Slashdot Mirror

Again, it looks like a decent deal, but for those already with Rackshack, I see no incentive to switch, unless they just want colo services.

At least one person disagrees, there may be more I don't know of specifically. This one fella shopped us and rackshack and went there... at first. Two weeks later, he was back. Someone asked him why, and the answer did not describe pleasantries. In short, the impression I got was that rackshack's approach to customer service was something along the lines of, "There you go. Good luck!" He has not expressed any regret with his decision to switch to us (in fact he and his staff have made more than one compliment to us in email).

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc.
slashdot@akinli.org

Do you know how long you can store gasoline before it goes stale?

We use a fuel stabilizer and exercise the generator periodically. The stabilized fuel is good for 24 months, and the exercising expends it in well under that time.

How do you respond to accounts that have links to content not approved by Netmar?

In short- case by case, with a lot more leniency toward something that could be honestly debated than one that is basically a frontpage for obvious porn or other content we don't carry. In case you hadn't guessed, I don't want to pin down details because I want to reserve that discretion. At the same time, I try to be as up front as I can about my exercise of that discretion: We've outlined they types of materials we don't want. Anything like that (either explicitly or implicitly) is not wanted.

what happens to that free domain if the account is terminated It remains the property of the owner and they can do what they want with it. Access to the domain records is not tied in with access to the webhosting account.

Basically, the way that works is that every time someone agrees to pre-pay for a year's service, we agree to absorb one year's domain registration fee. If you were to cancel during that year (essentially voiding the whole arrangement), then we'd just deduct the domain reg fee from the refund, and then refund the unused webhosting fees, meaning you'd have paid for exactly what you'd gotten (and you keep the domain).

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc.
slashdot@akinli.org

I'm not familiar with it. Let me know what it is and a link where I can grab it and I'll let you know.

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc.
slashdot@akinli.org

Other customers disagree. If I get cornered, being legally forced to maintain hosting for a site that is in violation of the spirit of our terms but not the very letter thereof, it is a result of my oversight in wording the contract, and I should suffer. But should my other customers?

Why don't I just do this? I'll put up a TOS that says, 'This is roughly what we don't want on our network. We decide the specifics.' And tell people, if you trust us (and our complaint free BBB membership) enough to be fair in deciding those specifics, then sign up with us. If not don't. Then, it'll all be out in the open, and everyone can make their own informed choice. How's all that sound?

Oh wait, that's exactly what we've already done.

It all really comes down to this. All that is out there. People signup and ignore the part about "You agree to these terms" and check the little box without reading them. Then later they find out what it says and they feel they've been misled. HOW? We INSIST everyone read this little document outlining what is and is not OK and HOW IT GETS DECIDED. They don't, and then complain.

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc.
slashdot@akinli.org

OK, how about this... a slightly different choice of words: bandwidth is unmetered.

Technically speaking, unlimited bandwidth is impossible anywhere. So if you want to be strict about it, I guess that phrase would have to be stricken completely, because bandwidth is always subject to a technical limitation, if not a financially imposed limit.

In any network, unless there's round-robin route selection (which introduces a whole new problem with latency and fragmentation), any connection is limited to the available bandwidth on the individual link through which that connection is routed. The sum of those limits are the bandwidth limit for that server and that sum is ALWAYS a finite number.

But like MOST marketing catchphrases, the term "unlimited bandwidth" means something specific, and the above is not it. It's meaning as is commonly used is NOT technically accurate, but then, neither are those for "virtual domains," "redundant power systems" (when it refers to a SINGLE backup device or level), etc, etc.

No, we are not trying to say that bandwidth is actually UNLIMITED. Without exception, that is impossible. But when someone asks you, "Is bandwidth unlimited?" the answer to what, 99% of the time, they're really asking is yes, simply because they don't discriminate between the strict technical difference between unmetered and unlimited bandwidth.

There's no intent to mislead anyone. But I suppose the above explanation would be a good item to include on a FAQ.

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc.
slashdot@akinli.org

Why do you assume you MUST transfer? I'll assume our site or ordering is not clear on that point in some respect or I wouldn't be reading your post.

So please show me where you got this impression and I'll correct it right away.

