Their 150TB bandwidth offers are bogus. They limited the speed to my servers to I am not sure what, but surely is unacceptable rate, I am getting download speeds of less than 1kb/s.

When contacted support they responded with this:

Your servers connection speeds have all been limited due to contravention of our Terms and Conditions of usage.

Content delivery systems are not permitted on our network so your connections have been limited to prevent effective provision of that type of bandwidth usage.

You will need to discuss this with our management team who will be available on Monday at the latest.

Until you have been able to discuss this and come to a resolution your servers will remain limited.


1. I am not running any type of CDN service, I am serving large downloads, how else would you use 150TB of bandwidth?
2. Even if I am running a CDN service, which I am not, the rep here states that it is permitted per this post:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=7469163&postcount=25

What's even worse is that they never notified me of the limit. Very unethical behavior from this once reputable provider.

False advertising, isn't that illegal in the UK?

Your traffic has been analyzed by our network management specialists due to extremely high bandwidth usage.

This level of bandwidth was putting our other customers at risk and therefore the decision was taken by management to limit your connection speeds.

I think its safe to say its clearly oversold, I am curious how much traffic were you using?

Not sure how much bandwidth I have been using since they don't provide MRTG graphs, I was only with them for 10 days, I was going to ask them on the 15th day to see where I stand in terms of bandwidth usage. I have 4 servers with them total, 2 of which were put online just yesterday. They limited the speed for all 4 servers.

I would personally ask the support team for bandwidth usage in order for us WHT members to know when they may consider caping the speeds.

Thanks.

Since I paid for 150TB of bandwidth I should get 150TB of bandwidth. Why should WHT members and other clients accept a caping of the speeds? They also capped it without notifying me at all, according to my research, this has been capped for at least 16 hours already.

1. Unethical behavior caping speeds without notifying the client. Think about it, if I never brought up the poor speeds issue with them, would they even tell me that they put a cap on it?
2. I paid for 150TB of bandwidth, I did not exceed my bandwidth allocation, but they are saying I am using "extremely high bandwidth usage"?
3. The server comes with a 1gbit port, looks like they limited it to a 10mbit port or worse

This isn't what I paid for, this is 100% false advertising and how they capped the speeds without telling me about it is pretty unethical IMO.

Normally I'd give the provider the benefit of the doubt before making a post but they have frustrated me with their support for the past few days and now a sudden unwarranted cap of my server speeds. I feel WHT members should know about what they have done and how they plan on resolving this.

Since I paid for 150TB of bandwidth I should get 150TB of bandwidth. Why should WHT members and other clients accept a caping of the speeds? They also capped it without notifying me at all, according to my research, this has been capped for at least 16 hours already.

1. Unethical behavior caping speeds without notifying the client. Think about it, if I never brought up the poor speeds issue with them, would they even tell me that they put a cap on it?
2. I paid for 150TB of bandwidth, I did not exceed my bandwidth allocation, but they are saying I am using "extremely high bandwidth usage"?
3. The server comes with a 1gbit port, looks like they limited it to a 10mbit port or worse

This isn't what I paid for, this is 100% false advertising and how they capped the speeds without telling me about it is pretty unethical IMO.

Normally I'd give the provider the benefit of the doubt before making a post but they have frustrated me with their support for the past few days and now a sudden unwarranted cap of my server speeds. I feel WHT members should know about what they have done and how they plan on resolving this.

Most 100TB/150TB deals are scams. They have all kinds of crazy restrictions. They can get away with it because there TOS states they can limit or terminate you at any time.

Since I paid for 150TB of bandwidth I should get 150TB of bandwidth. Why should WHT members and other clients accept a caping of the speeds?
You shouldn't, you just need a better provider.

I've tried 100TB type of deals from multiple providers, most of them have been honest and don't pull things like what I have encountered here. I am still waiting for redstation management to respond, maybe they will honor their deal and actually give me what I paid for.

You're right that companies can terminate you for any bogus reason at any time but at the same time, they run the risk of negative publicity. Forums like WHT is a great medium to remind providers to stop false advertising like what appeared to have happened here.

Google likes WHT a lot, I am pretty sure my thread is already indexed so whoever looking for redstation reviews will find this thread.

Chasebug,

As you were aware prior to your order (as you stated), Redstation restricts usage of CDN and Media Streaming in our Fair Usage Policy to a maximum of 20TB of transfer.

Firstly in defense, we have let you exceed 80TB of usage in 2 weeks on your service.

Secondly Redstation allows CDN to a restricted level to 20TB maximum, to which we only restrict your bandwidth usage afterwards.

100TB.com, disallows any use of CDN on there network in the Terms and Conditions.

Leaseweb, terms allow "(b) re-price any or all Customer servers with this Service to the regular bandwidth rate;".

Redstation never Charge overusage fees to our customers and don't prohibit your service from our network. We have restricted your service to a level to which you can continue to use your servers.

Our Fair Usage Policy is designed to be just that 'Fair'.

1. I am not running a CDN
2. You restricted the bandwidth for ALL 4 OF MY SERVERS, including the 2 servers that I just got 2 days ago, so tell me how is that FAIR?

Redstation, so we can be clear, please give some examples of what you consider non CDN usage of 150TB. Are we just allowed 150TB of wordpress traffic? do we need to host our .jpgs somewhere else??

The OP is not running a commercial CDN from what we can tell and has not exceeded 150TB by a long way.

I am not using the servers for CDN, they are for file serving purposes. Convince me why I shouldn't feel that it is a poorly put together excuse to limit my servers especially when your support tech admitted that I was limited because

"This level of bandwidth was putting our other customers at risk and therefore the decision was taken by management to limit your connection speeds."


Here is the full message by your support staff:
Your traffic has been analyzed by our network management specialists due to extremely high bandwidth usage.

This level of bandwidth was putting our other customers at risk and therefore the decision was taken by management to limit your connection speeds.

I'm afraid that I do not have the power to remove the limits placed on your servers without authorisation by our management team.

I have passed on your comments and made management aware of your response. They will comment on this ticket as soon as possible.

With regards to the comment from webhosting talk, I cannot comment directly on this. My comment regarding CDN was based on information verbally given to me and may not be strictly accurate. This can be confirmed by the management response. However, my first 2 above statements show the reason for limiting of your services.

Chasebug

What are you running ?

Thanks

Our AUP is designed to protect all users.

For clarity and so the community can design if this is a CDN then the website is:


28/05/11 10:14
Customer
Please remove my website from the thread on WHT. I never permitted you to post my website.


Further the HotLink functionality is viloating resale of bandwidth in the AUP.

Our AUP is designed to protect all users.



********, the AUP is designed to protect your money. You're selling something for a price that is far to low. Be a man and give customers what they paid for.

Redstation restricts usage of CDN and Media Streaming in our Fair Usage Policy to a maximum of 20TB of transfer.

Can you define the terms in bold just so everyone is clear?

"Content delivery" is what every website does technically...

hum want to know the issue of this, sound unbeliveble - having 150TB of BW for wordpress blog is not accurate.

Chasebug,

As you were aware prior to your order (as you stated), Redstation restricts usage of CDN and Media Streaming in our Fair Usage Policy to a maximum of 20TB of transfer.

Firstly in defense, we have let you exceed 80TB of usage in 2 weeks on your service.

Secondly Redstation allows CDN to a restricted level to 20TB maximum, to which we only restrict your bandwidth usage afterwards.

