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
Wanna see what they gonna do with all of these, could be fun too
+10TB/sec (in total) of traffic
https://yui.cat/as/AS24940/
Yawn. "unlimited" in marketing language = "no hard/artificial limit enforced"
There can of course still be limits set by natural factors or reasonable use.
In legal terms, it depends on the type of product and what the average customer will understand by it.
If you book a rental car with unlimited mileage it means there won't be extra charges if you take a very long trip. It doesn't mean that your mileage is indeed unlimited.
If you advertise a server with "unlimited traffic", it should typically mean that any traffic is unmetered and you can put through as much as the (shared) port allows (the average user might expect not be able to use the 1 Gbit/s all the time, but not get charged or cancelled for "over-usage").
By the way, contract law is one thing, competition/customer law is another (and this surely can be taken as misleading advertisement).
People who see this as ok are missing the fact that an unlimited service was falsely advertised. You can't provide a service, collect payment for it, and then block all customers who try to use it.
Again, say I provide 2TB of storage space for $10/month. I know that most users will take years to fill this space. Almost no one will fill it in the first month. Is it permissible for me to cancel the service of anyone who uses over 500 GB? If I do that, I can provide less than 1/4 of what I promised and charge the full price for months beforehand.
The same is true of traffic. You choose a provider with unlimited bandwidth because you think your site might eventually get a lot of traffic. Then, when you get the traffic, the provider decides that it doesn't really want to give you bandwidth that you've been paying months for.
It's common to get a service that provides more than we need right now because there's some cost or effort involved in changing it in the future. If the services that we pay for are not really being provided, then we have been defrauded.
I wonder if @Mevspace is real 1G Unmetered
Could be a good alternative for anyone who wants to move away from Hetzner and is currently pushing a lot of bandwidth
Yes, that would be permitted in law. If you have a contract for a month, either side can walk away after a month.
Having terms that are fair to both sides is a pretty core doctrine in contract law. An example: an employment contract cannot require a longer notice period from the employee than they must give to resign. Usually when these are different it actually invalidates that clause of the contract.
The email from Hetzner is simply informing people of their wish to terminate the relationship instead of renewing for customers who use resources far in excess of the average. Whilst this might not seem fair to you, it is perfectly legal.
Re: contract vs misleading marketing.
If a product claims to be Unlimited and Guaranteed traffic at 1Gbit/s without FUP (as the case with Hetzner) and you threaten to cancel contracts for using what you paid for that means every contract signed was done under misleading marketing as the provider is showing they are not willing to uphold their side of the deal.
The 250TB per month limit is never communicated in the marketing material. That is what makes it misleading.
No. The contacts are not symmetric by law. For example, employees can quit for any reason. Companies have many rules that they must follow when terminating an employee. Tenancy, banking, and other consumer services are also deeply asymmetric.
I'm kind of confused by "An example: an employment contract cannot require a longer notice period from the employee than they must give to resign." What country are you talking about? You do not need to give notice to resign in the US. No contact can force you to work against your will. Obviously, terms don't need to be equal either. Medical tenure is a lifetime commitment for a hospital but it involves no commitment from the doctor.
Hetzner can probably get away with something like this. A company the size of AT&T would not.
nothing wrong if hetzner decides to give (advance) notice that they cannot provide service after 30 days contract ends.
but misrepresenting and using 250TB as a reason to terminate when advertised as guaranteed 1gbps, unlimited BW, no fair use clause in TOS, thats problem.
either way OP should already be looking to move out as for whatever reason they can refuse to continue and thats legal.
no need to refuse, we already moving out.
and we are not alone who got this mail (and thats just here on let, there must be pretty much more people out there) -
https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/3460006/#Comment_3460006
https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/3460064/#Comment_3460064
and now imagine if they lower the "limit" again and again and again...
Fair, not symmetric. But yes, employees are usually given extra protection by employment law in most countries.
I'm talking about the UK, but actually most countries are the same. In the US, most lower level jobs specify "at will" in the contract, which means either party can terminate with no notice, however even within more senior and management roles you will probably find most contracts have a notice period in terms of months, even in the US. At least, my sample size of 1 FAANG when they wanted me to move to the US was that way.
You're right in a sense that nobody can force you to work. However, they can instead sue you for damages if you choose to not work out a contractually agreed notice period. In practice, few companies do enforce a notice period, because a disgruntled employee has the potential to do more harm to the company if they're working there when they don't want to be there than if they're just released from the contract early. They could choose to enforce the contract, though, and you'd see this a lot more in entertainment, e.g. actors, musicians or TV hosts.
That's true. I always thought that these contacts could bind you to continue employment but not actually work. I could strike by myself for example. Though, I guess there's no reason that a contract couldn't require me to fulfill some responsibilities and clearly these entertainment ones do. I feel like the responsibilities should be specified though.
I imagine your faang employer couldn't add dangerous manual labor to your list of duties and then sue you when it didn't get done during your notice period.
