked to move?
Anyone who feels like responding with "they should just set a hard limit", feel free to put that in some other topic. I'm interested in what hosts who offer that specific type of hosting can say to avoid incurring the WHT wrath.

Have as much as you want ;)

that's pretty good actually...

On our plans page, for "unlimited databases", which would be a lie since too many databases on a server isn't so good, we use "as many as you need".

Originally posted by Helter
Anyone who feels like responding with "they should just set a hard limit", feel free to put that in some other topic. I'm interested in what hosts who offer that specific type of hosting can say to avoid incurring the WHT wrath. I suspect that what you'll find is that the problem is not one of semantics and neither is the solution; there is no word that would be acceptable to the anti-unlimited crusaders. The common opinion is that it's the practice of not setting a hard, defined limit -- while writing a TOS that allows you to cancel an account or bill a customer for using "excessive" resources -- that is itself the problem, regardless of what it might be called.

But Jay, that's hypocricitcal. EVERY TOS needs to say that the customer can be denied service if they make "excessive" use of resources.
You want to tell me that if a site is using 90% of your memory and 80% of your CPU resources that you're going to let them keep on going just because they're within their bandwidth and hard drive allocations?

Originally posted by Helter
You want to tell me that if a site is using 90% of your memory and 80% of your CPU resources that you're going to let them keep on going just because they're within their bandwidth and hard drive allocations? Of course not. And you wouldn't even have to use such an exaggeratedly extreme example.

But the problem in the application of such a policy is that while your users' transfer and disk allowance usage can easily be made obvious to them -- and even measured by them -- their cpu and memory usage is normally not. So put it in the historical context of "unlimited" hosts who have been accused often of booting customers because of high transfer usage while telling the customers that it was because of an undemonstrable high cpu usage, and you encounter at best a public relations problem. And the fact is, I can't remember any reports here at WHT of a user being kicked for cpu or any other vague "excessive resource" usage by any host that has reasonable disk and transfer limits. That seems to be the tactic exclusively of the unlimited host.

Regardless of what term you might come up with to replace "unlimited," the first time you kick out a few high-bandwidth customers because a line in your TOS says you can based on their resource usage, your new term will join the likes of "unmetered" as just another synonym of "unlimited" in the WHT glossary.

From MS Bookschel 2000
------------
unlimited (adjective)

absolute: unlimited, unrestricted, infinite
infinite: unmeasured, unbounded, unlimited
unconditional: unrestricted, unlimited, absolute
intemperate: untempered, unmeasured, unlimited, plenteous

The Original Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases (Americanized Version) is licensed from Longman Group UK Limited. Copyright © 1994 by Longman Group UK Limited. All rights reserved.
---------------

THe problem with this is how each term could be interpreted. I speak specifically in the case of lawsuit. If for instance I chose the word "unconditional" or "unrestricted" from my fictisious hosting company, XYZ, then Mr. A, whose account was disabled would sue me and say that I was contracted to provide bandwith without conditions or restrictions (respectively).

I suppose I could say reasonable limits. BUt then who is to interpret what reasonable is. I would find it difficult to explain the term, as it is so relative. THere are a horde of words that could be used, but each with the same problem, it is too vague and can be misleading and/or misinterpretted by cours.

Unlimited (and words alike) should be avoided for the sake of the hosting company. If it gets sued, and the client wins, the hosting company is liable to go bankrupt over such a simple word.

We use the word 'unmetered' in reference to how many email accounts can be set-up on our super hosting plan because we allow them to set up as many POP accounts as their 500 MB of disk space can accomodate storing email for. Is unmetered acceptable in this case? I have been wondering about that lately.

Unmetered seemed like a pretty good word - it indicates that you don't keep track and there is no hard limit, but it does not imply infinite resources the way unlimited does. BUT I don't know if I am comfortable with the word being used in reference to bandwidth and I certainly wouldn't use it in that context.

Personally I think anyone who isn't keeping track of their server's usage needs their head read, no matter what you offer. It's just a part of maintaining the box.

The original post told me to post elsewhere (as I'd say set a hard limit), so this is in reply to two points.


We use the word 'unmetered' in reference to how many email accounts can be set-up on our super hosting plan because we allow them to set up as many POP accounts as their 500 MB of disk space can accomodate storing email for. Is unmetered acceptable in this case? I have been wondering about that lately.

So did we once. It's now been lowered to 1000 as a hard limit. If by chance someone ever needed more than that. they could just drop us a note. To date no-one is even close to using that many e-mail addresses on our servers so it's never been an issue.

But Jay, that's hypocricitcal. EVERY TOS needs to say that the customer can be denied service if they make "excessive" use of resources.
You want to tell me that if a site is using 90% of your memory and 80% of your CPU resources that you're going to let them keep on going just because they're within their bandwidth and hard drive allocations?

Our TOS sets a general rule of thumb regarding resource usage. It's fairly high and to date, again, no-one has ever come close to reaching it. If they do we'll look into it.

From our TOS:
"Any attempt to knowingly undermine or cause harm to a server, or customer, of akashik.net is strictly prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to: using programs that consume excessive CPU time (generally more than 20% for 5 minutes or longer);"

There it is, stated in black and white.

Everything on our site has a limit, is stated as having a limit, and doesn't offer false promises or inflated statistics, and business is going just fine (thanks for asking). I see little excuse for people who don't do the same.

Greg Moore

Originally posted by akashik
So did we once. It's now been lowered to 1000 as a hard limit. If by chance someone ever needed more than that. they could just drop us a note. To date no-one is even close to using that many e-mail addresses on our servers so it's never been an issue.

Hi Greg,

Out of interest what prompted you to change from listing it as 'unmetered'? Although I agree that a hard limit of 1000 is more than enought for anyone.
:)
Leeanne

Well we figured 1000 e-mail accounts was enough for anyone. If they need more I'd probably be interested in why. This allows us to ask. Our TOS prohibits people running their own version of hotmail on the servers, and I can't think of too many places that would need more than a few hundred addresses at best within their business (at least that would be using shared hosting).

It was pretty much an adherence to our own opinions on unlimited or unmetered. As we've never offered it in transfer or space it seemed a little hypocritical to have it in our e-mail addresses option either.

Greg Moore

Originally posted by Helter
I'm interested in what hosts who offer that specific type of hosting can say to avoid incurring the WHT wrath.
If you want to avoid the wrath, best not to pretend that you can, let alone will, offer an infinite amount of something, for a fixed price. Just ain't gonna happen.

You can word it 1/2 dozen ways, but no matter how much you're willing to offer, even if it is a whole dung load, there will still be a limit where you are going to have to say, "Whooooa cowboy, you're only paying me $10..."

If you have a problem with a customer having 10,000 pop accounts, then don't even think of putting 'unlimited emails accounts' in the features list.

lolnow be fair chicken there is something they can do,

invent a server with infinate ram cpu power and hdd space, then invent an OCX which of course supplies infinate bandwidth. then sit back and smile. lol anyone who can break the laws of physics deserves a break hehe

wow richy, congratulations on being the one person to misinterpret my thread in the *most* outrageous way. Your post shows that you either completely forgot to read the original post, or sought to actively ignore it entirely. Congrats.
Anyway, for others.
I'm still interested in what you think single plan hosts should do.
Let's put this into a situation that you can understand.
I plan on setting up a webhost (I don't, but let's pretend) that offers only one plan. 8.95 a month will be our only plan. We will not pay any attention to individual hosting/bandwidth usages, but if either stat starts to become worrisome we will investigate to determine if it is being overused.
So what does our host advertise as? Traditionally we would advertise as an unlimited host, but everyone here seems to feel that is fraudulent. any suggestions?

call it whatever you want. I no longer have an opinion on this thread. Good luck if it works. Lets hope your customers don't lose too much if/when you go belly up in a few months. You seem pretty intent to stick with this plan no matter what anyone says so *shrug*. It's not my business.

Greg Moore

looks like akash is tied with rich for "most unwilling to read the topic at hand".

So here's my question. What word *should* be used for a host that doesn't want to set a hard limit for their hosting? Answer: Millions

Dead on topic, straight to the point, and the next best ambiguous word I can think of, besides Unlimited of course.

BTW, starting a thread and controlling a thread are two different things -- and the latter just ain't going to happen. At least not at this Board. People have given you very good answers to your question in general, but you seem to be stuck in rut or at least, on one word answers.

I would agree with others that if you are going to use "Unlimited" and/or "Millions" for stating any available Web Hosting resources you offer, adding "Bankrupt" in there somewhere might be a good idea as well. ;)

I know exactly what you mean

Regards Traffic.... No Set Limits

Then point them to your real terms, ie. if you are deemed to be a very excessive bandwidth user, you may be asked to re-locate or upgrade your plan in the next billing cycle (Monthly accounts)

Then you are playing the numbers game - You may or may not go over so it may or may not matter.

How many sites out there actually use their quota?
Not that many in my experience..... No Set Limits should work OK and it does not spring to mind the 'un' debate either.

999 emails is good as is 'as many as you need' - Can't see a problem with that. Within resources would also be acceptable I think too.

What do you think to that?

Just some thoughts :-)

Originally posted by Helter
So what does our host advertise as? Traditionally we would advertise as an unlimited host, but everyone here seems to feel that is fraudulent. any suggestions? The point is, you're trying in your marketing approach to imply that there are no limits, while in practice you will have limits. That's what many people feel is fraudulent about "unlimited," and as long is it's true of your proposed business plan it's what people will feel is fraudulent about it... regardless of what you call it.

Again, semantics are neither the problem nor the solution. The problem is that you will be advertising something you are not really offering, and one solution is to be clear and direct about what you are offering.

Another solution is to go ahead and do it, calling it unlimited or whatever you want, and weather the storms while profiting from those clients who, knowingly or unknowingly, buy into it. Certainly some hosts are successful doing that... but they won't find much success marketing here at WHT (or, as another example, the usenet newsgroup alt.www.webmaster, which has also developed a strong anti-unlimited culture); so if that's your approach you'll have to find a different marketing venue. Nothing wrong with that, it's just a business decision you have to face. Just be aware that in the circles of net-business savvy web consumers, you're going to have a tough time selling the concept.

How about 'flexible data transfer limits'?

and then placing a note beside it that it is a soft limit. And that they can use more and not be charged for peaks but sustained overages will be dealt with on an individual basis.

I offer set limits but I deal with overages one on one with my customers like I do everything else.

From doing this a while now I have seen there are two types of hosting company's in this business. Those that run their business like a drive thru McDonalds and sign up as many customers as they can at prices that are way too low and hope a few stick and never need much support etc. These are the ones that normally have unlimited in there somewhere.

Then there are those that run their business like it is business it builds over time they treat their customers with respect and care, know they are not going to get rich over night but over a period of time a nice income. Their customers stick to them like glue and refer friends and family.

The choice is yours which hosting company you want to be, but in my experience the latter ones are around for years the others come and go like the wind.

If you are not promoting unlimited transfer but just cannot be bothered with worrying about it, why not just leave it off the plan description altogether?

To say "Transfer: unlimited, unmetered, as much as you want, 1 TBPS" is misleading since someone will abuse it and put you under in a hurry. There is a reason people hate the term unlimited so much, it usually indicates that if there are no traffic jams there soon will be.

I would recommend just leaving it off your plan description and putting something in your TOS that gives you the right to question any excess bandwidth at your own discretion.

Actually, I don't recommend that at all. But if you must go that route...

Good luck.

Originally posted by akashik
Well we figured 1000 e-mail accounts was enough for anyone. If they need more I'd probably be interested in why. This allows us to ask. Our TOS prohibits people running their own version of hotmail on the servers, and I can't think of too many places that would need more than a few hundred addresses at best within their business (at least that would be using shared hosting).

It was pretty much an adherence to our own opinions on unlimited or unmetered. As we've never offered it in transfer or space it seemed a little hypocritical to have it in our e-mail addresses option either.

