Results 126 to 150 of 453
-
12-12-2010, 06:24 PM #126Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- Location
- Ohio
- Posts
- 8,535
Originally Posted by nibbLast edited by IGobyTerry; 12-12-2010 at 06:29 PM.
0
-
12-12-2010, 06:26 PM #127Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 33
As I believe SimpleCDN has made public the intent to file a legal action here (link to post), I highly doubt we'll hear much from SL/UK2.
0
-
12-12-2010, 06:28 PM #128Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 32
Now you see our position on this, and why SL / UK2 can't think of anything to say.
Obviously having a 3 or 5 year contract with UK2 wouldn't have done us any good, as their position is they can change their ToS and kick you off at anytime. Even a one-day contract they wouldn't honor.
So since SL doesn't restrict "CDN" in their MSA, now we have to assume that they just told UK2 to "find the largest customer and kick them off", right?0
-
12-12-2010, 06:35 PM #129Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 32
As a reminder - UK2 demanded shutdown of servers *BEFORE* their ToS was updated to include language about "CDNs".
So they said "Get Lost", and then they said oops, let us update our ToS first - okay now "Get Lost".0
-
12-12-2010, 06:36 PM #130Marketing Maestro
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Isle of Man
- Posts
- 3,068
0
-
12-12-2010, 06:36 PM #131Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- United States
- Posts
- 1,182
I'm sure that SL/UK2 may not say anything do the extreme sensitivity of the issue. Softlayer/TP may be wanting to stop their 100TB offerings do to the extreme loads it is putting on their network. UK2 may have more than just SimpleCDN to lose, they could lose thousands of clients if this isn't played out extremely carefully. Either way, this makes Softlayer and UK2 look bad since none of us knows what is going on.
www.opticip.com - Optic IP LLC
0
-
12-12-2010, 06:37 PM #132Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- The Netherlands
- Posts
- 277
I suppose that if you pay $100 for 1 TB, the story is going to be different than if you pay $100 for 50 TB.
That's a very valid question that warrants further clarification. We have a similar situation (but on a much smaller scale) that could easily fall under the same definition.There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.0
-
12-12-2010, 06:40 PM #133Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Posts
- 972
My internet cut out before I had a chance to ask if it was okay to post this here, hopefully they're okay with it:
Thank you for choosing SoftLayer. A representative will be with you shortly.
You are now chatting with 'Douglas J'
you: Hi
Douglas J: Hi
you: are there any restrictions on how Softlayer bandwidth can be used, could I rent multiple servers and operate my own CDN? I don't see any info in the AUP/TOS.
Douglas J: Hi
Douglas J: yes you can use servers to run your own CDN
Douglas J: the only restrictions you will have are really in the TOS, AUP, and of course physical constraints of the uplink port speeds and servers you choose
Douglas J: but in a very straight forward answer to you; No, we will not restrict how you would use the servers.
Douglas J: Many customers have ordered many servers with us in multiple DCs to use as their own CDN0
-
12-12-2010, 06:41 PM #134Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- United States
- Posts
- 1,182
SimpleCDNUpdates is right about what their definition of CDN is now.
Banning "CDN" is pretty broad since anything can fall under that category if they are going to use it so loosely. Couple of guys running a online radio station can be considered as CDN. I mean geez, I think anything can be considered CDN.www.opticip.com - Optic IP LLC
0
-
12-12-2010, 06:41 PM #135Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 195
As from what I know, we are expect a statement from HSI soon..
0
-
12-12-2010, 06:42 PM #136Marketing Maestro
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Isle of Man
- Posts
- 3,068
0
-
12-12-2010, 06:42 PM #137Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 32
To be fair, "the proof is in the pudding". Either UK2 acted alone, or SL forced them - or they did this together.
UK2 first pointed to their "new" ToS, but then later pointed to SL and their AUP, which we all know contains ZERO language about "CDNs".
The evidence is the forced shutdown of SimpleCDN - the reason behind the forced shutdown is the conspiracy.0
-
12-12-2010, 06:45 PM #138Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 195
Softlayer did this due to many CDN server usually unused for days, then one special day it pull full gigabit port which cause traffic spikes..
