This dedicated server host offers unlimited bandwidth. They say "We are located in a small town in southern Delaware that sits on top of a ton of Fiber. Translation: Cheap rent and lots of bandwidth."

http://www.eastcoastservers.com/ecsservers.html

Monthly fee ranges from $79 for a 350MHz/32 MB RAM/1.6 GB disk to $599 for Dual 600 MHz/512 MB RAM/40 GB disk.

What do you guys think?

Maybe they have a 100Mbps pipe from cogentco.com (a new fiber provider; see http://www.cogentco.com/home.html ) for $1000 a month?

There is NO such thing as unlimited, that I can guarantee you. Either your server will be on a capped line (essentially limiting the possible GB transfered) or they will shut you down once you start hogging bandwidth.

This is a very misleading way to advertise.

The other possibilities, they will put 1000 servers on a one T1 connection :D

Ive heard terrible things about east coast servers, try doing a search on them

Is anyone here a customer of them or knows a customer who can give concrete evidence?

I tried doing a search on eastcoastservers here but only saw this which doesn't tell much:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=4402

unlimited is a cr*p sales gimmick.

There servers are way way way over-priced and they have no software tech support???

You can pickup a 500MHz/64 MB RAM/10 GB disk for $100 to $250 from other NOC's.

Bandwidth is expensive no matter how you look at it. The cost can average between $5 and $10 per GB when it is bought it chunks. It is not unheard of to have to pay as much as $160 for 20 GB chunks of bandwidth.

Best regards,
Frank Rietta

As said before... there is no unlimited bandwidth... and certainly not in the 79$ - 599$ price range... you are lucky if you get 50 gb in those ranges. (not including exceptional hosts as 4webspace... I think steve DID find an unlimited source of bandwidth, the fountain of all youth <g>)

Bandwidth has to be paid for. The companies that provide it charge the NOCs, who, in turn, charge the hosting providers. Some hosts will make use of the law of averages. though any extremely high usage customers are likely to pay for their increased usage.

It sounds like this company in Delaware is being misleading, as at least one other company discussed here last year. They want people to believe that the availability of bandwidth to them means they can offer it for free to their customers. That other company said on their web site that they could get more with just a phone call.

By stating that they have as much bandwidth as they need, and can always get more, they suggest that they have an unlimited amount and can, therefore, offer an unlimited amount at no additional charge to their customers.

Years ago, Robert Heinlein coined the phrase TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. It's poor grammar, thought it is the truth, There are many free resources available on the Internet, and bandwidth is not one of them.

There are still lies and deceit to convince the gullible and naive otherwise.

There are lies of commission and lies of omission. This small company in Delaware is telling a lie of omission.

TANSTAAFL

Okay, I finally found a concrete answer to this problem (as opposed to just opinions of non-customers).

In http://www.eastcoastservers.com/ecslinks.html they list some of their current customers. I e-mailed the webmaster of coolguest.com (listed on that page). He told me the following:

Well, actually, I'm not with them anymore. They didn't respond to my emails, I wanted to have 2 IP's, so I could have 2 nameservers for my DNS servers, and they kept telling me I should use their DNS. But, if I wanted a new domain name hosted on my server, I had to ask THEM, and since their avg. response time was about 2 - 3 weeks, it always took AGES for me to get a domain name hosting completed. Also, it isn't really a company, it's just one person hosting the servers in his basement. He was sick for a while (he was in the hospital for about 2 - 3 months) , and in the meanwhile, there was NO ONE watching my server! So if anything happened, I couldn't reach my data, so I couldn't host my site anywhere else.

Originally posted by pmak1
This dedicated server host offers unlimited bandwidth. They say "We are located in a small town in southern Delaware that sits on top of a ton of Fiber. Translation: Cheap rent and lots of bandwidth."

Translation: My mom doesn't charge me rent yet, and we are wheat farmers? :)

No bandwidth or transfer fee's hu?

So does that mean I can use that as a central backup server for my network and save big $$$ on all that bandwidth??

