Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hosting Data-Transfer Quotas Are Fading Out

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the unmetered-is-not-unlimited dept.

Businesses 135

miller60 writes "One of the largest Web hosts has scrapped data transfer quotas on all its shared hosting plans, retiring one of the oldest metrics in the hosting industry. With its latest move, 1&1 Internet has gone all-in on 'unlimited' hosting, a controversial practice viewed by many as a gimmick that promises more than it can deliver. Yahoo and Go Daddy have also experimented with unlimited plans, as the shared hosting sector responds to a tough economy, tough competition, and predictions that it will be made obsolete by cloud computing."

cancel ×

135 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

SLA (2, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308299)

I'd guess the lack of SLA renders it meaningless.

Re:SLA (3, Informative)

phoebe (196531) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308317)

It should be apparent that quotas have been scrapped as they cannot actually guarantee you can use the bandwidth speed they sold. So when they could have previously sold 1/5/10/50GB/day tiers, they spin that into a flat up to 50GB/day, let's call it unlimited, p.s. you'll be lucky to see 1GB.

Re:SLA (1)

siloko (1133863) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308353)

That's it - I run my own 'bedroom' server from consumer broadband which is ok for tinkering and trying out new things. A colleague did the same but got pissed with the slow download rates so leased a server from a commercial company. Nowhere did our discussions on the issue mention download caps as a problem, only speed. Speed, in case you missed it, is the new black!

TOS police (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310931)

I run my own 'bedroom' server from consumer broadband

You have been reported to the TOS police, who is contacting you about upgrading you to business-class service.

Re:SLA (2, Interesting)

drspliff (652992) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309419)

However many other hosting companies can quite easily handle large amounts of bandwidth.

One of my hosts is HostGator, they're not really the best out there, but they seem to be able to handle large traffic sites very well. One site of mine has been averaging about 7 or 8mbit, peaking at 20-30mbit. Last month we transferred just 5tb of data across all the sites hosted on the same account, with one site taking 11 million hits.

Sure, we use more resources than most customers, but at the same time we're on a $14 a month "Business" plan which is advertised as Unlimited across the board. I don't see us getting kicked off until we're using perhaps twice as much as now, even then... they'd probably put us on a Reseller plan at twice the price so it's no big deal.

Re:SLA (2, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310437)

One interesting factor that many ignore is that big hosting companies like HostGator, host so many sites that their peak loads are based upon general internet peak loads. Unless you have a HUGE audience most likely your specific site getting hit frequently possibly means another popular site is getting hit less often. Lets say that on average at 8pm/EST (a typical peak time) 2% (a random guess on my part) of people surfing the internet in the US are viewing a HostGator site. That metric is not going to change from day to day much at all, even if one specific site is getting slash-dotted.

Re:SLA (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29310003)

Being a former employee of one of these major hosters, I'll tell you how it worked for us with this unlimited thing. We ran a number of clusters that hosted around half a million websites.

You can have "unlimited", we won't cut you off purely on usage. We will cut you off if we notice that you're causing problems for the whole system. We're not going to grow our cluster significantly just for you. So yes, you could happily do 5-10mpbs/s for the entire month. If you spiked to something like 100mbps for any length of time, it would be noticeable.

Its a shared system. Shared hosting means shared resources. The point where you start impacting other customers by consuming too many resources, you'll get throttled or suspended. Same goes for excessive CPU or memory usage, abusive database monopolization, or other such crap.

Of course, we'll probably notice you once you're in the top 20 sites on our platform, but if you're not actually causing problems, you'll be fine. In short, if you make the senior admins do work, you're probably liable to get suspended.

GoDaddy is an amusing name (4, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308315)

Why not GoMummy or GoBaby? All I know about this company is that I've seen people complain and that some of their ads are risque, but I still chuckle every time I see the name. "GoDaddy unlimited hosting" sounds like an all night party for old bong smoking pot bellied losers.

Re:GoDaddy is an amusing name (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308363)

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Re:GoDaddy is an amusing name (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308555)

"sounds like an all night party for old bong smoking pot bellied losers."

No, no all night parties, but shooing stray kids off the lawn can get a bit noisy.

Re:GoDaddy is an amusing name (2, Informative)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308791)

According to Wikipedia, they were looking for something more memorable than Jomax Technologies. Someone suggested Big Daddy, but that was taken, and then someone just came up with Go Daddy.

Re:GoDaddy is an amusing name (1)

svtdragon (917476) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309947)

Really? They came up with Go Daddy out of Jomax? The tragedy here is that the original name was ripe for a JoMama joke. "JoMama's pipe is so fat..." "JoMama's not like a truck... she's more like a series of tubes that [censored]." Help me out here, /. There have to be some I'm missing.

Re:GoDaddy is an amusing name (1)

jpyeck (1368075) | more than 5 years ago | (#29311677)

I'm surprised they didn't make the shorter leap from Jomax --> Jo Mama

Imagine the fun commercials they could have made with that name!

What is cloud computing if not hosted servers? (5, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308359)

Typical cloud services are metered at higher rates than typical standard hosting services. The difference is that you get metered on actual usage than arbitrarily-defined usage levels.

It isn't really different than inversely calculating the ROI of a pedometer. The more you walk and use it, the less it costs per measured step. However, if you buy it and put it on the shelf, you have that initial sunk cost and barely any return on your investment.

Clouds are cheap if you have few visitors. They are outrageously expensive if you have massive amounts of traffic.

Re:What is cloud computing if not hosted servers? (2, Insightful)

gravos (912628) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308407)

My perception has been that the cloud services (Amazon, Google, slicehost, mosso, etc) have realistic, sustainable per-unit costs whereas shared hosting outfits tend to have completely unrealistic cost assessments. They count on the fact that most people won't use their full quota because there's no way they could deliver what they promise to every user without ending up WAY in the red.

