But why they want to cancel the contract and won't offer the customer to pay for the traffic?
They have many options where they allow you to do that and its very reasonably priced https://docs.hetzner.com/robot/general/traffic/
Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
231–240 of 311 posts
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#232To 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…
I used to work for a visual effects studio in Los Angeles, we setup a Canadian office and wanted to do offsite backups from Canada to LA and from LA to Canada for redundancy. We found a provider who would give us dedicated unmetered 1gbps and then setup a simple rsync. It worked great, we hit 800mbps (the theoretical maximum with TCP overhead) and then 5 days later we got a call from the provider who was absolutely f…
Now that is a shitty hosting company, since you told them what you were going to do in advance and wrote a bandwidth commitment into the sales order.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does this have to do with anything? If the user if paying for a service, they should be getting that service. If the operator is offering a service which they can't afford to offer, that's not the user's problem.
The argument is that there are no easily determinable limits. Let's say the provider has a 100 Gpbs upstream, 1000 clients, and offers a cheap plan where you pay for 1 Gbps with no limit. The provider obviously can't provide a sustained 1 Gbps to every client 24/7. Now, how do you honestly advertise that? Because you can give people 1 Gbps service so long not too many clients do that at the same time. And you can tol…
That's a cool story. It sounds like something the marketing and sales departments should probably think pretty hard about. It's not an easy problem.
But a service with a cap also isn't unlimited.
Making a pricing structure which works for the company and is easy to understand for the customer isn't easy. Nobody said it was easy. But I don't understand how you go from that, to arguing in favor of lying to the customer.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#234To 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…
A better way to do it is to simply prioritize traffic in order of whoever has used least traffic this month. So if a link is congested and a packet has to be dropped, then it is dropped from whichever user has sent the most packets in the last 30 days. The end result is light users will get great service. Heavy users will start to see congestion at busy times, but will still be able to download as much as they like,…
Do I love your answer, nice weighting bro
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what you're saying is, if I offer 10,000 gallons of ice cream for $100, but deliver an ice cream cone, I can defend myself by saying that what I delivered was more in line with what a typical customer would want?
No, but if you offer an “unlimited ice cream” ticket but then refuse to deliver me 100 solar masses of ice cream, I think that’s okay.
What nonsense. A 1gbps connection has a limit of traffic it can push in a month, that is the limit of their "unlimited" offer.
They are advertising that you can use 100% of your 1gbps link in a month then cutting TFA OP off at 80%.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#236To 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 should probably just say 50TB with overages at $0.005/GB or something like that. I fully agree. People use more and more bandwidth. It was just a question of time before someone started to use a petabyte a month. "Unlimited" makes no sense unless they are really ready to allow 100% usage of 1Gbps uplink all the time.
> It was just a question of time before someone started to use a petabyte a month
Nah, even with fully saturating the link you won't get there.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. In my country, an "Unlimited 4G LTE" data plan costs 12 EUR. But without any "fair usage" policy that would be simply impossible. Nobody would expect to use tens of TBs per month without ever being contacted or heavily throttled.
I've got unlimited 4G/LTE/5G for €2/mo with reduced bandwidth after 55GB but still unlimited, and true unlimited for €5/mo without any bandwidth restrictions. I'm proxying traffic through mobile proxies and expect nothing less than unlimited. What herzer do amounts to false advertising when compared to the mobile traffic examples.
yes please share any info possible, this will help a lot
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but if you offer an “unlimited ice cream” ticket but then refuse to deliver me 100 solar masses of ice cream, I think that’s okay.
What nonsense. A 1gbps connection has a limit of traffic it can push in a month, that is the limit of their "unlimited" offer. They are advertising that you can use 100% of your 1gbps link in a month then cutting TFA OP off at 80%.
> A 1gbps connection has a limit of traffic it can push in a month, that is the limit of their "unlimited" offer.
If your interpretation of basic words is so wildly different from the norm that you already consider "1Gbps unlimited" a contradiction then surely you would never find yourself in a contract where subtler terms are in question.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I personally would assume that "unlimited 1Gbps" wouldn't include using 80% of the link's capacity Why ever not? If you sell someone something but only let them use less than 80% of it, that feels like fraud.
It's hard to respond to stuff like this. I get the attitude: "I'm due what I paid for!" There are so many ways in our society where there's unwritten expectations. In this case, the unwritten expectation was that they weren't going to meter you and you didn't have to worry about overage charges, but that the 1Gbps should be thought of more as a burst rate than a 24/7 sustained rate. Likewise, I'd interpret it to mean…
> but that the 1Gbps should be thought of more as a burst rate than a 24/7 sustained rate
They do not state that anywhere in their advertising or terms of service.
They are advertising 1gbps/24/7/month as implied by their "Unlimited" terminology this is a perfectly measurable value and then cutting people off if they use 80% of that limit.
While I wholeheartedly understand that they can't offer that level of service for all customers and they expect most user to not use the full rate 24/7 and price their products as such.
If I'm being sold 1tb of transfer and am cut off that 800gb that is unacceptable, that is what's happening here (give or take some gigabytes).
If this is a problem for them then they need to change their advertising or terms orservice to state their Fair Use or AUP to list these limits.
Re: Hetzner appears to impose unlisted “fair use” on traffic
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does this have to do with anything? If the user if paying for a service, they should be getting that service. If the operator is offering a service which they can't afford to offer, that's not the user's problem.
The argument is that there are no easily determinable limits. Let's say the provider has a 100 Gpbs upstream, 1000 clients, and offers a cheap plan where you pay for 1 Gbps with no limit. The provider obviously can't provide a sustained 1 Gbps to every client 24/7. Now, how do you honestly advertise that? Because you can give people 1 Gbps service so long not too many clients do that at the same time. And you can tol…
Maybe like ADSL was originally advertised in some markets, with the contention ratio?
In your scenario, 10:1 contention ratio, "up-to" 1Gbps throughput, 1Gbps link-speed.
In the UK British Telecom originally offered 'consumer' ADSL at 50:1 and 'business' (more expensive) at 20:1 contention ratio specifically to deal with the backhaul limitations.