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.
Hostiko.com.ua 's bandwidth policy should be more explicit
indigo6alpha
Member
Hostiko(https://hostiko.com.ua) offers "Unmetered bandwidth", with an uplink of 200Mbps, on their IPV6 only VPSes. Bought their cheapest one, DE-0, which costs around 600UAH a year (16$USD). But as soon as I hit their 250GB hidden limit, they unceremoniously downgraded the bandwidth to 20Mbps. No warnings, no notifications, just this support ticket: https://i.imgur.com/zUL6yYj.png. Weird reasoning to say the least. On top of that, they charge a $5 "accounting fees", in case of a refund, which I'm NOT hopeful I'll be getting.
Their ToS doesn't outline any such limits, hidden or not.
Mod edit (angstrom): Modified title to better reflect complaint/criticism. (Title was "Hostiko.com.ua is running a SCAM")
Comments
Well, they do state that there is a "fair usage policy":
Having said that, the only thing I found in their terms was this:
....so yeah. Nothing explicit, but still misleading to advertise "may not guarantee stable bandwidth" as a ceiling of (specifically) 250 GB.
Yeah, I saw the point about FUP too. And by unstable bandwidth, I assumed it was about fluctuations between 150Mbps to 200Mbps, and not a direct decrease of 90% BW.
Moreover, their reasoning is not factual either. I don't see how a transfer of 250GB at 10MBPS max speed (Which is less than 100Mbps speed, as opposed to their BW promise of 200Mbps) can be considered intensive.
16 USD a year... Go to Perm and complain. Ou wait, they are in war
They are not scamming, just your expectations misaligned with reality. As always in low end market. Request to change title and move this rubbish to off-topic.
Their services are misaligned with their advertisements. If that's not scamming, I'm not sure what is.
As for the low end market, I've used other unmetered VPSes, from vServer etc and I've never faced such hidden limits with those.
The least they can do is change their advertisement to reflect this soft limit, like Hyperexpert does.
Low end market is not excuse for false advertising. That's knock-on low end hosts who don't do that and fulfill their part of a bargain.
Beside that it's not like he used 2TB of data on his small VPS. There's big stretch between advertised "unlimited bandwidth" and 250GB limit. They should at least warn him upfront when he reached 200GB or something if they felt like that's over excessive montly usage.
404 Scam not found
Keep pressing F5
As they didn’t acually shoot you in the head, not a limit.
Perhaps I missed it, but that support ticket doesn't appear to mention 250GB
Can you provide evidence that shows that they reacted in this way after you used (only) 250GB?
(But -- yes -- $16 / year and there's a war)
I've modified the title of the thread -- this isn't a scam. (The previous title was "Hostiko.com.ua is running a SCAM")
@indigo6alpha : Instead of crying scam, try to adjust your expectations
Well at least it is a VPS and they mention having an FUP.
Fair usage is to be expected.
At least it is better than Hetzner, in the case of dedi they will tell you explicitly if you ask their support they have no FUP only to ban your account later for traffic abuse.
Are you even explicitly allowed to do that by the rules of the forum? I though nothing gets redacted here. And tbh, I don't like the fact that mods can delete their own posts (while we can't and it is forbidden by the forum rules) and modify ours as they wish. While I agree it is not a scam, if OP writes scam, then they should be able to keep what they said. You are putting words in their mouth.
If you thought that, then you haven't paid sufficient attention
If you think that mods modify your posts "as they wish", then you haven't paid sufficient attention
Why should they be able to keep what they said?
LET isn't (and never has been) a free-for-all where a user can say anything negative they want about a provider (or a provider about a user) without consequences
How am I putting words in their mouth?
I've said that I modified the title, and the OP's post is about the provider's bandwidth policy, which isn't explicit enough
In addition, based on the evidence presented so far, it's far from clear that the OP had used only 250GB when the provider decided to act
Based on the evidence presented, there's no reason to conclude that the provider is "running a SCAM", so in the interest of fair representation, I modified the title of the thread to be more accurate and precise
250GB seems extremely low for Europe.
Yes, even for $18, it is still low.
That would be still okay if customer knew it.
Here, customer bought unmetered service.
Its 200Mbit, so you can use full pipe just for FIVE MINUTE per day.
