New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Well, it does make sense that if the reason they choose to terminate is the opposite of their advertisement that would seem to be false advertising. As he said, they'd be fine if they gave no reason though.
In legalese, ", without specifying any reasons" means they don't have to provide a reason, not that they cannot.
@ralf Now what? Still hasn't done anything wrong huh?
I will move my stuff away too, besides my backup space. Not interested into getting booted off for some shady reason.
like wtf? so they even contact/null route customers not just above 250TB but below 250TB ?
"contacted for bandwidth usage", so when ordering server they should add a field "why the hell and for what the hell you need the bandwidth", oh god,
//un.limitedTM
Don't worry, someone will come and explain how they have every right to do it.
Even if most people won't hit the limit, that's not a valid justification for referring to it as "unlimited". If a small number of people will reach the hard limit, explicitly mention that hard limit while ordering or at least in the AUP or ToS.
I've got some clothes that I don't wear any more but are still in my wardrobe... Since I never use all my clothes before I do a load of washing, does that mean I have unlimited clothes? 🤔
I think you'd be better off asking Judge Judy about this one.
If they can provide proof, which they’ve conveniently avoided thus far, then opinions may change.
Saturating a shared network 24x7 - what could possibly go wrong /s
It was/is discussed on hetzner forum (can not confirm if still, not my screens)
https://i.imgur.com/EdufgVa.png
https://i.imgur.com/hz9JNEa.png
Wouldn't it be better to use the term "non-metered" traffic rather than "unlimited" traffic? Or maybe "free traffic"? But i unsure on how this will right on English. On russian we can use "трафик без учёта" (means that traffic it not calculated and traffic over usage fee cannot to be apply) and "безлимитный трафик" - (equivalent to "unlimited traffic").
They mean different things. "non-metered" means they don't measure it at all (as per their incoming traffic), "unlimited" means that they measure it, but they don't restrict it. Their cloud VPS are all capped on outgoing, so I presume it's easier to easier to measure it for all traffic.
So probably even though all the dedis are unlimited, it would still have shown up on some report and been obvious that a handful of users were using significantly more data than the vast majority of their users.
I gave up trying to read the entire thread, but I liked @jar's response on page 2.
I like "unlimited" when it takes away the fear of high over-usage costs or fees. A good example is smartphone data plans. They are expensive and have an upper limit. When someone in our household watches videos on their phone through the normal "unlimited" WiFi internet connection, it costs us nothing. If they accidentally bypass the WiFi and find themselves using the cellular data plan to watch the videos, they can blow through the data limit and rack up over-usage costs quickly. Despite my warnings about the costs of data usage, it happened once or twice early on.
The same was true for our internet plans. When our DSL plan introduced (read: imposed) new data caps on the same plan, we cancelled and signed up for cable internet from a different company. The cable plan was faster and offered "unlimited" data usage. We don't use much, and could have saved money, but I don't like tracking usage and worrying about unexpected overruns. There were abusers, and I remember seeing notes from the cable provider warning about excessive use by a small percentage of abusers. They went through something similar to Hetzner, and I am not sure how they dealt with it.
When the DSL company brought fiber into our neighborhood, I was excited until I saw the outrageous prices and mandatory fees. The true deal breaker was that they kept the data cap with high overrun fees. No way for us. I do appreciate the fiber company, however. They created high speed internet competition in our area, which is rare. Most places have a single internet provider with data caps at a higher-than-it-should-be price. They can charge more because they operate under an effective monopoly that comes from final mile contracts with local governments. What I appreciate the most about fiber is that I was able to negotiate a much better rate for internet service from the cable company. Recently the fiber company started advertising unlimited plans - they finally woke up to what customers really want.
I like "unlimited" more as an insurance policy against unexpected high costs. Perhaps Hetzner needs to reframe their policy in those terms.
OP is probably on another 'unmetered' provider by now with his 15 boxes. He will be back next month with a new thread complaining that he's not able to transmit over 650mbit sustained average 24/7, because of provider rack configuration or somesuch.
They are stating that using more than 250TB a month of an unlimited plan qualifies as a "good cause" for termination.
They're also stating that normal use of the unlimited plan is unfit and cannot meet the unlimited plan under normal usage.
This is literally making the point that this is wrong. It's like you guys are being intentionally obtuse and never heard the word "defacto" before.
The mental gymnastics is fucking insane.
Hetzner is clearly in the wrong. They're going to have to fucking highlight the fair use limits if they want to enforce them. It's that fucking simple.
That's fair response under 2.7, IMO. Their security shit was affected, they took action to resolve it. Sometimes, it's just, "oh, we need a better rule because of X use case" and everyone benefits.
At one VPS company, running speedtests tripped their csf firewall and had to fix their shit for regular use case.
If the fair use limit is 250TB, they should advertise it as 250TB, not unlimited. End of story.
The problem is how to specify a policy where you avoid penalizing users for an occasional spike, while keeping average use to a fair level, whatever "fair" means.
Who is they? I don't believe anybody has "stated" this. Please provide a quote of somebody stating this. What you have here is an inference.
Again who has stated this? Also this sentence doesn't even make sense.
I've never heard of the word "defacto", I've heard of "de facto", but fail to see what relevance it has in this matter.
Reading the contract and correctly interpreting its meaning is neither "mental gymnastics" nor insane.
They are neither clearly in the wrong, nor do they have to do anything of the kind.
Whilst there are a few providers who tell you what the fair use limits are, the vast majority keep it deliberately vague because it allows them to restrict people when there's lots of demand and high usage is causing a problem for others, while also allowing people to do what they want when there's spare capacity.
In any case, they are not enforcing any limits here, they are providing warning that they will not renew the contract. That is the thing that is simple here. It is clearly laid out in the OP:
Just out of interest, do you actually believe that adding expletives makes your argument somehow more persuasive?
Of course. When you are trying to argue a square peg into a round hole, the expletive is the hammer that pounds it in.
???
The email says "cancel your contract", which implies terminating the contract prior to completion.
We don't know, how many servers gotten over 250TB. It might be possible, you upgrade the server to a higher instance and won't hear anything from them after the next 250TB.
The other option where a fake notification, because there is no log from the email.
As I understand it, since the (monthly) contract renews automatically unless either party explicitly chooses not to renew the contract by the turnover date, not renewing the contract is (in this sense) tantamount to canceling the contract
there is no such thing at Hetzner, if there was, we would not be complaining, we would simply be buying the "higher instance" to get more traffic.
Kinda funny how people are biting the bullet for hetzner right now but they themselves haven't said anything about this matter.
I disagree with Hetzner's decision and it sucks that they're choosing to do this - but it's well within their right to not renew customers for whatever reason they want.
Because it's mind boggling how obtuse you're being.
He has an unlimited plan. Where the fuck does high usage come into play? The plan is not fit for its intended purpose if he can't use it in expressly the manner it was advertised.
You keep getting told you're wrong about cancelling vs not renewing. Even so, there was no abuse and didn't have a "good cause" for termination.
It's also sad when people fail to realize they're wrong and can't admit it, so they fucking whine about expletives. Wah wah.
Excellent quote.
When the expletives don't work, tantrum ensues.