100TB.com, disallows any use of CDN on there network in the Terms and Conditions.

Leaseweb, terms allow "(b) re-price any or all Customer servers with this Service to the regular bandwidth rate;".

Redstation never Charge overusage fees to our customers and don't prohibit your service from our network. We have restricted your service to a level to which you can continue to use your servers.

Our Fair Usage Policy is designed to be just that 'Fair'.


I use my servers for serving large file downloads, you compared your CDN policy to that of leaseweb and 100tb.com

So are you saying that leaseweb and 100tb.com regards a server serving large file downloads as a CDN?

Our AUP is designed to protect all users.

For clarity and so the community can design if this is a CDN then the website is:



Further the HotLink functionality is viloating resale of bandwidth in the AUP.


Very well since you wanted to ask the community here.

While I don't want to reveal my site, it is comparable to these:
http://uploadingit.com/
http://www.esnips.com/
http://www.qdrive.net/

User's files are stored at 1 location only, there are no copies of the files on any other location/server.
There is no redundancy, does not failover, etc.

Tell me how does this fit the definition of a CDN including that of leaseweb and 100tb.com since you compared it to those 2 companies.

********, the AUP is designed to protect your money. You're selling something for a price that is far to low. Be a man and give customers what they paid for.

As stated the AUP is designed to protect users.

It is fair to say that any host offering 100TB+ is unlikely to make a profit on servers if people use this amount of bandwidth, despite what any provider may tell you.

Some providers offer extortionate bandwidth over usage rates or very low caps. Redstation have bundled all our dedicated servers with high bandwidth usage and we have some customers using bandwidth beyond 150TB today.

We have bundled this transfer so the majority of users do not need to worry about their bandwidth usage and make it less complicated when choosing a provider. As a cost to Redstation as per any provider we will make a loss on a customers who use high bandwidth usage but we are prepared for this and honour their bandwidth deals.

In order to ensure that the vast amounts of users enjoy the flexibility and can be confident of no over usage charges it is necessary to restrict some types of commercial usage. Redstation also has some of the lowest price commercial transit in the UK today with 95th percentile transit from 70p/mbps without FUP, bandwidth is normally only found cheaper in major internet hubs in the USA when purchasing large quantities.

A popular wordpress blog site would not of course not be considered a CDN unless used to distribute downloads.

In the select case of the user in this post, he used in excess of 80TB of transfer in under 2 weeks. The usage was hosting files which would be linked to from other sites. Packages were sold to his customers for content hosting, If you are not running a CDN or Streaming then you have nothing to worry about with Redstation or most other 100TB+ providers (always check competitor T&Cs).

We have restored full service to the customer in this thread without charge so he can continue while complying with our AUP.

A popular wordpress blog site would not of course not be considered a CDN unless used to distribute downloads.

In the select case of the user in this post, he used in excess of 80TB of transfer in under 2 weeks. The usage was hosting files which would be linked to from other sites. Packages were sold to his customers for content hosting, If you are not running a CDN or Streaming then you have nothing to worry about with Redstation or most other 100TB+ providers (always check competitor T&Cs).

We have restored full service to the customer in this thread without charge so he can continue while complying with our AUP.

Your definition of a CDN is a website being used to distribute downloads? You compared your CDN policy to leaseweb and 100tb.com Are you saying that they also regard any site that is used to distribute downloads as a CDN? Frankly, I don't think anybody in the web hosting business would consider that as a CDN. Maybe we can get the community's opinion on this or leaseweb/100tb.com since you compared your CDN policy to theirs....

Yes, packages were sold for content hosting but the content for those packages are stored on servers I have with 100tb.com because of their vastly superior network. They are not stored at redstation servers and I already explained this to you when you falsely accused me.

So I used 80TB of bandwidth, but I have 2 servers so I have 300TB of bandwidth allocated. You capped the speed to 12mbps when I only used a little more than 25% of the bandwidth. When you capped the speed of my servers, you did not notify me about this, I didn't know about it until more than 16 hours later when I discovered it myself. How is this in any way ethical or acceptable? You also capped 2 other servers that were setup just 2 days ago, those servers have barely used any bandwidth. In fact, the 4th server was only operational for less than 6 hours! Why were they capped?

I am not trying to purposely discredit your company, everything I posted in this thread is accurate. I only want a fair resolution to this matter. In particular, I want redstation to acknowledge that my site is not a CDN and I am allowed to use the full 150TB of bandwidth. In the meantime, I am limiting the bandwidth to their AUP policy until they acknowledge they identified my site wrong.

I am going to use my favorite WHT Line ever "I wouldn't touch Redstation with a 10 foot pole"

If a provider offers 100TB a client should be able to use that 100TB, it shouldn't matter if they have a CDN, streaming media website.

The definication of a CDN would be "content delivery network" that's basically anything that offers content delivery, a website also is content delivery.

For Redstation it seems they use this broad interpretation to be able to c(r)ap every client that uses either 1)too much bandwidth or 2)doesn't have enough servers so they can split that bandwidth and thus never sell what they offer

seems to me, redstation is just another "shared hosting" company that has hidden agenda, overselling and unreasonable policys that makes it almost impossible to reach the bandwidth allotment.
Redstation might aswell change 150tb bandwidth to unlimited

It is fair to say that any host offering 100TB+ is unlikely to make a profit on servers if people use this amount of bandwidth, despite what any provider may tell you.

...

We have bundled this transfer so the majority of users do not need to worry about their bandwidth usage and make it less complicated when choosing a provider.

:eek:


seems to me, redstation is just another "shared hosting" company that has hidden agenda, overselling and unreasonable policies that makes it almost impossible to reach the bandwidth allotment.
Redstation might aswell change 150tb bandwidth to unlimited

I couldn't agree more.

Anyone who thought the UK could provide such cheap hosting is kidding themselves.

I am going to use my favorite WHT Line ever "I wouldn't touch Redstation with a 10 foot pole"

If a provider offers 100TB a client should be able to use that 100TB, it shouldn't matter if they have a CDN, streaming media website.

The definication of a CDN would be "content delivery network" that's basically anything that offers content delivery, a website also is content delivery.

For Redstation it seems they use this broad interpretation to be able to c(r)ap every client that uses either 1)too much bandwidth or 2)doesn't have enough servers so they can split that bandwidth and thus never sell what they offer

There IS a difference between content delivery and CDN. A content delivery network or content distribution network (CDN) is a system of computers containing copies of data placed at various nodes of a network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network

My site clearly does not have any of those characteristics. It is generally understood and universally accepted in the web hosting world that a website that allows users to download files is not considered a CDN.

If they are going to deviate from the norm, they need to have listed it clearly in the "fair usage policy" but they had never done so this is clearly a case of bait and switch IMO.

When I ordered, I read their policy pages and they never mentioned their interpretation of "CDN" was so much different from what is universally accepted.

Leaseweb and 100TB.com actually allows you to use all 100% of their "100TB deals" while Redstation will only allow you to use 13.3% of their "100TB deals".

duplicate post

I can confirm that some of our clients have similar file hosting sites running on 100TB/SL machines with no issues. This is not a CDN.

Thanks for the heads up, I was about to take out a 150TB plan with redstation for another project, as the project involves a website and downloads and according to redstation from what I have read here this would constitute content delivery (ridiculous) they just lost a customer.

What wouldn't fall under content delivery?

SSH? You're delivering a terminal
HTTP? You're delivering content/pages
FTP? You're delivering content to the server or back

How many people can actually use 150TB of bandwidth on a server that is not doing CDN, streaming, or even downloads? A website that allows users to download files is not considered a CDN as many have echoed here. Since they failed to mention that they treat a website that has downloads as a CDN during signup but decided to label it as such after I have paid, this is UNETHICAL, MISLEADING, AND ILLEGAL. They have misled everybody who signed up for a 150TB plan who were planning to use them for serving downloads. UK has very strong consumer protection laws, false advertising is illegal.

Are these 20TB servers fraudulently disguised as 150TB servers?

After asking for the community's opinion, aren't they going to come back here to update this thread?

Which? or Watchdog... hmmm.

Which? or Watchdog... hmmm.

Unfortunately they are generally only interested in consumer rights, whereas it would probably be argued that this is business-to-business.

But the ASA would potentially be interested as they are now allowed to police claims made on web sites.

But the ASA would potentially be interested as they are now allowed to police claims made on web sites.

True, it would be interesting to see if the ASA is as toothless as the ICO in practise

Since I paid for 150TB of bandwidth I should get 150TB of bandwidth. Why should WHT members and other clients accept a caping of the speeds?
Here's another thought:
Why should the WHT users continue to suffer poor network speeds because of your servers and activities?

Now, I'm not saying the company is in the right here, but let's face facts. You are on a shared network costing their clients speed. Should this be allowed to simply continue, or should it be resolved? Of course, they need to resolve the issue.

This is a 'duh' case, honestly. Looking at their offers, only a fool would purchase these thinking they're going to get 150TB. Common sense is required, but seldom found.

Edit:
Another case of "I didn't read before I signed up" as well
From their Fair Usage Policy (http://www.redstation.com/dedicated_servers_fup.html) (which I'm sure you had to agree to before signing up)


Restricted bandwidth provided with the Service is provided for normal, fair, and reasonable use and must not exceed 20TB per month

Here's another thought:
Why should the WHT users continue to suffer poor network speeds because of your servers and activities?

Now, I'm not saying the company is in the right here, but let's face facts. You are on a shared network costing their clients speed. Should this be allowed to simply continue, or should it be resolved? Of course, they need to resolve the issue.

This is a 'duh' case, honestly. Looking at their offers, only a fool would purchase these thinking they're going to get 150TB. Common sense is required, but seldom found.

Edit:
Another case of "I didn't read before I signed up" as well
From their Fair Usage Policy (http://www.redstation.com/dedicated_servers_fup.html) (which I'm sure you had to agree to before signing up)

Are you serious? The customer PURCHASED usage of 150TB bandwidth regardless of whether it hurts anyone else on the same network. If they can't supply the bandwidth for a customer to actually use 150TB of bandwidth completely then they don't need to be selling it as 150TB of bandwidth usage. The customer stated that he does not have a CDN, and only does file downloads.

Also, http://www.redstation.com/dedicated_servers.html WHY ARE THEY SAYING YOU GET 150TB, AND THEN STATING IN THE FUP THAT YOU ONLY GET 20TB. I SAY SUE THEM FOR FALSE ADVERTISING. DO IT, DO IT, DO IT.

Are you serious? The customer PURCHASED usage of 150TB bandwidth regardless of whether it hurts anyone else on the same network.
The customer agreed to their terms. This means that they agreed to be limited if the case arose. The case arose, the user was limited. Sorry, next...

Again, this is what happens when you don't investigate things and read the fine print on your terms.
I'm NOT saying this is best practice, it is , in fact, shady, HOWEVER, the customer agreed to this happening.

False advertising. That's the first thing that comes to mind. Secondly, normally with such offers (100TB+ deals), it seems impossible for them to make any profit. But since hardly anyone will use the full 100TB and most will probably stay under 1TB.. it's feasible for them.

But now we are getting to a different point, why can´t they deliver the 100+TB when someone DOES use it. Overselling? Miscalculation on their side? False advertising on purpose?

Here's another thought:
Why should the WHT users continue to suffer poor network speeds because of your servers and activities?


Why should I pay for 150TB bandwidth but not get 150TB of bandwidth?


Now, I'm not saying the company is in the right here, but let's face facts. You are on a shared network costing their clients speed. Should this be allowed to simply continue, or should it be resolved? Of course, they need to resolve the issue.


Then they should increase their network capacity, not cap the bandwidth that I have paid for.


This is a 'duh' case, honestly. Looking at their offers, only a fool would purchase these thinking they're going to get 150TB. Common sense is required, but seldom found.


When I signed up, there weren't much negative reviews of Redstation so I went with them. Why are you placing the blame on the client when it is clearly the provider that is in the wrong?


Edit:
Another case of "I didn't read before I signed up" as well
From their Fair Usage Policy (http://www.redstation.com/dedicated_servers_fup.html) (which I'm sure you had to agree to before signing up)

I did read and understand the "Fair Usage Policy" before signing up, even got clarification from the representative here that only CDN and streaming are restricted to 20TB of bandwidth.

Serving file downloads is not considered a CDN. What part of that do you not understand?

Why don't you go here and educate yourself on what a CDN is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network

The customer agreed to their terms. This means that they agreed to be limited if the case arose. The case arose, the user was limited. Sorry, next...

Again, this is what happens when you don't investigate things and read the fine print on your terms.
I'm NOT saying this is best practice, it is , in fact, shady, HOWEVER, the customer agreed to this happening.

I agreed that CDN and streaming is limited to 20TB. But I am not running any CDN so I am not subject to that limit. No reputable provider would consider file downloads as a CDN. This is clearly a case of false advertising.

Well, lets see, also per their agreement

Bandwidth usage is to be reasonably consistent throughout every month, without irregular bandwidth usage patterns, either individually or as part of a group of Customer servers.

So they stated that after 2 weeks, there was 80g of use.. there are over 4 weeks in a month, even at just 4 weeks, with you agreeing your usage would be consistent throughout the month, you were on track to do over 160gig in a month, over the limit. The whole "is it a CDN or not" issue is not relevant.

As per their terms:

If violations of Redstation Limited’s Fair Usage Policy occur (at Redstation Limited’s sole discretion), Redstation Limited reserves the right to limit or restrict bandwidth usage without notification.

IMO so much for crying they didn't notify you first, you agreed they could do it at THEIR discretion (not yours, not what WHT users think) without notifying you.

Take it as a learning experience to adjust you usage if you stay with them, or to ask better questions with your next provider.

-Greg

PS. Which is better? That they kept you online but slowed you when detecting your use will max out before the month is over, or before a month is over, they completely take you offline when you get to 150gig?

Well, lets see, also per their agreement

So they stated that after 2 weeks, there was 80g of use.. there are over 4 weeks in a month, even at just 4 weeks, with you agreeing your usage would be consistent throughout the month, you were on track to do over 160gig in a month, over the limit. The whole "is it a CDN or not" issue is not relevant.re a month is over, they completely take you offline when you get to 150gig?


PS. Which is better? That they kept you online but slowed you when detecting your use will max out before the month is over, or befo

Did you read the posts?


So I used 80TB of bandwidth, but I have 2 servers so I have 300TB of bandwidth allocated. You capped the speed to 12mbps when I only used a little more than 25% of the bandwidth. When you capped the speed of my servers, you did not notify me about this, I didn't know about it until more than 16 hours later when I discovered it myself. How is this in any way ethical or acceptable? You also capped 2 other servers that were setup just 2 days ago, those servers have barely used any bandwidth. In fact, the 4th server was only operational for less than 6 hours! Why were they capped?