If you using their server 24/7/365 then they will able to prepare their network to expands..0
-
12-12-2010, 06:51 PM #139Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- United States
- Posts
- 1,182
0
-
12-12-2010, 06:54 PM #140Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 32
Frank Wilson has posted new details on our Admin Site.
A new section, "First Bogus Termination Reason - Updated ToS" explains more about how UK2 presented their case for termination.
http://admin.simplecdn.com/Last edited by SimpleCDNUpdates; 12-12-2010 at 06:55 PM. Reason: Add address to site.
0
-
12-12-2010, 06:59 PM #141Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 32
0
-
12-12-2010, 07:01 PM #142Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 33
Just to be clear - I'm not taking sides, just trying to get a handle on the whole situation. I have no reason to doubt your statements, but haven't heard anything from UK2/SL on the issue either.
But to your point, yes I see your position, and at face value I believe it to be, at a minimum, reasonable. Alas, there are two (or in this case, three) sides to every story.
The most interesting piece of conflicting information right now is if SL is/was prohibiting CDNs. One poster says he was denied 32 servers from SL for a CDN, another recently posted a chat log w/ SL Sales saying they are permitted. I also know of a company who until recently had 50+ servers and operated a CDN. (Their reasons for leaving were merger-related, not CDN-related).
And finally, the most interesting piece of confirmed information is the change in ToS w/ UK2 to prohibit CDNs. What we don't know is why....0
-
12-12-2010, 07:04 PM #143Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Posts
- 4,980
the last *facts* posted in the short update @ simplecdn seems like SL was the deciding factor in pulling the plug OR was it just uk2 trying to shift the blame to SL?
any explanation from the other side would be great.0
-
12-12-2010, 07:04 PM #144Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 32
0
-
12-12-2010, 07:05 PM #145Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Posts
- 972
What seems likely to me is that the contract between UK2 and Softlayer for the 100TB service is not the same as the one used by direct customers. We haven't seen that contract (and will never get to) but is it not possible that Softlayer prohibit the UK2 servers with 100TB bandwidth from being used for CDN as part of the agreement?
If I went to Softlayer for 100TB bandwidth I would not be able to get it for $150/m like I can with UK2, so there is definitely room for a different TOS/AUP set there.
Surely that's how they maintain the profitably required? Much like how Dreamhost etc don't allow you to run filesharing sites.0
-
12-12-2010, 07:08 PM #146Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Posts
- 398
Of course, but if that were the case up-front, I certainly would have hoped that 100TB would have been smart enough to not miss that point and have put it in their own TOS. Which suggests either they neglected to put it in their TOS initially, or this is a new requirement placed on them by Softlayer.
0
-
12-12-2010, 07:08 PM #147Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Location
- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Posts
- 4,980
0
-
12-12-2010, 07:11 PM #148Marketing Maestro
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Isle of Man
- Posts
- 3,068
A SoftLayer rep just told me no problems with having a CDN (I mentioned 30 servers in each location) and there's no mention of it in http://www.softlayer.com/legal/terms-of-service/ either.
Very strange.0
-
12-12-2010, 07:13 PM #149VPS Like a Boss!
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Location
- New Zealand
- Posts
- 2,331
0
-
12-12-2010, 07:13 PM #150Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 33
That's certainly plausible, however, if we make that assumption, either UK2 has failed to update their ToS to reflect the reality of their agreement, or it was recently changed.
Continuing w/ speculation here....
According to this SL press release 100tb.com was launched in March. I would expect as a regular course their agreements to be in multiples of 1 year, and most likely the agreement would have been concluded rather close to the launch date. Most likely late Jan / Early Feb, perhaps even right up to launch, if UK2 were ready to go.
That begs an interesting question - it may be near enough the expiration / renewal of the contract that some changes were made.... Or maybe not.
Either way, I agree - I highly doubt we'll see any SL-UK2 contract details.0
Similar Threads
-
HostGator.com Down? [Threads merged]
By Tinkleondabeach in forum Providers and Network Outages and UpdatesReplies: 51Last Post: 05-13-2009, 05:47 PM -
Have any ideas? [Threads Merged]
By rwc-toys in forum Web Design and ContentReplies: 11Last Post: 06-28-2005, 06:42 AM -
Level3 down {Threads Merged}
By JodoHost in forum Providers and Network Outages and UpdatesReplies: 20Last Post: 10-19-2004, 04:31 AM