A fast website is a customer's right and a hosting provider's duty, not a privilege as we approach 2026.

Patience is running out

The time has come to say it bluntly: A fast website is not a luxury worth paying for., but a basic right of anyone who purchases a hosting service. Yet, even today, a part of the market persists in selling caching systems or optimized web servers as "luxury" options, passing them off as miraculous innovations under picturesque labels such as accelerator, Booster, Turbo engine, super cache and so on.

Let's be serious: we are in 2026, not 2002. It is ridiculous to continue to propose pure and simple Apache as the only option, and then ask for 50 or 80 euros per month to activate Varnish or LiteSpeed, open source or low cost software that are part of the minimum technological standard for anyone who calls themselves a provider.

The historical alibi no longer holds up

Anyone who still tries to defend this practice takes refuge in the usual alibi: "it wasn't that simple once."
Of course, in the early 2000s the contexts were radically different.

Apache reigned supreme and had no real competition: it was the cornerstone on which much of the web was based, an almost obligatory choice.
NGINX was in its infancy, viewed with suspicion and perceived as an experiment rather than a concrete alternative.
Varnish was just an embryonic project, known only to a few insiders, who were testing its potential in laboratory scenarios.
For most operators, talking about server-side full page caching was little more than heresy or geeky fun, light years away from the concept of industry practice or commercial standard.

In that historical context, until 2005-2006, it might even have made sense to consider these technologies as “additional” or “specialized”. The market was immature, the tools were immature, the documentation was sparse, and proposing certain approaches required skills that not everyone possessed and a level of experimentation that not all customers were willing to accept.

But time didn't stop there. Since then, the world has changed, the web has evolved, and what was once seen as a luxury or a curiosity by visionary technicians has become an integral part of everyday infrastructure. Today we're no longer talking about geeky goodies or exotic tools: we're talking about essential, proven, robust components that any serious provider integrates into their default stack.

Hosting is no longer about selling features

Offering hosting is no longer like selling cars in the 70s, when even power steering or a car stereo were optional extras that needed to be paid for separately. Back then, it might have made sense to pass off as "extras" what we now consider an integral part of a car. But it's 2026, and in the hosting world, competition is no longer based on how many additional features you can sell, but rather on the minimum guaranteed quality which you deliver to the customer at the time of subscription.

Today, a reputable provider can't afford to enter the market with the bare minimum and then charge extra for what's already included by default elsewhere. These are no longer embellishments, but rather foundations without which a site can't compete.

A hosting infrastructure worthy of the name must provide:

• a server-side full page cache already active and ready to do its job without the customer having to beg or pay extra charges,

• updated protocols such as HTTP/3 or QUIC, which are now the global technical standard and not a fad for a few,

• modern compression (Brotli, and even better ZSTD), now mature tools that allow you to drastically reduce loading times,

• la automatic generation of WebP or AVIF images, a basic mechanism for lightening pages without additional effort on the part of the developer,

• and above all one Minimum TTFB (Time To First Byte) optimization under 200 ms, a threshold that represents the boundary between a competitive site and one destined to lose users before it even loads.

It is not philosophy, it is not a futuristic aspiration, it is not a luxury: it is the basic requirements to get back into the standards required by Google, obtain a decent positioning in SERP and respect the parameters of the Coreweb VitalsAnything that doesn't start from these foundations isn't hosting, but just improvisation sold with marketing gimmicks.

Damage to customers: it's not just slowness

Those who continue to sell caching services as optional are not only lacking in transparency by not informing the customer of the damages they have suffered, but are also committing a real crime. harmful action against one's customersThis is not a neutral commercial choice, but a behavior that has concrete and often devastating consequences.

A slow website is not just a nuisance, it is not a negligible detail that can be compensated for with a little patience on the part of the end user. It is a disaster announced which translates into economic, reputational and opportunity losses.

A high TTFB or a loading time that exceeds the fateful 3 seconds means:

• SEO ranking collapse, resulting in loss of visibility,

• loss of key positions, that is, disappear just when a potential customer is looking for you,

• drastic decrease in conversions, because the user who waits too long simply closes the tab and goes to the competitor,

• user abandonment, who are unlikely to return to a site perceived as slow or malfunctioning,

• and in many cases the failure of the entire online project, especially for those companies that base their business exclusively on digital.

So who's responsible for this scenario? It's certainly not the customer, who isn't to blame for relying on a provider that presents itself as "professional," often with self-praising marketing efforts. It's not the developer, who can do his best on the application side. The real culprit is the provider itself, which, despite having the option of immediately activating a server-side cache, prefers wait for the complaint of the customer to sell him yet another “premium option”.