25MB x 300 sec x 31 days = 232GB
If you are marketing 5 minute usage daily as unmetered then... wtf? Imagine if your cell provider would say "unlmited calls", but limited it to 5 minutes daily. Wtf? How you can even defend that?
They know 250GB is too low number so they call it unmetered.
You pay for whole year, you will be eventually limited.
They have money, you have service that you will abandon/idle, so they can sell these resources once again.
This is obvious.
And about their "we pay $400 for 1gbit ddos protection" response, do they really have something more than Hetzner protection which is already included in price of rented dedi (less than 100euro)? Because bullshit detector is skyhigh here.
chargeback the shit outta them
250GB is pretty low for UA, 16$/y isn't cheap either.
Why is it not stated under their terms and conditions that there is a 250GB limit? Not stating the actual limitations is just an crap move. Sort of a bait and switch. Sure you can CB and run, or take the $16 hit. But it is just dishonest to call something unmetered, and then offer an insanely low bandwidth cap. Plus that VPS is likely hosted in Deutschland, which isn't at war. Not much of an excuse.
Then to couple this up, there is two companies operating as 'hostiko' one being UK based, another UA. However both seem to be separate entities?
Then their FAQ contains an entry such as
dedicated.faq-5
dedicated.faq-5-answ
And by their domain creation time being March 2021, I can't really just say this is working through the 'new' phase. Not calling it a scam, they could be legit operation. But the whole thing smells fishy.
Again with the "it's OK for any provider to say unlimited when they mean something else, unless their name starts with H and ends with etzner" nonsense.
Here we have an example where @afn thinks it's fine for a provider to cap the unlimited service when they cap it after using 0.38% of advertised bandwidth, but when Hetzner just warn you that they consider it abuse after using 80% of the advertised bandwidth, that's bad and evil.
Granted im sure their DE servers are Hetzner but Im not taking a $16 hit for a hit and run.
First (and short answer)
Tl;dr, I do not think that. If anyone wants to know what I think feel free to ask me directly instead of reading from a 3rd party that I did not authorize to disclose what I think on my behalf.
@angstrom
Do you really have to repeat yourself dude? Common, is that only thing you can say when you don't want to (/don't have the energy to) argue ?
>
It is not that I disagree with the new title. I think maybe it is more suitable. But I disagree with the method. You can at least contact OP and tell them to (/ask if you can) modify the title after explaining the reasons and why you believe their choice of words being an exaggeration .
OP choose to write that this host is a scam.
You think according to the tittle you choose they are not a scam but simply not transparent enough. I agree with you. But I believe OP has the right to write "scam" if he considers he is scammed. Paying for "unlimited" only to end up with such a ridiculously low traffic limit is kind of grey area, almost a scam. Given the price, the fact you are dealing with lowend company, etc, yes, expectation should be adapted but they are not innocent neither. and "there is war" etc, is no excuse, it would make more sense to buy a VPS that actually works and donate to Ukraine directly then buying something that won't even perform to your expectations.
The way the post looks like right now, without scrolling down and reading your comment, does not represent what OP says, yet the modification is written under their name. That is all I mean. At least I suggest If I may, that you put a red disclaimer at the end of the post itself to indicate that the thread title has been modified or sth.
This is all I am asking, just to be clear who said what. It just gives a wrong impression when someone writes something different under someone else's name. Exactly like this reply that uses quotation
"it's OK for any provider to say unlimited when they mean something else, unless their name starts with H and ends with etzner"
but it does not even quote me. It gives the impression I said that, but it is not true.
LowEndDetectives™
Now second part and longer reply to @ralf
Hey Ralf good to see you here
While I am a bit flattered you cared to remember my name and my posts, I gotta tell you, I kind of don't like the fact you're making this personal. But hey, I will still reply. Btw, I rarely read/keep in mind usernames (of normal users, not hosts) so I can always reply objectively without holding grudge against users based on what they posted in other threads. You're not even replying to me as "a btw", you did not even reply about the main thread, you simply only replied to me. I actually had to switch back to the other thread to see why you say "again" and realize our conversation there. It really gives a worse image of you, and I'm sure you're much better than that and have more important things to do. Or maybe some better information to share in tutoral or something.
