New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
extravm suspended all my vps without notice, what can I do ?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
+1 for extraVM
hell of a website that produces 20TB traffic on a 1GB vps with probably very little disk as well...
@MikeA glad to see you kick abusers and entitled f*cks off your network to keep the infra and neighbourhood healthy. stay strong and have him move. I like how the accused admits to running a nginx proxy ;-)
people jumping ship because of that are probably some you wouldn't want as clients anyway...
All else aside, “I’m just using Nginx” is a great defense, considering how many use cases Nginx could have. Up to and including a proxy for streaming…
This is completely unprofessional.
You should have given a week notice and then bring in the Ban Hammer.
Truth is you can never be 100% certain of what the customer did.
Of course they might have broke T.O.S. and you have right to refuse the service and refund the amount.
As a provider if you don't give a week notice, I don't think anyone serious should touch the hosting with anything remotely production usage.
Remember breaking the T.O.S. is not same as breaking the law, common courtesy has to be born by provider (any service provider)
So basically you made it up when you described the content of this mail?
At some point you should ask yourself why you're doing this.
Where did I make content up?
Edit: I'm happy to change my interpretation if further information has been presented but I don't believe I've made any part of this information up. They've stated they communicated with their affected clients in an email sent earlier. They stated they talked about the reduction in bandwidth commitment in the email. They've also referred the client to review the email sent to their inbox or a copy available on their clients portal. From context, we see that everyone was reduced to 1TB unless they gave further information and they were willing to give more bandwidth to those who requested it. From this entire thread we know the client didn't reach out during this period. This is why this thread exists.
What else have I been missing?
Your back-handedness isn't helpful but I am trying to see it from both sides here.
^^
This is actually what I wanted to say. Both can work on it.
But I don't understand this trends of LET providers (ie. being rude to customers), they completely fails to understand customer point of view, do you know, instead of being harsh or rude, simple words like "I understand but we have situation here, can we work on middle ground" may actually solve this internally, but I see as soon as owner of that company jumps in, they pretend that now only this customer alone is going to eat all their time and will affect their productivity, instead of finding an acceptable solution, lets throw him out.
Then after this, if customer complaints in open, there is blind support for provider, may be because most of the active members are "Providers" and are just defending other even if its not right. And they defend fiercely.
I don't know if OP @jinwyp is seeing this anymore but both should work and find some middle ground, this is also because @MikeA can't actually provide refund to him.
Exactly how I see it as well. Shit sucks for both. But they can work together to get to a middle ground.
Teaching a vps service provider what nginx is? That's interesting!
I am asking you if they really said something like that or you just made it up.
I am interested about facts not made up arguments to make client look bad and unreasonable.
Because they surely didn't show that when client politely approached them (initial ticket comment).
.
.
This is how I interpret this:
There were customers who reached out to ExtraVM support asking for more bandwidth and talked about their use case. ExtraVM worked with them to give more bandwidth. He also states that he gave them time (2-3 weeks) to contact them or find an alternative. It seems other clients have already taken up on this offer and have enough bandwidth to satisfy their requirements.
None of this is made up. It's present within the context of what's being discussed.
Relax there chief. I didn't say anything that makes either or look bad than they already are. I'm simply placing the situation as I understand it out there and offering commentary and suggestions as to how to avoid it in the future. This is a failure on both parts and it sucks but it is what it is. I don't think I've painted either sides worse than the other. My intended goal is to make sure everyone's settled. Ideally, better for both parties.
So as I thought you made it up and this what you posted in your argument isn't actual content of the mail. Ah, well...
Oh, and on the top of that this guy actually reached support.
Sounds good chief. Have a wonderful day.
People are welcome to their own interpretations different to mine as well. You're not going to be always right 100% of the time. But you enjoy yourself there.
In the end, my reputation wouldn't be affected by a thread like this, if it wasn't I probably wouldn't bother replying. When I notified customers about bandwidth changes a while ago I assumed someone would post since many users of the Tokyo location find servers from LET for that region. Everyone knows LET likes drama and it gets clicks, that's it. Many people use my service and have for many many years because they know the quality of it is good and it has something they need. A thread about bandwidth in Tokyo will not negatively affect my company in the end. I'll just continue to run ExtraVM and have customers who respect terms and use the service, and continue improving the quality of my service and expanding.
He is not banned, he has access to his account and can reply to me any time with one of the options mentioned. I have many people, and small businesses who use my service for production and have for nearly a decade now. One customer doing this and this situation is clearly not comparative to all others.
Are you asking about the original notice email? If so here:
https://i.gyazo.com/9199d9e619406b986aa0e41edbdacca5.png
I am wondering what you will say now when @MikeA posted actual mail which say just that client have option to pay again for what he paid already.