An attitude that not only undermines trust, but reveals a precise plan: artificially creating a problem and then selling the solution.

It's not Managed Server Srl that says it, but Google does!

What we at Managed Server Srl support and repeat daily regarding the importance of web performance It's not just a promotional slogan, but it's exactly what Google has been saying for years in its official content, particularly in the project Think With GoogleThis is an editorial platform provided by Google itself, which collects data, research, case studies, and insights on digital marketing, user experience, and website performance, with the aim of guiding companies and professionals towards more effective strategies and measurable results. The following slides present some key translations of these materials, clearly demonstrating how the concepts of speed, usability, and optimization are not opinions, but best practices recognized and promoted directly by Google.

The bar has been raised

At the international level, the situation is clear and unequivocal: those who haven't updated are already out.

Most modern providers offer LiteSpeed ​​or NGINX with full page caches built in by default, without the need for upsells, without marketing gimmicks, and without forcing the customer to ask for the "fast option." It's an integral part of the service, just as the engine is an integral part of a car.

Cloud giants have been pushing for years on HTTP/3 and advanced compression, making these technologies a daily norm, not a whim for insiders. If they do it on a global scale, with millions of requests per second, what excuse do small providers have for still refusing to implement them?

Foreign competition, even low-cost competition, guarantees TTFB under 200ms Even on entry-level packages. We're not talking about enterprise services costing hundreds of euros a month, but rather affordable offerings that, despite their price, already meet international standards.

Anyone today, in Italy or elsewhere, who still tries to pass off a full page cache as an optional service is not only out of market, but it makes fun of its customers, condemning them to play a game that is already lost from the start.

The bar has been raised, and it won't go back. There will be no return to a slow, cumbersome web, justified with "that's just the way it is." The market has spoken: either you align with global standards, or you're irremediably relegated to the second-tier of the hosting industry.

Nobody asks for sartorial optimizations

Please note: no one expects a provider to become a personal consultant for every single site, nor to transform themselves into a developer who spends their days patching up HTML, optimizing CSS by hand, or chasing a broken CLS. No one expects a provider to adjust each client's Core Web Vitals like a digital tailor.

That's the job of developers and web designers, and it's right that it remains their responsibility. But providing the minimum server-side conditions It is not an optional: it is a moral duty, even before a technical one. It is the unwritten contractual basis that every provider should respect: deliver an infrastructure that does not penalize the customer even before he starts playing his online game.

And this is where often forgotten but fundamental parameters come into play, such as the TTFB (Time To First Byte)If the server takes ages to respond to the first request, all downstream optimizations become irrelevant. It doesn't matter how lightweight the theme is or how well-written the code is: if the TTFB is high, users will still perceive slowness and abandon the site. A host that doesn't guarantee a decent TTFB is essentially handing its customers an insurmountable handicap.

The difference is simple: starting with a ready-to-run car allows you to add upgrades, improve performance, and customize the details. But if they deliver a wreck without an engine, you can also fit new tires or fine-tune the suspension: you won't budge an inch.

And the excuse of "heavy theme" or "poor plugins" is not valid: those are the responsibility of whoever develops or manages the site. But Not ensuring even the basic tools – including a controlled TTFB, an optimized web server, and a responsive database – is equivalent to sabotaging the customer from day one.

It's like selling them a one-way ticket to bankruptcy, disguised as "entry-level" offers that already come with a built-in conviction.

The paradox of hidden costs

Many providers also play dirty on the commercial level, and they do so with a shamelessness that leaves one speechless. They present themselves with attractive offers from “50 euros a year”, rates so low they almost seem like a gift. But it's just bait, a way to lure the unsuspecting customer into a system that feels more like a trap than a professional service.

Once the customer has signed, and obviously paid in advance, the parade of the crazy upsells:

• +80 euros per month to activate a cache that could have been enabled in two minutes when ordering,

• +20 euros per month to enable support for HTTP / 3, a protocol now in common use,

• +20 euros per month for the Brotli or LiteSpeed ​​compression, technologies that other providers include without batting an eyelid.

And all this not for a titanic work, not for an additional infrastructure or for a very expensive license: but for 10 lines of VCL configuration in Varnish, or to tick a simple flag already present in the web server.

Transparency? A mirage. Providers who adopt this model hide behind low-cost "entry-level" offers, only to then squeeze customers with ridiculous surcharges, making what should be the minimum standard appear luxurious.