But hey, just to quote your writing style because I like it;
Let me explain what I really think and show that the above reply is an example of Ralf being a hetzner fan boy again and defending them with non-relevant example.
(also, regarding that style, addressing a person you're talking to, with the 3rd person as if you're bringing them in front of the crowd to a sacrificial altar to Shame them and kill them in front of everyone. I like the style. or perhaps I might be misinterpreting the meaning behind the writing style? I might be wrong?
https://streamable.com/xeofoj
p.s kind of trolling so I can share that video, I know you don't mean that way.
)
You put words in my mouth "and thinks it's ok" and you put it in quotation marks as if I said it.
No i don't think it's ok. I'm not happy with it, and I never said it's ok. And I bet you can't quote me saying that. I just said better than. relativity? Just in comparaison. I know a criminal who severly injured 5 people (this host). I know a criminal who killed 5 people (Hetzner). the first one is better than the second. I am just comparing, but they both still suck.
This provider is bad. Hetzner is simply worse.
They did not "just warn". They banned.
Also you fail to understand, hetzner did not issue a simple warning. Hetzner did ban us "traffic abusers" from ordering services .how many times do I have to repeat this.
With this provider, it is not the case. Better yet, you want a funny plot twist, maybe this provider is being (who seems to be with Hetzner) is offering too low traffic, in fear of being banned by Hetzner for traffic and unable to order new servers.
I am getting the impression (but correct me If I get it wrong), that you always want to prove Hetzner innocent, they are not.
If this was a crime in a random world where you get punished for how big ur traffic marketing lie is, both Hetzner and this provider are getting jailed. This provider would get 8 years for not being so upfront, Hetzner would get 10 years. They're simply both bad, just one of them is less bad than the other.
More importantly it seems we already agreed last time we talked, a VPS can have some fairness measures (granted 250GB is BS, not fairness). But It is not that surprising, from a lowend provider ralf. I won't be shocked with this provider, or even if BuyVM does somethng not so kocher, because they are not that much of a big names ralf. My reaction on Hetzner is partially (in addition to all the arguments I am giving here) as fueled by the deception, coming from a big name, after being a customer with them for years. And even more, they refuse to reply to most tickets or appeals, while the examples you make fun of, do actively reply to tickets. It was not a world wide shock when hostsolution died. But It was a worldwide shocking news when an OVH DC burnt down. It is all about expectations you put in the name and how much you pay.
ALSO This provider says in FUP there is a limit. They're not open about it, which is not an excuse, but at least they admit to it . If you ask them via ticket they tell you. This provider does not lie, they could be "more transparent" as @angstrom said. They are just not so open, unless you ask. Which is BAD, but not the worst
If you ask Hetzner, and so I did in the past. they will tell we have no FUP at all. And then they will ban you.
How are you seeing that this is the exact scenario!!? it is not!
You seem to be very binary about it. Hetzner is Black. Leaaseweb would be white (from my limited experience with them). This provider here would fall in grey.
Just to be clear I'm not defending this provider and I don't see them as a good provider. But I'm just saying oh god, there is bad and there is so fucking bad.
Not saying things openly but at least saying them when asked, is not the same as lying. When I walk in the street I don't say my name out loud to everyone, but when someone asks me I answer honestly. What Hetzner will do, is giving you a false name.
Hetzner lied when I asked them via support and banned me, nothing friendly. These people(buyVM or this provider) said the truth when contacted by email, and did not do any major harm as in banning the user, a throttle on a low cost shared vps is not the same as Ban from running your business with a company you counted on for so long. You are comparing dedi with VPS (again!).
Could you please next time you attack me, do it in a dedi vs dedi context. Because I doubt I will be defending any provider he sells a dedi link yet does not honor it. But I won't fight for a provider who offers "shared unlimited" like with VPS, or One Provider on online dedis.
So now are we finally ok, or do you still wish to defend Hetzner more? Do you still think this provider is doing the exact thing as Hetzner? Do you still think I said it is ok?
