The most you would pay for good hosting?

[goodone]

It just occured to me that there are thousands of hosting companies out there, and another thing is they all have different price range. Personally I don't know much about hosting companies, so I don't really know what is good from what is not.

Therefore my questions to you are very simple or is it as simple as I think? Why do some hosting companies charge so much for their service? What's the most you would be willing to pay for high quality webhosting service? And please explain and tell me why you would be willing to pay whatever amount you suggest.

[DPS Computing]

Answer to question 1 - greed and profit lol.

2ndly - why pay more than eUKhosts prices when it has undoubtly the best service available!

[Ben]

It doesn't necessarily go against the price whether or not you go with the host. Some Web hosts charge more and less - but some Web hosts charge more for their service because of expenses for a) the servers they own, b) office space & equipment and other issues as well... so don't automatically assume that's a bad host because of it's prices. eUKhost's prices are the lowest in the industry from what I've seen, but again eUKhost cares about customers most in regards to the company as a whole. But yes, some companies charge more for other reasons (ie profit).

[DPS Computing]

Plus as a business tends to get more well known the prices sometimes go up. You are then paying for the "brand" rather than any increase in service. An example of this is when you pay £85 for a pair of Nike trainers compared to the same trainers without Nike in a smaller sports shop being £25 .

[Ben]

Originally Posted by DPS Computing

Plus as a business tends to get more well known the prices sometimes go up. You are then paying for the "brand" rather than any increase in service. An example of this is when you pay £85 for a pair of Nike trainers compared to the same trainers without Nike in a smaller sports shop being £25 .

That's an very good point and I think that is stupid really - £40 more for a logo brand on the trainers made out of black tape? Not for me thanks...

[eUKhost.com]

I personally find myself comfortable paying £54.99 per year for my personal website hosting but if you think of hosting website hosting which makes £100k per month then its worth to pay £300 per month for a Q6600 server.

We have customers who call and say that they lost £3000 due to downtime of few minutes but one should not consider shared hosting plan when you loose £3000 due to 10 minutes downtime. How can eUKhost compensate £3000 if we charge only £22.99 per year ?

[Ben]

Originally Posted by eUKhost.com

I personally find myself comfortable paying £54.99 per year for my personal website hosting but if you think of hosting website hosting which makes £100k per month then its worth to pay £300 per month for a Q6600 server.

We have customers who call and say that they lost £3000 due to downtime of few minutes but one should not consider shared hosting plan when you loose £3000 due to 10 minutes downtime. How can eUKhost compensate £3000 if we charge only £22.99 per year ?

Yes I see where your coming from, Mark and that's a very good thought - if they have such a successful website hosting why do they pay just £22.99 per year? Not sure if they are saying this to get a £3000 refund undoubtfully won't get . And you have a personal website hosting or was that just an example?

[Andrew Burrage]

There are many things to think about when considering the cost of a hosting package.

Two big ones are location and quality of service.
In some industries quality of service is extremely important - take aviation as an example, they are happy to pay a lot of money for high integrity, extremely high uptime (we're talking seconds per yer downtime) GPS data. When I want to use GPS with my satnav system in the car, I don't really care if it loses signal for a few minutes a day, and I'm not concerned if it occasionally thinks I'm 100' away from where I really am, on the other hand I don't want to pay a lot of money for that data (e.g. I am happy that it is free for me).

Location is a big cost factor for web hosts. It's cheaper to have a data centre out in calafornia somewhere than it is to have it in England for example (because there is more space and harware is a bit cheaper etc). From my perspective (the user) I'm happy to pay a little more for my hosting at eUKhost, than a cheaper one I know of in the US, because I get a better ping and I get my support from eUKHost when I am working.

I was pretty fortunate when it came to chosing a host. I had to set up a small website hosting for work, and I found eUKhost, I basically got to try them out with work paying. I found the service so good that I imediately got a personal hosting plan.

Sometimes the cost is indicative of the service ("you pay for what you get"). For example, if a web host is really crazy cheap you can be certain they aren't paying enough people (or people enough) to provide there users with good quality support. Sometimes price is a good indicator, take the trainer example, yes you might be able to get something with as good a quality for less, (and in most cases you do), but on the other hand you're taking a bit of gamble - they might turn out to be poor quality. At least with a brand you know what you're getting (hopefully!).

This is all superfluous though, if you're anywhere near the UK why would you not choose eUKHost, the service is excellent, the price is good, and they have a good range to choose from so you can get the right package for your needs. Plus they have a great and building community

[Ben]

Originally Posted by Andrew Burrage

There are many things to think about when considering the cost of a hosting package.

