Package Features Have Changed...

[Deb]

This is just a quick note to alert all of you of a change that has been made to the packages we offer on the FQ server.

We, as you all know, have grown tremendously! Some how we have also managed to attract an enormous amount of 'heavy hitters' on the server. It is for this reason we are being forced to limit the bandwidth allocations per the type of account that has been purchased.

If you visit the packages and prices page you will notice that although the bandwidth remains unrestricted (e.g. we do not restrict how you are allowed to utilize your bandwidth like most hosts do) we have in fact lowered the amount of bandwidth new accounts will receive with their packages.

For the majority of sites that do well on a community server this will in no way affect them. (The majority do not utilize more then 2 gigs of bandwidth per month).

We have recently obtained an abnormal amount of accounts that do max out the 30 gigs of bandwidth and more, that are on the Basic Packages -- These accounts cost us a whole lot more then is being charged. FutureQuest wants to remain in business for a long time to come and as such the books show a change is needed.

I've struggled with this decision for a while now but honestly believe it is in everyone's best interest for us to make this change.

Now for the good news -- For accounts already activated on the server -- this does not affect you at all http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif If you notice at the bottom of the Terms Of Service http://www.FutureQuest.net/tos.php there is a link for all of the sites that have already been activated. This link makes the notation that the new bandwidth structure does NOT apply to you and you still have the original 30 gigs with your package http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif

If you do have any questions please feel free to ask.

Deb

[alexandra]

I'm glad to see this, Deb. I don't think we go over 30 gigs, but if we do, I'll be perfectly happy to pay for it. I think if you (and other providers) should structure your rates on what it actually costs; seems to only make sense. If you advertise unlimited bandwidth, then it's likely that "heavy users" will recognize a good thing when they see it, and come on by. But if heavy hitters keep crashing the system, it's just not fair for the other users.

Alexandra

[Deb]

Thanks for your understanding http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif

To give you an idea... you have a nice site that does pretty well as far as traffic is concerned you are using less then a half of gigabyte in bandwidth usage. A gigabyte is a LOT of bandwidth http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif e.g. you're fine http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif

Deb

[Charles Capps]

My best estimates place my site at about 5 gigs per month, just to put things in perspective... :-)

------------------
"Okay, so I'm not "SANE" so to speak, but uh... I'm the lovable kind of psycho"
http://solareclipse.net/

[Rich]

Deb, how much do you charge to guarantee our sites will be hit with 30g+ of unique traffic per month? (hehe)

Rich

[SneakyDave]

I'd better go count my one's and zero's right now!

Sneaky
--- Favorite band "32,767 Lunatics"

[Rich]

Justin wrote: 8 bits == 1 byte;
1,024 bytes == 1 kb;
1,048,576 bytes == 1,024 kb == 1 Mb;
1,073,741,824 bytes == 1,048,576 kb == 1024 Mb == 1 Gb;
And, just for completeness:

1024 GB = 1 Terrabyte = 1TB

Rich

[meikel]

1024 GB = 1 Terrabyte = 1TB
I strongly believe that you can't sum up Terra this way. You're missing most stuff. I believe you mean "Terabyte" http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif

Meikel

[Charles Capps]

Dare I say it...

What comes after terrabyte?

------------------
"Okay, so I'm not "SANE" so to speak, but uh... I'm the lovable kind of psycho"
http://solareclipse.net/

[SneakyDave]

Deborahbyte = 1024 Terrabytes.

[hearts]

Debrabytes
terrabytes

makes 'em sound dangerous! http://www.aota.net/ubb/wink.gif

[Deb]

Hey! Just because Terra bytes does NOT mean I do! (I only growl a bit)

Deb, how much do you charge to guarantee our sites will be hit with 30g+ of unique traffic per month? (hehe)

Only 19.95 per month!*1

Are you guys "banner exchange program friendly" anyways? Or would it be disabled from system resources?

We are script friendly... but certain scripts are not server friendly... I hate to be the type of host that just says "NO", at the same time I do not want to be the type of host that says "Yeah Go for it" and then you do and we find out IT, what it may be, is a resource hungry monster.

The most I can tell you is that you are free to give it a shot if you like... but if it gets to be more for a dedicated solution then for a community server we would have to request you shut it down. Sadly, there is no way to know for sure what will and what wont hurt. Many of you have lil search scripts on your sites... free 4 all link exchanges.. etc... but could we host Yahoo!? Not on any of the listed packages http://www.aota.net/ubb/wink.gif

Just out of curiousity... what kind of sites does FQ host that generate 30gigs a month?? Shouldn't they be on dedicated servers?? Are they download sites, ??? Inquiring minds want to know. Curiousity killed the cat. ???

Some have software on them for download yet surprisingly even to us, our heaviest hitters, are not download sites and obviously they are not adult only sites (we do not allow that) they are just "sites" of various content that are full of cgi scripts and extremely popular! Also noting that certain sites may require repeated reloads from the same visitors (popular message forums with certain scripts are good for this). Should they go dedicated? Yeah they probably should. And I think all of them would like to, but that too can be expensive. Some of our most popular sites are not-for-profits trying to help offer a community service. Makes it hard for a host that may have a heart to send them on their way.

It's a struggle for all involved. We as the host want to offer the 'world' and I feel safe in saying that all of the site owners that are heavy hitters have been extremely cooperative with their usage... they've been willing to adjust certain tasks to run at times the server is not too busy, they've agreed to optimize their sites in various ways, and they have always been understanding when we do have to 'take them out' for a bit to assure the server is holding on. (The heavy hitters that are not so understanding have found out that the 90 day guarantee does work)

Hope this helps explain some of it http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif

Deb

--
*1 (please note extreme tiny print hidden in the background color)

[Bi4Be]

Well, this brings me into a whole 'nother question asking frenzy. I mean why get a new package when I still have a 30gb one, right?

So this domain redirection thing ($25 on time fee! I know I know! http://www.aota.net/ubb/wink.gif), could you list some pros and cons?

I would also like to know does www.mydomain.tld/myseconddomain/ show up when typed www.myseconddomain.com? Also, when I have a whole 'nother file in that seconddomaindirectory like /MySecondDomain/Crud/Poop/Pee.gif could I just type in www.myseconddomain.com/crud/poop/pee.gif?
Also (that's like my 3rd "also" already, sorry for hi-jacking the topic!), could you breif me on the CGI capabilities with this?

Whew! I'm done http://www.aota.net/ubb/biggrin.gif

Thanks...
-Bi4Be


-------------
http://www.bid4beanies.com

[Terra]

This is quickly turning into a FAQ and when Deb has some time, she will post up some particulars on the FutureQuest web site...

Bi4Be,
With the IRM, you can do what you are outlaying... I have done some extensive work in the CGI arena in relation to the IRM's... About a 3 weeks ago and prior, we were experiencing technical difficulties consistent CGI execution with IRM's... After studying the problem a great deal, I came up with what I believe may have solved this long standing glitch... It's still in Beta phase as I'm watching it's behavior and fine tuning it, but it appears that it has shored itself up to around 96% success rate with just about any CGI's being run from the primary domains cgi-bin...