For my money, I'll stick with cloud services that are metered honestly and transparently.

Re:What is cloud computing if not hosted servers? (4, Insightful)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308469)

My perception has been that the cloud services (Amazon, Google, slicehost, mosso, etc) have realistic, sustainable per-unit costs whereas shared hosting outfits tend to have completely unrealistic cost assessments. They count on the fact that most people won't use their full quota because there's no way they could deliver what they promise to every user without ending up WAY in the red.

FYI, everyone does this.

Your ISP, your phone carrier, probably your electrical and water company... even some software developers. They have very high upkeep costs, and very low costs for actually keeping you connected. The hope is you'll be one of the users that helps pay their upkeep, rather than actually using their service.

Re:What is cloud computing if not hosted servers? (4, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308763)

The fact is that unlimited is easy and more convenient than trying to calculate if the limits are enough. And these are $3 hosting packages, you can be pretty sure that you wont be allowed to host lets say YouTube on it. It's not just the bandwidth, but all the server resources it would consume.

Same thing with dedicated servers on providers that dont have quota. It doesn't mean you're now on a 10gbit line and you can use it as you please. Instead of quotas, your bandwidth is 100mbit and usually on a shared line. You can usually burst it up to 100mbit, but if others need more bandwidth it will be shared. Dedicated bandwidth costs ~10x more and isn't usually needed anyway, as long as they dont *really* oversell the line too much.

With everything its about bringing down the costs for users by sharing the expensive resources. It works good most of the time. If you know it wont work for you, then you can get the more expensive dedicated bandwidth and so on.

It's just one inconvenience out of the way.

Re:What is cloud computing if not hosted servers? (1)

gravyface (592485) | more than 5 years ago | (#29311591)

Slightly off-topic, but we promptly cancelled our Mosso hosting once we found out that their "cloud" (whatever) MySQL servers were set to listen on the default port, accepting root logins from *any* IP address: they're claim was that this enabled users to use whatever SQL tools they wanted remotely (umm, ssh tunneling ftw?). I guess those "tools" also include brute force password attacking utilities and the like?

Re:What is cloud computing if not hosted servers? (4, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308571)

"They count on the fact that most people won't use their full quota because there's no way they could deliver what they promise to every user without ending up WAY in the red."

Meh, banks do the same thing with your deposits.

Re:What is cloud computing if not hosted servers? (3, Interesting)

jedrek (79264) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309335)

The truth is, almost all users will use much less than their quota. I've run, in the past and present, a bunch of personal sites of varying popularity: a web design portal, an e-card site, a blog, etc. They got from hundreds to tens of thousands of uniques/day. Even on the busiest months, I my bandwidth use was calculated in GB or tens of GB. Baring traffic anomalies, like the slashdoting my dropbox.com account got a couple days ago, you need either extremely heavy content (video) or to be hugely popular to get past 100GB/month. I doubt if 0.5% of dreamhost or 1&1 accounts do that kind of traffic.

Re:What is cloud computing if not hosted servers? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29308597)

When it comes to this type of thing, I have to search my soul. I'm conflicted inside about it, but I know how evil Jews are and that they must be stopped.

Just look at how Jews steal from their sand nigger neighbors. Jews have to be the most evil and thieving non-negro race.

Of course you only have to look at Africa to see what a curse of a race niggers are.

Re:What is cloud computing if not hosted servers? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309297)

Rule 1: Never use 1and1 or as it's know in germanny 1und1. They are the shittiest company ever. They impose all sorts of rules and will ban/delete your account without notice. I have had an entire domain and mail deleted from the system. All they would say was "You requested it, there is no restore function. Sorry you are no longer a client". The request was to move the domain name, and the contract was cancelled 3months in advance of the end date as required. F*ck 1 and 1!

Rule 2: No free lunch. Goes the same for bandwidth, the unlimited plans are for those with small websites that do not distribute audio/video or pictures files. Anything that takes bandwidth is not allowed. Some will try and keep service up if there is a Digg/Slashdot/Reddit run on the pages, but most will just drop the route to save bandwidth. I asked one of these companies about it, we do 3000GB/month, Tech support even said there is no way they would allow that amount of data on a $20/month plan. We have to get our own server. Good news is now there are $99/month hosting plans that give you 4000GB/month.

Rule 3: Amazon EC2 and S3 is not cheap. It's cheaper to get a $99 server and use that, though it's not redundant, you get what you pay for.

Rule 4: Keep moving hosting companies. It's better to change plans and locations to get better deals. Bandwidth prices drop all the time. There is always someone hungry for new busines, so why keep paying 2004 prices cause you are too lazy to move that server. Rsync is your friend.

Re:What is cloud computing if not hosted servers? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29310113)

The company I work for, www.cari.net offers all three services, Shared Hosting, Dedicated Servers and Cloud clusters. We measure bandwidth at the switch port and use Average bandwidth not 95th Percentile. Sure, we calculate ROI and look to make a profit, like any business, but we do work with the clients and not cut them off at some arbitrary level.

On the flip side (0)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308365)

It used to be that the only reason you would go to a hosting provider was because the cost of the bandwidth and hardware to do it yourself was prohibitive. Now with providers rolling out Fibre To The Home and Fibre To The Neighborhood and the availability of commodity components, it becomes affordable to do it yourself. It is also preferrable because more of the control is put into your hands. As Google's outtage hopefully demonstrated, cloud computing is risky and it is better to depend on as few contract resources as possible. I believe 1&1's marketing analysts are foreseeing this as the potential end to needing a hosting company and need to make their offers more competitive. Certainly, this offer is very competitive but 1&1 has had a shaky history of reliability. A quick search will show you the number of dissatisfied customers and it is frightening.

