Groove

Well apparently darksoul is the man to ask about that. He's our self-appointed expert on "managed server" definitions. But in my humble (and allegedly limited) experience I've seen that the definition vary from host-to-host. Some contracts are extremely flexible and generous, while others have more exclusions than a dodgy insurance contract. So it pays to read the fineprint before ordering your server.

As for whether management represents good value to you, that depends on your level of technical expertise and what you're attempting to do with your server. Some admin tasks like running Rehat's up2date are exrtremely easy, whereas others such as doing a security audit, configuring a firewall, modifying a database, or installing some types of software can be extremely complicated and/or potentially hazardous. Anyone who thinks that server admin is always simple should probably opt for managed because they clearly don't know much about servers.

As for the whole managed verses unmanaged debate, I think that hosts should offer BOTH and let the customer choose. Some customers simply don't want management or need it, so why pay for it? As for bandwidth, potentially the largest expense -- I think that hosts should offer a range of pricing models for bandwidth eg tiered average use, per gig, capped pipes, 95th percentile etc and let the customer decide what model best suits their needs.