Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
lowendtalk.com
Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
1–10 of 311 posts
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#2By not specifying a limit, not even in the warning letter, buyers are encouraged (or threatened) to overprovision, and then not use the excess capacity they paid for, lining Hetzner's pockets with the difference.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#3By not specifying a limit, not even in the warning letter, buyers are encouraged (or threatened) to overprovision, and then not use the excess capacity they paid for, lining Hetzner's pockets with the difference.
Claiming "Guaranteed bandwidth" and no extra charges. In fact Hetzner listed a generic we may cancel at any time clause, not a fair use one.
Scammers.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#4250TB/month is about 770 Mbps sustained. And you still only get a strongly worded letter!
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#5For those of you working at companies with "unlimited" vacation time... pay close attention. :D
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#6To hit 250TB in a month, the person would need to do 809Mbps (assuming a 30 day month). I personally would assume that "unlimited 1Gbps" wouldn't include using 80% of the link's capacity, but I also agree that stated limits are better.
That would be $16,691 worth of transfer from AWS (US East pricing for 250TB to the internet). I'm not arguing that AWS isn't overcharging, just putting up a comparison. Even at $0.01/GB, that would be $2,560.
They should probably just say 50TB with overages at $0.005/GB or something like that. They are offering 20TB on their cloud servers so 50TB on the dedicated seems reasonable and $0.005/GB for overages is less than you'll get almost anywhere else while still probably enough for Hetzner to make a profit.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#7250TB/month is about 770 Mbps sustained. And you still only get a strongly worded letter!
Does not matter. Hetzner say Unlimited and Guaranteed traffic at 1Gbit/s with no fair use policy mentioned for that port speed.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#8To hit 250TB in a month, the person would need to do 809Mbps (assuming a 30 day month). I personally would assume that "unlimited 1Gbps" wouldn't include using 80% of the link's capacity, but I also agree that stated limits are better. That would be $16,691 worth of transfer from AWS (US East pricing for 250TB to the internet). I'm not arguing that AWS isn't overcharging, just putting up a comparison. Even at $0.01/G…
They did have traffic caps a while back but explicitly abolished them.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#9"Unlimited" really should mean fully unlimited.
I also take issue with "up to" and other vagueness. There should be clear metrics and sizes that are precise and not abbreviated in all ads and offers; and offers should also be public and non-discriminatory. A 'service check' for an address should also constitute a 'binding offer' (I.E. the ISP had better be very sure service can be provided at that address!)
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#10To hit 250TB in a month, the person would need to do 809Mbps (assuming a 30 day month). I personally would assume that "unlimited 1Gbps" wouldn't include using 80% of the link's capacity, but I also agree that stated limits are better. That would be $16,691 worth of transfer from AWS (US East pricing for 250TB to the internet). I'm not arguing that AWS isn't overcharging, just putting up a comparison. Even at $0.01/G…
AWS pricing is a rip-off.