Re:On the flip side (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308423)

what if mom unplugs your server to give your basement it's annual vacuum? there are elements of a professionally run datacenter that can't be reproduced at home for the same cost.

if your worried about losing data, buy a slot in a colocation facility so it's your hardware everything is sitting on and you can encrypt the drive and put tamper alarms on it

Re:On the flip side (3, Funny)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308613)

"what if mom unplugs your server to give your basement it's annual vacuum?"

Who cares about a power blip? - I would love mum to come over and shovel the crap off the carpet but she keeps giving me all this shit about how being 80 means she's too old to push a wheelbarrow.

Re:On the flip side (2, Insightful)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308449)

As Google's outtage hopefully demonstrated, cloud computing is risky and it is better to depend on as few contract resources as possible.

No, all it indicates is that a lot of people are idiots who overreact to whatever hype the media is currently blabbering about. It's why you get 60 hour waiting times in every ER when the media says that some horrible new disease has just killed 15 people in the past two months.

The rest are well aware that any locally hosted service will have an even worse reliability than google or cost so much it's not worth it for most people.

How much is unlimited? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29308377)

It seems the word unlimited never actually means unlimited when internet services are involved. My "unlimited" internet on my mobile phone contract is actually 500MB. Everything is "Unlimited" is Capped or has a Fair Use Policy.
If I ever see the word Unlimited when advertising a service, I dismiss it out of hand and look for the small print.
I understand that an "unlimited" service is practically impossible to provide- I just ask the service providers don't use the word. Tell me the actual amount and then I don't have to read the terms and conditions of every offer to compare products.

Re:How much is unlimited? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29308629)

The first thing I do when comparing companies is check for GNU/Linux, ensure no MS Windows hosting is available, and then make sure it has a clear set cost for bandwidth- and now I also make sure to get virtual private server hosting account. Everybody else is behind the times and bound to be out to screw you since it is just a job to them.

Re:How much is unlimited? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309049)

Unlimited means that there is no artificial limit. The natural limit, which is bandwidth*time, still exists, obviously. Many hosting packages already offer more transfer volume than the server can realistically deliver, so advertising them as unlimited gives the user no additional transfer volume, but it removes the uncertainty whether an onslaught of traffic might cost more. This increases the (perceived) value of the product without any technical upgrade.

The thing is, network bandwidth isn't the scarce resource in hosting anymore. With the exception of download services, web sites are limited by processing power and hard disk seek times, because web site authors use fancy content management systems nowadays. I once served 30GB of small files in one day with a $1 shared hosting account (unlimited transfer volume). No signs of overload, but of course that was an entirely static site. The same traffic would have crushed a typical dynamic CMS site.

Re:How much is unlimited? (2, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309159)

It's the usual "fair use" policy, i.e. unlimited until we think it's too much.

More interesting to know would be what happens if you exceed their unstated limit. Is your site just cut off, or maybe bandwidth/cpu limited? If you decide to leave because you hit the limit, do you get a refund on the remaining contract period and do you have to pay any sort of cancellation fee?

oops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29308395)

companies like godaddy claim unlimited but they will cut you off if you use "too much"

It's about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29308425)

Most of hosting providers in Finland have always been offering best effort bandwidth.

Unlimited BS (-1, Redundant)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308429)

No need to point out that there's no such thing as unlimited, and that unlimited can be much more limited than you may expect. Last year I struggled looking through all the bullshit until I found nearlyfreespeech. They may lack important stuff like cron but at least they don't act like you're dumb enough to believe you can have a all you can eat bandwidth buffet for $5/month. Props to them for their business model, I wish they'd have more competition that would use the same approach (that is paying for just what you use).

My experiance with "no data transfer quotas" (4, Interesting)

HughsOnFirst (174255) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308437)

Last year I had a website that was number one on digg for months and eventually got over ten thousand diggs

http://digg.com/people/He_Took_a_Polaroid_Every_Day_Until_the_Day_He_Died [digg.com]

My unlimited , "no data transfer quotas" account didn't last a whole hour.

Figure that each visitor accounted for 13,000 hits and 6,000+ largish photos it added up

Re:My experiance with "no data transfer quotas" (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309069)

each visitor accounted for 13,000 hits and 6,000+ largish photos

Your server's failure was due to bad web design. No server could have handled that, regardless of the kind of uplink. Unlimited transfer volume does not also mean unlimited CPU power, unlimited RAM and unlimited hard disk bandwidth.

Re:My experiance with "no data transfer quotas" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309583)

THIS.

Also, why in GODS name did you post this thing on SLASHDOT?!
Say bye to your site again in 3...2...1...

Re:My experiance with "no data transfer quotas" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309863)

Also, why in GODS name did you post this thing on SLASHDOT?!

Because he is a troll, and his post is just a poorly disguised attempt at getting more users to click on his dumb link.

Re:My experiance with "no data transfer quotas" (1)

pHus10n (1443071) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309241)

Are you trying to crash your server again out of spite or something? :)

It's ALWAYS been like that & it is WRONG... ap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309437)

"My unlimited , "no data transfer quotas" account didn't last a whole hour." - by HughsOnFirst (174255) on Friday September 04, @03:24AM (#29308437)

I understand, & have FELT your frustration on this note myself, more than 13++ yrs. ago when I lived in Atlanta Ga. area & had mindspring (later bought out by earthlink) as my ISP (dialup days, 33k-56k days).

Back then, I had a successful "freeware" called "APK 3dFx Tuning Engine 2000++ SR-5" -> http://imagenes.sftcdn.net/es/scrn/5000/5384/4_APK3DF.jpg [sftcdn.net]

(The application was for the then 'reigning champ' of 3d vidcards, 3dFx & their Voodoo I/II/III line)

It was being downloaded by users, alongside other freewares (OR, sharewares) I created.

At first? NO PROBLEMS!

Once the programs I wrote started "taking off/getting momentum" though, & once I had 'hooked up with' 3dFiles.com (a then very popular 3d apps & gamers website which was bought out by ZDNet & destroyed really (now is majorgeeks.com though))? The app started gaining HUGE amounts of downloaders.