Opps, I gave the wrong size of gb instead of tb, and re-reading it, I think maybe I misread it, I though they were saying one server hit 80tb in two weeks.

Sorry about that.

-Greg

Well, lets see, also per their agreement



So they stated that after 2 weeks, there was 80g of use.. there are over 4 weeks in a month, even at just 4 weeks, with you agreeing your usage would be consistent throughout the month, you were on track to do over 160gig in a month, over the limit. The whole "is it a CDN or not" issue is not relevant.


The issue of is it a CDN or not is 100% relevant here because I did not use the servers for CDN. They stated that I have used 80TB in 2 weeks or so that they claimed but I am allocated 300TB for these 2 servers (150TB per server). So how am I on pace to go over the limit?



As per their terms:



IMO so much for crying they didn't notify you first, you agreed they could do it at THEIR discretion (not yours, not what WHT users think) without notifying you.

Take it as a learning experience to adjust you usage if you stay with them, or to ask better questions with your next provider.

-Greg

PS. Which is better? That they kept you online but slowed you when detecting your use will max out before the month is over, or before a month is over, they completely take you offline when you get to 150gig?

Did you even understand what you posted?

"If violations of Redstation Limited’s Fair Usage Policy occur (at Redstation Limited’s sole discretion), Redstation Limited reserves the right to limit or restrict bandwidth usage without notification."

I did not violate Redstation Limited's Fair Usage Policy because my site is NOT considered a CDN so they had no right to limit or restrict my bandwidth usage without notification. Also, they limited the bandwidth for all 4 of my servers, even though the latter 2 were only online for 2 days. Did those 2 new servers also violate Fair Usage Policy?

The fact of the matter is that I am not running CDN on these servers so I am 100% not subjected to their 20TB bandwidth policy for CDN.

What they are doing is 100% illegal. I did not get what I paid for.

Opps, I gave the wrong size of gb instead of tb, and re-reading it, I think maybe I misread it, I though they were saying one server hit 80tb in two weeks.

Sorry about that.

-Greg

Server bandwidth is not aggregated, customers are supplied with 150TB per server for use in accordance with our FUP.

In the case of this customer, restrictions were not applied without thought. The customer had 2 servers, BOTH of which had 95th percentile in excess of 940Mbps upload plus some random download.

Total transferred (combined upload and download) was in excess of 81TB from the 18th to the 29th on the customers first server, WITHOUT bandwidth usage from the second server in excess of 43TB. This projects to 209TB in a calendar month on the first server alone.

Further we can only communicate with customers on the contact details provided to us. Unfortunately we need to reserve the right to restrict without notification which happened in this case due to the customer not being reachable.

Once the customer contacted us, we explained our position and offered to remove restrictions on his upload and reset his bandwidth usage. The customer has had full 1 Gbps since contacting us, and will continue to do so.

We have many customers who use well in excess of 20TB, and indeed have a selection of customers who use in excess of 150TB across different servers.

Finally the customer site in question copies data between nodes. The customer directly sells hosting of the files and the ability to link directly and embed files in your website. The customer states this service is not a content delivery network.

As stated we believe we have acted fairly on this case as hosting despite the customer being in excess of 4 times over the monthly FUP in under 12 days. The customer has never lost service and is continuing his service with 1Gbps at this time. The customer may cancel to avoid further charges as per all our customers.

Hi
@redstation
what is your network capacity?
capacity in excess of 70Gbps
70 Gbps is 23100 tb of bw. so 23100/150=140 . am i right?

and please explain about this:
usage policy applies per month as ordered. If you use more than your allotted bandwidth you may be restricted to a 100Mbps port where you can continue to enjoy unmetered bandwidth.
as op said he limited on 12 Mbps not 100 Mbps

Fixxer,

We use less than 40% of our transit capacity at this time (95th percentile) which is why those who try are network are delighted with the quality. Adding capacity to the network is simply a case of ordering more from our Tier1 providers and we shall continue to do so as usage dictates.

Customers who exceed 150TB but do not use restricted services as defined in the FUP will be reduced to a 100Mbps Port unless than pay for the 1Gbps Unmetered option.

Customers who fail to comply with the FUP (use more than 20TB on restricted services), will be restricted to a speed as determined by Redstation (in accordance with the FUP).

Server bandwidth is not aggregated, customers are supplied with 150TB per server for use in accordance with our FUP.

In the case of this customer, restrictions were not applied without thought. The customer had 2 servers, BOTH of which had 95th percentile in excess of 940Mbps upload plus some random download.

Total transferred (combined upload and download) was in excess of 81TB from the 18th to the 29th on the customers first server, WITHOUT bandwidth usage from the second server in excess of 43TB. This projects to 209TB in a calendar month on the first server alone.


I had not known about how much usage that server was using since your portal had no feature to check this. I was going to open a ticket on the 15th day of the server usage to check on the bandwidth usage. Regardless of how much was used, I did not reach nor exceeded my bandwidth allocation.


Further we can only communicate with customers on the contact details provided to us. Unfortunately we need to reserve the right to restrict without notification which happened in this case due to the customer not being reachable.


Customer was not being reachable? Explain how you tried to reach me? You have my phone contact details and email. I never received any attempt to communicate with me. You can possibly even open a ticket but you never did so. Explain why "I was not being reachable"


Once the customer contacted us, we explained our position and offered to remove restrictions on his upload and reset his bandwidth usage. The customer has had full 1 Gbps since contacting us, and will continue to do so.


I can confirm that I have full 1 Gbps connectivity on all 4 servers. You are saying that I will continue to do so. Are you acknowledging that I will get what I paid for, which is the full 150TB of bandwidth per server and will not be limited again before exceeding this limit?


We have many customers who use well in excess of 20TB, and indeed have a selection of customers who use in excess of 150TB across different servers.

Finally the customer site in question copies data between nodes. The customer directly sells hosting of the files and the ability to link directly and embed files in your website. The customer states this service is not a content delivery network.


My site does not make copies of data between nodes. My site does sell hosting of the files and ability to link directly and embed, but those features are used only on the servers I have rented from 100tb.com

My site is not a CDN and most everybody in this thread agrees with this position. Let's not forget that you also said that a wordpress blog that distributes downloads is a CDN.


As stated we believe we have acted fairly on this case as hosting despite the customer being in excess of 4 times over the monthly FUP in under 12 days. The customer has never lost service and is continuing his service with 1Gbps at this time. The customer may cancel to avoid further charges as per all our customers.


As my site is not a CDN, I have not violated the 20TB bandwidth "Fair Usage Policy" my servers were so slow, the download rate is only 1kb/s so yes, the servers were "online" but they were unusable!

Other providers accept that a small number of 100TB customers turn the product into a low margin offering. Not for Redstation though...

I bet 100TB.com are kicking themselves for not thinking of this idea first.

Redstation, you should add this to your TOS

"User may not: Participate in any file-sharing/peer-to-peer activities" @ extract from Hostgator TOS

chasebug would have signed up an unlimited hosting account from Hostgator if HG don't have that term in AUP.

Redstation, you should add this to your TOS

"User may not: Participate in any file-sharing/peer-to-peer activities" @ extract from Hostgator TOS

chasebug would have signed up an unlimited hosting account from Hostgator if HG don't have that term in AUP.


