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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Right, so what exactly are you arguing was the "good cause" that warrants termination? Because saying he's using high bandwidth is not one. It's literally the point of the plan.
Stop with the walls of blathering text, just fill in the box with one sentence that is the "good cause" under 2.7.
Why be so combative? Just let him be "wrong" and you can be "right". Nobody really cares at the end of it all. Just saying.
But Timbo is right. They keep pushing this "contract" nonsense over and over and over again. This has exactly 0% to do with that. It has been said over and over and over again that this is about false advertising.
Okay, sure, Timbo is right about the false advertising and "unlimited". I'm pretty sure we all agree it's not absolutely unlimited. By definition unlimited has NO LIMITS. That's not lost on me.
Is it reasonable to blast a shared port 24x7? You may argue that it is, others will argue that it's not. Who is right?
Reasonable? Fuck no. By Hetzners current way of putting it out there? Yes.
So what would make everyone happy? Set the limit to 250TB/month and allow people to congest the network and have people complain it's too slow, or set it somewhere more reasonable, say 30TB/month, and have people complain it's too low? Find a middle ground? Complaints?
In the words of the great philosopher Phillip H Anselmo: "You can't please all the people all the time".
Quite easy if you ask me. Either hetzner caps the bw or they just raise prices and up their network.
Or better yet, cap the network and do a paid upgrade to real "unlimited".
Which would you prefer to see? I'd rather they cap it, personally.
Wouldn't really mind either way. Maybe even do a seperate lineup with unlimited and cap the rest? I mean, it's not reasonable for sure to use a €30/mo server and blast the shit out of it but I mean it is what it is since even those are advertised as that.
Imagine being Hetzner right now. They'd be like "WTF do these people actually want from us?!" lol
It seems like people like to complain for the sake of complaining.
Oooh I'm sure they regret it for a long time to even be a part of these forums. You can never please no one.
If nothing else, you and I have almost written all of Page 17 on this thread. That must please someone, surely.
It just feels like kicking a dead horse at this point.
False advertising dosen’t exist if the contract term isn’t a year or more!!!
I understand your arguments completely. I even have some amount of sympathy for your viewpoint. However, your arguments are all predicated on things that aren't in the contract and aren't in the email that Hetzner sent.
Again, all I can do at this point is suggest you read the email and the wording of the contract again.
Put aside your prejudices about what you think is right and wrong, and just look at what the contract says. Try to look at it objectively.
And this is because, frankly, you are wrong.
As per the contract, any cause is a good cause for either side to cancel. Furthermore they have identified that this customer is using a disproportionate amount of resources, and is simply a notification that they may terminate the contract if this continues.
They still have unlimited bandwidth right now. They have never been limited in any way. As this seems to be your major stumbling block, maybe try to find somewhere where anybody has suggested that they are being limited. If you fail to find any evidence to back up your argument, you should perhaps consider why you believe this so strongly.
They are not even using the provisions of 2.7 (even though their email says they consider it would be justified) of immediately terminating the contract. Instead, they are providing notice that at a future date they may choose to not renew.
Whether you would prefer them to do something differently or not, there is absolutely no doubt that they are operating in agreement with their contract, and contrary to you claims, have not falsely advertised anything because the service has never actually been limited.
I contacted them and asked about it, since I also want to avoid such email. I got reply from their support which explained the situation. In sense, its basically unlimited with fair use policy that other providers have. I wish it was stated a bit clearer in their website or during the order process, but this is still a lot better than the old 20TB/m bandwidth rule which they had years ago.
In short, I have no complaints as I don't use anywhere above 20TB/m, but I can understand that people who thought about 322 TB/m for 40€/m including server are pissed lol.
I think it is a very elegant way how hetzner is keeping there prices low and I am very glad that Hetzner does NOT enforce a traffic limit, but informs customers whose consumption seems too high.
So I can continue to back up TBs of data to hetzner with peace of mind and don't have to worry about being cancelled or throttled at some point if I ever need to restore them fast as possible.
I guess theyre mostly worried about abuse traffic, and if it's used in DDoS or traffic exchange purposes.
😂😂
@stefeman said:
Where's that FUP point tho?