Eventually, users started writing me in email, basically stating "I cannot get your file anymore" & I checked with my ISP - they said my bandwidth usage had been topping their monthly charts month in, & month out, & they decided to "cap me" once I passed a certain point of downloaded content from their servers (telling me then that I had to use a "business account" instead).

I was like "WTF? You people advertise as UNLIMITED UP/DOWN USAGE!!!" &, they did do that... heck, they ALL do, but as we both know? THIS IS A LIE & clearly a case of FALSE ADVERTISING... like so much of it is, or, much of what we hear & see via marketers is clearly "1/2 truths" - but, that STILL DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT TO DO!

APK

P.S.=> It happens, & it is, clearly, wrong... but, when you're not "big money"? You get crapped on, unless you want to go get an attorney, & spend monies (& for most things it is NOT worth it, & all you get is some b.s. "cease & desist" order issued for huge dollars) - I still think things like this are clearly "actionable", but, IANAL... nor, lol, would I wish to be! apk

Re:My experiance with "no data transfer quotas" (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309757)

Did they block you from transferring data, or did your server run out of processing power?

Or did you somehow think bandwidth was the same thing as the other server performance metrics?

Re:My experiance with "no data transfer quotas" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29310481)

Did they block you from transferring data, or did your server run out of processing power?

Or did you somehow think bandwidth was the same thing as the other server performance metrics?

Typically when the hosting provider redirects all pages in your domain to one with only the message "This account has exceeded it's bandwidth limits. If you are the site owner, please contact us." then one tends to think it is a transfer quota issue.

Or did you somehow think "transfer quota reached" means the other server performance metrics have reached their limits?

Re:My experiance with "no data transfer quotas" (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310787)

If you're actually the OP (which I'm doubting due to AC), that's a pretty important detail to mention in your claim. If the server survived and gave a "Quota Reached" message, that's a very specific failure case at odds with a "no quotas" claim.

In the OP it was just stated "my account didn't last". That's awfully vague and could be for any number of reasons other than bandwidth.

Always been on 95th percentile (2, Informative)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308453)

No transfer quota.
For instance I have a few low usage servers (mail and backups for a few small biz), I pay for 2Mbps with 100M burst. This means that I can use 100M 5% of the time as long as I don't use more than 2M 95% of the time.
But bandwidth is extremely cheap around here.

Re:Always been on 95th percentile (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308709)

Would you please also tell us where we have to move to instead of just dangling that carrot?

Re:Always been on 95th percentile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29308733)

For instance I have a few low usage servers

Would you please also tell us where we have to move to instead of just dangling that carrot?

Into a datacenter?

Re:Always been on 95th percentile (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308815)

Let's see... tons of computers whirring softly to soothe you to sleep, industrial strenngth air condition, no windows or other sources of natural light, industrial strength UPSs...

When can I move in?

Re:Always been on 95th percentile (2, Funny)

notmyusualnickname (1221732) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308797)

Well, he has a French sounding name, an email address from altiva.fr, his sig has a URL in French with the French TLD...

Re:Always been on 95th percentile (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309133)

So.. Canada?

Re:Always been on 95th percentile (-1, Troll)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309211)

Plus if you check his posting history you'll see that he's an arrogant, cowardly, Anglophibic cunt. Dead giveaway, that.

Re:Always been on 95th percentile (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310133)

95th percentile has been a standard way of billing business-class hosting for at least the last decade, AFAICT.

The big change around here is that overage charges and base bandwidth charges are going down and getting replaced with electricity costs. I'm paying a bloody buck a VA, making my bandwidth bill almost irrelevant.

Of course, I'm not dealing with your mickey-mouse $30 virtual server hosting plans; I have a 100% power and 'net SLA, ~40 peers, 24x7 competent staff, physical security, dual/redundant power infrastructure all the way from generators to the cabinets, etc.

Well cheap hosting here is 100% unlimited 100Mbps (2, Informative)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310487)

See dedibox.fr. They offer dedicated servers (originally custom-built VIA boards with 120G HDD, probably much better by now) with 100Mbps and completely unlimited traffic, for â30/month.
Another company has virtualized hosting that even cheaper, but you pay more for storage (on a SAN).

Unlimited? (1)

iLogiK (878892) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308477)

There's no such thing as unlimited.
There is a limit, they just don't tell you what it is. At some point, you'll get an email telling you you're using too much resources.
Also, providers that have unlimited storage have conditions that you can't upload anything you want (uploading large files to share with people for example)

I'm paying $10 a month for a VPS and I'm getting 20GB of storage and 500GB bandwidth a month. I'm using maybe 2GB which is the OS, a few sites, and some pictures and movies of a trip, my girlfriend uploaded to send them to me.
20GB is more than enough, and I can upload anything I want.

I prefer knowing the limit that having it sneaking up on me.

First hand experience. (1)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308857)

Nobody ever believes that this would even be legal to do until it happens to them personally. After actually reading the terms of service on a couple of hosting plans that just sounded too good to be true in an effort to figure out how these companies were affording such cheap bandwidth I discovered the dirty secret. I tried to warn TWO friends (clients of two entirely separate companies) about this type of shady business going on in the economy hosting market but neither of them believed me until their accounts got cut off. The true shame is that honest companies are either sinking or being forced to play dirty too just to keep up because not enough consumers understand the difference between guaranteed and "guaranteed."

Lies, damn lies, and repeated lies! (4, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308505)

We hosted a counterstrike mirror in 2000, and we had an 1&1 "unlimited traffic" plan.

Guess what. After some more GB of traffic as usual went trough the line with a new update of CS, 1&1 closed the connection.

