Web hosting services

[zscoundrel]

Based on the preliminary analysis I have done so far, they appear to be 
on the top end of the scale of what I have seen so far.  A 
not-for-profit informational website obviously has different support and 
uptime requirements from a profitable, mission critical commercial site.

If I had a site generating an average of $10k/hour or more in net sales, 
  I would want a provider with redundant, geographically diverse, 
hardened installations, with dual utility feeds, multiple redundant 
servers and multiple communications connections.  For this type of 
service I would expect to pay QUITE a bit more.

At this point I suspect that I am not going to recommend them for this 
project, but I REALLY HOPE to have a project in the future that requires 
these types of services.  (grin!!!!)

I asked for suggestions for web hosting so I could see a broad range of 
possiblilities, and I knew that several of us were associated with 
various local providers.  I always like to buy close to home and to 
support those that are committed to my 'neighborhood".  The fact that 
some of the suggestions were for Linux based ISP's was a very pleasant 
bonus.

On a slightly different angle, (for those that may doubt my motives) one 
of the reasons I am pushing to get this site off of my personal road 
runner home page and placed with an independant provider, is to avoid 
any appearance of monopolistic behavior.  While I am the web admin and 
much of the information was put up by me or my wife, I beleive that the 
information belongs to the group, not to me.  When I move on to another 
position or project, I want my successor to be able to take over and 
continue providing the information to the group without having to 
reinvent the wheel!

Jonathan Hutchins wrote:

> I said:
> 
> 
>>>I know if a service that charges $45/mo for the first 5M, $7.50 for
>>>each additional meg. Does that sound at all within range?
>>>
> 
> Jered replied
> 
> 
>>I'm astounded that people can charge that much and still
>>have customers.
>>
> 
> That would be a "no" then.
> 
> I figured the service wasn't competitive.  It's hosted at an extremely
> high-reliability facility with some of the top support in the world.  They
> really don't want customers who are worried about price, and the re-seller
> in this case is more interested in selling web page packages including
> design and support.
> 
> I don't remember why the site I supported left kc.net for grapevine - and
> don't even get me started about those #@^$#&.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>