Actually I wouldn't use a shared hosting account for this type of site, but I do use HG for some of my other sites, they are very reliable.

I don't think anybody can successfully argue that Redstation is in the right for this, a site serving file downloads is not a CDN. Did you see Redstation's post claiming that under their CDN policy, a wordpress blog that distributes downloads is a CDN? Yet they compare their "superior" CDN policy to that of leaseweb and 100tb.com who would not consider such a site as a CDN. Actually, what reputable provider would consider a site that has downloads as a CDN?

This is clearly false advertising and it is clearly illegal. Their false advertising is not only unfair and illegal to clients, it is also unfair to those providers who legitimately offer 100TB deals.

chasebug I think you clicked that you were agree with their TOS and AUP while signing up?
Most likely there they "notified" you about possible limits.

chasebug I think you clicked that you were agree with their TOS and AUP while signing up?
Most likely there they "notified" you about possible limits.

Of course I read them before signing up. Even though there were some confusions initially, I cleared up the confusion with the following post:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=7469163&postcount=25

In there, they state clearly that CDN/streaming is limited to 20TB while other usage will get to use 150TB. It is from that post that I believe I will get 150TB because a server that serves downloads is not a CDN.

But in their own words, they consider anything downloads related to be a CDN, even a wordpress blog that distributes downloads! That is ridiculous! If they had stated clearly that their definition of a CDN is completely different from what is the accepted norm, then I would agree that I should be getting 20TB of bandwidth, but they had not done so.

This is a simple case of false advertising and it is illegal.

Adding capacity to the network is simply a case of ordering more from our Tier1 providers
HE.net is NOT a Tier1.

CDNs distrubute content close to the client for speed and to reduce loads on the core servers. outfits like edgecast, limelight, akamai, etc are CDNs.

Perhaps you have CMS confused since wordpress, joomla, etc are CMS or Content mangement systems. They are not CDNs. You can plug in CDN content, however this is not the case with this user. A file download site is not a CDN. It is a download site like megaupload, mediafire, hotfile, etc. Those are not CDNs.

As a webhost you redstation, of all people should be aware of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network

If you feel this is false advertising from redstation, you can contact the advertising standard authority.

http://www.asa.org.uk/

HE.net is NOT a Tier1.While this statement is technically true... who cares?

The backbone network tiering system hasn't really mattered for at least half a decade now.

Without getting into the whole bandwidth discussions, we've done this a million times over, I just wanted to add one of our customers uses redstation and we had to call them last sunday and it was by far one of the best support experiences encountered for awhile. The support rep clearly was very knowledgeable, friendly and easy to deal with.

Without getting into the whole bandwidth discussions, we've done this a million times over, I just wanted to add one of our customers uses redstation and we had to call them last sunday and it was by far one of the best support experiences encountered for awhile. The support rep clearly was very knowledgeable, friendly and easy to deal with.

The OP is concerened about his server bandwidth allocation and limits.. Just curious, if you mention, you tried calling their support, what was it about?

The OP is concerened about his server bandwidth allocation and limits.. Just curious, if you mention, you tried calling their support, what was it about?

It was simply a separate review of them as a provider , you can argue limitations all day but ultimately the fact is everyone selling 100+TB -> cannot <- deliver it to every customer no matter what they say. If you engineer around limitations, Such as with *cdns* (however you define content distribution) in that you use exactly 100TB per server they will simply alter the terms and drop you.

As a provider they seem quite good in our short time with them. To answer your question the call was about duplex mismatches with the IPMI.

Without getting into the whole bandwidth discussions, we've done this a million times over, I just wanted to add one of our customers uses redstation and we had to call them last sunday and it was by far one of the best support experiences encountered for awhile. The support rep clearly was very knowledgeable, friendly and easy to deal with.

I had the exact opposite experience, they setup my servers wrong, RAID, swap size, etc. and also wanted 60 GBP (nearly $100) for a reinstall. I do agree that they answer support tickets quickly but the responses are usually useless IMO unless you pay them. For example, they wanted me to pay 60 GBP for nearly any issue I had with the server, such as with a network driver issue, etc. They only finally agreed to reinstall the server that had the wrong swap size free of charge after many exchanges in the ticket system. I've seen companies go out of their way to help a client, not so with Redstation, even if it is for a hardware/driver issue.

Nevertheless, their support or lack of support, does not give them the right to misrepresent their products and engage in false advertising.

This thread should concentrate on their false advertising:
1. I paid for 150TB of bandwidth so I should get 150TB of bandwidth
2. They clearly stated that CDN/Streaming is allocated 20TB of bandwidth while other uses get the full 150TB of bandwidth
3. They claim that any site that distributes downloads is a CDN, does any knowledgeable people actually agree with this position?
4. They compared their CDN policy to 100TB and leaseweb, but those 2 providers would not consider a site that distributes downloads as a CDN
5. They have misrepresented their products and engaged in false advertising

No other providers but Redstation is labeling file downloads as a CDN. No other providers but Redstation is capping people's network speed because they are using the bandwidth they paid for.

Their support or lack of support is irrelevant to this discussion.

3. They claim that any site that distributes downloads is a CDN, does any knowledgeable people actually agree with this position?If the links to the content come from sites not hosted on your server, then yes.

The hosting industry has basically devolved to the level of late night infomercials, making huge claims and then protecting their position in the fine print. The world has worked this way for all of recorded history (and probably longer), and that's why phrases like "caveat emptor" are still in our lexicon.

If the links to the content come from sites not hosted on your server, then yes.

The hosting industry has basically devolved to the level of late night infomercials, making huge claims and then protecting their position in the fine print. The world has worked this way for all of recorded history (and probably longer), and that's why phrases like "caveat emptor" are still in our lexicon.

Well I host all of the content on my servers so I guess the answer is no. But a CDN has to meet several criteria, not just that it links to sites of content that is not hosted on my own server or that it distributes downloads.

I think the following post sums up what a CDN is and what a CDN is not:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=7480995&postcount=59

Can I ask why Streaming and CDN are limited to 20TB? We are a Streaming company and use 100TB.com (So Softlayer) and they have no problems with us using 40TB in a month...

We also use UK2.net in the UK who also have no problems that they have ever let us know.

Surely, 150TB is 150TB regardless of how it is used. OK, so Streaming/CDN means more seperate connections into the server, but why such a low percentage?

I see that Leaseweb's offer also bans streaming, but they have a lot of resellers who don't have T+C's banning it...

With an unmetered 100MBPS you should in theory be able to use 33TB each way, although this is unlikely I'm sure.

To be honest though, if you look, Redstation offer 150TB for £59 which people must be able to work out is a massive loss at their claimed prices of 70p/mpbs as 150TB is nearly 500MBPS which is £350 to start with...

Also, http://www.redstation.com/dedicated_servers.html WHY ARE THEY SAYING YOU GET 150TB, AND THEN STATING IN THE FUP THAT YOU ONLY GET 20TB. I SAY SUE THEM FOR FALSE ADVERTISING. DO IT, DO IT, DO IT.


This guy is American for sure. :D :agree:

[QUOTE=Zhang]
HE.net is NOT a Tier1.
[QUOTE]

I agree, we dont use HE for transit on IPv4 and have free transit with them on IPv6.

We do however peer with HE, but this is not transit.

Now that I have retrieved all my files and are 100% safe from being held hostage of my files, I have formally requested a full refund.