So much about your false interpretation...
As a VPS user, I can tell you outright that that is BS. The only reason I signed up for Inception was because of the crazy bandwidth on offer. In fact, I probably use closer to 150MB per month instead of my 15TB allowance on that VPS, but that's only because I'm behind schedule on my app development.
And if users don't consider the bandwidth, why do you advertise it at all? It's because you know that high numbers translate to more sales.
And also, which is it? Unlimited or 20TB/m? Because you say both in the same sentence, but the OP clearly thinks it was 20TB, 10TB and 5TB. If he was sticking to the limit he'd purchased, it's not abuse. You shouldn't have offered it if you couldn't deliver it.
I know that's not what this thread is about, but ExtraVM and MikeA are great. If abusers get terminated, that's just fine. I know that I am in good hands there.
I guess people are failing to realize @mikea's provider changed their terms, so they had to change his policy to adapt. Really, it sucks, but why would someone eat a lot of costs on a 3.84-a-month VPS that costs you double in return. Sorry I hope they can resolve the issue.
Yup just read that.
He said in the email that you can reach out if you need more bandwidth. Granted it'll cost you. But at the same time you're at a decision point as the client. You can choose who you do business with and if this doesn't work for you as the client well... then you have the option to move out. We do have insight now as to what changed (upstream vendor changed their terms which caused an impact that ExtraVM has to pass downstream to the clients... which freaking sucks). But also from context, it definitely seems this user is an "extreme case" of bandwidth consumption or demand. Now I don't know if this is within expected capacity or not but I take it as less than 20TB. Now the question comes is this a violation of ToS which... ExtraVM said it was.
Problem is though that the client paid annual and the vendor can't refund via AliPay. This is something that imho should be handled at the payment processor level or an alternative should be given (which has from the vendor, granted the client might not be too happy with these options).
I don't think anyone said the client shouldn't be mad for the change in bandwidth commitment. ExtraVM said the client's valid in being upset. I never said the client was unjustified in being upset (and my point was that this is part of the risk that occurs with such deals... but please quote me if I said that the client is unjustified in decreased bandwidth). But it was how the communication went through that caused friction.
Again, simmer down there champ.
I mean, realistically @MikeA should have added to the email offering pro-rata refunds to users that do not want to continue the service due to the bandwidth alteration mid-term. If it really did only effect ~5% of users, it wouldn't have been a big deal to do that.
If people sign up to a yearly VPS with xTB of bandwidth, you'd expect that for the term you have agreed to at least.
Yeah I think that would have been good. But also it seems ExtraVM is limited by the payment vendor used. Honestly I'd probably work with the payment vendor to try and get this resolved even if it's a one-off "refund plz". Because for many the "payment vendor isn't willing to refund you" isn't an "acceptable answer" and still makes you look bad. So finding an alternative solution where the client can be made whole would be beneficial in resolving this.
This is exactly the point where I don't agree with you. You said regarding the mail they sent:
Well, thing is, they didn't. You made it up. They just introduced the cold facts: if you want bandwidth you paid for it already, pay it again.
But on the other hand it was the client (just look at his initial ticket) who relatively politely expressed some understanding and tryed to work with them.
So what I am saying is that while you try to make impression like you understand both sides and so on, and so on... you actually don't mind to twist the facts in order to defend host even if this make client look like unreasonable or non-cooperative and that's not okay.
It's not the first time you did that.
..and regarding your attempt to patronize me, Fran is the only one who can use word "champ" here and don't look ridiculous
If I'm under stress, I find it easier to look at @jar dd's!
In which country is such a clause legal?
k champ
ExtraVM LLC is a Delaware corporation that follows American law.
They can pay debts in cash, mailed to the client's billing address.
Once the client signs for the package, the debt is settled.
Bonus if the refund is in pennies.
If client is using fake address, too bad for the client.
It's not professional to change the specifications (bandwidth in this case) since you paid in advance for 1 year. I think that if they let you make a backup and then refunded you was the best decision the could've do
In addition, I do not like the behavior of canceling the service with 24 hours notice... Are there no consumer protection laws in the US?
Giving refund in pennies is an asshole move. But yes definitely possible. I wonder what the cost of shipping all those pennies will be though.
Too many posts to read, but if guy is pushing so much traffic he needs more than 24 hours to backup it all, give him a week! (-:
TL;DR: It's all @VirMach fault and @jinwyp likes to spread FUD that VirMach is not allowed to post on LET (-:
On serious note - this was kinda very dick move by @MikeA - work with that guy on refund/solution if you changed the terms. I am glad that you send emails 3 weeks ago, but seems like this user missed it.