The result is paradoxical: a customer who thought he had made a good deal, who thought he finally had a cheap and functional hosting, finds himself paying huge sums instead. enterprise dedicated server, but without receiving either the quality or the resources promised. In other words, a “rigged” shared hosting, built to deceive, squeeze and disappoint.

The environmental benefit (that no one talks about)

Then there is an aspect that is rarely mentioned, because it does not bring immediate profits and does not lend itself to being transformed into a “premium feature”: the sustainabilityEvery time a page is served from cache, it consumes less CPU, RAM, and power. It's an incontrovertible technical fact: content that's ready to serve requires an infinitesimal fraction of the resources needed compared to a page generated from scratch for each request.

Translated into concrete terms:

• lower costs for the provider, which does not have to oversize servers to handle unnecessary loads,

• less hardware consumption, which is less stressed and lasts longer,

• less electricity consumed, resulting in reduced operating costs,

• fewer CO₂ emissions into the environment, because every CPU cycle saved is energy not wasted.

Not providing cache therefore means wasting resources and causing more pollution, multiplying energy consumption without any technical justification.

There are not only theories to prove it, but also data measured in the field: Varnish Software, in collaboration with Intel and Supermicro, has published a study that highlights how the adoption of modern configurations and optimized software allows for obtaining higher throughputs than 1,3 terabits per second per server, with an efficiency of 1,18 Gbps per WattEven more impressive is the overall savings: compared to legacy infrastructures, the use of Varnish Enterprise allows for a reduction in energy consumption of up to 95% across the entire hardware lifecycle.

To make the concept tangible, let's take a concrete example: a website from 100.000 visits per dayIf served without a cache, the server must generate each page dynamically, consuming hundreds of watts per hour of CPU and RAM. The same site, with a full server-side page cache, can be served almost entirely from pre-made content, reducing consumption to a fraction. On an annual scale, this means save thousands of kilowatt-hours of energy, equivalent to tons of CO₂ avoided, simply by activating a configuration that today should be considered standard.

As we approach 2026, continuing to offer cache-free hosting isn't just detrimental to customers: it's also irresponsible for the environment. Server-side caching is no longer a luxury, but a technical, economic, and environmental obligation.

It's a paradox that, on the threshold of 2026, we can no longer accept. Because it's not just about efficiency or costs, but about responsibility. Continuing to offer cache-free hosting is like selling incandescent light bulbs in a world that has already chosen LEDs: an act of technical, economic and environmental backwardness at the same time.

The win-win model that no one exploits

The absurd thing is that offering cache and modern technologies is not only right: it is convenient for everyoneThere are no losers in this equation, it's a positive-sum model that creates value on all sides.

The customer has a fast site, climbs search engine rankings, improves its Core Web Vitals, and most importantly converts moreMore sales, more signups, more leads. Simply put, more satisfaction and more money.

The provider, in turn, saves resources: a page served from the cache weighs infinitely less than one generated each time. This means Less CPU, less RAM, fewer incidents and fewer support tickets to manageFewer complaints, less wasted time, more margins.

And let's not forget the environment, which benefits from reduced consumption and a lower energy footprint. In an era where sustainability has become a key consideration for many end users, being able to claim a "greener" infrastructure is even a competitive advantage.

Yet, despite this perfect combination, many providers still prefer the “I make you pay for the air you breathe"Why? Because blinded by immediate gain, incapable of considering long-term value, they deliberately choose to transform a tool that benefits everyone into an opportunity for speculation.

A strategic error that not only harms customers but undermines trust in the industry itself, transforming a relationship that should be collaborative into a continuous commercial trap.

Comparison with the international market

Abroad, even providers low cost they have now understood the direction: their packages already include integrated caches, support a HTTP / 3, compression Brotli, Images WebP And often even AVIF, all without charging a cent more. These aren't luxury offers: they're basic packages, intended for those who pay just a few euros a month and have no "enterprise" ambitions.

In Italy, however, digital archaeology still survives“Apache Base Hosting only”, sold as if we were stuck in 2003. And that's not all: immediately after comes the "premium" proposal, rechristened with grotesque and catchy names — Turbo Booster Accelerator, Hyper Speed ​​Plus, Cache Master — which in fact is nothing more than a ready-made cache passed off as a proprietary invention 79 per month.

The result? A drugged competition, where Italian customers are systematically penalized compared to foreign ones. They find themselves paying more for less, with slow, outdated infrastructures disguised as "innovation" only thanks to a marketing label.