Illegal and fraudulent comes to mind now whenever I think of Redstation. They were once a reputation provider, quite a shame they are reduced to scamming/misleading customers to compete in the 100TB market.

No word on the refund yet only that they have forwarded my comments/request to their Directors.

I must say I am completely frustrated with this company. They made me waste my entire memorial weekend cleaning up this mess, explaining to my users slow speeds, moving over 4TB of data away, etc.

Even after being repeatedly told that my site is not a CDN as confirmed by everybody here, they still won't change their position.

We are unable to offer you a refund for your service as this was provided as per our terms and conditions.

You may cancel your service at any time by submitting a request to do so, if you wish to cancel your service to avoid further charges please let us know.


This was their response after 4 days. I am filing a chargeback for fraud.

I spend over $10000/month on servers, this is the only time I have to file a chargeback. Shame on Redstation for their fraudulent practices.

Still no refund from them and they charged an extra $300+ to my credit card.

Any indication as to what the charge is? Why in the hell would they do that? Pretty unprofessional of them.

Just do the chargeback, and let the bank deal with them. Just make sure you have screenshots of all their different claims, and messages, and it would probably be a good idea to find a good site that states a wordpress website that has links to downloads is not a CDN.

I think you should switch towards any other service provider for getting proper bandwidth for operation.

Now that I have retrieved all my files and are 100% safe from being held hostage of my files, I have formally requested a full refund.

Illegal and fraudulent comes to mind now whenever I think of Redstation. They were once a reputation provider, quite a shame they are reduced to scamming/misleading customers to compete in the 100TB market.


hello sir ,

did they refund your money ? I had an order for a server and they wont give me my server and have not refunded yet !
they are a real shame in webhosting industry

If the links to the content come from sites not hosted on your server, then yes.


If I host my site's images on a different server, just to reduce load on the main one, is it a CDN?


Clearly, not to many people know what a CDN is. CDN is a network of servers used to deliver content, in the fastest possible time. Thats why its called content delivery network

Mostly located around the globe to deliver content to the users nearest to them. These servers caches data from the "origin" server. CDN nodes are usually deployed in multiple locations, often over multiple backbones. CDNs also often use request routing (eg: anycast and DNS based routing).

What this guy has is just a simple "file server/download server". Why is it so hard to understand what a CDN is? FFS don't call it a CDN if its not a network that has a decent structure like limelight or akamai.

I hope you guys dont call any server a "file server" because they host files.

And also how CDN would cause higher traffic consumption than 'regular' site, if content will be duplicated across different locations - i'd say opposite, as users won't be hitting one server.

And also how CDN would cause higher traffic consumption than 'regular' site, if content will be duplicated across different locations - i'd say opposite, as users won't be hitting one server.

Commercial CDNs do have very spikey traffic, think of a software update release or live video event.

but even if they were running a small CDN they wouldn't see the same spikes akamai or edgecast would!

I would say the kicker is what they stated right here on WHT: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=7469163&postcount=25

Q: Are these 150TB servers or 20TB servers?
A: Yes, you may use it for CDN/Streaming but this type of usage is limited to 20TB.

They only specified that the CDN/Streaming usage was limited. The OP DID get this clarified in advance, even if the ToS seems to say otherwise. For me, the TOS would have been a major issue as it just says they're just trying to trick you, imho, thus I wouldn't have done business with them in the first place. But here, the OP at least noticed the issue, addressed that with the company, and based his decision on their answer, which now is shown to be incorrect.

Yes, the marketing is just trickery and is underhanded. Legally, they're protected by the ToS, but I still feel it is unethical. They lost the legal protection, from what I can tell, by telling the OP specifically that the 20TB was restricted to CDN/Streaming, which the OP is not doing under any generally accepted definition of those terms.

At best it is openly misleading, at worst it is fraud.

If they refuse to refund you, charge back. I RARELY recommend taking that action, always try to work things out first, but at this point it seems to be a company you just don't want to deal with.

To note, I will also agree that limiting streaming and CDN when dealing with allocations like these DOES make sense. As it has been stated, that traffic can be VERY spikey and the spikes are the hard part to manage. The main limit is going to be uplink speeds from the aggregation layer. Most of these budget providers will be using multipel GigE's, not 10 GigE due to the cost, so their concern is you'll congest those uplinks, affecting all the customers on the switch. if the traffic is relatively consistant it is easy to account for, you add another port channel when you get to 50% load, etc. but if you have a lot of traffic that is spikey, that makes it nearly impossible to plan for.

Personally, we've found it best to address that sort of issue with QoS, but...

Hello,

I am actually laughing at this thread as the definition of a "CDN" is being questioned. I would argue that a file sharing site is very much a CDN as it is used to Deliver User Uploaded Content over a Network. People can manipulate the dictionary as much as they want... but if it quacks like a duck... its most likely a duck

With that said, I do have 2 other things to pont out
1)Shame on RedStation for offering a quota that is nearly impossible to actually hit UNLESS the user actually runs a CDN.
2)@chasebug - Per the TOS, you do not have the right to a refund as you have "if data transfer has exceeded 1GB within the fourteen day refund period"

I would like to comment to the community that since the start of this thread our AUP has been amended, to be less restrictive and not restrict CDN/Streaming to 20TB.

---------------------------

DEDICATED SERVER - FAIR USAGE POLICY (FUP)This Fair Usage Policy document is an integral part of your Hosting Agreement with Redstation Limited. If you engage in any of the activities restricted by this FUP document Redstation Limited may restrict your service without notice.

Redstation Limited's Fair Use Policy (the "Policy") for Redstation Limited Services is designed to help ensure fair availability of resources to all customers.

Bandwidth usage is to be reasonably consistent throughout every month, without irregular bandwidth usage patterns, either individually or as part of a group of Customer servers. The Customer undertakes throughout the term not to share, resell, loan or loan to assign the bandwidth in any way without the explicit written consent of Redstation Limited.

Fair Customer Responsibility for Customer's Users

Each Redstation Limited customer is responsible for the activities of its users and, by accepting service from Redstation Limited, is agreeing to ensure that its customers/representatives or end-users abide by this Policy.

If violations of Redstation Limited’s Fair Usage Policy occur (at Redstation Limited’s sole discretion), Redstation Limited reserves the right to limit or restrict bandwidth usage without notification.

---------------------------

Hello,

I am actually laughing at this thread as the definition of a "CDN" is being questioned. I would argue that a file sharing site is very much a CDN as it is used to Deliver User Uploaded Content over a Network. People can manipulate the dictionary as much as they want... but if it quacks like a duck... its most likely a duck

With that said, I do have 2 other things to pont out
1)Shame on RedStation for offering a quota that is nearly impossible to actually hit UNLESS the user actually runs a CDN.
2)@chasebug - Per the TOS, you do not have the right to a refund as you have "if data transfer has exceeded 1GB within the fourteen day refund period"


You obviously have no idea what a CDN is.

RedStation compared their "superior" CDN policy to those of LeaseWeb and 100TB.com the latter 2 companies do not consider "file downloads" as a CDN. No reputable hosting provider would consider that to be a CDN.

It is quite obvious that RedStation cannot deliver what they advertised and so they fraudulently coined their own definition of what a CDN is. I believe this is misleading and illegal.

You obviously have no idea what a CDN is.

Actually I do, I ran a 7 server cluster for Linux Mirroring for close to 3 years. It does not matter how much lipstick you smear on the pig... its still a pig.