:)

Im tempted to try it, but Id feel bad if his DSL provider shut him down :)

Originally posted by sodapopinski
The other possibilities, they will put 1000 servers on a one T1 connection :D

ouch... don't want to think about it further! :D

cheers,
:beer:

Actually, this statement is often overlooked. Many companies provide Unlimited bandwidth. As a matter of fact, it is pretty easy to provide unlimited bandwidth, and most NOC's don't have a problem with offering it.

Bandwidth = The amount of transfer at a given second.
Transfer = The amount of transfer that goes on in a long period of time (e.g. a month)

So unlimited transfer is the one people should look out for. Any host who doesn't offer unlimited bandwidth is either connected by a cable modem or a DSL line or gives you a capped line. Then you'd have Bandwidth up to 128kbits per second, or 50GB of TRANSFER a month, depending on what that averaged out to. :)

Although it sounds like the intention of this host is to provide unlimited TRANSFER, yet they say unlimited bandwidth.

In http://www.eastcoastservers.com/ecslinks.html they list some of their current customers. I e-mailed the webmaster of coolguest.com (listed on that page). He told me the following...

Whoops. I suppose if you're going to use testimonials it might be wise to find some that reflect WELL on your business. *lol*

That made my day...

Greg Moore

Vincent,

I hadn't given it much thought before, and you are correct. Unfortunately, the distinction between unlimited bandwidth/transfer has been lost through misuse, much like hacker/cracker and others.

This case with East Coast Servers does once again prove the concept of TANSTAAFL and suggest deceit in the use of unlimited bandwidth, as others do. Availability of bandwidth and paying for it are two separate issues.

It also serves as a reminder for people to find out more from a potential host about the hosting facilities. It is easy to set up a server (or plain PC serving as one) in a bedroom or basement. My first host (when I just had my site to be concerned with) started with a server in a bedroom).

A quarter of a mile away (or less) there is a small mail box/mailing center where the new owner has some serves running. According to a friend of mine who has spoken with him at length, the guy may know his stuff. However, the building he is in is only a few yards from the water (in Miami Beach). A big storm or hurricane can knock out power and shut down any sites on his servers.

I live on the water too, though my server is north and inland at DI's NOC, so I don't have the same concerns.

Maybe we should start a discussion where we list the questions that should be asked of any and all hosts.

Duster,

I agree. I work at a hosting company and I like to stick more to the server administering side and technical aspects, but sometimes I venture over to sales. We love it when customers ask questions. Some people have it in their minds that hosts don't want to be bothered with presales questions. It's the complete opposite ... we love them! :) It'd be great if we could make a list of questions that users who are new to the web hosting industry could ask their host to get a better feel of the host and make sure the host is legit and worthy of that customer's business.

a ton of Fiber

That's novel - selling bandwidth by weight :)

Hello to everyone. I am Greg Wilkerson owner of EastCoastServers.com. I am posting to hopefully clear up some issues posted here.

A few facts about EastCoastServers:

ECS is a small company. Not a RackSpace and I do not pretend to be.

Current connection is Fractional SMDS DS3 through Deniz.com which has multiple OC3 connections with Sprint. May not be the end all of connections but works great for my and my customer's needs. The folks at Deniz.com are a good bunch of hard working people who keep the network up and running. You should speak with them before posting negative comments.

I have had one major outage for 24 hours a couple of days before Thanksgiving 2000 due to a Verizon error.


The connection is shared by all servers. The most bandwidth that can be pulled by any one server is 1.54 megbits. Yes I use bandwidth shaping.

I get a lot of questions in ref to the "no bandwidth or transfer fees". Started this company because I was tired of paying for bandwidth my logs said I never used. Don't ya just love that 95th percentile?

"unlimited" Where did you find this on my website?

I offer you the oportunity to know exactly what your bill is going to be each and every month. To customize your server the way you want. A little bit of freedom. Thats it. No false promises or marketing gimmicks. If your site is too much for my humble server park I will tell you. When you become a huge successful website and need 500gigs of transfer a day, you will most likely want to move on to RackSpace or someone like them.