Its implied, so thats what I assumed. Technically its not said unless you wish to read their quoted ToS 2.7 as such.
Its basically like translating the bible or quran lol. It can be read as anything if you mix words and meanings long enough.
Well yeah I guess if you make anything vague enough then it can mean whatever
How about you reread it. You didn't argue a fundamental point. sigh
No. That is silly. "Any" cause is not "good cause". It would be unnecessary extra wording if it meant "any".
It will continue, because the customer bought for that intention. If he wanted a 250TB plan, he could have done that.
Clause 2.6 says they can terminate with notice without specifying a reason. The difference is largely who is breaking up with who and why. They also didn't invoke this.
In this case, they're expressly giving a reason why they'd terminate the contract, which they mention using over 250TB and fair use (but don't link to such policy). In the terms and conditions page, there's no hits for "fair use". There's no hits for 250TB, either.
I'm arguing that using unlimited bandwidth is not acceptable by Hetzner despite expressly advertising such. If they continue to use customer intended, they'll have their service TERMINATED (they say "cancel", but by mention of 2.7 it means they'd do it without notice).
Huh, they're expressly saying 2.7 and that they have a "good cause", NOT "no reason". See above, they didn't say they'd cancel with 30-days notice.
I don't know where you live, but in Canada and USA we've had fine print for limitations and gotchas for decades and expect to read that in the fine print of the advertisement. There's none of that here and would NOT be accepted here. And because we've gone through this for decades, that's why it's mind blowing to us that you have this position. If anything, consumer protection laws just keep getting more and more in favour of consumers.
It's also unfair anti-competitive behaviour, that's also obvious. There'll be providers with 250+TB plans who've lost business as a result.
...
If they can terminate without needing to specifying a reason, the logical consequence of that is that for whatever reason they wish to cancel, they can. This is what I meant by "any cause is good cause" because obviously they would never get rid of a customer for no reason at all, or they would have no customers.
As they can cancel the contract for any reason at all and prior to the contract being cancelled they have not limited the service at all, there is no unfair advertising because the customer has received exactly what they paid for.
It's really pointless continuing to argue this with you. If you refuse to accept the point that they can cancel for any reason as per the contract, then all I can say is good luck when you sue them.
Wow. I just read all of this thread. It is IMO misleading advertising by Hetzner, however, they do state that either party can cancel the contract. It's a grey are between these 2 (vs unlimited BW). Regardless of which side is right or not, for their reputation, Hetzner should change the 'unlimited' BW statement, not necessarily for legal reasons, even though German law is very protective of the consumer, and If this was heard in court, Hetzner would most likely lose, again IMO.
Seem like Hetzner isn't so cooperative in the real world, despite claiming to be so
They should change it back to 30 TB/month limit, so no one will complain when they can't use 330 TB/month.
Most of you do not get, hetzner share is what it is because they offer unlimited, even 99% do not need it, many will chose it as they do not need to keep track of internet use, hetzner earned xxx more as offering unlimited, if they again offer 30TB market share would be a lot less today!
its basic math you get 10 000 more users of which whom <1% make you use all where you have negative income and 99% where you profit!
Clause 2.6 is with notice and for no reason needed.
Clause 2.7 is termination without notice for "good cause", meaning the customer caused it.
"Good cause" is legally different term than "any" and "no reason".
They do not state they'd give 30 days notice. They say "cancel" instead of termination so as not to inflame further. Full. Stop.
They specifically said Clause 2.7 and that his normal usage wasn't acceptable. Bringing up clause 2.6 is irrelevant since they claim the customer is at fault and in violation of Clause 2.7. They are happy to have him as a customer with less than 250TB of use but not more. That's not offering an unlimited plan.
@ralf must be an AT&T executive or something.
It really is that simple. Cancelling a service that you contracted to do when customer exercises his right to use it is really bad. I take the AT&T thing back, sounds like Insurance Company weasel bullshit.
By german and european law and regulations they arent allowed to cancel your contract cause of using too much traffic
They are not cancelling contract, they are just not renewing it...That way its legal.
We can only discuss if that was a dick move and false advertising on Hetzner part.