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc.
slashdot@akinli.org

Even if this were just a $10/mo customer, why shouldn't he?

1. He'll very likely use the knowledge elsewhere later on.
2. The customer is still a person and worth our best effort. Why should he be up the creek because we don't know the particular software package he's using?

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc.
slashdot@akinli.org

50% is the average usage. Anything in the 50-60% range for average usage indicates the potential to approach 100% at peak hours, which is why you look to add bandwidth when you hit the 50% range, which is what we're doing right now (we have new bandwidth under order now).

Also, you take your bandwidth surveys AFTER most of the bandwidth for illicit sites (basically warez) is taken out, because that is not part of the bandwidth you agree to carry. But you leave a part of it in because you have to acknowledge that it will take a finite amount of time for you to locate and shutdown such sites.

So what's the problem? Maybe I'm just missing your point in all your sarcasm or something.

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc.
slashdot@akinli.org

turning away customers because of their religious beliefs is illegal in North Carolina.

It is? I would LOVE for you to point out the statute outlining this little morsel of wisdom. As you know, the codes are all online...

and I'm pretty sure it violates federal law as well.

Ditto for that!

I for one will be letting some people know that there is a ripe target available for a religious discrimination lawsuit. I hope your legal team is ready.

I am not kidding ONE BIT here when I say that I will pay you money for a tape of your conversation with an attorney on this matter. Really. No joke. PLEEEEEEZ email me. (And yes, at this point, I am, in fact, mocking you... but I'm still not joking about the cash offer.)

You're ignorant, which is not in and of itself a bad thing (we're all ignorant about the things we know nothing about and I don't call you ignorant condescendingly). But loud, obnoxious, repetitive ignorance gets old fast.

It would have taken far less time for you to research this matter before saying the same wrong, ignorant thing 8 times so far today. (And you'd avoid looking foolish, to boot!)

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc.
slashdot@akinli.org

And what would you suggest if, say, one of the paging service's networks goes down?

...or if the page is a about a problem with the mail system, which relays the SMS pages...

...or if the page were about the paging server, which sends the numeric pages... ???

The key idea here is redundancy. Have you ever heard that word before... ?

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc.
slashdot@akinli.org

It's not illegal anywhere that I know of. That's why it's spelled out as prohibited material in our terms. If it were illegal, we wouldn't need to spell it out.

But prohibiting it is my choice, isn't it? I asked a previous poster, should the NAACP be FORCED into accepting Klansmen into their membership, or NOW likewise for rapists?

If I were a church or religious group that undertook hosting for local churches, and decided I would also allow local commercial organizations but imposed this same limitation, I can hardly envision this kind of comment. Why does the fact that Netmar is a commercial entity change anything? Does it suddenly mean that it must do business with everyone who wants to?

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc.
slashdot@akinli.org

You must be kidding. Isn't it illegal for a corporation to discriminate based on religion?

*YOU* must be kidding! NO!!!! It is NOT!!!

As long as I'm not the government, or owned thereby, I and my company, as private entities, can choose to do business with whomever we please and on whatever basis we please.

Though I am temped to set up a mirror to http://infidels.org with them. It would not violate the TOS but I'm sure it would irritate the idiot christian.

And I may simply decline to do business with you, as is my right. What's so hard to swallow about that? I'm not the government, so I have right to that choice.

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc.
slashdot@akinli.org

in all likelihood the CEO or some other high-ranker is a Xian.

No, I'm a 29 year-old student. I started Netmar in my bedroom, financed by me and my family. I and my retired parents (both previously state-employed physicians, if you care) own 100% of Netmar's stock. Both of my brothers, my father, and my wife have all worked for the company at some point. Currently, all of Netmar's revenue goes into the company's bills, the salaries of our staff of college students, and paying my mortgage. That's about it. As titillating as it must be to you to presume a grand conspiracy between Netmar and the Illuminati, orchestrated to rob the world of its wealth while maximizing subterfuge and cunning underhandedness, I'm afraid I must disappoint.

using the blanket term 'satan' gives them a pretty wide definition to play with when they want to chuck anyone sympathetic to 'the adversary' off the service

That is largely accurate. Now I have a question for you. Do you think everything should be open to everyone? Should the NAACP open up it's membership to, say, KKK members? (Or more to the point, should they be FORCED to do so?)