- - - - - -
so to sum it up,
you seem to be very forgetful, specially about VPS vs dedi since we already talked about this, and about the fact hetzner banned and took action, they did not simply warn. You can't have it both ways about remembering my username. You are very keen on keeping my name in your head, I am flattered, yet you don't seem to keep what I say in your had. Since this is getting personal, about me, and Hetzner, I would suggest you either reply to the other thread that is mainly about Hetzner(and where we ended up agreeing) or PM me. I welcome critiques and different opinions, just don't want to derail this thread and get someone yelling at us.
I replied via PM. But for the benefit of everyone else, it wasn't intended to be a personal attack. Perhaps it was a genuine misunderstanding, if @afn thought we were in agreement, so I'll just leave it there.
One specific part of the PM clarifies my stance, so I'll repeat it here:
And for the interest of politeness, apologies to @afn for unintentionally making this personal. It wasn't so much about you, more of a general perception here that some providers can do no wrong and others can do no right, and yours just happened to be the post I chose to argue the case on. Sorry if it came across as a personal attack, it wasn't meant to be.
Oh please, don't. It is me who needs to apologize. Few things have been clarified via PM, and it appears I have misunderstood a couple of things here. Really sorry about that, Ralf.
I love people on this forum defending them they advertise Unmetered bandwidth and limit at a measly 250GB how does that even equate.
250GB in 2022? In Europe? ...
Greeting to topic participants!
We offer our services with exclusive L3-L7 DDoS protection, which includes our own unique developments, which you won't found at other providers, especially for such low price.
Furthermore, we do not limit clients, who don't proxy traffic, but host their services on our equipment - protection infrastructure maintenance indeed costs us a lot of money: from bandwidth and equipment, capable of enough computational power to engineers and developers.
This client decided to apply for cheap tariff for 1.9€ and proxy traffic to their other resources. All actions with shaping are taken manually by us, after long client analysis. If client chosen not a cheap tariff - we wouldn't apply limits.
No single similar hosting provider with exclusive DDoS protection wouldn't serve such client on a cheap tariff plan, let alone their pricing policy, which is multiple times higher than ours.
Additionally I would like to mention ToS clause 2.6 violation, but let's pretend like this hasn't happened.
Just noticed, that he used IPv6-only tariff for just 1.3€, permanently loading network. We don't know, what he hoped
Most likely just this what you advertise/sale under certain package.
We do not advertising network speed, it is mentioned only on our website, and it is clearly said, that 200 mbps is a channel width (which is equivalent to an internet access port, i.e. maximum possible speed on this service). But no where it is claimed to be guaranteed.
But you know what "non-guaranteed 200 mbps speed" means in hosting industry, right?
Downgrading to 20Mbps has nothing to do with 200Mbps shared pipe where you can't guarantee full speed.
So do you feel like op lied about 250GB of used BW (which, let's be honest, it's not that much nowaday) and abused "non-guaranteed 200 mbps speed" he paid for? How come?
We know, and why 20 mbps isn't within 200 mbps of channel width? Anyway if don't nag to the words - we have already described our shaping policy above.
He didn't paid even for 1mbps. I am puzzled why do you criticise us, probably, even don't knowing price for Internet access from providers (hi super hosters-resellers). But I will tell you - for 1.3€/month he could get not more than 16mbps of guaranteed bandwidth at the cheapest provider. And this price per mbit is possible only when ordering 1gbps in bulk!
I didn't actually critised you yet, but I noticed where misunderstanding come from.
Clients don't read your mind, can't know when you will feel like they spent too much of bandwith with their "non-guaranteed 200 mbps speed" package.
O yes, he did. It's not his fault for your misleading practices.
This is the package you advertise on your site:
What about to clearly state what bandwidth quota every package include instead of advertise on the site package with "non-guaranteed 200 mbps speed" which obviously you can't deliver with those packages?
How's clients fault that you arbitrary decided that they spent too much of your "non-guaranteed 200 mbps speed" bandwidth for the price they pay?
Don't get me wrong, I understand what's fair-share "non-guaranteed 200 mbps speed" policy and acting according to that, but you obviously don't.
You're keep saying that they don't pay enough for more bw while it's solely your fault for selling on your site something what you're not willing to deliver because "they pay only 1.47 $/month".
Just fix your packages then, write clearly what they include and there won't be any misunderstanding.
I have noted this also just now. He paid with bank card, and we have sent him instant refund through payment system. This all is more like a defamation from jealous people.