4 ms·

It is only fraud if it is intentional deception. In this case I suspect they assumed reasonable interpretation and customer interest: No realistic hosting prov

It is only fraud if it is intentional deception. In this case I suspect they assumed reasonable interpretation and customer interest: No realistic hosting provider can have the capacity to have every server utilize network 100%, but despite this the customer still benefits from increasing the uplink speed. In my opinion, their limits are perfectly reasonable, the configuration is in the interest of the customer, and what is provided seems to be a reasonable interpretation fitting with existing definitions. It is only lacking documentation or unclear policy (one rarely plans for the unlikely, and I don't think they expected this), and something that should just be resolved by their customer service department.

bobkazamakis 4y ago
> It is only fraud if it is intentional deception. Are you implying that this unintentional? That things like this are marketed without the full knowledge that such a service is impossible?
whatshisface 4y ago
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?
- tshaddox 4y ago
  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.
  - teraflop 4y ago
    What if I offer "unlimited ice cream, up to 1 cone per day for a month", and then after you pay for a month and ask for an ice cream cone every day for three consecutive weeks, I refuse and say your demands are excessive? Sure, I might be within my legal rights to drop you as a customer the next month, but isn't it still a scummy and misleading way to advertise my service?
    - tadfisher 4y ago
      This is pretty much how MoviePass went bankrupt. The unifying gist is, the business model depends on acquiring customers that don't use the advertised service. But customers are smart and want to maximize the value they receive for their money. Eventually, you either get an ISP-like situation where everyone has caps on their "unlimited" service and there is no room to disrupt the market, or you get MoviePass. There is not going to be a free-market solution to this problem, because no service with defined limits will be able to compete with the "unlimited" service at the same price point, and there are no consequences to simply dropping the expensive customers.
  - deadbunny 4y ago
    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%.
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      > 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.
      - deadbunny 4y ago
        How else would you interpret "Unlimited bandwidth @1gbps"? 1gbps maxed out for a month (you know, unlimited usage of a 1gbps line) equals 330TB (give or take depending on the length of the month). If you signed up for a service which offered 50TB of upload then they cut you off at 35TB then you would be rightly annoyed. If you have caps on your sevrvice? Cool. Don't use the word unlimited and inform customers of those limits.
- woojoo666 4y ago
  > 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? Yes, if that's truly what the typical customer would want. But I doubt a typical customer would want only an ice cream cone after seeing that offer. However, if you offer "unlimited* ice cream", adding in the terms and conditions that it can't exceed 1 gallon per day, and 99.9% of users don't eat over 1 gallon per day, then I think it's fair to serve only 1 gallon per day.
  - olyjohn 4y ago
    1 gallon per day is not unlimited ice cream!! It's limited to one fucking gallon per day. "English motherfucker! Do you speak it?"
  - teraflop 4y ago
    The actual situation here is more like: you're told you can have up to a gallon per day, but if you actually try to take a gallon every day, you're told that doing so is harming their operations, because you're taking up too much of the workers' time and forcing them to buy ingredients too frequently.
  - redeeman 4y ago
    that argument doesnt hold, I will give you a realworld example of why. Some years ago I purchased a (what I thought to be) huge backpack from an ebay store. it said 200 liters. What I got, I estimate to generously be around 75 liters. (by measuring the outer dimensions) I complained, and they refused to budge, even after I showed them photos of the measurements, and they responded with "we have sold 3597 of these backpacks and nobody else complained about the volume, you must be wrong!!!" (i dont recall exactly if it was 3597, but it was thousands, and a specific number). Clearly most people got what they expected, a reasonably large backpack, but not a HUUGGEE backpack. Was this okay? Was it acceptable I had to argue countless times and in the end contact paypal to get my money back? Why is it okay because its hosting services? edit: and it wasnt just misprint on the listing, the 200L was embroided into the backpack itself, and similarly on their smaller models, with the smaller number
- arghwhat 4y ago
  That's an absurd strawman. If you really want to use this analogue, then the provider is getting upset after continuously providing 8000 gallons of ice cream every month to an individual who bought a single ice cream cone with "unlimited refills".

bobkazamakis 4y ago

> It is only fraud if it is intentional deception. Are you implying that this unintentional? That things like this are marketed without the full knowledge that such a service is impossible?

whatshisface 4y ago

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?

tshaddox 4y ago
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.
- teraflop 4y ago
  What if I offer "unlimited ice cream, up to 1 cone per day for a month", and then after you pay for a month and ask for an ice cream cone every day for three consecutive weeks, I refuse and say your demands are excessive? Sure, I might be within my legal rights to drop you as a customer the next month, but isn't it still a scummy and misleading way to advertise my service?
  - tadfisher 4y ago
    This is pretty much how MoviePass went bankrupt. The unifying gist is, the business model depends on acquiring customers that don't use the advertised service. But customers are smart and want to maximize the value they receive for their money. Eventually, you either get an ISP-like situation where everyone has caps on their "unlimited" service and there is no room to disrupt the market, or you get MoviePass. There is not going to be a free-market solution to this problem, because no service with defined limits will be able to compete with the "unlimited" service at the same price point, and there are no consequences to simply dropping the expensive customers.
- deadbunny 4y ago
  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%.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    > 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.
    - deadbunny 4y ago
      How else would you interpret "Unlimited bandwidth @1gbps"? 1gbps maxed out for a month (you know, unlimited usage of a 1gbps line) equals 330TB (give or take depending on the length of the month). If you signed up for a service which offered 50TB of upload then they cut you off at 35TB then you would be rightly annoyed. If you have caps on your sevrvice? Cool. Don't use the word unlimited and inform customers of those limits.
woojoo666 4y ago
> 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? Yes, if that's truly what the typical customer would want. But I doubt a typical customer would want only an ice cream cone after seeing that offer. However, if you offer "unlimited* ice cream", adding in the terms and conditions that it can't exceed 1 gallon per day, and 99.9% of users don't eat over 1 gallon per day, then I think it's fair to serve only 1 gallon per day.
- olyjohn 4y ago
  1 gallon per day is not unlimited ice cream!! It's limited to one fucking gallon per day. "English motherfucker! Do you speak it?"
- teraflop 4y ago
  The actual situation here is more like: you're told you can have up to a gallon per day, but if you actually try to take a gallon every day, you're told that doing so is harming their operations, because you're taking up too much of the workers' time and forcing them to buy ingredients too frequently.
- redeeman 4y ago
  that argument doesnt hold, I will give you a realworld example of why. Some years ago I purchased a (what I thought to be) huge backpack from an ebay store. it said 200 liters. What I got, I estimate to generously be around 75 liters. (by measuring the outer dimensions) I complained, and they refused to budge, even after I showed them photos of the measurements, and they responded with "we have sold 3597 of these backpacks and nobody else complained about the volume, you must be wrong!!!" (i dont recall exactly if it was 3597, but it was thousands, and a specific number). Clearly most people got what they expected, a reasonably large backpack, but not a HUUGGEE backpack. Was this okay? Was it acceptable I had to argue countless times and in the end contact paypal to get my money back? Why is it okay because its hosting services? edit: and it wasnt just misprint on the listing, the 200L was embroided into the backpack itself, and similarly on their smaller models, with the smaller number
arghwhat 4y ago
That's an absurd strawman. If you really want to use this analogue, then the provider is getting upset after continuously providing 8000 gallons of ice cream every month to an individual who bought a single ice cream cone with "unlimited refills".