At the same time, it seems too difficult to specify the actual responsibilities of a manager in a contract.
It's an interesting thing to think about.
Whilst in colloquial speech you could, strike action is actually legally protected but it can only be done if you are a member of a union and they call the strike action. You can't even join the strike if there are several unions but yours chooses not to join the strike. In the UK, for instance, you can be protected from dismissal for up to 6 months during strike action.
On the flip side, employers don't have to pay you during a strike action, and usually don't because they are usually called to force the employer's hand during group pay negotiations. And if your union calls a strike, you're expected to join in, even if you can't afford to lose the pay. You're likely to be expelled from your union if you went into work anyway.
Absolutely not. If they substantively changed the nature of the work you were required to do, they'd have to get you to agree to it by signing a new contract. Obviously, if you were leaving anyway you wouldn't sign it.
True, and overly broad phrases like "whatever the company requires" would probably get thrown out as being invalid if a contract dispute got as far as a court.
I wonder whether we can reach page 9 in trying to explain this paradox of why/how unlimited != unlimited
A product or service must be provided as advertised. If it's advertised as unlimited, then so it must be. The "unlimited" is already actually limited by technical information like gigabit bandwidth and by time (monthly), but adding further limitations which were not advertised, means the service provided is a lie and is not the same service which was initially advertised and paid for.
Hetzner in this case is exposed and can be taken to court.
I couldn't be arsed to read this entire thread of 'injustice'. lol
The real question I have is , where exactly is OP rage-quitting and taking his 'valuable business' that gives even half of 250TB/mo for the same price (Auction skylake servers start at just 28.70 euro/m)
EDIT: That said, I thank OP on behalf of the community for inadvertently performing a data transfer stress test. The devil always needs his little helpers.
Here's an NFT of the internet : 💻🕸💻
Unlimited means, its ok, if you use a bit more a month, but can't be more and more every month. They can strictly block you, because it isnt meant, to use the 1g line 24/7, even if its possible.
Where is this stipulated?
Reason and common sense (from the both of you)?!
With my current reseller hosting provider, that practically offers "unlimited" storage (pay-per-use), I directly asked what the reasonable limit is, to know how to plan. Is it 20 GB, 50 GB, 150 GB, or more. Got a reply that some customers use 300+ GB without problems.
My conclusion is that anything reasonable will fit, while I'll look for cusomt solutions for anything "exotic."
Now, I don't know what OP's use case is, but it's probably a good idea to look for a custom solution. Doesn't 250 TB per month, from month-to-month, sound like a lot, even for a dedicated server? Or is that usual?
So my next question is whether it's also the case that
(unlimited ÷ 2) != (unlimited ÷ 2)holdsI agree. The problem is that "all of it" is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of allowed usage for a resource that's claimed to be dedicated.
I think that jar's domain example isn't the same as this either. This would be more like if jar cancelled the plans of everyone who used 70gb of storage on his 100gb mail plan for storage abuse.
The deal had no fair use policy and was advertised and as guaranteed 1Gbit/s port with unlimited traffic. It's simply a provider who sold bandwidth too cheaply and is now falsely advertising a product they have no intention of delivering on.
OP is still here liking all the negative posts, but still hasn't answered where he's moving to that will give him the unlimited bandwidth for a better price.
Yes, the most affected party isn't even necessarily the customer. Providers who impose a 150 TB bw limit on their services seem like they are providing less value than Hetzner when they are, probably, providing the same amount of bandwidth or more. I've seen a lot of 150 TB dedi offers on here.
Real unlimited providers are hurt too because they have to compete on price for a customer who believes that Hetzner is providing an equivalent product, when in reality they are not.
In the most extreme case, Hetzner gets to collect all the money from customers with low traffic sites who want room to grow. Then, these people are kicked to Hetzner's competitors once they become expensive to serve. As a result, Hetzner gets all the most profitable customers by making aggressive promises and banning anyone who expects them to be kept.
Not really; they haven't terminated him - they've just told him that they won't want to keep him as a customer at renewal time if he keeps hammering bandwidth.
Entirely covered by the 2.7 section quoted in the original post eleventy-million pages ago.
I mean the OP is entirely welcome to take them to court, but I'm guessing Hetzner's lawyers are smarter than LowEndLawyers.
At least in the US, an individual can strike without being in a union. Unions are not that common here anymore. So, I don't really know much about how they work. Presumably union members make some sort of collective bargaining agreement that prevents them from striking on their own. I imagine it would be difficult to bargain without being able to control the strikes.
why waste the limited time
all i wanted was to share with you that something could happen to hetzner in coming days/months probably as their model is failing...
Who’s your current provider?
I need dedicated server for my reverse proxy
Those figures are a bit exaggerated. I haven't managed to go over 150TB (vnstat) with my relays per server and the Hetzner dashboard shows about 20TB less most likely because some of the traffic goes to other Hetzner relays.