All I can recommend is that you can roll the dice, and see what results you obtain given the above outlay of disclosure...

Hope this helps...

--
Terra
--Snake Eyes--
FutureQuest

[Terra]

I'm going to add my thoughts to this overall thread...

We are starting to take a lot of heat over the new FQuest package structure... If you look closely, you will not find any restrictions (in tiny, very tiny small print) like you will find on other hosting companies that provide Unlimited Everything with servers that will cook your eggs and bacon in the morning as well...

We have always tried to be upfront with everything, and refuse to go the 'small print' way, restricting this and that for whatever reason...

Many people don't realize, but there is going to be a HUGE shakeout coming in the Web Hosting Industry... People are getting tired of being mislead, and forced to dig layers to find the 'small print'... Also the lawyer fees to interpret those 'restriction clauses' can be astounding as well... http://www.aota.net/ubb/wink.gif

FutureQuest is preparing for this shakeout NOW... We refuse to be caught offguard, as to the inevitable and left behind in the dust of high-profile mergers and fallouts...

Bandwidth is both extremely expensive and a precious resource that the Telco's price as they see fit... (They are non-regulated, unlike your telephone line which is)...

We are now a medium-scale hosting provider, and making changes now to prepare for the future of our quest... We have studied our business closely, and adjust accordingly to the situation at hand... It is the only way we can ensure our survival in this cutthroat industry... It's truly dog-eat-dog, with no prisoners...

If you were to compare us to other companies offerings, you will find us ***extremely*** competitive while offering the most advanced development atmosphere possible... We refuse to digress to average run-of-the-mill joe schmoe hosting servers... My plans are to build the best of the best in dynamic content delivery AND to be around long enough to pass this down to my children (properly trained of course)... http://www.aota.net/ubb/wink.gif

I don't know what more I can say, other than we were slapped in the face, that change needed to happen or perish while trying to provide services that cost us more to provide then the revenues being earned to support the technology and tireless (man|woman) hours in this labor of love... We are only doing what is necessary to survive...

--
Terra
--And that's the facts, only the facts--
FutureQuest


PS: Much of this has come from the current onslaught of pre-sales email that we are receiving... That looked at us 2 and 3 months ago, and now saying that we have changed **everything**... Some are not very nice and getting the now to common, 'Well, so-and-so will pour my juice as well -- Why can't you??? C-ya losers'... http://www.aota.net/ubb/frown.gif

[Justin]

I fully agree. I've been checking out other hosts for the heck of it, just seeing what they offer. I have yet to find one that doesn't offer unlimited everything - until you find their terms of service....

Some offer unlimited bandwidth, but do not allow zip/exe/wav/mp3/tar/etc files. Some simply state in their TOS that unlimited means 2 gigs/month. Some won't tell you what unlimited means until you email them explaining what you'd like to use the service for (and that's when they run!).

If you were to go only by the package descriptions on some of these hosts, for example, $7.95 / month, unlimited bandwidth, 200 Megs space, etc, Yahoo could sign up and have no problems. But of course, when you get into the <font size=.003> stuff, you find out that any relatively successful site would be shut down.

The other thing I see a lot of is FTP, Telnet, Php, etc, all cost extra. Meaning that $7.95 a month doesn't seem as appealing anymore...

All in all, that is honestly why I chose FutureQuest in the beginning. I noticed that everything (bandwidth, acceptable use, limitations) was all listed right on the site. No fine print, no hidden pages only accessible after you fill in the order form, nothing.

<clarification>
I am speaking as a customer here. I was very satisfied customer long before I ever was an employee http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif
</clarification>

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Customer

[This message has been edited by Justin (edited 03-29-99).]

[jenili]

OK, that's still a lot of bandwidth, but a lot of us probably signed up when FQ was promising unlimited bandwidth ("At FutureQuest, we expect you to be successful -- we don't think you should be penalized for being successful!"). Unlimited bandwidth, along with SSH for shelling in and a robust development environment, was a major selling point for me; I just didn't want to sweat it. I wanted to pay my fee and build my site and let them come. Especially on the PTA site I'm starting now, which is a charitable gift, I don't want any surprises.

Then we watched it drop from "unlimited" to 30GB -- which, yes, is a heckuva lotta bandwidth and I'm pretty sure my little vanity site and PTA site put together won't ever get there. That new restriction was applied to all our accounts, as far as I know, and certainly the TOS link Deb gave us seems to back that theory. Which does make me wonder about the contract we received when we signed up during the glory days of unlimited bandwidth.

Now it's down to half that for a Gold account, and someone who wants 30GB bandwidth is looking at a hefty $85 per month (truly the cheapest option, since the penny-a-meg deal works out to $10.24 per gig, which would mean an extra $153.60 to bring that Gold account up to 30GB).

Now, the $64k question is: When renewals come due on our "grandfathered" accounts, what exactly will we be renewing? Are we looking at 30GB for life on those accounts, or will we be renewing our packages with the new package features and prices -- whatever they may be at the time renewal comes due? And please forgive this remark, which is less go-FQ-gotta-love-this-community and more strictly-business... but may we have that in writing?

I really like you guys, and support you and believe in you and think you're great, and of course I want you to grow and thrive and succeed, especially since my accounts are both prepaid through June 2000. But I've seen significant change in these packages, and at three months I'm not exactly a FutureQuest veteran. So, is this latest structure something you can deliver in volume, or will we see yet another cut in the near future -- and how will it affect existing accounts at renewal time?

http://www.aota.net/ubb/frown.gif I hate to be the one to raise a fuss, but I kinda gotta know http://www.aota.net/ubb/frown.gif
jeni

[Bi4Be]

I am so confused!

OK, so:
1000 bytes = 1 Kb
1000 Kb = 1Mb
1000 Mb = 1 Gb
Right?

So think I could start a banner exchange that serves 20,000 12Kb banners daily using 5Gb? Or should I spring for the 10Gb package? Are you guys "banner exchange program friendly" anyways? Or would it be disabled from system resources?

Thanks http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif,
-Bi4Be

[Jacob Stetser]

Considering:

12 x 20,000 = 240,000 kb

240,000 kb = 240 MB

240/day * 30 = 6 gigabytes/month, 5 GB/mo plan isn't enough.

I'd #1) limit to 10k/banner and #2) go for the 15 GB/month version, for growth's sake.

As for server resources, that's a question for the Debster or Terra http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif

Jake

[hearts]

hey now, ya'll can't have this conversation without me!

I have been reviewing other hosting companies and have been so bold to confront them about their "advertised" prices and their "hidden" meanings.

And ya know what people? THEY DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU THINK AND HOW YOU FEEL!

I wrote to the companies and to a domain that promotes other hosting companies, coming acrossed as well researched host companies and advertising misleading prices.. basically recommending them. A VERY MISGUIDED TOUR of the virtual world! http://www.aota.net/ubb/frown.gif

The one company that I found most misleading, had this to say:
The reason it may appear a bit mis-leasding is because there are many
people out there who don't know anything about what they are doing. They are told to find a server with unlimited bandwidth.