Well, they not simply closed the server connection. It was CeBit some days later, and we were there at the 1&1 stand. The admin, responsible for that very server (among others) also was there. So we asked him, what happend to our unlimited connection. He apologized and tried to re-open the line.
Only to find, that he himself could not connect to the server at all. As if it was blocked at a invisible device in-between.

We could not resolve the issue there, and we later ended the contract.

So don't believe their deliberate lies! There never will be!
There are only managers who calculate an average without thinking, when looking at their statistics of traffic up to now (with the limits).
And later, managers in panic, who notice that people actually will use that unlimited line, when they have it!

Errata: (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308549)

Of course, I meant "There never will be an unlimited plan!"
(Sorry, I didn't sleep this night. Without any caffeine.)

Re:Lies, damn lies, and repeated lies! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308721)

Well, give 'em the benefit of doubt, they might just have been too clueless to figure out what congested the network... It's 1&1 after all...

But yes, it's amazing what companies sell and how angry they get when you actually want to use what you pay for. I have no problem with an offer that says "20 Gig a month and then we cut your wire". Or "10 Gig". Or whatever arbitrary number. But claiming "unlimited" and then strangely resulting in funky problems that for some reason can't be solved is simply dishonest.

Our catchphrase for this is "fair use". You have an unlimited plan, "fair use". When asked what "fair use" is supposed to mean, you get to hear that you "should not have a negative impact on other users' experience". What's meant is that you should not use so much of the shared bandwidth that you limit another user's use of his. Now how the hell should I know whether I do? I mean, before I get a letter telling me that I broke the "fair use" contract.

How I could possible impact other users? Because it's the telco's way of reusing their cables to transport data. Yes, one shared cable for all users. Take a wild guess what having a "2mbit" line actually means during primetime...

Re:Lies, damn lies, and repeated lies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29308769)

Exactly. There is no such thing as an unlimited plan (internet connection, hosting, etc.). Unlimited always means "as long as you do not use more than what we define as the average". As soon as you use more than the arbitrary "average", they'll terminate your contract.

I'm surprised they are allowed to do that in so many countries that otherwise have far-reaching consumer protection laws. Then again, lawmakers are always several decades behind times.

It's a good way to tell how trustworthy a company is. If they say unlimited, just ignore them. I'll stay with my fixed 600GB month limit any day before switching to some "unlimited" liar.

Re:Lies, damn lies, and repeated lies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309803)

Do you have more information about this incident? You said they "closed the connection", but from what you said it sounds like the server may have just crashed or shut down.

"The admin could not connect as if there was an invisible device in-between"?

It's OK if you're not very technically inclined. But it sounds like you didn't take even basic measures to investigate the loss of access to your server.

Did you even call tech support, or just talk to a random guy at a booth? That's hardly the place to get proper tech support - if the server is inaccessible over the network, the next step is usually to hook a console up and figure out why.

I have an old-time story, too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29310671)

We hosted a turnip-growing contest in nineteen-tickety-two and we had an 1&1 "unlimited traffic" plan.

Guess what. After people started uploading photos of their turnips, 1&1 closed the connection. Might be because they were 4800 DPI scans of large-format photographs, as was was the style at the time.

Well, they not simply closed the server connection. It was CeBit some days later, and we were there at the 1&1 stand. The admin was Ike Eisenhower. So we asked him, what happened to our unlimited connection. He apologized and tried to re-open the line.

Only to find, that he himself could not connect to the server at all. It was blocked by the Fuhrer himself!

So don't believe their deliberate lies! There never will be!
There are only communists who calculate an average without thinking, when looking at their statistics of traffic up to now (with the limits).
And later, those dirty hippies panic when they notice that people actually will use that unlimited line, when they have it!

I'm scared and there are wolves after me.

Quick - mirror Linux ISOs! (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308519)

Every time I see either a host offering "unlimited bandwidth" or someone saying "why should I pick the host you're with? For $2 per month less I can go to X and get unlimited bandwidth" I always end up wanting to have the spare change to sign up for an account, set it up as a Linux ISO or package mirror and seeing how long it lasts! Somehow I doubt it'll be long, but "unlimited" suckers in enough people that it obviously works. And then they'll wonder why either a) their server is dog slow (erm, someone is trying to use their "unlimited" and they've overloaded it) or b) they get stopped from using their unlimited (erm, because it is neither possible to offer true unlimited nor financially viable to offer very high amounts at that price).

Re:Quick - mirror Linux ISOs! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308761)

It's quite possible to offer unlimited traffic on a dedicated 100mbit link right to the backbone. But be prepared to share your paycheck with your ISP.

You get what you pay for. Pay too much, lose a bit of money. Pay too little, lose everything because the good you bought simply cannot fulfil its intended purpose. There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price alone are that person's lawful prey. (allegedly said by John Ruskin, but IIRC it's not from him).

Re:Quick - mirror Linux ISOs! (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309849)

I guess when it comes to computers then unlimited anything is possible, but things that my host offers unlimited of (like addon/parked domains, emails and databases) are effectively unlimited because you're constrained only by your use of the alphabet and (eventually) some possible limits of standards (e.g. domain lengths stop you using a true "unlimited" number of domains, but you're still looking at stupidly huge numbers). Disk space and bandwidth are more physically limited things - there's no such thing as an "unlimited disk", although you could cluster large disks (but that must have a limit), and there's no such thing as an "unlimited pipe" (especially on shared hosting where you're not the only one using it) although 100Mbps would get you quite high.

check the tos/eula (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308533)

Their so called unlimited is only as long as you don't get to point of degrading the network for rest of the people that have hosting there.

Dreamhost did this a while ago. (1)

bluephone (200451) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308561)

I've been with Dreamhost since 05 and they started offering unlimited to new customers a while ago, and they recently completed moving all old customers to unlimited too. The reality is, most people use a fraction of the offering anyway.

