Website hosting pricing comparison

Looks like useless information to me...
It is cheaper for me to host outside the country on Linux and buy Intl. bandwidth than to host here...

I pay once a year upfront for the year. Last year was around R12xx. Linux hosting, 1 MySQL db at 250MB, with a very large traffic volume per month. That includes my e-mail hosting. 1GB space on the server and 5 addresses...

I haven't seen anything yet to beat that. Even my provider webnetix laughed out loud when I said I was considering changing it to local hosting...

YMMV
 
Oh that argument is so retarded. So do you not access any website that is not hosted in SA because latency is 300ms instead of 30ms?

Get a life..

+1.

Hosting locally is like walking into Telkom's shops and saying, "Here you go. Here's an extra R2,400 for you nice guys and thanks for all the good things you do for us."

I have hosted locally (Afrihost), in Australia and now in the US. The US is so far ahead of the game that it can't be beaten. I haven't had a single one of my clients have more than 5 minutes downtime in the past year AND that included a move from one server in a data centre to another server in a data centre thousands of miles away.

Afrihost three times allowed my domain name to lapse because they never bothered to contact me to renew it (even though they registered it on my behalf). Yet they still took their hosting payment every month - they never forgot about that!
 
Axxess still do not host locally.
Why is every second person mentioning International hosting? Bizzare.

Because we're not happy with local hosting and the fact that international hosting is just as easy to use and get [if not easier] as local, making it somewhat questionable why there is such as price difference.

In fact you also need to wonder why if local bandwidth is cheaper [as sold by Telkom] than international bandwidth yet, for local hosting it's the exact opposite? I would've thought if i put up a website primarily aimed at the LOCAL market and host it locally using local bandwidth [in and out] it would be cheaper than doing so internationally simply based on local bandwidth being cheaper? Why is that not true?
 
Last edited:
Because we're not happy with local hosting and the fact that international hosting is just as easy to use and get [if not easier] as local, making it somewhat questionable why there is such as price difference. In fact you also need to wonder why if local bandwidth is cheaper [as sold by Telkom] than international bandwidth yet, for local hosting it's the exact opposite?
Good answer.
As to your questions, I can only point at our connectivity providers and ask them why they refuse to inter-connect.
 
eish.. feel for the guys that HAVE to use local hosting.
Sucks compared with what I'm getting from an international host.
 
My Point exactly serve.co.za is SA company!!!!!!

And yo will not find a reason to need to get in car and bliksem them, cos they will go out the way to help ya out...

This is on my personal experience.. so take it form 3 year happy customer of serve.co.za..

I get your point, that simple site is quite damn fast. I wonder how much of that content is coming form our cache servers, but .. caching is a moot point anyway.

But, I still prefer hosting locally, and, if I think really hard about it, it's because I'm tired of giving my money to overseas companies and fully support South Africa's development.

I do also like knowing that I can get into my car and go bliksem somebody if they mess up.
 
+1 on Imaginet service - really had a good laugh at Tel_con's prices, the sad part is that there might be people that pay that, even sadder is their action puts us in the dark ages - they only see profit from radical mark-up... but have little sales - re-invent themselves - LOL
 
lots of spamvertising for companies that provide hosting overseas!

the article is about LOCAL hosting comparison...

we all know overseas hosting is cheaper, but many still prefer local hosting for speed... and there is definitely a speed difference in managing a CMS-based site that's hosted in SA or overseas.

But I also have to ask: Why is local hosting (still) so expensive?

Everyone keeps telling us that data costs have come down so much over the past years, yet the local caps are still minute, and the over-cap prices still very expensive.

And when most of a site's traffic (including email) is local, the web host is making a killing.... or not?
 
And yo will not find a reason to need to get in car and bliksem them, cos they will go out the way to help ya out...

I suppose you would only use Serve/Serv Hosting if you don't have a credit card.
They resell GoDaddy's products which means they can't provide immediate support assistance. They have to contact GoDaddy firstly and wait a few days for a response etc.

I have been with them before and they are a good host. (That's if you think GoDaddy's hosting is good).

And on the point of whether local hosts (meaning their servers are located in South Africa) are better than international hosts. I do think so. Simply because local hosts don't impose such strict server load limits such as international hosts.
 
lots of spamvertising for companies that provide hosting overseas!

the article is about LOCAL hosting comparison...

we all know overseas hosting is cheaper, but many still prefer local hosting for speed... and there is definitely a speed difference in managing a CMS-based site that's hosted in SA or overseas.

But I also have to ask: Why is local hosting (still) so expensive?

Everyone keeps telling us that data costs have come down so much over the past years, yet the local caps are still minute, and the over-cap prices still very expensive.

And when most of a site's traffic (including email) is local, the web host is making a killing.... or not?

You echo my thoughts and questions exactly. What is the bottleneck in the way of decent local hosting? We keep hearing how prices are coming down, but these are higher than they were two years ago.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X