(i am copying and pasting.. his own typos)

When i called this same company.. they said, that they do not care, that they are a big business and they have many clients and have no intentions of changing their site. THEY WOULD not allow me to contact the other site owners to ask them how they felt about their services. *for their own privacy* They even had restricted forums.. *tells me that they have a lot to hide* -- he said... "for the protection of their server."

And here we are, out in the open, welcoming anyone in, sharing with them knowledge, giving them feedback.. and on a **rare** occasion, a jerk shows up trying to aim with fire!

I went searching out other hosting companies to give my clients options .. just so they wouldn't feel pressured. I was gonna link hostinvestigator to my site, but they are the ones promoting misleading host companies.

Furthermore, I find this horribly degrading to FutureQuest, because, it is making FutureQuest look bad. There were only two out of I believe six unix servers that were totally honest. FutureQuest being the most honest about everything. NOT HIDING the smallest detail.

As for restrictions.. FQ provides the best for beginners and the most knowledgeable. They encourage you to experiment.. they bail ya out of a situation when you need it. And, if some wild script goes astray, they don't shut you down.

We are a fortunate community, a virtual family of sorts. We are sooooooooo spoiled.

Don't let the packaging changes intimidate ya's. I think if Andrew and Deb are taking heat cuz of this, it is simply the word "limit" that makes one complain. However, these limits for most of us here, we won't even come close to using.

In this matter, these restrictions are to protect our services and to maintain a stable enviroment.

-------------
hearts
-------- happy to be home again http://www.aota.net/ubb/wink.gif

[kteicher]

Just out of curiousity... what kind of sites does FQ host that generate 30gigs a month?? Shouldn't they be on dedicated servers?? Are they download sites, ??? Inquiring minds want to know. Curiousity killed the cat. ??? Keith ???

[Terra]

Jenili,

No offense taken whatsoever, we also realize that business is business... http://www.aota.net/ubb/wink.gif

When packages come time to renew, they would fall under the new package guidelines... (whatever they may be at the time)

We respect and uphold the current contracts that everyone has, whether it was during the 'unlimited', or the '30 gig' allotment time... We stand proudly on our integrity...

It was a difficult decision to make, but was an effort to bring our business model more inline as to what is required to survive... We don't forsee lowering the bandwidth allocations more than what they are, as we feel this was designed for high volume deployment...

I can't tell you the true cost of our bandwidth (our competitors read our forums often as we are no-holds barred open and honest), but the price you quote below $10.24 is lower than what we pay for it *after* you factor in the support, employment, Telco, hardware costs... The true cost would shock you... http://www.aota.net/ubb/frown.gif

I will tell you this much, to host a basic package using the 30 gigs of bandwidth costs us over $90.00/month to support it (Competition will Love this one *sigh*), while only receiving $14.95/$19.95 to cover the costs... It took us until the month of March to just break even, which FQuest was started back June 11th, 1998... It has been a long hard road to get where we are today... We have learned what works and what doesn't and adjust to the situation as necessary...

We also have an accounting nightmare keeping up with the invoicing of a Basic package with this and that added on via Value Added Services... It never made sense to go with the larger packages until now as the Basic package was beginning to be abused with people purchasing Basic and adding on features cheaper than what the Gold package offered as the same... That's why we made the Gold==MySQL capability change as this was becomming very problematic...

Who know, perhaps with all the new competition with DSL services coming out - it may wake up the sleeping giants and start to reduce the HIGH costs of digital T or OC services... If that happens, we will adjust our packages accordingly and deliver more back to the community...

I still believe that what we offer is extremely competitive and will hold us into the future... It has also slowed our growth as we are adjusting for the next round of growing pains giving myself more time to build the new clustered architecture without being pressured to rollout before it's time... We've learned our lessons, we don't want to make the same mistakes twice...

I hope that somewhere in all this rambling, you found the answer to your question... Change is not always received well, and consider this one of the most difficult business decisions that Deb and I have ever been faced with... I just hope that you will vote for me come next election time...

--
Terra
--Ask and ye shall receive--
FutureQuest

PS: Once again, I reveal the innermost secrets of FQuest cost of operations, but this was built by the community and we respect that... We have nothing to hide - except to maybe our competition... http://www.aota.net/ubb/wink.gif

[Justin]

8 bits == 1 byte;
1,024 bytes == 1 kb;
1,048,576 bytes == 1,024 kb == 1 Mb;
1,073,741,824 bytes == 1,048,576 kb == 1024 Mb == 1 Gb;

So 1 gig is 8,589,934,592 one's and zero's. Unless you are talking serial communication, where there is a stop bit between every 8, giving you 9 bits used per byte...

Sorry http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif Had to do it.

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support

[jenili]

Yup, found the answer, Terra -- and as usual, your honesty is refreshing and greatly appreciated. That in itself is worth quite a lot in monthly fees, even if I wish the answer could be otherwise. But then you throw in a hyper-waking techno-god to maintain the thing; and that's something your competition will just have to scratch their heads at 'cuz even when they read this, they can't duplicate you and Deb at any price!

Guess we'll just have to see what happens; after all, a year is almost two generations on the Web, or about 50 people years, or about 350 dog years.... Hmm, it's all in perspective now....

Thanks for the response.
jeni

[Bi4Be]

Maybe with all this heated discussion it would be a bad time to continue the topic. But I need to just this once http://www.aota.net/ubb/frown.gif...

Scrolling up I noticed that you answered Jenili by stating "When packages come time to renew, they would fall under the new package guidelines... (whatever they may be at the time)"
That didn't really apply to me as I didn't prepay anything. I do the monthly option, so when and to what does my plan switch over to the new plan?

Thanks bunches http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif,
-Bi4Be

PS: "Don't let that heat get to ya`, make the best of it by baking cookies." (That was my weirdo version of "When life hands you a lemon, make lemonade")

[Deb]

Let's see, as long as we are being honest, can I answer with "I don't honestly know" ?

Our goal is to at minimum maintain the current sites and give them what they need from us. We do not want to place these restrictions on any of you. Those who request a package today are well aware of the limitations etc and have done some comparison shopping and made the choice that FQ is for them with the current structure.

Those of you who signed on before these changes.... I do not want to impose them on you and will do my best not to. Each contract is valid for the time it is paid for. This does give the pre-pays an advantage. Monthlys are agreeing to a month of service and we are bound for a month.

What I can tell you is this: We have no intentions of imposing these new limits on you any time soon. (I think Jeni did a great job of explaining the time issue as far as this being technology and who knows what we'll be doing in twelve months).

If your account was on the server prior to the bandwidth change... our goal is to assure you receive the package you signed up for. As Terra stated... integrity is a HUGE deal to us and we do not want that to be broken. We'll do all we can to hang onto it.