Currently working on becoming multihomed and Sat backup this summer.

Does Deniz.com own any part of EastCoastServers? No, I just buy bandwidth from them.


In response to the negative feedback posted by a former customer:

This is from a 17 year old I was trying to help out. I gave him a free server in exchange for advertising on his site to get him started. He has great ideas and is an excellent PHP programmer. There was some miscommunication about IPs which turned out to be an error on my part.

Do not know where the "basement thing came from. Have a nice office. Currently remodeling and expanding the server room.

Oh yeah and the "ton of fiber quote" I write the way I talk. You will not hear any corporate massaged messages from me. Anyone who met me at my booth at LinuxWorldExpo can attest to that fact.

Finally I do pretend to be the the all knowing Linux GURU of the world. I learn new things everyday. If I do not know the answer I will tell you.

I am just a guy making a living doing what he loves...

Thanks for your time

Greg Wilkerson
owner
EastCoastServers

>>
Finally I do pretend to be the the all knowing Linux GURU of the world. I learn new things everyday. If I do not know the answer I will tell you.
>>

That should read: I DO NOT PRETEND

Greg

Originally posted by ECSgreg
"unlimited" Where did you find this on my website?

Your "no bandwidth or transfer fees" suggests it. There is no limit stipulated. That makes it a lie of omission and detracts from your credibility when you say "No false promises or marketing gimmicks".

I know nothing of you personally and am only referring to the terms on your web site, the same terms anyone would see and base a decision on.

Oh yeah and the "ton of fiber quote" I write the way I talk. You will not hear any corporate massaged messages from me. Anyone who met me at my booth at LinuxWorldExpo can attest to that fact.
Using correct terminology is far different than what you mean by corporate massaged messages. Your quote may still suggest that the availability of bandwidth somehow means it is free (depending on the contect in which it was used). If so, that would be another lie, or marketing gimmick.

Many of us are doing what we enjoy also, and some of us don't use deceptive terminology in doing it.

Originally posted by Duster
Originally posted by ECSgreg
"unlimited" Where did you find this on my website?
>>
Your "no bandwidth or transfer fees" suggests it. There is no limit stipulated. That makes it a lie of omission and detracts from your credibility when you say "No false promises or marketing gimmicks".

I know nothing of you personally and am only referring to the terms on your web site, the same terms anyone would see and base a decision on.


Oh yeah and the "ton of fiber quote" I write the way I talk. You will not hear any corporate massaged messages from me. Anyone who met me at my booth at LinuxWorldExpo can attest to that fact.
Using correct terminology is far different than what you mean by corporate massaged messages. Your quote may still suggest that the availability of bandwidth somehow means it is free (depending on the contect in which it was used). If so, that would be another lie, or marketing gimmick.


A valid point! Guess I assumed a cetain level of knowledge that I should not have.

Many of us are doing what we enjoy also, and some of us don't use deceptive terminology in doing it.

Do not wish to misrepresent. I understand what you are saying. Will reword my website this evening. However I do not charge bandwidth or transfer fees. Just a flat rate.
Not deceptive by design. Thanks for the input...The last thing I want is confusion..

Greg

I'm glad if our exchange leads to accurate terms on your site. We've had other hosts, including some who are regulars here now, who made similar changes to avoid misleading people.

You should assume nothing about people's level of knowledge. There are people with dedicated servers who haven't a clue what to do with them. If a control panel can't do it and doesn't have clear instructions, they are lost. You may need to write to their level.

Also, there are people who have been burned by hosts that claim unlimited bandwidth or transfer, and may also learn about cpu usage as a limiting factor. If they come here and then come across any host that states or suggests no limits on transfer, they will be urged to avoid that host.

Bandwidth must be paid for. TANSSAAFL. You have to pay your suppliers and your customers pay for it in some fashion. Letting them know just how much they get is a prudent thing to do. If all you have is customers with low enough usage that you have not had to charge them for the excess, then you might say so. Most sites use a small amount of resources so it is entirely possible that might be true. You might say so and not leave potential customers guessing or moving on.

