Seperate BW quota for Files, Why?

marcus0263 · 11 Mar 2005, 02:18 AM

Why isn't the BW quota tied into your monthly mail quota? This is ludicrous. I just signed up for a 6 month Enhanced account and I'm now questioning it. I will never come close to the email limit, and generaly won't come close to the file limit. But the time does arise when I know I will, so why isn't BW usage together?

I also checked around the sign up page and either I'm blind or it fails to mention attchment limits. Will someone ether confirm or deny a 10 Meg mail limit that I'm hearing? If so I am definatly not happy. Similar to the BW issue I rarely send attachments that would even come close to that, but yes there are times when the need does arise.

**Sherry** · 11 Mar 2005, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by marcus0263
Will someone ether confirm or deny a 10 Meg mail limit that I'm hearing? If so I am definatly not happy.

Hi marcus,

Raising the 10 Meg limit is being discussed now in the following thread.

Can't upload large files to my file space

Sherry

marcus0263 · 11 Mar 2005, 10:30 AM

But why is file transfer bandwidth counted separate from mail Bandwidth?

This is ludicrous, bandwidth is bandwidth. I'd like to hear why it is counted separate.

ady · 11 Mar 2005, 08:23 PM

In case you hava a lot of file transfer and use up the allocated bandwidth, it will not effect the mail delivery since you still have separate allocted bandwith for it.

marcus0263 · 11 Mar 2005, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ady
In case you hava a lot of file transfer and use up the allocated bandwidth, it will not effect the mail delivery since you still have separate allocted bandwith for it.

I disagree with that reasoning, because you're still paying for BW. Include it all together, BW is BW. If I hardly come close to the mail BW I should be able to use that for files and vise a versa.

bobpeers · 12 Mar 2005, 12:11 AM

I agree that in the long run we should be able to dynamically assign our bandwidth between files and emails, but until that happens it should be left as is.
Bandwidth maybe bandwidth but if you make files publically accessible then how much bandwidth is used is somewhat out of your control and I for one would be pretty bummed if I couldn't send emails for part of the month due to that.

marcus0263 · 12 Mar 2005, 11:33 PM

One should be aware of how much BW they are using. That and I'm sure there's a warning notifier telling you when you're close to your limit. I just really think that it's the nickel and dime effect like the phone companies do. Then with the lack of any response from Fastmail to this post or the other posts in the forum about this shows there's no real reason other than to nickel and dime the customer base. I just really find it irritating that with their restrictive BW quota's that wasting it is offensive. Either that or they should have a roll over program like some of the mobile phone companies are doing.

David · 13 Mar 2005, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by marcus0263
One should be aware of how much BW they are using. That and I'm sure there's a warning notifier telling you when you're close to your limit. I just really think that it's the nickel and dime effect like the phone companies do. Then with the lack of any response from Fastmail to this post or the other posts in the forum about this shows there's no real reason other than to nickel and dime the customer base. I just really find it irritating that with their restrictive BW quota's that wasting it is offensive. Either that or they should have a roll over program like some of the mobile phone companies are doing.

When filespace was first released it was a giveaway; nobody paid extra for it -- The extra bandwidth (to load and upload files) was a giveaway as well.

**Sherry** · 13 Mar 2005, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by marcus0263
I disagree with that reasoning, because you're still paying for BW. Include it all together, BW is BW. If I hardly come close to the mail BW I should be able to use that for files and vise a versa.

I think there's much more to what you're asking for than what you may think. For FM to provide an email service (and I'm just guessing here) could have meant writing hundreds of thousands (of millions?) of lines of coding to put it all together to work smoothly and most importantly, to run automatically. This could even have taken a year or more to do. They have a billing system in the works that would also handles cost automatically. Later, they "added" File Storage to their software coding with, probably many parts of it as a, sort of, separate system and made that whole thing run automatically when you buy more of any part of it. What you're asking for "may" involve totally rebuilding their whole structure to have them incorporated into one total system? Since File Storage is more like a "bonus" to our account levels, that wouldn't make any sense, in my mind, to expect them to do that.

