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
How is their model failing? Can you document business loss from sending those letters that is greater than the cost of the bandwidth and difficulties for customers they want to keep? I'm waiting...
did you tuned the server? probably thats why... or weak server...
2018 -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18120500
2022 -> this thread...
what to say more? its a fail that they can not sustain the unlimited traffic they sell as unlimited which in the end is limited.
Doesn't mean they are failing from a business perspective. They are failing from your perspective because you are pissed at them. Doesn't mean their decisions are unprofitable. They simply don't want certain customers.
pissed and glad that this happened, we probably never would leave hetzner, people also can see the real UNLIMITED of hetzner, but we are so happy now
everything happens for the reason 
Definitely exaggerated! ~10756.97 MB/s is 10.5GB/s not 10.5TB/s
the port is shared & we experienced slow speeds last time going over 60TB.
resolved after contacting them, not sure if was a temporary issue.
I'll probably attract a ton of hate for asking this, but... Is it really unreasonable of Hetzner to ask people to reduce their usage down to 250TB/mo when it's impacting other customers, when actually the only reason you're using that much is because you're just running a tor relay and not actually using it for a business purpose?
Forget marking it as unlimited bandwidth, they should say it's unlimited, except for tor which should be a maximum of 100Mbps or something like (which is still 30TB/mo and more than many providers allow in total).
The argument is the fact they they advertise its unlimited and dedicated. If you buy a dedicated unlimited 1G port, you should be able to push 1G 24/7, that is by definition what it means. There is no other way of comprehending this, unless you want to reach out and change the meaning of the world "unlimited". If Hetzner doesn't want to offer truly unlimited bandwidth, they need to figure out what their actual limit is, and advertise that. If they have a problem with people using more then 250 TB of bandwidth each month, then the its not unlimited, its limited to 250 TB, therefore advertise it as 250 TB.
None of this takes away from the fact that they have done nothing wrong as long as non-renewal occurs at the end of an existing agreement (ie at the end of a 30 day one month contract).
It is obvious some of the heaviest users are on LET, but there doesn't seem to be a large outcry anywhere else. So it must mean, they are just warning the extra heavy users.
for now probably... next time they define 50TB as extra heavy users bcos it could be a lot for them too
Can't predict the future, except for the fact that a 30 day contract unless specifically written, never guarantees renewal at the same level of service and price. That will always be the case, everywhere- power, water, phone, internet, server etc etc. Want stability- get a longer contract
Since they know how much is used, it is metered.
Yet, they didn't.
Good luck with that. A generic "we can terminate at any time for any reason" will not look suspicious since everyone has that (I think) even as it is not enforceable in a court of law. Unlimited is very nice for marketing purposes AND they would have no chance otherwise since OVH really offers unmetered and unlimited.
Does anyone know about a case of problems with OVH (like suspending/etc.) even then they advertised 100 mbps but had 1 gbps?
I know what the argument is, that doesn't need to be repeated over and over.
My point is that if you're not actually using the bandwidth and just "wasting it" on tor because you can, then frankly there are better things that bandwidth can be used for, such as making sure other customers aren't affected.
My assumption is that if tor use was banned or restricted, the balance would shift from the lowest paying customers using most of the bandwidth to the lowest paying customers using a lot less of the bandwidth.
If I ran Hetzner, I'd certainly think it was better from a PR standpoint to keep unlimited and ban tor compared to admitting they can't afford the economics of people using more than 250TB, 200TB, 150TB or whatever it is, and saying that's the limit. Or you know, allow both unlimited and tor and just opt not to allow troublesome customers to renew, which is their current solution.
If you don't like the alternative options, maybe the current situation isn't too bad, or at least be careful about pushing for change too much or you might get something you like even less.
I think threads like this naturally make the heavy users shy away from Hetzner and reduce overall average usage without Hetzner having to do anything. It's exactly what they want- for heavy users to think Hetzner isn't the way to go. Price increases, IP price increases, and threats of non-renewal for high usage - all have served to move heavy users to other providers- which undoubtedly is what Hetzner wants - high cost users go elsewhere.
It's actually MiB/s (Mebibyte per second) so around 90 Gbit/s.
I pay the same amount why are your "business purposes" more important than my use case? Don't understand me wrong I'm completely fine with what Hetzner does here. They are making use of the Fair Use policy but that shouldn't matter for what the BW is used.
I dont like Hetzner at all, this happened to me
"reputation of your IPs" after i google the ip they provided to me and on the ip before me was using for an website with porn and phishing, i treyed to explain to them i didnt do it but i didnt had with who to talk with.
But using 250TB/mo on an server is complet network abuse no ofense, what the hack you was having on the server ? Streaming Video 24/7 ? I think your network speed port was 24/7 full 1GB usage.
250TB Out traffic it makes like 20-25 Servers man.
The message from Hetzner is to see i get f by them and i dont like them but 250TB its from my opinion abuse! Video Streaming 100%
Dear Mr Cristian,
Thank you for having chosen Hetzner Online GmbH as your webhosting
partner. We appreciate the trust you have placed in us.
Unfortunately, there are a number of issues with your account. This
includes, but is not limited to, abuse complaints for your servers, and
poor reputation of your IPs.
As a result of this, your account XXXXXXXXX and all services you have
with us are going to be cancelled.
The cancellation is being done in accordance with our Terms and
Conditions (https://www.hetzner.com/rechtliches/agb/). The official
cancellation date is the end of next month, May 31st, 2021.
