On the bright side: if this was Google, I wouldn't be surprised to see his account terminated immediately without giving an exact reason.
Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
71–80 of 311 posts
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#72I'd like to see how many people in this thread saying "but they promised UNLIMITED..." have ever actually worked in network engineering for a colo/hosting ISP. This person is probably paying like 50 bucks a month or less and is in the top 1% of bandwidth users as measured by individual ethernet ports from a top of rack aggregation switch or similar.
That's quite irrelevant.
The point is that advertising "unlimited 1Gbps" pretty much explicitly says that it is OK to continuously run at 1Gbps.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
every isp ever since the dawn of the commercial internet oversells its capacity, you rely on 98% of the users not actually trying to max out their circuit at near line rate 24x7. if they did not do this an ordinary residential last mile connection would be $250/mo not $50/mo.
An entire (sub)industry being predicated on fraud doesn't make it not fraud, and doesn't make it okay. If you can't actually sell that capacity, just say up front what you're actually selling people.
More explicitly stating the limits would be good, but declaring “fraud” is rather exaggerating.
You go with Hetzner knowing you’re getting bargain prices, so they’re cutting corners somewhere. This would be like saying Walmart are committing fraud when it turns out their ham is not “finest quality”.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#74But why they want to cancel the contract and won't offer the customer to pay for the traffic?
The customer is already paying for the traffic.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course advertising one thing then saying, "well, actually, no" means you lied. Even if you're "nice" about it. It's not that big a deal. People lie tons. It's not murder. But it's still a lie.
no, this is more like running a buffet restaurant with an all you can eat buffet. 98% of your customers show up and eat three gargantuan heaping plates, are totally satisfied, and can barely walk back to their cars. the other 2% show up at 3 in the afternoon, stay for six hours, eat ten plates of crab legs and roast beef. maybe you notice those 2% of customers and say nothing. if the same person comes back every week…
This behavior leads me to disregard any advertising of "all you can eat" as a lie, and the speaker of that lie as a dishonest business. American Airlines dealt with this.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#76"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!)
Not using 'up to' is opening up all kinds of other cans of worms.
Ok, 100mbps.... to where? The switch you're plugged into? The router at the data center? Some other random host in the network? Some other random host outside the network?
So yea, everything on almost every network without a dedicated circuit is 'up to' simply because you can make no other guarantees.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have run an ISP network, and I feel their pain. But if they sell it as unlimited and have no fair use policy, they need to honor their contract. The part of the T&C they point to just says they can terminate any contract for any reason. That's a pretty lame way to resolve what is basically a marketing problem -- they want to sell a bandwidth-limited service as unlimited i.e. lie about it. Say what you will about fa…
But if they sell it as unlimited and have no fair use policy, they need to honor their contract. The part of the T&C they point to just says they can terminate any contract for any reason. First you say they need to honor their contract and then say they're honoring their contract. What's the problem? Similarly if someone runs a restaurant with an "All You Can Eat!" special and someone comes in with a 40 gallon drum…
It's not an abuse of a system to use it in the way it was advertised. If it says unlimited, then it's unlimited.
"All you can eat" means all the individual customer can eat (usually within a time frame). If you offer it and then stop offering food when customers (in your opinion) eat too much, then that's fraud.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
... and their systems are designed to make controlling it difficult to impossible while locking people in to their ecosystem.
How are their systems designed to make controlling cost difficult? I've found it exceptionally easy to find places where things are suboptimal and it's always quite clear to me how much something will cost before I do it.
Just an example: https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/an-aws-free-tier-bill-sho...
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd like to see how many people in this thread saying "but they promised UNLIMITED..." have ever actually worked in network engineering for a colo/hosting ISP. Raises hand The fact that these kinds of lies are normal doesn't make them OK. Instead, just... don't lie.
reaching out nicely to a customer that's probably in the top 0.02% of your bandwidth users for their package/plan and asking them to move to a more serious/expensive service is not a lie... i should also note that a very common reason for a dedicated hosting company's server to go wild on upstream bandwidth is something misconfigured or compromised, and being used maliciously by some external 3rd party. not actual ba…
I guess their routers just run out of packets like buffets run out of crab legs, huh.
There's a difference between saying "unlimited" and "up to n Mbps * t transfer per billing period".
We don't know or care how our packets are being measured. If there's a limit to them beyond the physical link, then it's not unlimited. "Unlimited packets internally but we will reduce the egress rate after a certain amount" also isn't "unlimited".
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#80To 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…
If you set some kinda limit, people will be trying to get close to it. Thus actually increasing overall traffic.