Two big ones are location and quality of service.
In some industries quality of service is extremely important - take aviation as an example, they are happy to pay a lot of money for high integrity, extremely high uptime (we're talking seconds per yer downtime) GPS data. When I want to use GPS with my satnav system in the car, I don't really care if it loses signal for a few minutes a day, and I'm not concerned if it occasionally thinks I'm 100' away from where I really am, on the other hand I don't want to pay a lot of money for that data (e.g. I am happy that it is free for me).

Location is a big cost factor for web hosts. It's cheaper to have a data centre out in calafornia somewhere than it is to have it in England for example (because there is more space and harware is a bit cheaper etc). From my perspective (the user) I'm happy to pay a little more for my hosting at eUKhost, than a cheaper one I know of in the US, because I get a better ping and I get my support from eUKHost when I am working.

I was pretty fortunate when it came to chosing a host. I had to set up a small website hosting for work, and I found eUKhost, I basically got to try them out with work paying. I found the service so good that I imediately got a personal hosting plan.

Sometimes the cost is indicative of the service ("you pay for what you get"). For example, if a web host is really crazy cheap you can be certain they aren't paying enough people (or people enough) to provide there users with good quality support. Sometimes price is a good indicator, take the trainer example, yes you might be able to get something with as good a quality for less, (and in most cases you do), but on the other hand you're taking a bit of gamble - they might turn out to be poor quality. At least with a brand you know what you're getting (hopefully!).

This is all superfluous though, if you're anywhere near the UK why would you not choose eUKHost, the service is excellent, the price is good, and they have a good range to choose from so you can get the right package for your needs. Plus they have a great and building community

Yes in the UK it does cost a lot of money for hardware especially, and that's why UK Web Hosting is a little more expensive than US Web Hosting - but as the saying goes "you get what you pay for" - I know so many Web hosting companies in the US that are not available 24/7 - but I have contacted eUKhost via live chat at 11pm AND 6am before and exceptional value as well. I must say yet again a lot of Web hosts are more interested in the clients money than providing Web hosting with value-added services. I was once with a Web host (I am not going to name it) - it was really good; it answered tickets less than 15 mins but then suddenly the server was incredibly slow and I'd have to wait up to 24 hours for a response. I'm not prepared to wait for 24 hours for many reasons and one of the reasons was that it was quite a successfully site. eUKhost on the other hand have retained their promise and because so many people have had bad experience from other Web hosts, should an unlikely problem occur - people believe they'd have to switch hosts. Well in my personal experience, I have realized that eUKhost's most important thing is the clients and any problem, they will promptly reply to the thread and get it fixed. I am ready to ask - does ANYBODY know ANY Web host that does things as good as eUKhost?

[flesso]

Originally Posted by Ben

Yes in the UK it does cost a lot of money for hardware especially, and that's why UK Web Hosting is a little more expensive than US Web Hosting - but as the saying goes "you get what you pay for" - I know so many Web hosting companies in the US that are not available 24/7 - but I have contacted eUKhost via live chat at 11pm AND 6am before and exceptional value as well. I must say yet again a lot of Web hosts are more interested in the clients money than providing Web hosting with value-added services. I was once with a Web host (I am not going to name it) - it was really good; it answered tickets less than 15 mins but then suddenly the server was incredibly slow and I'd have to wait up to 24 hours for a response. I'm not prepared to wait for 24 hours for many reasons and one of the reasons was that it was quite a successfully site. eUKhost on the other hand have retained their promise and because so many people have had bad experience from other Web hosts, should an unlikely problem occur - people believe they'd have to switch hosts. Well in my personal experience, I have realized that eUKhost's most important thing is the clients and any problem, they will promptly reply to the thread and get it fixed. I am ready to ask - does ANYBODY know ANY Web host that does things as good as eUKhost?

It's not necessarily the cost of equipment but more the cost of bandwidth, floor space and staff.

[DPS Computing]

If I was making £3000 in 10 minutes I think I would expand my house and add a server room onto it with its own 24x7 staff!!! - or at least upgrade to a more expensive business plan!!

[mounthost]

Well I would pay for any plan other than the unlimited at

url removed

Also,

Things which should be takn in consideration before purchasing the actual hosting plan are

location and quality of service.

Also, you want to be sure you are hosting it with a company that offers 24-7 tech support and has a nice refund policy...

You always want a nice server
Like

gisol

never backs up your work and it always gets lost and ur web site hosting always has a downtime..

So ye..