Technology is such that we just can not predict it... but our business ethics are predictable and we know what type of business we want to run. We know our current site owners are the best of the best and we know we do not want to lose any of you. We can easily replace 'you' as far as putting more sites on the server to fill it up...but we have been very lucky in the type of people that are behind our current sites ... you've been good to us and we are doing all in our power to do the same for you.

At this point in time I do not see the restrictions being placed on any of the sites prior to the change date.... I can not make promises about packages/pricing.. which is why that lil line at the bottom of the page and in the TOS is there (can change at any time blah blah blah) but I am promising that we do not want to restrict and will do all we can to not do so.

I apologize for not being able to offer you a more solid answer...

Deb
--
If you have two apples and you sell three apples for 20 cents less then the cost of the two apples -- how much have you earned to buy more apples with?

[hearts]

well.. if ya divide your apple and share it.. be careful to save the seeds, and allow your orchard to grow.. never again, will ya need to buy more apples! *grin*

---------------
hearts
-------

[Armand]

Okay not that I have any reason to believe my site has any reasonable amount of bandwidth a month, but I have a question (perhaps totally dumb, but that won't stop me).

Is there any easy way for us site owners to find out just what our sites are actually using on average a month? I don't get to check my stats much due to problems I've mentioned elsewhere, but is there anything in there that would specifically say what our bandwidth is (without having to do a ream of math calculations)?

[Justin]

What you will want to look for is Kilobytes Transfered, which has an orange heading. It's right there in the first page of your stats.

On a side note, if your browser crashes on the intro page asking if you want the frames / no frames version, then bookmark the part that works - then you can bypass the problem page all together http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif


------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support

[hearts]

I have to agree with Bi4Be's concerns.

Monthly Accounts:
I feel it might have been assumed by these clients that they were protected by a year, and my honest heart feels like they should be. Why... cuz, not everyone can afford to pay one year in advance and it is like a penalty to them to be under the "new" terms of service. As it is, they are already paying a higher fee per month.

I sincerely feel that these clients deserve the same treatment as the annual accounts.

Speaking before reading the packaging and pricing policies, and I aplogize for that. However, the term of services for all should be annual regardless of their method of payment.

[DB]

I guess there are two ways to view this, one is through the eyes of a reasonably sane person, and the other is through the eyes of a lawyer. *g* Since I'm not a lawyer, I'll take the sane view first.

Terra and Deb are hard working, talented, honest and dedicated people. We all agree on that. And it is difficult to run a hosting service in a rapidly changing and competitive arena like the Internet. To a certain extent we have to trust them to maintain the hardware and software, to help us when we have problems and to keep their promise to make FQ a place we can been successful webmasters. Though I've not been here long, I do trust them not only with my own humble little abode on the net, but also with my clients' sites. Before coming here my domains were hosted with Jumpline, who prominently offered "unlimited bandwidth." Tucked deep inside their ToS was a "20% server resources" limitation clause. When I signed up there I asked how the "20% resources" would roughly translate into bandwidth usage, but I never received a reply. Still, 20% seemed like a lot and they did make a big deal about the "unlimited bandwidth" so I didn't follow-up on it. A couple months later I got a ToS violation letter on a Wednesday night stating that my site would be shutdown on Monday. They said my 14Gb/mo of bandwidth "far exceeded" their 20%, though they still wouldn't even give a ballpark figure of how much bandwidth was actually acceptable. So the long, painstaking search for a new host began and eventually brought me to FutureQuest. Finally, a host that understood that a successful website often meant high bandwidth, and their 30Gb/mo was spelled out in no uncertain terms. I could see from reading the forum that FQ was having growing pains, but the upfront approach to addressing limitations and technical issues seemed to outweigh the short term problems.

Since moving here I've added a few new reseller accounts. While I don't make much of a profit (I charge the same as the normal FQ prices), it was nice to be able to have both friends and clients sites hosted under one roof. My biggest selling point was the 30Gb a month. A week and a half ago one of my friends decided her site had grown successful enough to move from Xoom to a "real host." Before agreeing to come to FQ she sent me URLs to several other hosts, all of which charged less, and asked me why she should pay more (double in some cases) to host here. Each time I went straight to the fine print and calculated what those places would charge if she used 30Gb/mo... or even half that much. The numbers sold her. She knows that while her site doesn't use that much bandwidth now, her goal is to be successful and hopefully one day she will have enough traffic to take advantage of FQ's main selling point. Unfortunately, during her short stay here she has experienced some of the growing pains... FTP problems, e-mail outages and server crashes. But I would tell her, along with my other clients, to look at the big picture. This is a host you can grow into, not out of. Terra will get the gremlins out of the server and then you'll have a home where you will be able to flourish, and the $20/$30 a month will be a bargain. I gave my word and staked my reputation on it. That's why, despite the assurances posted above, I'm concerned about the direction this is going.

Let's put sanity aside for a moment and look at this from a lawyer's point of view. While my personal account is paid up for a year, the remaining seven (all Basic expect for one Silver) will be coming under the new bandwidth restrictions in a few days, it simply wasn't possible for me to come up with well over $1,000 to pay for a full year for each of them on short notice. Plus the ToS and forum posts stated that accounts started prior to the March 29 would be grandfathered in at 30Gb/mo, it was a day after that when the "time of renewal" clause was explained. That really doesn't seem fair. On one hand you talk about being "upfront with everything" and a few messages down it becomes "our goal" and "no intentions of imposing these new limits on you any time soon." I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that goals and intentions are not promises (ie. not binding). While I do believe you want to keep your promises, it isn't "upfront" any longer. I have promised my clients 30Gb/mo, and that makes me liable for any extra charges... potentially $1,700 worth. Not that I expect them all to use 30Gb next month, but if even one of the Basic accounts used double its allotment (10Gb, quite possible), then I could owe an additional $50 (more than the profit on all accounts). Now I trust Terra enough to believe he wouldn't really try to stick me with that charge, but I do think I would be asked to upgrade the account eventually. And what if they start doing 15Gb/mo? Then they could be asked to upgrade to a Gold account, double what they are paying now for half the bandwidth originally promised. You could say that Terra would not do that, but remember, this is from the lawyer's PoV and based on what is written above he has reserved his right to do so. I once took someone's word about a contract with a health club, it ended up costing me a couple thousand dollars. The rather expensive lesson learned was that if it isn't in writing then it doesn't count. I trust you Terra, but if you are going to be "upfront with everything" then let's get this in writing the way a business should be run. And with a reasonable guarantee that the terms won't be changed at the end of a month. I signed up my primary account for a year, but I can't ask my all my clients to do that and it doesn't seem fair that the terms of their contracts should be affected.