And don't even try to bring up the cost excuse: LiteSpeed, Varnish, and NGINX cost next to nothingIt's not a financial problem, it's simply a question of willpower and vision. While abroad we invest in offering a high and competitive standard, we prefer to squeeze customers with optional extras, condemning the domestic market to lag a decade behind.

Towards a Hosting Code of Ethics

Maybe the time has really come to talk seriously about minimum ethical standards for hostingBecause the problem is not just technical, but cultural and professional.

Just as a car cannot be sold without seat belts, nor can an apartment be delivered without electricity and running water, a hosting plan should not be marketed without at least three basic elements:

• a functioning and integrated server-side cache,

• HTTP/3 support (and possibly QUIC too),

• a modern compression like Brotli or ZSTD.

We are not talking about “plus”, but about what constitutes the minimum technical decencyYou don't need a law to understand this, you don't need international regulations or quality labels: you simply need common sense and respect towards customers.

Anyone who doesn't do this, anyone who continues to sell prehistoric hosting with bare-bones Apache, without even the most basic standards, is not a provider: they are a seller of illusions, someone who thrives on customer misinformation and the slowness with which the Italian market absorbs changes.

And there is one more point, equally important: if a provider consciously decides to do not offer hosting that is “Google compliant”, that is, capable of meeting the minimum performance and SEO standards required to compete online, at least it should have the honesty to write it clearly and clearlyA clear disclaimer: “This plan is not suitable for business or SEO goals.”

Because it can also make sense in certain cases. Think about my cousin, who's a plumber and just wants a landing page to show off when he attends training conferences for plumbing installers and brands. He has no ambitions for positioning, nor is he looking for leads or online visibility: a digital business card is enough. In cases like this, minimal hosting might make sense.

But if we talk about companies, e-commerce, professionals looking for visibility or customers, Failure to openly declare that a plan is inadequate is equivalent to selling a trap.

Perhaps, as an industry, we should have the courage to say it openly: without these minimum requirements, you shouldn't even be able to use the word "hosting".

The naked truth

Let's say it clearly, without mincing words and without extenuating circumstances:

• sell Smooth Apache without HTTP/2 or HTTP/3 in 2026 it is an insult to the customer, an act of negligence disguised as a commercial offer;

• ask for money to activate Varnish or Brotli it's a joke, because we're talking about ready-made tools, free or at a negligible cost, that require just a few minutes of configuration;

• hide the real names of software behind ridiculous labels like Turbo Booster or Hyper Cache Pro It's pure dishonesty, a cheap marketing gimmick that has the sole purpose of confusing the customer and masking reality.

It's not a question of "market strategy," as some still try to justify it. We're not talking about commercial differentiation or segmentation of the offering. Here we're talking about ethics and professional dignity.

Because passing off minimum standards as exclusive options means only one thing: taking advantage of the customer's technical ignorance to inflate marginsAnd this behavior is even more serious because the customer, trusting the provider, believes he is purchasing an "advanced" service, when in reality he is being sold what should already be included by default.

Anyone who builds their business model on these practices doesn't deserve to be called a provider: they're not a technology partner, they're not a reliable point of reference. They're, no more, no less, a smoke merchant, which speculates on misinformation and the haste of those seeking quick solutions without having the tools to truly evaluate the quality of what they buy.

Conclusion: no more privileges, it's a right

A fast website is not a prize reserved for those who pay the most, it is not a luxury to be given to a few "premium" customers. It is a fundamental right of anyone who purchases a hosting service, regardless of price.

Continuing to sell caches and modern protocols as optional extras is not just an abuse: it is a real market distortion, a way to take advantage of customers' trust by transforming basic tools into pseudo-exclusive services. It is a breach of mutual trust that should exist between provider and customer.

Those who adopt these practices do not only harm individual customers, but undermines the entire digital ecosystemIt makes the web slower, less secure, more polluting, and less competitive than other markets that have been on the right path for years. And in doing so, it condemns not only those who pay, but the entire country, to playing a backward step in the race for innovation.

As we approach 2026, there are no more excuses, no more possible justifications. The technologies are there, they are stable, they are mature, and they are accessible to everyone.

The choice, at this point, is simple: or we adapt to global minimum standards, finally recognizing that certain features are not optional but essential conditions, or at least having the courage to admit the truth: you are not a provider, but only smoke merchants, survivors of an era that the web has long since surpassed.