I am not supporting RedStation either

Actually I do, I ran a 7 server cluster for Linux Mirroring for close to 3 years. It does not matter how much lipstick you smear on the pig... its still a pig.

I am not supporting RedStation either

Bottomline, it's a not a CDN as almost everybody in this thread has confirmed.

That's not a CDN it's a cloud or cluster. CDNs must be geographically diverse.

Hello,
I am actually laughing at this thread as the definition of a "CDN" is being questioned. I would argue that a file sharing site is very much a CDN as it is used to Deliver User Uploaded Content over a Network. People can manipulate the dictionary as much as they want... but if it quacks like a duck... its most likely a duck


OK, wow, love your logic. Most people that explain things to others understand it before they explain. So you take a phrase like "Content Distribution Network" and if you come up with a definition that uses those words that is what it is? So shared web hosting is where multiple people share a spider web while hosting a party? You can't just stick whatever words between there you want and make it work...

A CDN is a Content Distribution Network. Now, following your exact analysis that means CNN (Cable News Network) is where cable news is distributed over a network. But no, it is a network for distributing cable news. In the exact same way, a CDN is a network for distributing content. It is a network for distributing content, not distributing content over a network as you said. To be a CDN you need multiple sites, you need a network of servers/locations, etc. from which the content is being distributed from. If you have a single simple source, it can in no way be called a network, which is defined as being a system or a group.

So yes, you apparently have no idea what a CDN is. And I'll take my 13 years in the industry running a company with revenue in 8 digits with thousands of servers over your running "a 7 server cluster for Linux Mirroring for close to 3 years" any day... But sure, act like I don't know what I'm talking about...

This is the exact crap I hate, when things get well defined people just have to confuse them. People who have no idea what they're doing and spread that nonsense.... That is how where we somehow got to define "unmetered" to mean that it can be metered...

A CDN is a Content Distribution Network ... To be a CDN you need multiple sites, you need a network of servers/locations, etc. from which the content is being distributed from.

How ironic, I absolutely agree with you. Again I remind users that CDNs are no longer restricted on Redstation network.

A CDN stands for Content Distribution Network OR Content Delivery Network (depending on who you ask).

A network cosists of more than a single computer, this thread agrees with that statement.

Commercial CDN's will normally replicate files geographically and are normally used to deliver media (including files) faster to the the users location. All the above is pretty much fact.

This thread is around a dispute that a network of multiple computers delivering content is not a CDN if it doesn't contain replicated files (chasebug's opinion) and our opinion that any a network of computers delivering content to customers is a CDN regardless to how many times a file is replicated.

Opinion I have stated is that because Chasebugs site is centrally driven, central database and links to multiple servers such as server1234.downloadthisfile.com (example), this is a CDN. I have also stated that if files were hosted in wordpress this would make no difference, the test is in the "N" Network. Our simple opinion is any network of computers operating together (important) to deliver content or distrubute content forms a content distrubution/delivery network.

Test: Is it distrubuting content? Yes
Test: Is it a network (network = more than 1 computer)? Yes

In anycase Redstation no longer restricts usage of CDN so its not really an issue but an interesting thread.

But the OP was just linking to external content not hosted on that server. If anyone places a link to external content are they still a CDN in your eyes though?

How ironic, I absolutely agree with you. Again I remind users that CDNs are no longer restricted on Redstation network.

A CDN stands for Content Distribution Network OR Content Delivery Network (depending on who you ask).

A network cosists of more than a single computer, this thread agrees with that statement.

Commercial CDN's will normally replicate files geographically and are normally used to deliver media (including files) faster to the the users location. All the above is pretty much fact.

This thread is around a dispute that a network of multiple computers delivering content is not a CDN if it doesn't contain replicated files (chasebug's opinion) and our opinion that any a network of computers delivering content to customers is a CDN regardless to how many times a file is replicated.

Opinion I have stated is that because Chasebugs site is centrally driven, central database and links to multiple servers such as server1234.downloadthisfile.com (example), this is a CDN. I have also stated that if files were hosted in wordpress this would make no difference, the test is in the "N" Network. Our simple opinion is any network of computers operating together (important) to deliver content or distrubute content forms a content distrubution/delivery network.

Test: Is it distrubuting content? Yes
Test: Is it a network (network = more than 1 computer)? Yes

In anycase Redstation no longer restricts usage of CDN so its not really an issue but an interesting thread.

Based on the structure of the site as you described how is that content, those specific files distributed from a network if they're distributed from a single server? You're getting DIFFERENT content from different servers, each piece of content is served from a single source, not from a network. I just don't follow your logic and I don't see how that would fall under any sort of industry standard definition.

Based on your logic every computer on the Internet is a CDN (you used a network to route to it, you used a network of servers to look up the DNS, etc.), so your 20TB cap applied to EVERY server. I feel you defined it that way for your own benefit, nothing else, and really had no intention of being fair to your customers or following any industry definition, thus was entirely dishonest. Spin the words all you want, you were dishonest, you were caught. I'm glad you changed your tune, but for the OP it is likely too little too late.

Again a CDN is a network (multiple systems) for the distribution/delivery of the content. Not for the lookup of content, or the finding of content, the delivery/distribution of content. The database you used to find or look up the content is not delivering the content, the link you clicked is not delivering the content, the web server you requested it from is the only thing actually delivering the content. In this case, that is a single server, not a network. If the content is NOT replicated, then how is it using a network to distribute that content? You request file A, file A is on one server, delivered from one server, where does the "network" of delivery come into play for delivery/distribution for that file? Multiple different files are all different pieces of content and pulling different pieces of content from different places is exactly what the world wide web is....

But the OP was just linking to external content not hosted on that server. If anyone places a link to external content are they still a CDN in your eyes though?

No, the OP was hosting hosting a site elsewhere simular to rapidshare.com - where downloading a file redirected to a number of servers including 4 servers hosted with Redstation.

Of note he is the only customer ever to be restricted by our previous policy. And his bandwidth usage was in excess of 7TB per day, it certainly was not a case of restricting every high usage server we had which is what the thread appears to read.

No, the OP was hosting hosting a site elsewhere simular to rapidshare.com - where downloading a file redirected to a number of servers including 4 servers hosted with Redstation.

Of note he is the only customer ever to be restricted by our previous policy. And his bandwidth usage was in excess of 7TB per day, it certainly was not a case of restricting every high usage server we had which is what the thread appears to read.

But the OP specifically said the files weren't replicated and you said replication wasn't necessary to be a CDN, the example you're giving requires the replication of the file across multiple servers. How else do you have a single link "a link" pointing to 4+ servers unless that link is downloading a different file off each server? Which is it?

And 7TB a day, so what? he can use 7TB a day for 20 days and still be at 140TB, 10TB under your limit, to use for the rest of the month. That is based on the plan YOU put in place, I'd think you'd understand how much usage that would be when you setup the plan... So yes, not every high usage server, but anyone that actually tries to use the limit you allowed. You said you had customers using over 150TB a month, how much usage do they have on their peak days?

Rapidshare is not a CDN they are a file sharing site. That's what we've been trying to tell you.



Also if they used multiple servers within your network, that does not make them a CDN unless each one of the servers were in different datacenters and the core server was also in your network.

see my attachment for more details...

a CDN cannot soley operate in one datacenter location only.
it must be geographically diverse.

Rapidshare is not a CDN they are a file sharing site. That's what we've been trying to tell you.