Re:Dreamhost did this a while ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29308751)

At least Dreamhost admitted to purposely overselling for that reason, most would never come close to the original quota system in place. So overselling, which all hosts do, was taken to the "unlimited" setup. And they managed to spend more money on new hardware thanks to it, which then increased their reliability tremendously.

Coming up on my first years end with them, since I'd already paid for the full 12 months, and wanted to make sure I wasn't getting BS'd when I asked them the policy on "unlimited bandwidth," I tested to see how far they'd let me go. So I placed many a mods up for CS:S, COD4 and a few linux ISOs. I asked a few people to download the mods over the course of the day, and the ISOs overnight, for a month straight. I had 5 people doing it every day and 20 at the peak. All in all, the lot of us burned through roughly 1TB in 1 month. they didnt bother me, not a peep. I since dropped the domain that was attempted on and have renewed twice for my other domains. No matter what I've done to see if they'd go along with it, they havent complained (with the exception of once, on a 500MB MySQL DB that was missing 2 indexes the app developer forgot to add. They actually added these indexes for me, decreased load times with that by a good half second or more. This wasnt a complaint, so much as a "hey, we fixed this for you, enjoy" message).

If other hosts go this route, they need to make sure that the few dozen people who do abuse the service, such as in the above example, aren't just dropped because they take advantage of something most users ignore.

Re:Dreamhost did this a while ago. (5, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308803)

That's basically what makes this business model viable. Also, if everyone is doing it, the heavy users will "spread out" across the ISPs, that's why no single ISP would ever dream of offering it, simply because everyone who wants to use 100+ gig a month will sign up with him, ruining the business model.

It also only works as long as the rules of the game don't change. The telcos had to learn that the hard way when Internet became mainstream. Telcos in the US offered "unlimited", unmetered local calls. It worked well for ages. I mean, how many calls do you make per day? You yak a bit with a friend, hang up, free up the line. The few hardcore BBS junkies that hooked the line 24/7 were manageable.

The rules of this game change completely when the internet entered the living rooms of the US. Now everyone was on the line 24/7, getting a second line for phone calls (yes, kids, that was before the mobile phone fad). The "unlimited, unmetered" plan that worked under the premise that people make short phone calls, maybe taking half an hour a day or so, backfired badly under the pressure that people now stood online 24/7. Even more so when they did stay online permanently simply because of the threat that you might not get a free line because everything is busy, making the problem only worse.

ISPs might be wary to make a move they can't take back, especially since they were the ones that originally benefitted from a quite similar backfiring move by someone else. A truely "unlimited" plan could very easily backfire if something that uses a lot of bandwidth constantly become mainstream.

Like, say, P2P.

Re:Dreamhost did this a while ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309123)

100GB seems a smidge low :) I did 3TB without trying on a $20/month VPS last month and didn't hear a peep from them. As long as I'm not blasting the processor 24/7 or using my burst ram more than 20% of the time its not a big deal, the pipes is cheap. I had a friend that used the same provider, and tried to host a very high volume (as in hit counts, not bandwidth) website and it maxed out something very quickly because he got cut off within hours because he was impacting other customers. So I think that in some cases its more how big of an inconvience your usage is rather than the actual usage amounts.

Re:Dreamhost did this a while ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309441)

100+ gig a month?? really? We have a small website that does that in a day. It's media intensive, but that really is only around 6000 unique visitors a day, maybe 10000 visits..

These unlimited plans for $6-$20 are for mom and pop shops that will never ever get close to that amount of hits. They are for the places that get maybe 100 unique visitors a day. This is selling to the 90% of users.. 10% will account for 90% of the usage.

Re:Dreamhost did this a while ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309559)

Dreamhost throttled me to 40 Kilobytes/s and lied to me that "cross-atlantic latency" (as in PING) was be to blame. All I did was host a lot of mixsets (about half the 600GB my account offered). Traffic was nowhere near the 6TB they promised me.

Re:Dreamhost did this a while ago. (1)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 5 years ago | (#29312357)

Whoa there wayback machine! I remember "teen lines", although I used mine to keep the modem dialed up 24/7.

Re:Dreamhost did this a while ago. (1)

operator_error (1363139) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309153)

Dreamhost documented the practice of hosts overselling on their blog a few years ago.

http://blog.dreamhost.com/2006/05/18/the-truth-about-overselling/ [dreamhost.com]

FWIW, I've also been with them since '05, and while they've had their hiccups, I think the package is great; and they've become stronger in terms of infrastructure as a result. Speaking as a developer. I use their private servers now too, and am sooo pleased to have the root user capability added recently, alongside their groovy control panel which is fantastic.

Disclaimer: I get my basic ~$7 a month package hosted for free, pretty much forever, because I manage a site for a US, IRS documented charity, so Dreamhost gives me credit on my account for this month, every month for.

Quota != speed (1)

Memroid (898199) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308575)

It's not like I'll be able to start the next YouTube with one of these hosting accounts. Just because they won't charge you per x amount of bandwidth doesn't mean there won't be a direct correlation between your number of visitors and their viewing speeds. An unlimited quota, which is limited to 300 kb/s total for all of your users, is not unlimited.

Re:Quota != speed (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308697)

An unlimited quota, which is limited to 300 kb/s total for all of your users, is not unlimited.

Yeah, that is the only problem with hosting whole YouTube on a $3 shared hosting account.

Re:Quota != speed (1)

MeNeXT (200840) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309365)

To add to this, what service are you expecting on a $9.95/month plan? Do you honestly think that you will get the help of knowledgeable tech when your server starts bouncing mail? These plans are only as good as the amount of business you are prepared to lose. With my experience with 1&1 is that even when you show them the problem and advise them on how to fix their servers, it still takes days to escalate the problem to someone who can do something about it.
 

Snake oil is only snake oil, there will always be someone willing to buy it!

I worked in hosting support... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29308609)

In my experience an overwhelming amount of customers never come close to their data storage or transfer caps anyway. We hosted a mostly business websites and I saw many pages with a wopping 15-40 hits per month record.

You know all those lame drop shipping home businesses and MLMs? There are tons of people who buy into them. Not only do these people end up with unsold stock in their garages and basements... they also waste money on a few years worth of hosting fees.

They aren't really scrapping the caps... (1)

shacky003 (1595307) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308615)

They are placing them elsewhere - They throttle the bandwidth at either the account level, or through throttling the hosting boxes.. "Unlimited" means no stated plan limit, not no limit.

I'm speaking as the current owner of a regional hosting provider in the north east US.. We don't play with this kind of pathetic marketing bait and switch crap... You can't get any more misleading

This is the same as the Cricket USB cell modems saying $40 a month for "unlimited" use - then the print at the end states that they will throttle you to a crawl if you go over 5 gb of
throughput (up and down) or throttle you at any time if you cause any adverse effects on their network. In other words, they will throttle your "unlimited" data plan for any reason
they want to, and promise to by the 5 gb mark..

Re:They aren't really scrapping the caps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309929)

We throttled a $50 customer that was costing us $1000 in bandwidth every month. It was an easy decision.

Re:They aren't really scrapping the caps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29312401)

I hope you didn't tell him his plan was unlimited, hosting jerk : P

So tempting (1)

davmoo (63521) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308631)

I am really tempted to go open an account at 1&1 and then really pump the bandwidth just to prove how full of crap they really are. The only people who get truly unlimited service are those who never even come close to using any kind of serious bandwidth. Its not that hard to do and you don't even have to host pr0n...just run bittorrent when a popular flavor of Linux like Ubuntu, Debian, or Mandriva updates their distro and you can easily saturate a 100mbit connection.

I lease several servers for myself and clients. For business use I won't even consider a plan that does not spell out *exactly* how much bandwidth is allowed, and how much overage costs.

this is not new (-1)

Lilo-x (93462) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308647)

this is not a new model, hosting companies have been doing this for the last 12 years, 1&1 are not pioneering this, its just a marketing trick to get the people hosting with you who have no idea on their traffic usage so just want "unlimited" in reality they use 100mb a month of transfer and have 200meg of files (mostly e-mail)

This is the general rule of thumb - people use 30% of what they buy in large quoted plans, this is mainly due to poor space management on their behalf because they have so much space.

When people start overusing this unlimited plan will be thrown out of the window and they will be quietly removed, and because 1&1 technical support is so removed from being able to make any decision or assist in any way you'll just have to move out to a new company.

Shared hosting isn't dead, Rackspace just don't understand it properly, there will always be a middle ground of people who do not want to be contrained into a system that limits you or that is overly complex to get the same benifits you can from shared hosting for $4 a month.

Hosting companies will constantly adapt and change their portfolio to respond to their customers demands.

Saying shared hosting is "dead" is also placing the coffin lid on all the 3rd party web applications people use on their hosting services (cpanel/vbulletin/kayako). This is nonsense, people will always want diversification.

Shared hosting in effect is cloud hosting, you upload your data to servers that you don't control and you have no idea who is accessing your data at a sysadmin level or where your data actually sits. You have to have faith in the company you choose to be responsible.

 

If you want unlimited, be prepared to pay for it. (1)

sherl0k (1215370) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308743)

I have a server at server.lu [server.lu] and pay for an actual "unlimited" plan. There are other dedicated hosting providers that do the same. As long as the bandwidth is for legit purposes - aka you're not hosting a warez site or torrenting everything under the sun - it really is unlimited. I can push 100mbps all month long if I wanted to, as long as the bandwidth is there. Shared hosting plans offering this always have some sort of a caveat. Don't believe it, even 1&1's terms and conditions page has nothing about it. Either get the facts straight from the horses mouth or expect to be disappointed.

Are they going to tell anyone? (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 5 years ago | (#29308947)

I've had a 1and1 hosting package for about 6 years, ever since they started hosting for individuals and not just corporate, and I learn about this through /. When are they planning to inform their clients? I use a secondary host for rich media, so this would have me overhauling my site and adding more content, should I get started? My latest email invoice doesn't say anything about this.

Re:Are they going to tell anyone? (1)

Rick Richardson (87058) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309197)

Package Usage
Usage
Disk Space
1025 MB of 120000 MB in use
Transfer Volume unlimited
File Usage
11142 of 262144 files in use
Basics
E-mail 4 of 1200 mailboxes in use
Domain 1 of 2 included domains have been registered
Tools and Features
WebsiteBuilder 0 of 2 projects in use
max. 12 pages for each project
DynamicSiteCreator 0 of 3 projects in use
max. 12 pages for each project
MySQL Databases 3 of 25 databases in use
Scripts Supported Perl
Python
PHP

Re:Are they going to tell anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309291)

1and1 customer here. They informed me, login to your admin panel and check your messages.

Not enough hits (1)

Zoxed (676559) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309103)

My Website [zoxed.eu] does not get enough hits to need an Unlimited plan, you insensitive clod !

BlueHost does this as well.. but there's the catch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29309115)

BlueHost [bluehost.com] offers unlimited hosting space since few years, and my company hosts all our customer's websites with them.
But they did the trick: lowered the maximum file count limit of each account from 400,000 (source [bluehostforum.com] ) to 50,000 (a very low limit, because each email message - *spam included* - is counted as file), as discussed in the BlueHost user forum [bluehostforum.com] (also see this forum discussion [bluehostforum.com] ).
And they allow you to host up to 2,500 email account and unlimited domains.

All hosts have sleazy untold limits.

We're of course moving out of them, but we're sad because their support service was very good. And VPS providers have sleazy behavior as well.

Re:BlueHost does this as well.. but there's the ca (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29310177)

Well atleast they have email included, with GoDaddy to get any somewhat useful amount of email you need to add it to your hosting plan.

Overselling hosts (3, Insightful)

Badmovies (182275) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309649)

Unlimited is obviously a gimmick, as there are limits to anything. Most "unlimited" plans have rules about usage, be it CPU or other, that allows the host to suspend the account. "unlimited" plans that cost $9.95 a month should be viewed with a critical eye. You get what you pay for with hosting. Before buying a hosting plan do some research on what hosts provide quality service, what price they charge, and what can be expected in terms of support. Oh, and always keep local backups of your data, and never sign up for an extended contract.

1&1 does not have a great reputation on www.webhostingtalk.com [webhostingtalk.com] . Anyone with an interest in reading about the perils of unlimited plans (or hosting in general) should browse around that site.

Unlimited Infinite (1)

cecil_turtle (820519) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309743)

Unlimited does not mean infinite capacity, nor does it mean they will allow a single user to abuse their resources. Unlimited means there are no artificial limits imposed or quotas that you will hit in the normal course of doing business. If you use up the resources you have purchased (e.g. dedicated server CPU) then that wasn't a "limitation" that was imposed on you; you simply used up the resources you had purchased. When shared servers and bandwidth are the question then yes the definition of unlimited becomes a little more gray, but all the stories of "my account was shut off" is usually attributed to some single significant event or obvious case of abuse.

I'm not saying ISP's shouldn't try to create a more clear definition of what resources they can provide on what account levels, but I am saying that people shouldn't think the word "unlimited" implies infinite resources no matter what. Use common sense.

This makes perfect sense (1)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309889)

The vast majority of people who have a website generally don't come anywhere near their limits. Generally people think that just because they put a website up about their cat that the world is going to be just as interested in it as they are.

Heh heh... seriously.....

If your getting serious traffic that means you're going past limits (obviously warez sites excepted) then you're happy to pay a little more when you expand.

It is a gimmick (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#29309937)

I manage several sites on 1&1 and godaddy. and one thing I discovered is that the "unlimited" plans have a throttled output or use a reduced processor allotment on them. Joomla shows off slow processor or throttling quite a bit and the same host company but unlimited compared to a bandwidth metered account and the Joomla install on the unlimited plan is MUCH slower. Pages take from 7-10 seconds to render compared to the 1-3 seconds I get on the premium metered plan.

Yeah it's unlimited, but your speed throttled so you wont choke thme to death.

unlimited, unrestricted, THEY STILL SUCK (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310187)

I've switched over to Google Apps from 1&1 for my home domain. I don't like the restriction to Page Creator, but I'll live with it if the uptimes are better than flippin' 1&1, especially for free. Web Gmail was out yesterday, though since I use IMAP exclusively, I was unaffected. If Google has the same problems 1&1 has, I will switch to someone else.

I have one lousy domain left to switch.
-l

Common sense?! (1)

pbhj (607776) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310363)

Here's the common sense - advertise unlimited if you have the resources to give me as much as I might ever ask for.

Restaurant: Unlimited Pies, $20

So I start eating pies, they run out after I've eaten 1. Sorry sir, those were the pies allocated under your contract, it's not fair if you eat more than one as we've sold the other pies to other people and told them they are unlimited. That's called fraud - though companies call it "overage" and "marketing" it's still fraudulent.

If the limitation is say the most pies ever eaten by anyone in the world + 1, then fair enough [this would maybe be equivalent to the most bandwidth it's possible to consume with the allowed proportion of CPU time that my account is limited to].

Nothing interesting (1)

Jesus IS the Devil (317662) | more than 5 years ago | (#29310609)

These hosting space providers are a dime a dozen. A more interesting type is something like Topcities, which offers free application hosting with lots of free templates for Joomla, wordpress, phpbb, etc.

made obsolete by cloud computing? (1)

bhxob (1144819) | more than 5 years ago | (#29311307)

Having never used 1&1, i can't speak to their service or resource levels, or more applicably to their resource usage levels.

However I can't say that I think that cloud computing will significantly displace shared hosting.

This says it better than I could I think.
http://www.internetblog.org.uk/post/404/will-cloud-computing-replace-shared-hosting [internetblog.org.uk]

Cloud computing is great in that it only charges users for the server power they use. That's why rapidly expanding companies with unpredictable IT needs love it. But the truth is, the average hosting customer's needs are very predictable.

A typical shared hosting user probably only utilizes 500 MB of space at most and under 3 GB of bandwidth a month. Hosting companies know what to expect from their users and most website traffic rarely fluctuates enough to take advantage of cloud computing features.

Sayegh is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I think introducing the cloud to a shared hosting environment would simply add too much complexity and I don't see it being adopted en masse by hosts any time soon.

TOS... (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 5 years ago | (#29311707)

You just have to read the TOS so see that all the unlimited hosts give them seleves unlimited excuses to shut your website down if you attempt to use your unlimited resources.

Re:TOS... (1)

bhxob (1144819) | more than 5 years ago | (#29312035)

This is true of any service related business.

My host did this to me without telling me (1)

alex_guy_CA (748887) | more than 5 years ago | (#29312183)

I am a San Francisco Photographer. [schoenfeldt.com] After every wedding I shoot I put a gallery of photos online. They are low resolution proofs, but it is over 1,000 photos per wedding usually, so they ad up after a while. I am usually bumping against my storage limits with my host (inmotion hosting, whom I've been happy with) So, the other day, I finish a corporate job, and I'm putting all high resolution of the photos online in a big zip file. I log into my cpanel to check if it puts me over my limit and I see "Disk Space Usage 35319.49/ MB" I could not believe what I was reading. I called the host, and I'm all like "It says I have unlimited storage" and the guy says "that's right" and I just sit there on the phone waiting for the catch. Finally he's like "um, are you done?" I'm paying all of $120 a year for this plan. I could use this for offsite backup if only AT&T had better upload speeds.

"number of files" limitation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29312389)

when will they get rid of that pos restriction?!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?