Besides the setup fee, that's a pretty good deal :thumbsup

I used to have a rack with HE.net - it's decent, nothing more. Bandwidth is not high quality, yet the service was fairly excellent.

However, the networks listed by Magg are examples of the lower end bandwidth providers.

Check out some of the prices on the "high end" bandwidth providers. What a difference. lol.

This is a funny thread!

So Magg why don't you tell everyone exactly about your relationship with C H O O P A? Making it look like you actually own a network infrastructure isn't honest.

Oh, and by the way, I'll be sure to call Switch and Data tomorrow to let you know that you have photos of the inside of the colo - that's a violation of the terms of service. Oh, that's right, you don't actually have an agreement with any of the bandwidth carriers or the facility because you're just a reseller.

:winkwink:

amateurs.

Cheers,

Brad

Well everyone is really just a reseller of the major networks. There's only a handful of big guys that really own fiber.

Tell me where I told anyone I owned a network infrastructure?
Even on our site, I specify we buy bandwidth from an upstream provider - no where do I say that we have contracts direct with the carriers.

Although we do operate our own internal and edge infrastructure - including our own switches and routers.

Go ahead and call Switch and Data considering that isnt even the datacenter those pictures are from. (smartass)

Secondly, those pictures are direct from an executive sales rep at the company with which the datacenter we're in is.

(I wont tell you the name of the datacenter company considering your a complete jerk off)


You're trying to take jabs at me when I have done nothing to provoke you.

Not to mention, you keep trying to insinuate things out of things I never said or using words to manipulate the situation.

How sleazy! Do you think this kind of attitude helps gain customers?


Jeez.

Time to separate you boys.

*Stands in-between them*

lol.

Seriously though Sin, enough taking shots at Magg. And let?s just walk away from the thread. :thumbsup

well if anyone is interested here are my pings to thehun and jupiterhosting.

-bash-2.05b$ ping www.thehun.net
PING www.thehun.net (64.71.165.210): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=0 ttl=58 time=3.435 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=2.989 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=3.094 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=2.987 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=4 ttl=58 time=3.367 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=5 ttl=58 time=3.177 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=6 ttl=58 time=2.850 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=7 ttl=58 time=3.738 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=8 ttl=58 time=3.120 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=9 ttl=58 time=3.379 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=10 ttl=58 time=2.891 ms
64 bytes from 64.71.165.210: icmp_seq=11 ttl=58 time=3.154 ms
^C
--- www.thehun.net ping statistics ---
12 packets transmitted, 12 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 2.850/3.182/3.738/0.246 ms




-bash-2.05b$ ping www.jupiterhosting.com
PING www.jupiterhosting.com (64.255.160.20): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=2.542 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=2.355 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=2.453 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=2.357 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=2.438 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=2.367 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=2.493 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=2.450 ms
^C
--- www.jupiterhosting.com ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 8 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 2.355/2.432/2.542/0.064 ms
-bash-2.05b$

The mistake about thinking you were in S&D I apologize about, it was my understanding that was where your upstream c h o o p a is.

I find your site to be misleading, you just admitted that the datacenter pictures aren't of your cage or cabinets. Being honest is as much about what you don't say as what you do say.

When you are responsible for people's livelihoods as a host, I think it is important to give them as much information as possible so that they can make an informed decision. So yes, when you put yourself out there as a top shelf host on a public forum like this I'm likely to point out some of the many things that differentiate your company from larger hosts such as the advertisers on this board.

Otherwise, I wish you both luck. The hosting market is large and if your clients are satisfied at the end of the day that is all that matters.

Cheers,

Brad

Brad -

You'll notice I never claim that the pictures are anything of our own equipment.

The only comments I make about them on the site are, "Datacenter Pictures".

Anyways, I thank you for the encourangement.
We are only one ladder step lower than you are as hosting providers, and we do provide a feature added experience. One that you wouldnt receive going straight to choo pa so I believe the experience and hosting with us is a differant one. :glugglug

Ohh Yeah! Check this ping out to www.jupiterhosting.com..


www# ping www.jupiterhosting.com
PING www.jupiterhosting.com (64.255.160.20): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.062 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.047 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.033 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.041 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.033 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.035 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.037 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.044 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.040 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.042 ms
64 bytes from 64.255.160.20: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.035 ms
^C
--- www.jupiterhosting.com ping statistics ---
11 packets transmitted, 11 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.033/0.041/0.062/0.008 ms

Ray is this you?

http://cybehost.com/temp/jupiter-who.jpg