Thanks to everyone for the input!

Take a look at my updated site...

http://www.eastcoastservers.com

Greg

Originally posted by ECSgreg:

> The most bandwidth that can be pulled by any one server is 1.54 megbits.
> If your site is too much for my humble server park I will tell you.

A 1.54 Mbps line running on full blast could consume up to about 500 GB of transfer per month. Would this be "too much for your humble server park"?

If yes, then what would not be too much? 400 GB? 300 GB? 200 GB? 100 GB?

What if someone signed up for several $79/mo servers (350MHz with 32 MB RAM and 1.6 GB disk) and ran thttpd on them, using them for massive static content serving and consuming 500 GB on each? :)

[Edited by pmak1 on 02-23-2001 at 06:52 PM]

Greg,

It's better, though I (and I suspect others) would probably not make it past your main page, especially if I was checking a bunch of potential hosts at a time. While you do a better job now on the FAQ of explaining why there are no charges, in context with other sites, it might seem like a way of saying unlimited bandwidth without using the word unlimited.

I'm not saying that it's any fault of yours, it's the misuse of the term by many others and being distinguished from them. There may be nothing much you can do.

Some of your terms are inaccurate and restrictive.

Spamming:
Sending unsolicited mail messages, including, without limitation, commercial advertising and informational announcements, is explicitly prohibited
You have made initiating communication by e-mail forbidden on your servers. Most communication starts off as unsolicited. By omitting the word bulk, you have forbidden anything but responding to non commercial messages (initiating them is forbidden), communication between businesses or with a business, and receiving advertising information one has chosen to receive.

Of course, the loop hole is you said mail, which is postal mail, rather than e-mail. So, you are forbidding the use of postal mail, something you cannot do, while placing no restriction on e-mail. In short, the whole sentence is worthless.

Try this:

Spamming:
Sending unsolicited bulk e-mail messages, including, and without limitation, commercial advertising and informational announcements, is explicitly prohibited.
That would prohibit what you intend, while not forbidding normal communication and people receiving any commercial or advertising information they have elected to receive.

They never answered my question (two posts above) asking if it's acceptable to use 500 GB a month (i.e. the entire 1.5Mbps bandwidth) on a $79/mo server.

Why not, he said it's unlimited.

Well, tera-byte.com has charges $100 for a RaQ3 with 100 GB of bandwidth, but over 100 GB and the bandwidth costs $3 per GB.

I asked tera-byte.com if it would be acceptable for me to buy multiple RaQ3s to avoid paying $3 per GB, and they said no (even though their site doesn't mention this).

Which is a bit wrong as an offer is an offer...

Originally posted by Tox
Which is a bit wrong as an offer is an offer...


Why is it wrong?

I think what Tox is saying is that its wrong that 4webspace.com don't disclose this "policy" of not allowing a site to share several servers up front. He had to ask them to find out. So if he hadn't asked and just went ahead and did it, and 4webspace told him not to he would be pissed off.

I can understand why somebody could be a bit upset and maybe it does need a little clarification. However, they are making money with the numbers game, if you need another RaQ that is because you are using the full 100gb bandwidth and if everybody used their 100gigs they wouldn't be making money at the prices they charge :)

Its common sense. If use 120gb on one account, and only 40gb on another. They are not gonna balance out the bandwidth for you. You will have to pay for the extra bandwidth. Both your accounts are owned by different people for the host.

BUT, if you load balance it out in such a way that the traffic gets divided equally between the 2 raqs, such that you dun go over the limit. This should be fine.

and it would be fine, the person that wrote back when asked that said no because they saw it as a potential way to cheat our system and they were right. however if you have the knowledge base to set up a load balancing situation that gives you two servers each taking half the load therefore using 200 gigs on a single domain go for it.

Steve

Is it legal - yes, but ethical is another story. Although it is never encouraged, it is also left up to the individual. If they are savvy enough to do it, then they should. But hosts can, and will catch onto it and I am sure they will be confronted.

I really hate those situations!