If you would like to cancel the servers to an earlier date you are
welcome to do so via your client webinterface. If by the end of this
month any dedicated servers have not yet been scheduled for
cancellation, we will automatically schedule them for cancellation to
the end of next month.
If we detect further abuse from your servers, then they will be blocked
and not unblocked. Please make sure all abusive activities are
completely prohibited and that there won't be any more issues.
This decision is final and cannot be appealed. Thank you for your
understanding.
Tor has a purpose and using traffic on it is not "waste".
Besides, when it is legal, it should not be the problem of the provider to check for it.
Running a mirror can easily reach that kind of traffic, adding up more and more mirrors will eventually pass whatever arbitrary limit Hetzner has for the week.
perfectly fine. we cut our own costs by switching
you can 100% what you want
if you only know video and pr0n that is your problem...
Hetzner can have different service tiers, different IP ranges and different prices if they want to differentiate. Some things could be banned in the business network and allowed in others, the business plans could have unlimited traffic while the rest not.
Advertising unlimited traffic without delivering regardless of reasons as long as nothing illegal happened is a shitty move.
Not a single instance in this thread shows evidence that Hetzner did not deliver what was promised. Hetzer delivered as promised, then determined they may not be profitable for another contract and warned the users. Users have ZERO right to future service under same condition and price unless clearly stated in the agreement.
Nobody says they can't increase the prices as long as they do it for all the people on same plan. Also, that they can change conditions for EVERY other customer, hence, the ToS/AUP.
Applying things selectively because some customer might be unprofitable is still a shitty move as long as they keep advertising the plan which is not profitable.
All you can eat buffet is profitable IN AVERAGE, you can't simply change rules for one customer or another to increase your bottom line.
Yes, you can refuse service for some serious reason (risk of illegal activity when people sing up using proxies or with cards not matching address, name, whatever) but you can't offer something which has the risk of being unprofitable and weed out the customers which materialize that risk.
You state the conditions clearly so everyone knows what to expect. "Unlimited traffic up to 250 TB a month." Many people do that and that is the legal and normal way of doing if you intend to enforce limits on unlimited.
Business isn't socialism- I'm sorry, a company is not obligated to offer every user the same deal. Buy a car in America and try that line of thinking. Also, are these heavy users incurring higher transit costs than other heavy users that primarily use the free IX points in Europe? (My guess is probably). They simply arent profitable.
They are changing rules for renewals for certain customers- totally legal, totally ethical. You are not promised a lifetime of same usage and cost, when only offering to sign a one month contract.
Heh, it's not the i that's the issue, it's the fact that the post I was quoting said TB which is terrabytes not terrabits, which would be Tb.
I also don't care what Hetzner do, however, I do definitely think that actual customers hosting real services on their machines is a more valuable use of data than anonymously relaying random strangers' data.
By running tor you are directly increasing their running costs. You might feel like it's just you being charitable, but it's not really as it's not costing you anything to run tor or not, but it is costing them.
Yeah, perhaps the top of the top. Given the inbound traffic is free, I speculate that in a scenario where you push everything through Cloudflare (or through any ISP that has settlement-free peering with Hetzner) even without edge cache would not raise the alarms because what matters the most for them is how much you are costing them on transit where they pay for every single Mbps you transmit. For €30-40 range servers, there is no way you can 24/7 pump 1 Gbps e.g. to Asia from Europe unless the eyeball is happy to have you hand off the traffic in Europe like Bell Canada does for Hetzner's Canada-bound traffic over Sprint. I saw a dude on Hetzner forum complaining about slow speeds (400 Mbps instead of 800) to Canada because Hetzner was not routing the traffic over a premium route which he said they have plenty of and instead choosing a cheaper and congested route over Sprint which apparently peers with Hetzner to exchange traffic for free. I can't blame Hetzner for this because this is how they keep their bandwidth pricing low and accessible.
Thank you for saying it better in one paragraph than what I have been trying to explain!
The more I look at it, the more I hate the poor and unprofessional phrasing
Although these servers include unlimited traffic, this is far above what we consider fair use.From a logical point view, if @Hetzner_OL can right such sentence, they can as well email the 3.5€ VPS users with sth like:
Although these servers include 20TB traffic, this is far above what we consider fair use.I see no difference between the 2 sentences from a purely logical point of view.
And the fairness defender will jump in and say "oh 20 TB on a 3€ machine is already a lot, why are you doing so much traffic" which brings back again the question of how much is too much (from a relative point of view?)
P.S: again I am happy Hetzner is installing an FUP, not complaining about that, I am not happy about how they are doing it in a shady irresponsible way by sending threats and shit instead of a normal notice.
Where is the threat- they are stating the obvious (which should have been know to those that read fine print), to make sure there is no miscommunication. They are simply stating that the contract may not be renewed- which is their right. It's not irresponsible, in fact, it gives a user a chance to get everything in order in a methodical fashion- whether they elect to stay or move. They are simply dumping high cost customers at the end of a contractual period, nothing wrong with that, no matter how much you argue the contrary
Are you sure OVH dedis and vpses offer true unlimited and unmetered? I'd like to know. I am interested. In another post someone said that OVH actually has hidden quota for its vpses.
It is like that IKEA kicks out a customer buying a king size bed to use it as a tv stand. Why should IKEA care about this creative usage. LOL.