I feel that the wording in the current ToS is appropriate. To wit: "These lower bandwidth limits only apply to accounts activated March 29th 1999 and later. If your account was activated prior to March 29th then you are still on the old bandwidth limits of 30 gigabytes per month. Another (sic) words: the new packages and what they contain have in no way affected the package you requested." The wording you have above ("When packages come time to renew, they would fall under the new package guidelines") will mean seven of my eight domains will be affected in just a couple days. While extending the 30Gb coverage indefinitely is unreasonable, giving us at least one year seems fair. After all, we are tolerating all the upgrades and betas, with the promise of a bright future. I think that future should include all the promises that were made when we signed up, at least for a reasonable amount of time. I know you are still thinking this over and weighing all your options, but with the renewal period just days away I hope you will make a decision that is fair to the people who have been sticking with you. In my case, I stake my reputation on yours, so putting it in writing also seems fair... and upfront.

Sorry for the megapost, but this affects both my hobby and career. And if I read those new terms anywhere other than FQ I would be looking for a new host rather than trying to make my case in this forum. Thanks for listening.


------------------
--Tom aka DiamondBack
http://diamond-back.com

[hearts]

hi again, this topic has been on my mind a lot, and guessing there are many of ya out there just simply reading and pondering. The forum has gotten hauntingly quiet since this was brought up, and i hope that maybe I could help ya's understand this.

As for bandwidth usage, I can't explain the techicalities on this. I just can believe what I am being told. I am honestly not one of those successful sites, I am just here cuz this is something I like to do and hopefully, establish a business.

For those of you establishing your own businesses here on the net, or bringing a successful real life business to the virtual world, think back about the steps you had taken to begin your venture, (in this case "quest")

Many of us offered our services for lower fees to get a start, to build a clientel, so we could gather some references, word of mouth is a great form of advertising.

Then as you began to grow and gain your confidence from the satisfaction of your customers, you began taking a logical look at things, knowing since the very beginning, you were offering your services/products well below your competition.

The business begins to take off, you need to be innovative and up to date to keep existing clients happy, and to attract new ones. All of which requires you to invest more money.

Well, this is how I see FutureQuest. They have been very honest with us about being a family business. This company is operated by two caring people, both of whom seem to be feeling kinda bad about any of us being offended by these changes.

We knew when we signed up who Deb and Andrew were and we made a decision on our own free will to be here. The way they have chosen to go about this business is so awesome.. they are in essence sharing a piece of their life with us. They made business personal. Sometimes this can be painful. But what would ya rather have? Just a server with low prices with no freedoms of choices, to be limited at every turn? To have your creativity restrained? And have tech support be unreachable or limited to 9am-6pm EST? With such limits being enforced on many other servers, there is no need for "unlimited bandwidth" .. cuz you would more than likely be restricted in so many other ways. Or simply have a lot of hidden costs, that would nickle and dime you to death.

FutureQuest ................. what more can I say?

-------------
hearts
-----

while I was here TOM posted and I tend to agree with him about the legal issues. There is a fine line here, and since this is a place of business, this is how people think.

Understanding from a client's point of view, he was so correct when saying that we have been patient and understanding of the betas/upgrades/and probs. I guess some could feel that they are suddenly getting less rather than more. Not too many expect to get less.

Regardless, I do understand FQ's position.

[This message has been edited by hearts (edited 03-30-99).]

[Deb]

I understand how rough this can seem for many of you. It's never easy to see inflation with items we purchase/sell. Yet all I can do is explain the facts and hope they make sense and will fulfill your needs.

We are being asked to guarantee that monthly packages would be grandfathered the same as a yearly package... I'd like to toss out a couple of thoughts in that area to try and shed some other light on the subject.

When someone pre-pays a year they and we are agreeing that we are going to work together for a year with the terms set forth. When someone signs up for a month we have nothing to assume they will be here for the following month(s). Think of a lease on an apartment (that is essentially what hosting is doing is renting you some space to allow your site to live in). If you move into an apartment on a month to month lease, you are quite aware that your monthly rent can be raised at any time, usually with a 30 day warning. This is the main reason people opt for 6 and 12 month leases. With a long term lease the apartment complex is bound to hold your rent at the agreed amount for the entire 12 months. There are very good reasons this is the way it is, both for the apartment complex and for the tenet. Those reasons are the same here with hosting. We are keeping all of the contracts valid.

DB mentions that her renewal time is just a couple of days away. No there would NOT be a rate increase on that contract. IF (and I do mean IF) we were to place those restrictions on monthly accounts it would NOT happen overnight as seems to be feared. At minimum I would do the same as was done for the price increase. The rates for monthly payments went up when the three month free special was extinguished. The rates went up March 1st and as noted on the status page this increase would not affect any of the monthly payers until their July payment was due. That's a five month warning. Which we felt would give plenty of time for the site owners to decide if it was worth it or not etc...without having to force them into haste decisions. So even IF we were to say, "Ok all monthlys are restricted now" you would still have five months of the 'old terms' to run with. I believe that is more then fair.

Understanding from a client's point of view, he was so correct when saying that we have been patient and understanding of the betas/upgrades/and probs.

We have always been quite lenient with many things. For some of you this has been noticed many times, whether it be your excessive resource usage (CPU and cgi execution), Late Payments or Third Party script and software support that we take the time to dig into. etc etc etc.... Many of the upgrades happened to allow us to continue being lenient in these areas. We are also trying to carry the same leniency over with this bandwidth restriction. DB is correct when she says we could pop up and say BAM all monthlys are restricted within the next 30 days. At the same time we may never say it. I hope we never do. What I do know is that if we were to say it.... you would be given plenty of time to search around and evaluate your site along with other hosts to see what will work best for you. I have to struggle with the decision in this area... I have the option of laying out a defined restriction date for all accounts or just noting that the monthlys have chosen to have a monthly contract and making no promises whatsoever.

Here's where my thoughts are on those two options:

1. Black and white guidelines: This would force me to state that on x date your bandwidth restrictions will be in place w/o question. If I did this, I can tell you that I would not make that date more then 6 months away because it is forcing me to make a promise to sites that I have no promise from. (This isn't a personal feeling here, this is business talking).


2. No Promise - Just Service: The longer I wait to place a restriction on monthlys... the longer it'll be before the restriction is in place. (note that we give the 5 month warning period). I much prefer having the room to say hopefully we will never have to place it on any of the sites then to make it set in stone that we will.

From the site owners perspective though, I can see how you would want a set in stone date for this. And if enough people voice that this is what they want I will put it up. I can only tell you that I honestly believe you will be safer via allowing us to just "do our best to service you" in this area you will receive better terms.

We had options before making this restriction go into affect... and yes I did consider our options. They made me sick to my stomach. Above I placed an apple equation as my sig. For hosts there is a way to make a profit with that equation. They splice their 2 apples into 10 pieces. They sell each piece as an apple. The small legal print notes that when you purchase an apple it does not mean it will be a whole apple. They are legally allowed to do this.

After viewing my options I realized that I could actually raise the bandwidth limit to 60 gigs per account and achieve the same results that we are working toward via lowering the bandwidth. How? Easily. We simple remove all of the sites that exceed the resource limits of a community server. This is how hosts work. I could utilize the SCRIPT and REFUSAL OF SERVICE clause that have been in our Terms Of Service from the beginning to get rid of any site that is causing us a problem. This is what I was advised to be the best for us to make money, keep our clients happy, and keep our sales on an upscale. For every large site we boot off we could easily pick up ten small sites to make up for them blah blah blah. Anyone with any experience on the Internet knows this is how hosts manage to stay in business. The problem I was faced with is I can't do business that way.

