Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 345678916 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 453
  1. #126
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,535
    Quote Originally Posted by nibb
    To inogenius that said "That's all that I can say regarding that issue per advice from our legal team"

    I can reply this. Those who fear nothing dont hide anything. The people that say this know they did wrong, this is why they prefer to say "no comment". Im sorry Terry but you obviously work for crooks, which have shutdown SimpleCDN because they lied about their 100TB offerings. If this is not the case I expect the legal team to post a reply to all the customers of SimpleCDN, 100TB customers and to the community of WHT and the Internet in general. Why? Because if you are selling on the Internet and advertising here on WHT you are also responsible to give an answer when things go bad, not just when you want to sell something.

    If im being to hard with my words I apologize myself but I do feel something was done wrong here and allot of damage was caused to another company that depends on your services.
    My reply was to the Akamai reference only.
    Last edited by IGobyTerry; 12-12-2010 at 06:29 PM.
      0 Not allowed!

  2. #127
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by WireNine View Post
    Surprised to not see the 2nd side of the story from UK2 Group employee or owner Ditlev?
    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 Not allowed!

  3. #128
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by daroz View Post
    (Emphasis added)

    I don't get the argument that SL hasn't allowed CDN for years... I saw the one post that seemed to be recent (declined the order for 32 servers), but that may be within the timeline of this issue.

    That said, nowhere on the SL site, in the ToS or AUP, does it prohibit CDNs. It does, however make some generally agreeable prohibitions (nothing illegal, spammy, or fishing, and IRC limitations), but nothing close to the definition of CDN. Interesting quote from the top of the AUP tho:


    and a bit later on under "Server Content":


    Another interesting question.... How are they defining a CDN? Sure, the Akami, or Level3, definitions are easy... but what about a large website that runs it's own internal CDN to spread content around among multiple servers/DCs (perhaps even multiple hosting providers)?

    From 100TB's (new?) ToS:


    Such a blanket statement w/o a discrete definition is a slippery slope indeed.
    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 Not allowed!

  4. #129
    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 Not allowed!

  5. #130
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Isle of Man
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleCDNUpdates View Post
    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?
    It's all conspiracies with no evidence.
      0 Not allowed!

  6. #131
    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 Not allowed!

  7. #132
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by daroz View Post
    That said, nowhere on the SL site, in the ToS or AUP, does it prohibit CDNs.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by daroz View Post
    How are they defining a CDN?
    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 Not allowed!

  8. #133
    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 CDN
      0 Not allowed!

  9. #134
    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 Not allowed!

  10. #135
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    195
    As from what I know, we are expect a statement from HSI soon..
      0 Not allowed!

  11. #136
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Isle of Man
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by citricsquid View Post
    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:
    That's where I find it interesting. Like I said before... bandwidth is bandwidth... whether a streamer or a CDN is using it. If you're paying full buck for a server with ~3TB Bandwidth at SoftLayer - I don't think they will care about it, actually.
      0 Not allowed!

  12. #137
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by JSCL View Post
    It's all conspiracies with no evidence.
    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 Not allowed!

  13. #138
    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 Not allowed!

  14. #139
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by LM-AndrewS View Post
    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..
    Then........why do they sell 1Gbps ports?

    Now they are just making up rules as they go. "Since you have 1Gbps, you need to be using a steady amount of Mbps so we have no surprises. "

    If they don't want surprises on their network, why not just do 10Mbps ports? Geez...
    Last edited by DMEHosting; 12-12-2010 at 07:00 PM.
    www.opticip.com - Optic IP LLC
      0 Not allowed!

  15. #140
    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 Not allowed!

  16. #141
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by LM-AndrewS View Post
    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..
    Anytime a server is "used", it would cause traffic to increase. They are selling servers with gigabit ports. You are allowed to use the full gigabit port. They know how many servers they have sold - what is there to prepare for?
      0 Not allowed!

  17. #142
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleCDNUpdates View Post
    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?
    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 Not allowed!

  18. #143
    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 Not allowed!

  19. #144
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by LM-AndrewS View Post
    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..
    What about a church? They only stream on Sunday morning. Is this a CDN then?

    Is it possible for a magical "CDN" server to push more than a gigabit on a gigabit port? I didn't think so. So they can prepare for what, at most a gigabit on each gigabit port?
      0 Not allowed!

  20. #145
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    972
    Quote Originally Posted by daroz View Post
    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....
    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 Not allowed!

  21. #146
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by citricsquid View Post
    is it not possible that Softlayer prohibit the UK2 servers with 100TB bandwidth from being used for CDN as part of the agreement?
    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 Not allowed!

  22. #147
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Posts
    4,980
    Quote Originally Posted by DMEHosting View Post
    I think Jasonward assessment is probably pretty accurate. They were probably taking in consideration your entire line of servers not just individual servers. They grouped all 100+ servers you had and found out they could save a nice sum if they got rid of you.

    Really feel for this tragedy your company has to endure. Something this selfish and this kind of baith-n-switch will affect the families/employees who depend on SimpleCDN salaries.
    Quote Originally Posted by SimpleCDNUpdates View Post
    Jason I agree with you, but think of it this way... 100TB has thousands of servers with SoftLayer, and you know that many of them are hitting close to the 100TB mark. That means already they were pushing 100+ Gbps out of SoftLayer (probably much more), so it is not like SimpleCDN came along and did anything differently than their other customers.

    Keep this in mind...

    http://www.softlayer.com/network/network-overview/

    SoftLayer claims they have 2,000 Gbps of connectivity. 2,000! 31Gbps would barely make a dent, especially spread over Seattle, Dallas and WDC.

    So is SoftLayer/TP just a bunch of BS? If they have the network they advertise, then how big of an issue could this be?
    Quote Originally Posted by citricsquid View Post
    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.
    well, i think dreamhost has a legitimate reason for not allowing filesharing sites as they are very prone to dmca complaints and they didn't want to deal with it in the first place.
      0 Not allowed!

  23. #148
    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 Not allowed!

  24. #149
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,331
    Quote Originally Posted by JSCL View Post
    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.
    because Softlayer themselves don't include 100TB per box so it is obvious.
      0 Not allowed!

  25. #150
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by citricsquid View Post
    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?
    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 Not allowed!

Page 6 of 19 FirstFirst ... 345678916 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. HostGator.com Down? [Threads merged]
    By Tinkleondabeach in forum Providers and Network Outages and Updates
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 05-13-2009, 05:47 PM
  2. Have any ideas? [Threads Merged]
    By rwc-toys in forum Web Design and Content
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-28-2005, 06:42 AM
  3. Level3 down {Threads Merged}
    By JodoHost in forum Providers and Network Outages and Updates
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-19-2004, 04:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •