If you ever want to expand the current amount of bandwidth, you're in big trouble!!!

We got an AMD 3200, 2GB ram, 3x73GB scsi and 700GB of bandwidth per month for a total of $250/month. Now, we want to get an additional 300GB of bandwidth and sure enough, Rackspace says that if we want we can pre-pay at $2.00 PER GB!!!! Overage charges are $3.50 per GB.

So they expect us to pay an ADDITIONAL $600/month for 300GB of bandwidth!!!! It's absolutley absurd!!! Beware!!!

This doesn't suprise me...

You should have asked before you signed up. You know they are pricy - so why did you not ask? RackSpace is a very company and I do not think they deserve this type of review.

Dude, $2.00/GB is outrageous considering I am paying $250/month for 700GB....

You would really pay $600/month for just 300GB of bandwidth?

That's quite outragous pricing.

Cancel and move elsewhere, while rackspace are a good company by todays market standards they are not going to get away with basically exploiting people.

Other companies can compete with them to a degree.

Esentially they are charging you $600 for 1mbps.

I had faith in rackspace but this has put me off, and i'm shocked. The sales rep I just spoken to even confirmed the charge and tryed to argue the fact that $600 was a reasonable price for 1mbps of bandwidth basically.

-Scott

Welcome to the free market. They can charge whatever they want and it's up to you to determine whether it's worth paying.

Why not get another server with them? You'll get 700 GB for $250.
Unless you have only one web site that can't be split accross two servers?

Worst part is that I'm on a contract. This is absolutley crazy, I don't know what we are going to do now.... but this is reason enough not to ever recommend Rackspace to anyone, ever again.

Everything was going reasonably smooth with them, and I was a big supporter but now they have completely lost my respect for their business practice. As soon as the contract is over we are out of here, and until then I guess we'll have to try and think of ways to minimize our bandwidth. Might just end up storing our images on another hosting account somewhere.

So pathetic, what a waste of our time. Extremely dissapointed with Rackspace!!!

Why not get another server with them? You'll get 700 GB for $250.
Unless you have only one web site that can't be split accross two servers?

Yea no kidding eh? We are hosting only 1 website, but there might be a way to figure out how to store the biggest bandwidth drain (images) in another location. It's very ridiculous what they are doing.

I mean I could just get an account at www.mosso.com (hosted on the Rackspace network) and get 2000GB of bandwidth per month for $100, and just use that to store images..... I might just have to do that... but this isnt why I got a dedicated server with Rackspace!!!! I'm sooooo dissapointed it's not even funny!!!!

Yea no kidding eh? We are hosting only 1 website, but there might be a way to figure out how to store the biggest bandwidth drain (images) in another location. It's very ridiculous what they are doing.

I mean I could just get an account at www.mosso.com (hosted on the Rackspace network) and get 2000GB of bandwidth per month for $100, and just use that to store images..... I might just have to do that... but this isnt why I got a dedicated server with Rackspace!!!! I'm sooooo dissapointed it's not even funny!!!!Rackspace is a good company, yes, but many other companies can beat their network. While 2TB bandwidth is good for $100 per month, images shouldn't be much of a problem.

What were you originally expecting to spend for an extra 300GB of bandwidth?

Rackspace is a good company, yes, but many other companies can beat their network. While 2TB bandwidth is good for $100 per month, images shouldn't be much of a problem.

What were you originally expecting to spend for an extra 300GB of bandwidth?

$100/month for an additional 300~400 of bandwidth would seem reasonable to me based on how much bandwidth we are getting for $250.

How long have you been with RackSpace? It seems a bit odd, that I'm paying less then you for the bandwidth, but more then you for the server.

Greetings:

Considering the quality at Rackspace.com, the price they charge is extremely fair.

Thank you.

Yes, their prices for bandwidth is crazy, but they not hosters for free porn sites - only mission critical sites hosted here. So, just for their level of monitoring and support I'm ready to pay their fees :)

If you need cheappo host - look in "Offers" section.

You are recieving PREMIUM bandwidth at that price, and as stated before this dosent suprise me. Rackspace caters to large companies that demand to have 100% uptime and zero packet loss. The price for bandwidth from rackspace I feel is reasonable, for the quality they provide, but is deffinatly not something for the small time user.

Well yes, I know it's premium bandwidth.

But think about it, I am paying $250 for 700GB, yet *apparantley* I should be paying $1,400!? So they were so very generous as to give me a $1,150 discount? Come on, let's be real here. Premium bandwidth is over priced IMO. It's a stigma that was created a while back when it really was an issue, now it's just a cash cow.

So now I'm not sure what we'll do. I mean, yes, we can afford it. It's why we got Rackspace to begin with, we get 1.5 million hits a day now and 100% uptime is a priority. I never mind paying for something when I need it, but I do not like getting ripped off on nonesense like this - they expect me to pay 3x more per month, but will I really be getting 3x more service by adding only 300GB bandwidth?

You all really think that $600/month is a good price for 300GB of bandwidth? I find that very hard to believe, especially if you were in my exact position.

$600 for 300GB of bandwidth is not reasonable.

That's $600 for 1mbps of bandwidth, you think rackspace pay that to their upstream? They wouldn't be in business otherwise.

Think about it, he is getting 700GB and a server for $250/month, YET the for just 1mbps more he needs to pay more than double what he does for the server with 700gb.

$600 for 300GB of bandwidth is not reasonable.

That's $600 for 1mbps of bandwidth, you think rackspace pay that to their upstream? They wouldn't be in business otherwise.

Think about it, he is getting 700GB and a server for $250/month, YET the for just 1mbps more he needs to pay more than double what he does for the server with 700gb.

Thank you! Finally some agreement!

Thank you! Finally some agreement!

I love large companies and all the people on here standing up for that, it's like most large companies with the proffesional look. No offense but bandwidth has got a lot cheaper on the market since 1999-2003. It's a hell of a lot cheaper then $2 a gig, RackSpace is just trying to make a nice profit off people who don't know market value and don't understand you can get just as good service at places like softlayer and the planet for cheaper.

Why not get a cheaper dedicated server elsewhere just to move some of your download/bandwidth intensive stuff to.

Keeping everything of importance at rackspace.

Why not get a cheaper dedicated server elsewhere just to move some of your download/bandwidth intensive stuff to.

Keeping everything of importance at rackspace.
Sounds like a pretty good solution to me.

Lots of people pay that amount for the rackspaces or fusepoint, Q9 networks with 100% uptime over the years. I find it crazy that you didn't read your agreement before signing up and are now complaining about the price.

It really is quite simple. Don't sign up for a price then when you actually have to pay it complain about your provider.

This is webhostingtalk, no offense meant but most people here don't really get mission critical. They believe if their ecommerce site is down for an hour and they lose a few thousand dollars that it is critical.

I don't think that this agreement is the right one for you if you are concerned about that price but complaining about it now will get you nowhere.

I think your options are if you are hosting any files that are driving up bandwith, keep your site hosted there for uptime and place the actual files on cheaper dedicated hosting and only use rackspace for failover.

Lots of people pay that amount for the rackspaces or fusepoint, Q9 networks with 100% uptime over the years. I find it crazy that you didn't read your agreement before signing up and are now complaining about the price.

It really is quite simple. Don't sign up for a price then when you actually have to pay it complain about your provider.

This is webhostingtalk, no offense meant but most people here don't really get mission critical. They believe if their ecommerce site is down for an hour and they lose a few thousand dollars that it is critical.

I don't think that this agreement is the right one for you if you are concerned about that price but complaining about it now will get you nowhere.

I think your options are if you are hosting any files that are driving up bandwith, keep your site hosted there for uptime and place the actual files on cheaper dedicated hosting and only use rackspace for failover.

Lets ignore dedicated servers for a moment and instead walk into a resteaunt, site down and order a meal and a coke to drink. This order came to a total of $5.00. You then decide you want another coke, so you order one, and they charge you $10.00 for just the extra drink. I am pretty confidant in the fact that if the thread were about such a resteraunt, people who are in favor of rackspace in this situation would be singing a different tune ;)

What if the meal was a "meal deal" with a burger chips and fries and a drink.

You then wanted another drink afterwards and they charged you more for the drink by itself... fair enough, you didnt check the price of the drink when you ordered the combo ;)

I don't feel RackSpace is doing anything wrong here, however it does make one wonder quite a bit about their pricing. It makes me feel more like they are charging for gimmicks and tricks (for lack of a better term, please don't get hung up on the terms I use) than anything else.

In any event I truly believe everybody here would find it quite odd if that was the situation with the resteraunt ;)

What if the meal was a "meal deal" with a burger chips and fries and a drink.

You then wanted another drink afterwards and they charged you more for the drink by itself... fair enough, you didnt check the price of the drink when you ordered the combo ;)

More than the what the drink cost as part of the meal deal? Understandable.

More than the entire meal? Not at all understandable.

If you went to MickeyD's and ordered a Happy Meal and it cost $2.50... then you decided the toy was cool and you wanted and extra toy, and the extra toy cost $5, what would you do?

You'd say, "Well then, give me another happy meal" and toss the food if you didn't want it.

I'm far from an expert on this, and maybe I'm just crazy... but I was wondering...

Would it be possible to get a second server and use load balancing or clustering to spread the bandwidth across the two servers?

It seems to me if the server + 700 GB bandwidth is that much cheaper than the 300 GB bandwidth alone, and he's stuck at Rackspace for awhile anyway due to his contract, and assuming he's happy with Rackspace outside of this issue, load balancing might get him the bandwidth he needs, plus give better performance and more room for growth.

But like I said... I don't know if it's even possible...

$100/month for an additional 300~400 of bandwidth would seem reasonable to me based on how much bandwidth we are getting for $250.

I just can't resist this one. You're looking to pay $0.25/GB/mo to $0.33/GB/mo and yet you expect "premium" bandwidth quality. The *cheapest* not-massively-oversold bandwidth out there goes for about $0.25/GB/mo. Somehow, you expect to turn a profit yourself and yet it is *evil* for them to do the same.

Come on. This isn't price gouging like all the cheap freaks on this thread try to get people to believe. As one fellow on this thread already said, the majority here don't really understand the meaning of mission critical and the commensurate value inherent in bandwidth that can really handle mission critical services.

ThePlanet the same as Rackspace? Get real.

Here's a major difference between the data transfer offering between Rackspace and all the offerings of the majority:

At Rackspace, you can transfer your 300GB at a full 100Mbit or possibly faster depending on your port speed. This is because they're selling data transfer without inherent data rate limiting.

The massive data transfer offerings of the majority of other commonly referenced providers are data transfer limits as created through bandwidth limiting. Sure, you could dump 2000GB on their network and they're not going to care because you're limited to between 2Mbits/sec and 5Mbits/sec.

Regarding the contract, I hope people reading this thread learn your lesson. Know your expansion costs and get them in writing if it matters at all, especially if you're committing to a term contract.

I just can't resist this one. You're looking to pay $0.25/GB/mo to $0.33/GB/mo and yet you expect "premium" bandwidth quality. The *cheapest* not-massively-oversold bandwidth out there goes for about $0.25/GB/mo. Somehow, you expect to turn a profit yourself and yet it is *evil* for them to do the same.


But he already is getting bandwidth from Rackspace at that price, in his server package. Is the add-on bandwidth more "premium" than the server package bandwidth?

If the package bandwidth is shared, limited bandwidth and the add-on bandwidth is dedicated, full 100 Mbps bandwidth, I could see the justification in the price. But as it appears to me, they could sell him an additional 700GB bandwidth for $250 and still make more than what they're making off the server package, because they don't have to provide the server. Instead, they want to charge him more than twice the server package price for less than half the bandwidth in the server package.

But he already is getting bandwidth from Rackspace at that price, in his server package. Is the add-on bandwidth more "premium" than the server package bandwidth?

No, what you're seeing there is a common marketing practice. They know that in the base package people rarely use the full amount of what they purchase. However, as soon as that person using the service steps over the included amount of data transfer, the hosting company has to start recouping their loss or at least do more than break even because there is no oversubscription ratio any more for that hosting customer.

For instance, our plans, like many hosts, there is a similar methodology. If everyone used just exactly what they purchased and no more, no less, we would do slightly less than break even. However, that isn't the real world. 10 years of providing hosting services have taught us that customers usually use way more or way less than their allocation which is where the profits are derived. For the few that can use exactly their allocations and no more, no less, they get a spankin' deal, but that's the nature of the beast.

I really can't justify the expense for the additional charges but, well, I'm not them... I do agree and, sad but true, it is fairly standard to pay out the nose for overages or bandwidth beyond your policy. I don't get it, I don't know why, and I don't think it's justified BUT that's not really the point of this response.

First, I agree with you 100% in that it's pretty bad and the price is really a bit higher than it should be from what I've observed. I really think they're taking far too much per GB of transfer beyond your quota and am truly sorry for that. It's nothing to do with being cheap but rather with being a realist. If the price was justified for the first purchase of bandwidth then it shouldn't be higher for additional bandwidth, that whole rationalization for pricing beyond quota is beyond me. So I really do agree with you... But...

Second... I agree with you but have very little sympathy because anyone leasing a dedicated server WITH a contract or without a contract should know enough to read the contract before buying. I will say this with 100% certainty... You had, I know - not believe (I've looked) - every opportunity to read all the terms and conditions, to be aware of the pricing, and to ask pre-sales questions. You failed, yes you, in your duties and now you're stuck with a contract you feel is unfair and the fault lies not on them - they can set all sorts of crazy rules - but on you for not having taken the time to be aware of them before making your choice.

However, yeah... It sucks... I'd look to investing a smaller amount of money elsewhere, moving when it is time, and in the time between now and then taking advantage of having fail-over support should one go down.

Last, but not least, I also think that the price Rackspace charges is actually reasonable and generally fair but I think that if they're going to charge one price for bandwidth initially that the price should remain fairly constant throughout the growth of your bandwidth needs but that's just my own personal feelings and I'll be buggered if I'm qualified to determine what RS should and shouldn't do.

In the scope of things you're server's pretty old and sort of outdated and probably already paid for itself so, realistically, you're not paying for (with your $250 per month) much more than the bandwidth, electricity, space, and management. The additional fees - assuming fair pricing instead of a model based on selling at a price that assumes people won't use their full amount of paid-for resources - would be then 3/7 of what you're paying added to the total of what you're paying now. But, frankly, I'm not RS nor am I (or anyone else here besides they) capable of making business choices for them nor do I have any right to say what they can and cannot do.

KGIII

Welcome to the free market. They can charge whatever they want and it's up to you to determine whether it's worth paying.

Something is worth as MUCH as you can GET for it...
or...
As LITTLE as you can GIVE for it...

Caveat emptor!

Just back your files up. And re-buy the same specs with more bandwidth. If not, make sure you order more than you need next time.

The massive data transfer offerings of the majority of other commonly referenced providers are data transfer limits as created through bandwidth limiting. Sure, you could dump 2000GB on their network and they're not going to care because you're limited to between 2Mbits/sec and 5Mbits/sec.

Not sure where you got that from, but that's not true.

Anyway, it's not so much about quantities here, it's about quality. Even though you may not see a whole lot of it, RackSpace uses very expensive equipment to filter all their traffic (virusses, DDoS attacks and many other anomalies) for instance, which adds a pretty penny to the price per mbps.

In my opinion, the reason their price for the server itself is relatively low, is that they are (like the rest of the market) basically overselling - they hope you don't actually use as much bandwidth as what's included with the plan. Now if you do use it all and need to upgrade your bandwidth, they are sure that you will also actually use the additional bandwidth, hence they cannot give you an oversold price on it.

While I do agree that $600 for 300GB data is over the top (it costs them less than 10% of that), they can charge you whatever they want if it's stated in your contract. I wouldn't really say "beware of company X" but rather "beware of policies and contracts".

Given the high profile of Rackspace, I'm actually amazed you have a server there for a mere $250 that has 2 GB RAM and SCSI RAID 5 - even lower profile managed providers don't tend to give you that kind of a server for such a low price. The $2/GB would be fine IMO for the quality if it'd be a "pay as you use" system, i.e. if you have 30 gigs overusage this month, you pay an extra $60. But for a prepayment of a large block, it's a rather steep price IMO.

Maybe this overage price wouldn't look so high if RS would charge $500 or more for such a server instead of $250. It sounds a bit like the printer industry where you buy a new color inkjet printer for $40 including a cartouche and once you run out of ink for the next cartouche you pay $60, meaning it's actually cheaper to buy another printer and throw the printer away.

Just to put the record straight rackspace DO NOT provice 100% network uptime with zero-packet loss.

The internet is a shared medium.

Plenty of providers can match and sometimes even give you better quality than rackspace.

John

Yeah, I agree with RambOrc. If you're going to pre-purchase large blocks of bandwidth it should be cheaper than an overuseage charge. But I guess not.

Just to put the record straight rackspace DO NOT provice 100% network uptime with zero-packet loss.
Do you have any proof of this?

Regards,
Ryan

Until IT manages to kill "Acts of God" there will never be 100% uptime and 0% loss, what proof is needed? I, instead, place the burden of proof on one who wants to prove there's a 100% uptime anywhere. Even Microsoft and Akamai go down and, I admit, Rackspace is good but they're not perfect and can't control the internet. Heck, even salesforce.com goes down. ;)

KGIII

Last chat I had with Rackspace they had maintained 100% uptime for 5 years running.

Hey,

ThePlanet charges $300/mo extra for another 500GB bandwidth.

See for yourself:

https://www.totalcontrolservers.com/purchase.html?server_id=40B7A6A7CFC20D872FF0C12374DE6007

A lot of dedicated server companies do this.

Just to put the record straight rackspace DO NOT provice 100% network uptime with zero-packet loss.

The internet is a shared medium.

Plenty of providers can match and sometimes even give you better quality than rackspace.

John
That all depends on your definition of 100% uptime. Their outbound routing does have 100% uptime, if an inbound route to their network (likely from a user ISP) is broken then there will be issues, but such issues will be uncontrollable by RackSpace.

So yes, they can say that they have 100% uptime, because they truly do.

Thanks,

ThePlanet the same as Rackspace? Get real.

Strictly judging by bandwidth carriers, ThePlanet is superior to Rackspace. But again that is judging strictly by carriers.

Worst part is that I'm on a contract. This is absolutley crazy, I don't know what we are going to do now.... but this is reason enough not to ever recommend Rackspace to anyone, ever again.

Everything was going reasonably smooth with them, and I was a big supporter but now they have completely lost my respect for their business practice. As soon as the contract is over we are out of here, and until then I guess we'll have to try and think of ways to minimize our bandwidth. Might just end up storing our images on another hosting account somewhere.

So pathetic, what a waste of our time. Extremely dissapointed with Rackspace!!!

I know this isn't what you want to hear but I don't see what Rackspace has done wrong here. Rackspace is a company that caters primarily to 'elite' clients that are willing to pay more for the peace of mind that comes with hosting with Rackspace (due to its reputation etc). Before you signed up you really should have found out the cost of additional bandwidth, extra hard drives etc...you've got to look ahead and prepare for growth.

While I do agree that $600 for 300GB data is over the top (it costs them less than 10% of that), they can charge you whatever they want if it's stated in your contract. I wouldn't really say "beware of company X" but rather "beware of policies and contracts".

It is absolutely correct. And it makes for a case to be very very careful of the policies or do an intelligent forecast of requirements.

I am surprised that your Rackspace account manager has not offered an alternative yet.

While I do agree that $600 for 300GB data is over the top (it costs them less than 10% of that), they can charge you whatever they want if it's stated in your contract. I wouldn't really say "beware of company X" but rather "beware of policies and contracts".

I think you said it quite well.

if rackspace just stop advertising on inet interactive , sourceforge , wired and many other A class sites , they can afford to give you all of there services at one third of what they are giving you now

Rackspace is darned good - don't get me wrong - but until they beat Acts of God I'm hedging my bets. That still doesn't excuse the OP from not knowing the fees before signing up and it still doesn't make sense (except good fiscal sense) on the part of Rackspace.

5 years??? Danged impressive... I'm still holding out on acts of God though. I figure it's a safe bet because I can keep holding out forever with statements like, "Oh, it will come... Don't you worry none." 5 years is still VERY impressive though and, frankly, if the site's worth keeping up then those entry prices are VERY acceptable. Crappy that it costs so much to expand but, well, that's up the buyer to be aware of before signing anything.

It's not a matter of agree or disagree. It's a matter of them having said, "Yes, I'll agree to that contract."

I stand by this pretty strongly:


Second... I agree with you but have very little sympathy because anyone leasing a dedicated server WITH a contract or without a contract should know enough to read the contract before buying. I will say this with 100% certainty... You had, I know - not believe (I've looked) - every opportunity to read all the terms and conditions, to be aware of the pricing, and to ask pre-sales questions. You failed, yes you, in your duties and now you're stuck with a contract you feel is unfair and the fault lies not on them - they can set all sorts of crazy rules - but on you for not having taken the time to be aware of them before making your choice.


Though now I'm stuck on the five years. That's counting planned outages I assume? I am under the impression that they had nearly instant fail-over across multiple sites spanning 5 continents from reading something somewhere... I think it might have been a WHT conversation. Impressive... No other words for it.

KGIII

smkied: For what is worth, keep in mind that Rackspace only charges you for outgoing bandwidth - not incoming. For most sites that is not a significant savings, but if you are uploading huge images all the time you may be using more bandwidth than what they are charging you for. Most other providers charge for all traffic in and out of the switch.

http://www.rackspace.com/network/bandwidthbilling.php

Just my 2 cents!:peace:

By the way - not a bad price for that server at Rackspace. I'm also interested to know how long you've been with them.

Strictly judging by bandwidth carriers, ThePlanet is superior to Rackspace. But again that is judging strictly by carriers.

I would have responded sooner but I was laughing too hard to type...

I used to have a server at The Planet, I now have a server at Rackspace. Judging strictly by carrier is the same as judging people by the car they drive. Look... homeboy has himself a Lincoln Continental... too bad the paint is faded, the shocks are shot, none of the tires match and the ceiling fabric is hanging like a hammock on the inside. Make sense?

Rackspace uses six different major providers into its Dallas data center (where my server is). AT&T, SBC (two separate physical networks), MCI, Sprint, Qwest and AboveNet. (just ask your account manager to look this up for you)


Yes, the Planet uses a bunch of different providers too. BUT, I don't have to worry about my server being on a BLACKLISTED network segment like I ended up on at the Penit... I mean the Planet. Rackspace has strict rules about content and spam. Now customers actually reach my site.

AND

Rackspace has maintained 100% uptime for 5 years. If you READ THE CONTRACT and READ THEIR SLA's you will see that uptime means that Rackspace provides you with a guaranteed connection to the internet from your firewall. OF COURSE they can't guarantee Internet traffic, nor is it their job to do so. All they can do is guarantee that you are ABLE to connect to the internet. Traffic in the world, or crappy code on your server is not their responsibility. Basically, they are guaranteeing that your packets will be able to access one of their six onramps to the Information Superhighway at all times.

if rackspace just stop advertising on inet interactive , sourceforge , wired and many other A class sites , they can afford to give you all of there services at one third of what they are giving you now

Why would they be concerned about cutting their prices by a huge fraction if their current model is working quite well? Like I said earlier, there are obviously people willing to pay a premium for their services and those are the people they market primarily to.

Just to put the record straight rackspace DO NOT provice 100% network uptime with zero-packet loss. The internet is a shared medium. Plenty of providers can match and sometimes even give you better quality than rackspace.

In case you didn't have the desire to read my lengthier post...

Rackspace guarantees that your packets will reach the internet 100% of the time. They don't guarantee that they will reach their final destination. No provider can guarantee that.

Find us a provider that offers better than 100% uptime, especially with a PROACTIVE money-back guarantee that kicks in after even one minute of downtime. I did my research before switching to Rackspace. Lots of lesser-cost providers offer SLAs and 100% uptime, but when you read the fine print you see things like "Outage credits must be requested within 30 days" or "credits begin after the first 60 minutes of downtime" or "network outage credits will be applied for up to 30% of your monthly bandwidth charge"

At Rackspace I will get 5% of my ENTIRE monthly bill if I experience 1-30 minutes of downtime and another 5% for each 30-minute window that gets touched, up to 100% of my entire monthly bill. Of course, this hasn't happened in my two years at Rackspace, but it's good to know that if it does, I will be financially compensated (without having to ask for it).

Everyone should check the cell phone contract....you get 1000 minutes for $30. Check how much the next 1000 minutes cost.

OP only need to get a cheap server somewhere else, and have the images on the cheap server.

Of course, then if that cheap server is done while main site is still up, it will be ugly.

Greetings:

Considering the quality at Rackspace.com, the price they charge is extremely fair.

Thank you.


Agreed. You are hosting with a premium webhost; expect premium pricing. I believe the Rackspace review is unwarranted. When I eat at a nice restaurant, I don't complain that they don't offer McDonald's pricing. Welcome to reality.

Everyone should check the cell phone contract....you get 1000 minutes for $30. Check how much the next 1000 minutes cost.

That would be minutes that are over what you are paying for monthly. Taking an example from T-Mobile (closest I could find to the $30 for 1000 minutes figure) you can get 1000 minutes per month for $39.99 or upgrade your plan to the 2500 plan for a total of $99.99 per month.

1000 Minute plan: $0.039990/minute
2500 Minute plan: $0.039996/minute

I could deal with overages being on the high side as overages can cause a strain on company resources that was not previously budgeted for (shouldn't, but this is the general idea).

The OP is not complaining that he went over XXX GB and now owes $YYYYY.35 :)

Agreed. You are hosting with a premium webhost; expect premium pricing. I believe the Rackspace review is unwarranted. When I eat at a nice restaurant, I don't complain that they don't offer McDonald's pricing. Welcome to reality.

Interesting to see the resteraunt comparison, who would think to use such a thing? ;)

Your comparison makes it seem as if the OP is upset at the pricing from RackSpace when in truth the root of the thread is in the difference in price from the base package to the upgrade he wants.

Lets say you do sit down at <insert wonderful resteraunt here> and you order a salad, bowl of french onion soup, big steak with a mashed potatoe, and a glass of red wine to go with it all. You eat your meal and the waiter brings you a bill for $995.35 (mind you this is a NICE reseraunt!). When you recieve the bill you decide you'd like to have one more glass of wine before leaving, so you go ahead and order the very same glass of wine you had with your meal, being the smart person you are however you ask the waiter how much the glass of wine will cost. He looks at his quick price guide and quotes you a cost of $1893.34 for the extra glass of wine. Odds are you most likely would not purchase the glass of wine (at least I hope you wouldn't), and you would most likely tell the story to friends for years to come.

I think the title of the thread is a bit misleading and I have nothing against Rackspace; however, I believe that in this instance the pricing simply doesn't make sense. RackSpace charing $2.00/gb is completely acceptable as far as I am concerned, but to charge $.35/gb to a client one moment, and then to ask $2.00/gb (not overage charges here mind you) simply doesn't make sense.

Just my $.02 as usual though :)

Busted! Sorry don't read EVERYones posts dollar. Didn't mean to cabbage on your ideas. I think we're on the same page to a certain extent, however as a consumer it is in your best interest to find out what costs you should incur for upgrades. I am guilty of not doing enough homework prior to making a purchase, as I'm sure nearly everyone is, but I just don't have a terrible amount of sympathy for the OP on this one, and I don't think the charges are unreasonable. Rackspace can (and should) charge whatever they deem necessary for their products and services. Comparisons to thePlanet and other companies aren't valid under these circumstances.

Perhaps RS is using the lower cost of this monthly fee hoping to recoup and/or earn more on bandwidth upgrades?
It wasn't so long in the distant future that I was selling it for $4/ GB.

That would be minutes that are over what you are paying for monthly. Taking an example from T-Mobile (closest I could find to the $30 for 1000 minutes figure) you can get 1000 minutes per month for $39.99 or upgrade your plan to the 2500 plan for a total of $99.99 per month.

1000 Minute plan: $0.039990/minute
2500 Minute plan: $0.039996/minute

I could deal with overages being on the high side...


No, the OP is not talking about a new contract, he is talking about over-usage pricing, and he has the option to do prepaid vs non-prepaid.

I am pretty sure if anyone call Rackspace for a contract with 1000GB, it won't be $850 (which is contract with 700GB for $250 + over-usage of 300GB at $2/GB).

The problem might be Rackspace doesn't allow easy upgrade (unlike the cell phone companies) but from the OP, we are not clear whether he asked RS for a new contract or not.

Ha ;) No harm done, I was just happy to see somebody else mention a resteraunt. Keeps me knowing I'm not 100% crazy... yet...

I do believe we are on the same page, I have no problem with what RackSpace is doing, as it's been said before they are more than welcome to do anything they want. It was the duty of the OP to ask what the upgrade path on bandwidth would look like as time goes on, I just find it quite odd for Rackspace to charge in the manner that they are.

No, the OP is not talking about a new contract, he is talking about over-usage pricing, and he has the option to do prepaid vs non-prepaid.

I am pretty sure if anyone call Rackspace for a contract with 1000GB, it won't be $850 (which is contract with 700GB for $250 + over-usage of 300GB at $2/GB).

The problem might be Rackspace doesn't allow easy upgrade (unlike the cell phone companies) but from the OP, we are not clear whether he asked RS for a new contract or not.

Well in the instance of cell phones we would not be talking about a new contract either, but simply an upgrade to a new plan (as you hinted at with your post). In any event it still seems out of place to me for a company with the prestige that RackSpace has to do their pricing in a manner like this. It would actually seem to make much better business for them if they continued to charge for the upgraded bandwidth as they did on the origional machine.

From a business standpoint they have a client that has been with them a while, is on a contract currently, and is looking to upgrade. By hitting him with prices in the manner that they are they are instead of making more money they are going to be losing a client in the end. As mentioned in the post above it was certainly the OPs responsibility to check on pricing before commiting to a contact though.

I'm guessing then that dedicated hosting contracts are different from VPS or shared hosting with respect to how hosting "packages" are used?

What I mean is: Let's say I have a hosting package that allows me 100 GB of transfer per monthfor $39.99 per month. If I go over that amount, I pay $3/GB for any overage. Sounds steep. But, if I feel I'm in danger of going over, I can always upgrade to a higher tier package that includes 200GB per month for $79.99 per month.

The 1-time bandwidth charges are $3/GB, but on a package basis, the difference is $0.40 per GB.

(those were fictitious numbers for example only)

Is that not an option for dedicated hosting? Can the OP not upgrade to a higher-priced monthly plan for say $350 or $400 instead of $250 as opposed to paying $600 extra each month?

[Oops, looks like while I was typing, others have hit on the same notion...]

I've checked a couple of providers across the board, from lowest end (like managed.com) to highest end (like LiquidWeb) with some others in between, and I found that on entry level servers, providers tend to charge you 5x higher prices for transfer overusage than for included transfer. At the higher end, I found this ratio to increase, i.e. more like 6x-7x. With Rackspace, the ratio in this case is 10x. This is for entry level servers though, as soon as you go for servers with highers specs and higher monthly prices (like $4-500), the ratio goes down again (because the included bandwidth doesn't scale as fast as the price of the hardware).

So as far as I can see, when you buy the intended segment of a provider's hardware offerings (I think the average monthly price/server at Rackspace is way over $250), you'll get more or less the same ratio, i.e. about 5x higher prices for overusage than included transfer.

I'm glad to see such an overwhelming response everyone!! I've read all of the posts, here are some of my conclusions:

1) Yes, I am most certainly a fool and an idiot for not reading into something as basic as bandwidth upgrades. Unfortunately for me, I had never expected to reach that sort of usage. Totally my bad there, and of course now I am at the mercy of RS and that's fine, I signed the dotted line. So I can also then agree that perhaps the title is a little bit off, it's more like "beware of the fine print at rackspace". However, I think companies who add evil things like this into their fine print present a pretty bad image about themselves overall. I don't mind paying $3.50/GB for OVERAGES, but I would hope to get a significant discount if I am pre-paying.

2) I have been with Rackspace since April 1st, 2006. I have a 36 month contract :(

3) The restaraunt analogy is really quite perfect. Let me rephrase it:

a) You get a meal deal which includes large drink and a burger for $250.
b) You then decide to get another drink that is HALF the size of the one you got with the combo and are asked to pay $600.

4) As for the cellphone comparison, that's really quite perfect too. Here is my current cellphone situation:

a) I have a 400 minute plan (plus all the bells and whistles) for like $40/month (roughly $0.10/minute). I am on a 36-month contract.
b) If I use additional minutes, it costs me $0.25/minute
c) If at anytime I decide I want more minutes, I can just upgrade my plan to $60/month without extending my contract to allocate a total of 750 minutes ($0.08/minute).

Yes, Rackspace is a very premium place with high quality banwidth and servers etc. Someone mentioned that they protect against DDoS, but they don't unless you purchase a hardware firewall for $125/month (which we have opted out of for now, since DDoS hasn't been a problem). Anyway, there is no argument that Rackspace really IS a great place, I have no complaints there I am totally fine with paying a premium on things for the quality that we do recieve. However, I just feel like they have pushed the envelope much too far with this bandwidth charge, since we have gone up from paying $0.35/GB to paying $2.00/GB which is a 500% increase in price. We are NOT getting 500% more service!!!

Does that clarify things a bit more? Is it still unreasonable for me to be upset? I'm not cheap, I just don't like to pay for things that I don't see value in.

I also wanted to add, that yes it seems like what we're going to have to end up either getting another server with Rackspace with a ton of bandwidth, or just getting a cheaper server elsewhere and store a backup of all the images on the Rackspace server incase the off-site one ever goes down.

Either way, I will not pay $600 for 300GB of bandwidth. It's unreasonable if I can just go out and get another server and actually improve the performance of my website (though I can imagine any sort of load balancer is a big hit on the wallet).

Also, something interesting:

A friend of mine has a server on Rackspace as well. We wanted to test and see how uncapped the speed really is. Unfortunately, the fastest transfer rate we could reach is 5MB per second. That's roughly half of the 100mb port.... correct? So I'm not sure why there is so much lag on their internal network, but I imagine that it escelates further to users accessing the site through the internet. I know someoen mentioned that because it's premium bandwidth, I would be getting 100mbits or more.... but it doesn't look like I even come close.

Oh, and here is all that they have written in their bandwidth policy:

"
You will be charged $3.50 for each gigabyte of outgoing data transfer that exceeds your monthly contracted amount.
Data transfer upgrades will be effective from your next billing date.
Data transfer upgrades cannot be applied retroactively.
For example: You upgrade your bandwidth on the 17th of December. The bandwidth upgrade will apply to January's bandwidth usage, not December's. Your January invoice will be updated with the new allotment, but we will still invoice you for the prior month's subscription for December, and you will be billed at the overage rate for any extra bandwidth you use until your upgrade takes effect.
Our billing department will update bandwidth allotments in CORE within the first week of the month following an upgrade request.
Rackspace does not assume liability for bandwidth overage accrued due to server compromise or hacking. Rackspace will not credit an account for any bandwidth overage accrued in relation to a compromise. You may monitor your bandwidth statistics by visiting MyRackspace and you should notify Customer Support if there is any suspicious or unexplained increase in bandwidth. You are responsible for maintaining the security of your server(s)."



So there isn't a pre-set price for acquiring new banwidth ahead of time. It's just something I should have asked the sales guy when I was making the initial arrangement.

Also, something interesting:

A friend of mine has a server on Rackspace as well. We wanted to test and see how uncapped the speed really is. Unfortunately, the fastest transfer rate we could reach is 5MB per second. That's roughly half of the 100mb port.... correct? So I'm not sure why there is so much lag on their internal network, but I imagine that it escelates further to users accessing the site through the internet. I know someoen mentioned that because it's premium bandwidth, I would be getting 100mbits or more.... but it doesn't look like I even come close.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. Were the two servers used for this test located in the same datacenter? If not ... then they are still communicating over networks outside of rackspace.

My employer has multiple servers both in the London and DFW datacenters, and network performance between servers in the same DC is much better than what you describe.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. Were the two servers used for this test located in the same datacenter? If not ... then they are still communicating over networks outside of rackspace.

My employer has multiple servers both in the London and DFW datacenters, and network performance between servers in the same DC is much better than what you describe.

Both servers are in the Austin DC.

Both servers are in the Austin DC.


Does Rackspace even have an Austin DC? That would be news to me.

I don't know about Austin specifically, but I know we're both somewhere in Texas. I just assumed Austin.

Rackspace does not assume liability for bandwidth overage accrued due to server compromise or hacking. Rackspace will not credit an account for any bandwidth overage accrued in relation to a compromise. You may monitor your bandwidth statistics by visiting MyRackspace and you should notify Customer Support if there is any suspicious or unexplained increase in bandwidth. You are responsible for maintaining the security of your server(s)."

Now this OTOH is quite surprising, I thought managed hosting means the provider takes care of stuff like DDOS and I don't have to pay penalty for it?

Ok cool!!! Rackspace certainly DOES address their client's concerns.

I am happy to report that they have added an additional 300GB of bandwidth, FREE OF CHARGE on to my account! It's very refreshing to see a company that pays attention to how their reputation is renounced around the web, and I truly appreciate that. Aside from this little incident, my experience with them HAS enourmously surpassed any expectation I would have from a hosting provider.

They did warn me that additional overage will be charged at the standard rate of $2.00 per *edit* GB *edit* later in the future, but at least now we are going to be ready for that sort of charge when it rolls around instead of having to dish out extra money like that right up front after opening a new account.

Beware of Rackspace!!! THEY ARE A PHENOMENAL HOST!!! :)

I would have responded sooner but I was laughing too hard to type...

I used to have a server at The Planet, I now have a server at Rackspace. Judging strictly by carrier is the same as judging people by the car they drive. Look... homeboy has himself a Lincoln Continental... too bad the paint is faded, the shocks are shot, none of the tires match and the ceiling fabric is hanging like a hammock on the inside. Make sense?

Oh, listen, I'm fully aware.

RackSpace's actual infastructure is superb. I am just saying that ThePlanet does have nice carriers in their bandwidth mix.

They did warn me that additional overage will be charged at the standard rate of $2.00 per MB later in the future, but at least now we are going to be ready for that sort of charge when it rolls around instead of having to dish out extra money like that right up front after opening a new account.


You mean $2 per GB right? ;)

You mean $2 per GB right? ;)

Hahah you're right. Per MB would suck lol!

I'm glad to see such an overwhelming response everyone!! I've read all of the posts, here are some of my conclusions:

1) Yes, I am most certainly a fool and an idiot for not reading into something as basic as bandwidth upgrades. Unfortunately for me, I had never expected to reach that sort of usage. Totally my bad there, and of course now I am at the mercy of RS and that's fine, I signed the dotted line. So I can also then agree that perhaps the title is a little bit off, it's more like "beware of the fine print at rackspace". However, I think companies who add evil things like this into their fine print present a pretty bad image about themselves overall. I don't mind paying $3.50/GB for OVERAGES, but I would hope to get a significant discount if I am pre-paying.

2) I have been with Rackspace since April 1st, 2006. I have a 36 month contract :(

3) The restaraunt analogy is really quite perfect. Let me rephrase it:

a) You get a meal deal which includes large drink and a burger for $250.
b) You then decide to get another drink that is HALF the size of the one you got with the combo and are asked to pay $600.

4) As for the cellphone comparison, that's really quite perfect too. Here is my current cellphone situation:

a) I have a 400 minute plan (plus all the bells and whistles) for like $40/month (roughly $0.10/minute). I am on a 36-month contract.
b) If I use additional minutes, it costs me $0.25/minute
c) If at anytime I decide I want more minutes, I can just upgrade my plan to $60/month without extending my contract to allocate a total of 750 minutes ($0.08/minute).

Yes, Rackspace is a very premium place with high quality banwidth and servers etc. Someone mentioned that they protect against DDoS, but they don't unless you purchase a hardware firewall for $125/month (which we have opted out of for now, since DDoS hasn't been a problem). Anyway, there is no argument that Rackspace really IS a great place, I have no complaints there I am totally fine with paying a premium on things for the quality that we do recieve. However, I just feel like they have pushed the envelope much too far with this bandwidth charge, since we have gone up from paying $0.35/GB to paying $2.00/GB which is a 500% increase in price. We are NOT getting 500% more service!!!

Does that clarify things a bit more? Is it still unreasonable for me to be upset? I'm not cheap, I just don't like to pay for things that I don't see value in.

You seem quite a resonable person and I get your analogies but the reality is that rackspace isn't a high bandwith provider, they are a RELIABLE bandwith provider. I don't think its fine print if its in the contract and you just didn't think that clause would come back to bite you.

To answer your question, I currently pay that amount roughly with fusepoint happily with a website that you would all recognize and never ever have outages. I visited their DC recently for a more in depth tour and I get why I pay what I pay and happily pay it because it is a rock solid infrastructure down to the landscaping doubling as barriers to someone driving a truck at the building, its own water source, TRUE building within a building setup and the most extensive power system I have seen and I have been with and seen IBM's outsourcing company, MCI, 51 Front in Toronto and several banking datacenters.

To answer your question, while I think you are rightly upset I feel your ire should be directed not at rackspace but at yourself.

To complete the restaurant analogy. I was recently in new york and wanted to have someone taste a particular wine. We had already finished another bottle but after me raving about this wine, we had to have it but knew we were only going to have one glass. The wine is by the bottle so essentially we bought the bottle for a single glass of wine. That damn glass of wine cost me about $70 but at least my companion had to admit that it was indeed better than his terrible pick. :) We went over for a minmal amount, it crossed a threshold and cost too much but I did take a half glass myself so all wasn't lost.

Greetings:

Considering the quality at Rackspace.com, the price they charge is extremely fair.

Thank you.


Never a truer word said.

You definately pay for what you get.

Never a truer word said.

You definately pay for what you get.

That can be said of even the worst host :emlaugh:

Sorry, couldn't resist. On a lighter note it's nice to hear that they upped your bandwidth (and free at that). I would not have expected that myself as bandwidth does cost money.

Wow. What did you say to get that bandwidth for free :confused:

Wow. What did you say to get that bandwidth for free :confused:

Maybe the saw my huge rant on these forums? I also think they upped the bandwidth because my account has only been open for over a month, so it would suck to start charging me these huge bucks right off the bat.

Last chat I had with Rackspace they had maintained 100% uptime for 5 years running.
That would be according to THEIR records, which are, in fact, biased, of course ;) .
Saying they have 5 years of 100% uptime is, in fact a misstatement, however, as there was one point, at least 2-3 years ago where every single DC was down, due to an MSsql bug/worm/etc floating around. From ev1 to Burst to he, every datacenter imaginable was down at one point during that 24 hour period of time.


if rackspace just stop advertising on inet interactive , sourceforge , wired and many other A class sites , they can afford to give you all of there services at one third of what they are giving you now

Rackspace doesn't, in fact advertise on inet. Inet is such a large customer of rackspace, they cut them a deal for posting their names everywhere. How much of one? This would only be available by iNet, but I'd bet it's not anything extravagant.

As far as pricing/support?
You can, in fact, find better pricing and support. Rackspace is very limited in the support that they will provide, I've found this out too many times. Your best response is to grab a dedicated server from someone, then contract a monthly server administrator. You'll get a more personable response, easily.

Maybe the saw my huge rant on these forums? I also think they upped the bandwidth because my account has only been open for over a month, so it would suck to start charging me these huge bucks right off the bat.

Bit off topic...if your bandwidth utilisation has skyrocketed are you sure that your business plan is sound? I sadly come across various web ventures that seriously underestimate the true cost of operations, or on the other hand commit themselves to a 3 year contract for a dedicated server when all they need is a feedback form :-)

If your bandwidth utilisation is increasing exponentially, does your disk (are you running off an IDE?) deliver enough I/O? Is your cpu/ram enough for dealing with all your page, php and database requests? At what treshold will you need to invest in better or additional kit? Will the 'beefing up' render the whole operation unprofitable? If you don't upgrade, will the performance penalty drive everybody away from your site?

What about backup and distaster recovery? How much will 4 hours of downtime cost you?

Saying they have 5 years of 100% uptime is, in fact a misstatement, however, as there was one point, at least 2-3 years ago where every single DC was down, due to an MSsql bug/worm/etc floating around. From ev1 to Burst to he, every datacenter imaginable was down at one point during that 24 hour period of time.


That worm was bad, but not every single datacenter was 100% down. I had a server at the moment, the name of the datacenter is on the tip of my tounge, But i never received 100% downtime.

Bit off topic...if your bandwidth utilisation has skyrocketed are you sure that your business plan is sound? I sadly come across various web ventures that seriously underestimate the true cost of operations, or on the other hand commit themselves to a 3 year contract for a dedicated server when all they need is a feedback form :-)

If your bandwidth utilisation is increasing exponentially, does your disk (are you running off an IDE?) deliver enough I/O? Is your cpu/ram enough for dealing with all your page, php and database requests? At what treshold will you need to invest in better or additional kit? Will the 'beefing up' render the whole operation unprofitable? If you don't upgrade, will the performance penalty drive everybody away from your site?

What about backup and distaster recovery? How much will 4 hours of downtime cost you?

The problem was that our old host was giving us wrong user stats. They were reporting 500,000 hits a day when in fact we are getting 1.5 million. Currently, our server is running at a load average of 0.10. Our database (most important part) is backed up every hour to 2 distinct off-site FTP/SSH accounts. Our other data is backed up incrementally every day, and fully every week. Our 3 73GB SCSI drives run a Raid 5 configuration. So far the performance is exceptional, and we are able to spend substantial amounts of money to upgrade our server when necessary if we deem it as a necessity, and that expense will not be a big dent in our profit. However, we only spend money when it is wise. We're not going to blow $600 on 300GB of bandwidth.

After running a few test downtimes, it took us less than 45 minutes to recover the entire website back to working state. 1 hour of downtime could mean as much as $5,000 in lost revenue. There is a reason we chose Rackspace.

I don't feel RackSpace is doing anything wrong here, however it does make one wonder quite a bit about their pricing.

I agree, they aren't doing anything wrong. If they want to charge a billion dollars a day for 1 kb of bandwidth, it's a free market, etc.

But, yea, I agree, the Rackspace style of selling does undermine their whole pitch about being such a client friendly company etc.

Their brand is arguing with itself.

Think about it. Why does Rackspace not publish it's prices, like most companies do? Answer, so they can sock it to those of us who aren't experts on the hosting market. Again, nothing at all illegal about this.

But do you want to build your business at a host whose culture is to sock it to you whenever they can? Does that sound like somebody who's going to be there for you when you really need it?

My take is that, at best, the message they're putting out is confusing. And confusing isn't client friendly, imho.

Well, the good news is that so long as industry leaders like this can't pull it all together, that leaves room for the rest of us.

I am happy to report that they have added an additional 300GB of bandwidth, FREE OF CHARGE on to my account!

You get what you (don't) pay for.

That would be minutes that are over what you are paying for monthly. Taking an example from T-Mobile (closest I could find to the $30 for 1000 minutes figure) you can get 1000 minutes per month for $39.99 or upgrade your plan to the 2500 plan for a total of $99.99 per month.

1000 Minute plan: $0.039990/minute
2500 Minute plan: $0.039996/minute

I could deal with overages being on the high side as overages can cause a strain on company resources that was not previously budgeted for (shouldn't, but this is the general idea).

The OP is not complaining that he went over XXX GB and now owes $YYYYY.35 :)

.... or get an unlimited usage NEXTEL/Sprint plan for $99 :).

The problem was that our old host was giving us wrong user stats. They were reporting 500,000 hits a day when in fact we are getting 1.5 million. Currently, our server is running at a load average of 0.10. Our database (most important part) is backed up every hour to 2 distinct off-site FTP/SSH accounts. Our other data is backed up incrementally every day, and fully every week. Our 3 73GB SCSI drives run a Raid 5 configuration. So far the performance is exceptional, and we are able to spend substantial amounts of money to upgrade our server when necessary if we deem it as a necessity, and that expense will not be a big dent in our profit. However, we only spend money when it is wise. We're not going to blow $600 on 300GB of bandwidth.

After running a few test downtimes, it took us less than 45 minutes to recover the entire website back to working state. 1 hour of downtime could mean as much as $5,000 in lost revenue. There is a reason we chose Rackspace.

That puts things in a very nice perspective :-) I wish all the solutions I see go online have a strategy.

N/A

If you ever want to expand the current amount of bandwidth, you're in big trouble!!!

So they expect us to pay an ADDITIONAL $600/month for 300GB of bandwidth!!!! It's absolutley absurd!!! Beware!!!


no, is not. they can ask the moon also they can ask 0.0001$.

you asked they replied. if you dont like the price you dont buy.

36 months contract? is it you who you signed there so dont blame anyone else.

simple

no, is not. they can ask the moon also they can ask 0.0001$.

you asked they replied. if you dont like the price you dont buy.

36 months contract? is it you who you signed there so dont blame anyone else.

simple

How much of the thread did you read before posting the same statements everyone else had already posted several days ago when the thread was still alive?

edit: fixed typos

I did read the whole thread. while was reading it grew from 4 to 6 pages.

I want to thank him for sharing the experience, but things are clear in my opinion. I dont think someone can fix a price he wants to pay.

is weird for me to be asked if I did read. I did, I always do read, and sometimes reread over again.

I did read the whole thread. while was reading it grew from 4 to 6 pages.

I want to thank him for sharing the experience, but things are clear in my opinion. I dont think someone can fix a price he wants to pay.

is weird for me to be asked if I did read. I did, I always do read, and sometimes reread over again.

The last post before yours was on the 16th - that was a week ago!

You were reading this thread for a week?

"it grew from 4 to 6 pages." - I'm wrong here, it was another thing I was watching too. sorry, my bad.

I'm maintaining my previous affirmations.

there is a rule like to post within one week since the last post?

calm down, i just wondered why you posted in a thread a week after it had been last posted in. The thread was effectively dead, the situation was sorted and all you did was post what other members have been posting since page 1, no new content...

is there a rule against asking harmless questions like ^^ ??

ok, I thought I did something wrong :)

generally speaking, the thing is there are many respectable companies with many happy clients but if only one of them is not happy, well, dont know how but it happens he is so unhappy that he exaggerate a lot and such..

that's why I felt like I wanted to say it this way, simple.

That's quite outragous pricing.

Cancel and move elsewhere, while rackspace are a good company by todays market standards they are not going to get away with basically exploiting people.

Other companies can compete with them to a degree.

Esentially they are charging you $600 for 1mbps.

I had faith in rackspace but this has put me off, and i'm shocked. The sales rep I just spoken to even confirmed the charge and tryed to argue the fact that $600 was a reasonable price for 1mbps of bandwidth basically.

-Scott

Yeah, well. 300GB/1mbps connection/port isn't 600$ additional. That's insane, and you should probably quit your registration with rackspace immediately. Unless you're on a contract. That would be bad.