I'm getting very long winded here... but the bottom line is the monthlys have agreed to a '30 day lease' and it is the choice they have made. I understand reasons this choice is made, but it's still the choice they are responsible for making. Any monthly paying account has the option of jumping into a yearly account at any time if they decide that this is in fact a host they feel they can remain with for a year. This allows them to have a stronger guarantee then a monthly allows.

What I have to hold onto though is that we can not make long term guarantees to a site that has not made the same. I understand that many times the long term option is not used for financial reasons, but if that is the case, then I would employ you to understand that it is for the same reasons we can not give them a long term contract on a short term lease.

I hope at least some parts of this make sense http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif

Deb

[DB]

I agree with you to a certain extent, Hearts. I made my first commercial website for $50 and the second one for $75. I never would have been able to stay in this business if I didn't start to charge more after getting established. But I also offer my early clients a big discount because I know that without them taking a chance on me when I was first getting started and didn't have all the skills I've developed since that I won't be able to charge more now. I don't take issue with the new bandwidth limitations being applied to new accounts, that is fair and part of doing business. If I were signing someone up today I would make them aware of what they could expect. I just don't think it is fair to change the contract for accounts that signed up when they thought they were GUARANTEED IN WRITING that they would be allowed up to 30Gb a month. While the term of their contract may be month-to-month, the expectation is that they will not be moving to a new host each month. So it seems fair that the terms of their contract should also have the expectation that it will not be suddenly changed.

Maybe I'm overly sensitive to this because I've been burned by a deceptive bandwidth contract. I know that FutureQuest isn't Jumpline, but a contract is a contract. A big part of what attracted me to FQ was their openess and upfront, put-your-cards-on-the-table way of doing business. All of a sudden we've had the officially stated bandwidth of a Basic account cut by over 83% but are told it won't affect existing accounts, then two days later we find out they are affected when they are renewed (which for many people means in the next month). In place of clear polices I see "goals" and "intentions"... which contractually mean nothing. This is not the FutureQuest I joined a few months ago. It isn't about whether these new policies are enforced, it is about being upfront and not playing the word games other hosts are so prone to. I really like Andrew and Deb, I hope they will settle on a policy that meets the expectations we were given when we signed up, put it in writing and stick to it. That is what I thought FQ was all about.


------------------
--Tom aka DiamondBack
http://diamond-back.com

[Deb]

Is there any easy way for us site owners to find out just what our sites are actually using on average a month?

Via viewing your stats, Armand, your largest month was last month. You used around 215 megs of bandwidth (this is not even a half of one gig).

I took the KBytes Sent number in your stats and divided by 1024 to equate how many megabytes you are using. Divide it by 1024 twice and you discover the gigabytes which in your case was 21% of a gig.

Hope this helps
Deb

[hearts]

Tom, to your response I can only say, some of your frustration is from your prior hosting company, and it is almost like you feel like FQ would put ya through the same very thing.

Well.. my reputation might not mean a lot to you, but I would stake my heart on this. FQ will not mislead you. I CAN PROMISE YOU THIS.

I am in no way employed by this company, I get no special favors for speaking up for them. I can't even explain why my heart is so deeply into this.

I think, maybe, what deb and andrew should have done is thought about all the aspects of this change and outlined this more in detail. AND quite possibly, when they were so knowingly having to decide what is the best approach for their company, they threw this out to us here in the forums and have allowed us to speak freely.

They are so darn honest about everything. They share with us things they don't have to. They could be a cut and dry business.. but they ain't.

My heart so fears that this issue could force Deb and Andrew to become strictly business and cut themselves off from our concerns. We have been given so much and it seems because they NEED to face facts and NEED to decide how it is best to handle it, that people are crying for more and the real question is.. what is really being taken away from any of us.

From my understanding, through me asking various people, if MY site were pulling 15 gig a month, I could afford a bigger package that price wouldn't really matter.

My heart (not knowing the facts here) feels that maybe the 30GB or unlimited bandwidth attracted people with MEGA resource hogs, downloadable softwares.. that type of thing.. and as for the rest that exceed these limits, have the resources themselves to pay for the service they are getting.

I remember an expression from someone here..
a win/win situation. *and he knows who he is*

I don't guess this is my place to be saying anything.. I have been following this thread so closely. I have nothing to gain from this, except maybe knowledge, and a clearer understanding of this community.

--------------
hearts
-----

PS........ I found this
Listed Packages & Pricing may change at any time without notice. www.futurequest.net/Packages.php (http://www.futurequest.net/Packages.php)



[This message has been edited by hearts (edited 03-30-99).]

[Deb]

I just don't think it is fair to change the contract for accounts that signed up when they thought they were GUARANTEED IN WRITING that they would be allowed up to 30Gb a month.

DB we have not changed the contract... the tos has stated for many months the following:

Listed Packages & Pricing may change at any time without notice. If you have chosen to pre-pay for your account, the cost of the service already paid for will not be affected by any price changes whether they are raised or lowered.

The above shows that with monthlys this is a real risk. What we are doing is trying not to enforce it on the monthlys. But in no way have we been deceptive then or now.

That paragraph hasn't changed...it's always noted the diff between a yearly and monthly.

Deb

[DB]

I hope you don't think I'm trying to beat a dead horse, but since Deb posted while I was writing that last message I thought I should add a few things.

The comparison of a 6 or 12 month lease and web hosting seems a bit of a reach, especially for resellers. Where my own account is concerned I know I plan to be here for a year, but if I prepay for one of my reseller accounts then I'm taking a big risk. Yet unless I can convince them to pay me for a full year I have no control over what kind of service they can expect from month to month.

Another difference between a lease and hosting is that the lease is rarely paid in advance for the full term. A more reasonable approach is to ask for first and last month's payment with the understanding that if the contract is broken prematurely then the last month's payment will be forfeited. It is one thing to come up with an extra $20-30 per account as a deposit for a year's hosting lease, and quite another to come up with an entire year's payment, especially when you have multiple reseller accounts.

As an alternative to stating a black and white date, you could give a warning period as you posted above. But unless I missed something, there was no mention of a five month period in any of the prior posts. Also, reading careful what was posted earlier it appears that only accounts that were already paid-up for a year would be assured of receiving the former bandwidth allowance. Once the term expired, they would be under the new contract, so signing-up for a year at that point would be under the new limitations. Maybe I misunderstood something, but there is just no way I can prepay a year on seven accounts before the current term expires in a couple days. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just reading the posts and taking them at face value.