Also if they used multiple servers within your network, that does not make them a CDN unless each one of the servers were in different datacenters and the core server was also in your network.

see my attachment for more details...

a CDN cannot soley operate in one datacenter location only.
it must be geographically diverse.

You're even using the commonly accepted industry definition. I can't even get him to understand the strictly grammatical definition yet, so good luck... :-)

I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt with the absolute broadest possible definition possible and it can't even be justified without a lot of twisting and turning...

Thank you! I am still alarmed that they would accuse the OP of operating a CDN when they are clearly not.

Commercial CDNs do have very spikey traffic, think of a software update release or live video event.

So as normal sites, when someone add your blog post or whatever to eg. reddit.

Bandwidth usage is to be reasonably consistent throughout every month, without irregular bandwidth usage patterns, either individually or as part of a group of Customer servers. The Customer undertakes throughout the term not to share, resell, loan or loan to assign the bandwidth in any way without the explicit written consent of Redstation Limited.

In my opinion that is even worse policy. If you have a website, how do you know if someone put it to reddit etc. or hot link an image somewhere that will go viral or share something on facebook. What is irregular usage pattern then ?

Also if users can signup to your site and eg. post their photos isn't it sharing a bandwidth ?

That policy is a pure nonsense.

So as normal sites, when someone add your blog post or whatever to eg. reddit.



In my opinion that is even worse policy. If you have a website, how do you know if someone put it to reddit etc. or hot link an image somewhere that will go viral or share something on facebook. What is irregular usage pattern then ?

Also if users can signup to your site and eg. post their photos isn't it sharing a bandwidth ?

That policy is a pure nonsense.

For CDNs the spikes are VERY different from a single site getting on Digg, etc. We've had a number of customers get on Slashdot, Digg, etc. For most sites the main issue is CPU load, the sites won't even come close to touching 100 Mbit/sec. With a CDN you're specifically serving spikey traffic, traffic people are looking to offload because it is spikey, like for major single day events, etc. With those we've certainly seen multi-Gbit/sec spikes. Realistically, you're looking at a 20+ fold difference there, they're not really comparable events. Again, that means I understand limiting CDNs in this cases, not that I support it, as it leads to issues exactly like this one...

As far as the new policy being nonsense, I agree completely. Isn't the point of a web site to share the content with others? Simply uploading something and then other people viewing it is a violation of that new policy. It also wouldn't allow any sort of group of people to use the server, as they'd be sharing it amongst themselves, it can't be used for any sort of open source project, it can't be used for any sort of file sharing, it can't be used for any sort of forum, blog that takes comments (the bandwidth used by their posts/comments was re-issued to them/shared with them), etc. I'm having trouble thinking of what the server COULD be used for under those terms... At least the terms are to a point though where any reasonable person should know enough to stay away...

For CDNs the spikes are VERY different from a single site getting on Digg, etc. We've had a number of customers get on Slashdot, Digg, etc. For most sites the main issue is CPU load, the sites won't even come close to touching 100 Mbit/sec. With a CDN you're specifically serving spikey traffic, traffic people are looking to offload because it is spikey, like for major single day events, etc. With those we've certainly seen multi-Gbit/sec spikes. Realistically, you're looking at a 20+ fold difference there, they're not really comparable events. Again, that means I understand limiting CDNs in this cases, not that I support it, as it leads to issues exactly like this one...

As far as the new policy being nonsense, I agree completely. Isn't the point of a web site to share the content with others? Simply uploading something and then other people viewing it is a violation of that new policy. It also wouldn't allow any sort of group of people to use the server, as they'd be sharing it amongst themselves, it can't be used for any sort of open source project, it can't be used for any sort of file sharing, it can't be used for any sort of forum, blog that takes comments (the bandwidth used by their posts/comments was re-issued to them/shared with them), etc. I'm having trouble thinking of what the server COULD be used for under those terms... At least the terms are to a point though where any reasonable person should know enough to stay away...

Is it true for CDN like cachefly, where you have many clients using servers for storing their content, so you get probably pretty random peaks or just in general ?
I have a sort of social network site and whilst somehow regular traffic i have is 20-70mbits i observed at some random times it can go up to like 600-700 mbits for a short period of time eg. when someone shares something on facebook and people like it.
Although you can see the pattern in the traffic (low at night, high afternoon), peaks happen. That's why i was concerned about it. That policy wouldn't make me host the site there, as i wouldn't feel safe. As it is purely user generated content i have no idea what traffic i can expect at any time.
Also my site is highly optimised, even with thousands of people online, cpu rarely hits >0.1 load and the io usage is low as well, as the data is mostly served from ram.

Is it true for CDN like cachefly, where you have many clients using servers for storing their content, so you get probably pretty random peaks or just in general ?
I have a sort of social network site and whilst somehow regular traffic i have is 20-70mbits i observed at some random times it can go up to like 600-700 mbits for a short period of time eg. when someone shares something on facebook and people like it.
Although you can see the pattern in the traffic (low at night, high afternoon), peaks happen. That's why i was concerned about it. That policy wouldn't make me host the site there, as i wouldn't feel safe. As it is purely user generated content i have no idea what traffic i can expect at any time.
Also my site is highly optimised, even with thousands of people online, cpu rarely hits >0.1 load and the io usage is low as well, as the data is mostly served from ram.

yes, even with many users, you can easily get one client who ends up pushing multiple Gbit/sec out of nowhere, and the more clients you have the more likely that is to happen. Those CDNs are made to handle those spikes and loads with geographic distribution, etc., that is their business, but a 100+TB host simply isn't.

This thread is going totally off topic now. Redstation is a good company but whoever came up with that 150tb idea should be fired.

Even 30-50TB on a dedicated 1GE port would be highly competitive so why the need to come up with these crazy numbers which only serve to generate negative PR??

Their 150TB bandwidth offers are bogus. They limited the speed to my servers to I am not sure what, but surely is unacceptable rate, I am getting download speeds of less than 1kb/s.

When contacted support they responded with this:

Your servers connection speeds have all been limited due to contravention of our Terms and Conditions of usage.

Content delivery systems are not permitted on our network so your connections have been limited to prevent effective provision of that type of bandwidth usage.

You will need to discuss this with our management team who will be available on Monday at the latest.

Until you have been able to discuss this and come to a resolution your servers will remain limited.


1. I am not running any type of CDN service, I am serving large downloads, how else would you use 150TB of bandwidth?
2. Even if I am running a CDN service, which I am not, the rep here states that it is permitted per this post:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=7469163&postcount=25

For them to even know/assume that you are using it for CDN purposes were done in an unlawful manor. This is in violation of Data Protection and the Computer Misuse Act. They can legally suspend your account, ask you what you were doing, then inform you an investigation will take place. I would advise you to seek legal council - most solicitors will give you at least 30 minutes for free. I can assure you, this has happened to many consumers, but suffice to say, most are too naive to realise that UK law revolving around Internet and Technology focuses heavily on consumer protection. Although I have won a court case similar to this in the past, please take this as an opinion and consult with a legal council. It can't hurt.

I think we've all explained to them what a CDN is, if they still can't get it I would look for a new host and encourage people to stay away from hosts that do not understand hosting technologies.

The Customer undertakes throughout the term not to share, resell, loan or loan to assign the bandwidth in any way without the explicit written consent of Redstation Limited.

Does this mean that file/p2p hosting services is not allowed at redstation?

what if you have an art site like deviant art and someone submits an image? is that a violation of your AUP/TOS????