When many were wanting FM to let them move the unused MB Storage to the File Storage and thought that should be easy to do I took a stab at guessing they may have to "rebuild" their billing system in order to do that. Jeremy responded that it was a good guess. (I'm sure there is a lot more to it than just their billing system that would have to be changed).

http://www.emaildiscussions.com/...657#post260657

Sherry

**Sherry** · 13 Mar 2005, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by marcus0263
I just really think that it's the nickel and dime effect like the phone companies do.

I really don't understand that comment? A few years ago, when I paid for my Full account it cost $20. Much later they "gave" me an area to store files and "gave" me BW to use. Much later, they gave me more storage and bandwidth to use for both my MB and Files areas. When it's time to renew it will still cost me the
"same" $20 that it cost years before. I can't quite see where the nickel and dime effect comes in here? Like Dave said, "nobody paid extra for it".

Sherry

registered_user · 13 Mar 2005, 05:07 AM

I'm not going to retype this http://www.emaildiscussions.com/...149#post305149

I honestly hope that FM does NOT waste valuable time and effort on improving the file storage service, and I understand why the quotas for files are kept separate from the quotas for email. Thanks FM for the good work so far.

brong · 14 Mar 2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by marcus0263
I also checked around the sign up page and either I'm blind or it fails to mention attchment limits. Will someone ether confirm or deny a 10 Meg mail limit that I'm hearing? If so I am definatly not happy. Similar to the BW issue I rarely send attachments that would even come close to that, but yes there are times when the need does arise.

Yes, I'll confirm that there is a 10Mb attachment limit at the moment, and that it will be raised for Full and Enhanced users in the very near future.

By very near I mean that the code is already written and tested on our external testing server, and awaiting some more review and further independant testing by at least one other developer before we roll it out (because a few more days without it is a lot less trouble for users than something going wrong and mail being lost!)

Bron.

11 Mar 2005, 02:18 AM	#1
marcus0263 Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Seattle Posts: 594	Seperate BW quota for Files, Why? Why isn't the BW quota tied into your monthly mail quota? This is ludicrous. I just signed up for a 6 month Enhanced account and I'm now questioning it. I will never come close to the email limit, and generaly won't come close to the file limit. But the time does arise when I know I will, so why isn't BW usage together? I also checked around the sign up page and either I'm blind or it fails to mention attchment limits. Will someone ether confirm or deny a 10 Meg mail limit that I'm hearing? If so I am definatly not happy. Similar to the BW issue I rarely send attachments that would even come close to that, but yes there are times when the need does arise.

11 Mar 2005, 10:30 AM	#3
marcus0263 Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Seattle Posts: 594	But why is file transfer bandwidth counted separate from mail Bandwidth? This is ludicrous, bandwidth is bandwidth. I'd like to hear why it is counted separate.

11 Mar 2005, 08:23 PM	#4
ady Essential Contributor Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 482	In case you hava a lot of file transfer and use up the allocated bandwidth, it will not effect the mail delivery since you still have separate allocted bandwith for it.

12 Mar 2005, 12:11 AM	#6
bobpeers Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Copenhagen,Denmark Posts: 79	I agree that in the long run we should be able to dynamically assign our bandwidth between files and emails, but until that happens it should be left as is. Bandwidth maybe bandwidth but if you make files publically accessible then how much bandwidth is used is somewhat out of your control and I for one would be pretty bummed if I couldn't send emails for part of the month due to that.

12 Mar 2005, 11:33 PM	#7
marcus0263 Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Seattle Posts: 594	One should be aware of how much BW they are using. That and I'm sure there's a warning notifier telling you when you're close to your limit. I just really think that it's the nickel and dime effect like the phone companies do. Then with the lack of any response from Fastmail to this post or the other posts in the forum about this shows there's no real reason other than to nickel and dime the customer base. I just really find it irritating that with their restrictive BW quota's that wasting it is offensive. Either that or they should have a roll over program like some of the mobile phone companies are doing.

13 Mar 2005, 05:07 AM	#11
registered_user Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 164	I'm not going to retype this http://www.emaildiscussions.com/...149#post305149 I honestly hope that FM does NOT waste valuable time and effort on improving the file storage service, and I understand why the quotas for files are kept separate from the quotas for email. Thanks FM for the good work so far.