Greg Moore

you make a good point with this - i don't agree with unlimited bandwith either and i guess having 'unmetered' email does file int he face of that. i am going to make the change to a hard limit for the emails. thanks for your advise.

Thanks alot guys, these are some damn good posts (even the ones that I flamed).

Originally posted by disoft
How about 'flexible data transfer limits'?

I like that, but you still need to set some kind of limit to prevent people from using more than you want, and to know how much they can expect to use. The problem with unlimited hosts is you never know how much you can use before they shut you down. That's why the word unlimited gets flamed around here. Say something like "up to 30 GB, if you need more, just ask and we'll work with you" or something like that. That lets people know that they can use up to 30 GB without a problem, and if they need more, they can talk to you about it.

hows about dynamic hosting
dynamicaly hosted
hosted using dynamic systems?

thats what it is isnt it? a dynamic system with constraints?

Not trying to be weird or funny here... seriously... Helter, are you (or were you) a Mac user?

(My reasons for asking after the answer.)

lol sorry, unfortunately when you offer a service such as this your clientel fall into distinct categories, people who dont want to have to worry about overages and those that want to thrash 13 shades of **** out of your server by mirrors tucows for thier own personaly enjoyment. While i understand your intentions to be good, you will generally attract people who will abuse your service. You will attract the people who want to host 2 gig of videos and who will max out your 100 base t . I assume you will be using an unmetered connection for this as it would be the sensible way to go, so as to not loose money. This would make it even easier to max out.
i do understand what your asking, but to maintain a decent quality of service youll have to cull accounts that dominate resources, and your then setting limits, which cannot exist for an unmetered or unlimited host. honestly im not sure there are sound ways to promote that, you could make the limits very high, so high that only the sites you would want to cull would fall foul of them, eg 100 gb a month.
the minute you mention unmetered \ unlimited and dont cap the bandwidth then you will attract chuckles and shakes of heads from other hosts.
If your refund say the last month or two's money on accounts you decide to terminate for over use would be an idea, that way your saying use as much as you want and if its too much sorry heres your money back.

heh sorry for the post earlier, just me in a mischievous mood. im not a fan of unlimited as ive had a few accounts like that for a laugh and trust me, when someone is using a gig e and a server to upload to your server (legit content i.e. holiday photoes at 19020 dpi 48 bit colour) then downloading repeated via ftp just to test your unlimited claim, youll rethink. moderate disk space limits are also a way to keep bandwidth in check (altho i did have a 1page text only site on our server once pushed 400 mb a day so you will get sites).

best wishes, and sorry again about the other post, it was meant to be humourus, guess i missed the mark :)

Originally posted by DesElms
Not trying to be weird or funny here... seriously... Helter, are you (or were you) a Mac user?

(My reasons for asking after the answer.)

Nope... the only practical use that I can see for a Mac is as a target.
Richy, your point about abusive users is well taken. That would definitely be a problem, and potentially a large one. Without having some way to penalize overuse there's really not much that can be done to curtail abusers.
Oh, and don't worry about your other post. I don't take things like that seriously, I just always try to respond in kind.

lol nice call on the mac's.

most hosts that offer unlimited have a get out clause based on system resources to counter abusers, donhost are famed for screaming about it when you use their unlimited space up. your going to come up against the bad will generated by hundreds of unlimited hosts who have screwed people over.

heres a concept that just occured to me, assuming you have a capped 10 mbps connection state clearly on your site you will put sites on a server until it peaks at 7.5 mbps, and should the sites grow they could be asked to move to a new server, any site using 7.5 mbps on its own will be askes to buy a dedicated server or similar. provide mrtgs to prove your claims, that way your customers know they will have a decent quality of service. you could always give a free month to anyone who is required to move servers. also put on a disclaimer saying this is intended for personal and small business hosting not file serving etc. people who use 7.5 mbps either have far too many friends or need to learn about jpegs. they dont require personal \ shared hosting. they require a server or two. make your intentions clear i guess. you dont intend to have to boot off people, but then again you dont intend to mirror sunsite.

good luck, you will come up against animosity, your best defence will be honesty.