Does any private group have a right to be as small and exclusive as it wants? I'm sure I miss plenty of business because of the restrictions I impose. But isn't that my choice? This is not a socialist nation. The people do not have a choice of what to do with MY resources. That's reserved for me. Right? If I want to make Netmar a webhosting club that caters exclusive to people whose first names start with an R and were born on a Tuesday, don't I have that right? Our terms and conditions aren't exactly hidden. We make no secrets about what we do and do not accept. So what's the problem? Do I not have the right to free speech as well?

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
Netmar, Inc.
slashdot@akinli.org

but if they are hosting illegal material unknowingly, they can't.

I'm curious to know what that's based on.

I can see a clear path as to how a "I-don't-want-to-know-what-you're-hosting-because- as-long-as-I-don't-know-I-can't-be-prosecuted" mentality can lead to an orange jumpsuit.

Granted, I can see how what you're intending SHOULDN'T lead to prosecution: an ISP should have a chance to correct something that's wrong.

But to merely make the statement that ignorance is a blanket defense ignores the whole concept of criminal negligence.

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli Netmar, Inc. slashdot@akinli.org

You can't expect someone to play by the rules when your AUP says "we can make up any rules we want".

Thousands of webmasters disagree.

Your contention centers around a clinging to legalism versus my dependence on simple practicality.

What you have to keep in mind is that there are another 6 billion people on this earth OTHER than you. Few, if any, think exactly as you do.

Legalism is merely an outward sign of a relationship built on MIStrust. If you're not going to place SOME trust in the host you signup with, then who CAN you sign up with?

In the end, if want a website, or any other service under the sun for that matter, you are going to have to place SOME trust in someone.

The broad language to which you refer exists to protect my interests from those who would exploit us. Look at it from my perspective. I am a Christian and simply do not want my resources used to distribute obscenity. That is my right both morally and legally.

Now, we had this fella a couple years back who decided he was going to host a site selling adult content in printed form, and would just skirt around our restrictions by blurring out the sensitive areas of the photos he posted.

If it's not obviously illegal, you aren't an accessory, and I'll take the full blame if it turns out to be illegal.

Not true. Ignorance of the law or the legality of particular actions is ROUTINELY shot down as a defense in court. However, you cannot indemnify another party for criminal liability. Civil indemnification is a given and standard in nearly any webhosting contract, ours included (and even that is not a function of the law, but rather a contractual obligation to repay damages). But you cannot in ANY way assume criminal liability on someone else's behalf under federal law or any state law I know of. You can TRY to convince a DA or US attorney that you are to blame for an outcome and only you should be prosecuted, but there is no legal device under which you can actually take someone else's criminal liability for a charge upon yourself.

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli Netmar, Inc. slashdot@akinli.org

It's amazing to me that on a forum such as this, so densely populated with folks with ABOVE average education, myths like this persist.

Let's get one thing straight: a *PRIVATE* entity (e.g. and individual or private corporation, like Netmar or any other company not owned in any part by the government) can restrict the material it publishes on ANY basis it wants. Remember, that PRIVATE ENTITY has free speech, too. That means that someone else can't come along and force them to publish their free speech.

That being said I, being a Christian and president of Netmar, choose to exercise my right to free speech. I will publish most things that are legal. The law's a generally a good boundary to me as to what is acceptable. The exceptions are 1) satanism and 2) pornography.

It should also be noted that, as the law protects my right to impose these restrictions, they will never become subject to public debate. While the laws of a republic come from democractic engagement of the people, the morality on which we claim to base those laws is NOT subject to democracy. It is, in my belief, absolute and handed down from God. Now, I'm not saying all this to suck people into some religious firefight, but merely to point out that our rules will stand as long as we do.

Netmar will never host satanic materials, pornography, or anything illegal, even if it means dissolution of the company. The greatness of our country's civil rights laws are in the fact that it will never come to that, save perhaps for some coordinated consumer response.

Regards,
Cengiz Akinli
President,
Netmar, Inc. slashdot@akinli.org