It seems to me that we are all reasonable people and would like to arrive at a solution that everyone can live with. If "long term guarantees" on the part of a site owner is that much of a concern perhaps something could be worked out that would strike a balance between the assurances you need and the financial burden imposed on resellers. If landlords demanded a full year's rent in advance there would be a lot of people out on the streets. As it stands now I'm not sure what I can tell my existing clients on FQ. Remember, most of them don't know Terra and Deb, they just want to know how much bandwidth they can expect and what they will be paying for it. They don't want to move to a new host, but then they want to know that their current host won't be making any drastic changes. Going from 30 to 5 Gb/mo is pretty drastic, especially for people who were only expecting to use a third or half of their allotment who are now faced with using two to three times more than they were offered. It is difficult for them to understand why because they are paying by the month they should be faced with a large cut, or even faced with it in five months. From their point of view they are committed to staying here as long as the ToS doesn't impose a drastic change on them, which is what the new limitations appear to them to be. I really do hope something can be worked out.

------------------
--Tom aka DiamondBack <== a guy
http://diamond-back.com

[DB]

Deb, it isn't your right to change the ToS for monthlys that I have a problem with. What is frustrating is telling a friend who just signed-up for an account here ten days ago that she would be getting 30Gb/mo for $20, and now trying to explain that it isn't 30 but 5, unless she wants to pay $90/mo. She has every reason to suspect I pulled some kind of bait and switch on her. I could tell her that it won't be enforced for five months (and possibly not even then). I could tell her "trust Andrew and Deb, they are good people" but she would fire back "so why did they change the ToS from 30 to 5?" To be honest with you, I'm not sure I could answer that one, it does seem like a pretty steep cut. To use the lease example, not many landlords would raise the price of an apartment by 450% (the $20 to $90 change in accounts to have the same bandwidth as before) or keep the price the same but reduce the size of the apartment by 83%.

I'll say it again, I do like you guys, but the "business is business" cuts both ways. And I don't want to see Andrew and Deb cut themselves off from the FQ community when it comes to making business decisions. I hope that is what this thread is about... sharing ideas in the hope of finding the best solutions. I know the ToS page about accounts activated prior to March 29th 1999 hasn't been changed yet, so I hope what has been posted in this thread is more of a proposal than strictly an announcement. Because it does seem like a pretty major change from the old limits.

I just received an e-mail from one of my reseller clients who has been following this and wanted to add her comments. This is an account that was originally on Webjump and then came here with me from Jumpline. I'll append it to this post.

--Tom

I am one of these "monthly" accounts Deb must be referring to. If I had paid a year in advance to the first hosting service that I signed up with, my site would be down more than it is up, and I would of had to either shut down altogether, or written off the cost of that years worth of service, and started with a new one. All the hosting services look good on the surface, or they wouldn't get any business in the first place. All the services claim optimal up time with no or few incidents of down time. It is VERY difficult to get visitors to come to your site as it is, but when your hosting service, for whatever GOOD EXCUSE, is causing you down time, you are losing potential customers. I for one can't afford to lose customers; what commercial site can?? Deb mentions that a monthly customer isn't guaranteed to stay. My question is, why would they want to leave?? Even the few days it takes to change your domain name thru internic can cost potential customers. Why would anyone want to change hosting services UNLESS they weren't getting the service they were promised when they signed up? IF I pre-paid a year in advance.........what assurances would I then have that my site would be up and running 99.9% of the time? So far with FutureQuest I have NOT been up 99.9% of the time. First off, I was down for 10 days while FutureQuest sent my domain name in to InterNIC. Had I been allowed to do it myself......it would have taken less than 3 days. Secondly, my POP3 e-mail account has been down a considerable amount of time also..........the e-mail account I use to receive orders and questions or comments from my site. Before FutureQuest even had my site up for the first time thru InterNIC, they had already sent out notice they were raising their rates. Why would anyone WANT to pay a year in advance, when you don't know what kind of service you'll be getting? IF I ever find a hosting service that DOES put out what they promise, I'll be more than happy to pay them a year in advance, however, until I do find one, a month to month is as far out on a limb as I'm gonna put myself.

[teach1st]

(Pardon me if this goes a little bit off topic, while not even addressing the topic in the first place.) I don't have a money-making site; I'm low-bandwidth, but I still take my sites seriously. That said, I can say I see both sides here. I also see an honest dialogue between a web hosting provider and its clients, which, to me, is quite amazing. FQ is my third hosting company in too short a time. I've been ripped off, ignored, and left in the lurch by two of the alleged "big boys" of hosting and so the honesty, the openness and the dialogue here is big. I was shocked when FQ responded to my first request for customer service in under an hour. I was even more shocked when they actually went in and fixed a problem I had with one of my files - a problem I had caused with my own "newbiness." I can't imagine webghosting.com, for example, even thinking about doing something like that! It would take a lot to get me to leave (which means you're stuck with me!).
It's my belief that open discussion helps solve most problems. I've no doubt that this can be worked out. The point of this note? Who knows? Maybe it's just a vote of gratitude for the way FQ does business. No, I didn't enjoy the recent down time. But the prompt and honest communication sure makes it a lot easier to take.

fred www.pb5th.com (http://www.pb5th.com)

[zeegraf]

My take on the whole thing:

It's stated in plain English on FQuest's site that changes in package features or pricing may occur. How many sites on the server actually *need* a lot of bandwidth? 'Nuff said on the bandwidth/traffic issue...

Andrew and Deb, I'd venture, are learning a lot as they go along... just as all of us who are embarking on owning their own business. Changes have to made at times, good and bad. Some customers may get ticked and go elsewhere. That's their right. Other customers understand the situation and stay put.

Me, I'm staying put. I think that outstanding service and tech support are more important than many gigs of bandwidth, or having to pay a few dollars more in hosting fees.


------------------
Don Z.
www.zeegraf.com (http://www.zeegraf.com)

"To poldly mow air moebius
gumby four" --Kirk on Novacaine

[DB]

Question: How many sites on the server actually *need* a lot of bandwidth?

Answer: The ones that get a lot of visitors.

Isn't that the point of having a website, so people cn visit it? My two busiest sites are non-commercial and don't offer downloads. One features rumors that get passed on ICQ and gets quite a few visitors. The other is a social club with a busy forum. Call me a bandwidth hog if you want, but that is the reason I chose FQ in the first place, because I read where they said they wanted their customers to have successful sites and be able to grow. I don't really need hundreds of megs of disk space, I'm using less than 20% of what I already have. I don't need lots of POP or FTP accounts. I can live without mySQL. Tech support is wonderful, but for the most part when everything is working as it should I rely more on myself than tech support. But having worked hard to build a sites that people want to visit, what I do need is the bandwidth to accommodate them. And I hope that someday everyone has sites that become popular and need bandwidth... it's the life's blood of a site. And I don't mind paying extra for bandwidth if the cost doesn't bankrupt me. But just two sites using 15Gb each could cost $80 a month in the not too distant future. My goal when I joined FQ was to try to get even more traffic, now I have to seriously ask myself if I will be able to afford it.

I received another e-mail from a client who has been following this thread. I knew when I was telling her about FQ that the packages were subject to change. What I didn't expect was for her package to drop from 30 to 5 Gb/mo. Okay Deb, you win, it is in the ToS and there is nothing I can do about it. You could drop it to 1 Gb tomorrow and you would still be 100% within your rights. I concede the point. I just didn't expect it to happen because of what I read when I was signing-up. I was wrong and I'm sorry. I'll have no more to say on the subject.

Here's the e-mail from my client:

I'm very new to having my own domain... a very exciting change for me. I know that I'm just the "little guy" here, but as we all know, everyone has to start somewhere. I chose to start at FQ.

I've been reading all the posts, and following very closely what has been transpiring. I don't know Andrew and Deb at all, but just from reading their posts, I can tell that they care about their clients. That's very obvious. Also obvious is the fact that they have a business to run, and some very difficult decisions to make. These decisions may not make them the most popular kid in the class, but you can be assured that they'll be right up front on graduation day. They offer their clients the very thing that is missing from most businesses today - the human touch. Before I get into the *****ing part of my post, please let me say for the record that I respect what they have done with FQ, where they are headed, and their code of ethics. Regardless of what happens as a result of these posts, everyone can be certain at least that they are being heard... and that someone cares about their opinions.

Ok, on to the business stuff. I seriously doubt that I could come anywhere NEAR the 30 gigs with anything short of giving away free cash on my website... but the bottom line is that I paid for the right to do that if I wanted to. When i signed up with Tom (DB), it was only after a lot of back-and-forth dialogue. As he said earlier, I did a lot of research, and kept throwing sites at him to look at so he could 'sell' me on FQ. "What have THEY got that this one doesn't", I asked. His response to me was, ""500 MB of data transfer per month ($0.16 per MB over 500 MB). FQ offers 30,000 MB of "data transfer per month"... that is one big difference right there. If you used 30 Gb in a month with this place they would charge you an extra $4,720... do the math yourself." He'd made his point.

While I never plan to use that kind of bandwidth, it's what I signed up for (and paid for). Reading back through Tom's last post, I have to agree with his statements about the apartment complex. While they would expect me to sign a 6 month or 12 month lease they would not have required me to pay for the year in advance. I would gladly sign a contract with FQ agreeing to stay for a period of 12 months, etc. if they would agree to not change rates for that same period. After the contract (or "lease") expired, I would be free to change hosts (but why would I unless the email problems, etc. continued), and they would be free to change rates or options.

As you have all stated here in the forum - FQ clients are ALREADY getting far more than they would get anywhere else - the personal service and family atmosphere are not just a small benefit. I am just concerned about the policy changes within a week of signing up and paying for service. When all is said and done - it's wonderful to have friends... but it's IMPERATIVE to have quality and consistency.

[Bi4Be]

DB, I agree with your last post. When I signed up, I had lots of hopes and dreams of being the next "web big shot" like the most of you (if you guys weren't in the clouds when you first started out then I am just plain weird, OK? http://www.aota.net/ubb/smile.gif) for the first month or so and now I am just a tad sadened on the limit.

Either way, I am not gonna start something really controversial. And you guys at FQ don't even have to respond to this, but 30Gb to 5Gb is steep. I would be satisfied with just 10Gb (in other words, adding 5Gb of bandwidth onto each package) as I plan on starting new websites and growing successfully.

Well, I am not gonna push that 5 mor Gb's to each package very much for though. Because "business is business" right Deb?

I was just stating my oppinion...
-Bid4Be

[Deb]

The issue of 'changing within a week' has been brought up a couple of times now, and that I would like to conclude. Nothing is changing on anyone overnight at all! Yes, we do have the 'legal right' to say ok, too bad, it's all different now, deal with it or leave, but we have not taken that right. We have not even come close to implementing it. We have stated that no one who was on the server with the old limits is being affected right now at all. And I have personally stated that we have no intentions of making that change. The only thing I have been forced to include is that we can not guarantee that we would be able to promise everyone there would not be a change. I have said that we would do our absolute best to not enforce the limits on any accounts that were on the server before the limits went into affect and I will do my best to stand by that. I have also stated that there would in fact be a warning period if we were to be forced into it. So if any one out there who is on a monthly payment plan is fearing that on their next billing cycle they will be bumped... you can safely stop being afraid of that. We wont do that.

Question: How many sites on the server actually *need* a lot of bandwidth?
Answer: The ones that get a lot of visitors.

This is true in some cases and not true in other cases. It depends on what type of site it is and what they are running. We had a lil site on susogi.net not so long ago that was pushing out more bandwidth then anyone else on the server! They had a nice lil mac program on their site that was popular enough to be listed in one of the major download sites. No one needed to visit their susogi.net site to start chewing up the bandwidth. It just depends and there is no way for us to know who will and who will not meet or exceed the limits.

I am very open to the communities feedback on almost all issues surrounding FutureQuest. I DO appreciate EVERYONE's feedback always. It is the only thing that will help us to be what we need to be. At the same time there are some very basic things that everyone needs to understand if they are going to be able to offer viable feedback. The most important thing to understand is simple: If we do not continue to grow and make changes where needed in order to offer a valuable service at a reasonable price w/o placing all of the hidden secrets into this business....then there would not be a renewal period for anyone to worry about at all. At this point in time we have the resources to handle all of the sites we have put on these servers, plus some. Yet, from what I have observed I also have to be able to guarantee that I can continue to serve all of you for a long time into the future. If changes were not made, I would not be able to guarantee that. As such we have done what we need to do.

I believe the biggest problem with bandwidth is lack of knowledge. Too many people do not understand what is needed, what is not needed, and the cost of those needs.

The bottom line on this particular issue is -- We did not want to restrict any of our current sites. We do need to assure that we do not add in too many more sites that cost us more to host then they pay. The answer we came up with, after exploring MANY of the options was to do what we have done which is change the packages for new accounts, hold to the contracts on current accounts, and do our best to also assure that monthlys would not be hurt in the process. I feel this is what we have done, I can only hope that those on monthlys can see this fact. I have searched high and low for the lowest bandwidth fees I can find. I have searched from a hosts perspective and I have searched from a site owners perspective. I can say with all honesty that FutureQuest is still offering some of the best deals on the net in this area. Not only to those grandfathered in but also to those just signing up. I continue to work way more then 40 hours a week to ensure that:P

We are doing what we feel will continue to be a win/win for everyone involved. For those that honestly feel these limits will affect you in a bad way... I employ you to search the net for the deals that will meet or beat our offers, and toss them to me in an email. I do intend to remain competitive. (please note: if you do this: be sure to inquire with the host and read the terms... I am not talking about the thousands of hosts that offer unlimited bandwidth w/o the tools and with restrictions that tend to limit you to less then two gigs... I'm talking about straight up comparisons)

-----------

Now -- What I can do is post up an idea for all of us to discuss in the Alpha/Beta/Gamma forum (I choose this forum because it is private and I feel the discussion I am thinking of should remain private for a bit). If you are interested pop your head into the A/B/G forum in a few and you will find the idea I am considering.

Deb