Servitro. com is a fraudulent hosting provider.

WiFi

@barbaros said: At least bother checking their website first

No, that's great, but I actually wanted to hear it directly from them. Still, you're absolutely awesome!

Obelous

@barbaros said:

@WiFi said:
Hi @Servitro

BTW, what's your position on DMCA complaints?

5. Copyright complaints (DMCA)

We respond to notices of claimed copyright infringement under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 512). Send notices to [email protected] with the information required by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3). We may remove or disable access to the material and forward the notice to the customer, who may send a counter-notice. In appropriate circumstances we terminate the Accounts of repeat infringers.

At least bother checking their website first

To be fair, their terms seem to be whatever they feel like that day, not what is actually written.

CoolGeek

Yeah, this just seems like such a pointless hill to die on for Servitro. What point is trying to be proven here? Why not give him the reduced bandwidth with a reprimand? It just seems extra punishment for a rule that the OP should have just magically known. It assumes the worst of the customer while simultaneously thinking that he should just know "do not test the speed limitations".

hyperblast

@Mumbly said:
There's a saying: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes"

On that note, OP, welcome to the forum, and congratulations on your first post. I hope you didn't join just to tell us that. Or did you?

there's some truth to your point, but the new user also gave the provider, servitro, a good reality check.

LEBUserJoe

@Obelous said:

@barbaros said:

@WiFi said:
Hi @Servitro

BTW, what's your position on DMCA complaints?

5. Copyright complaints (DMCA)

We respond to notices of claimed copyright infringement under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 512). Send notices to [email protected] with the information required by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3). We may remove or disable access to the material and forward the notice to the customer, who may send a counter-notice. In appropriate circumstances we terminate the Accounts of repeat infringers.

At least bother checking their website first

To be fair, their terms seem to be whatever they feel like that day, not what is actually written.

Think more sadness is it was already completed at that point, port already limited for the entire month's what's there concern he can't bother other people yet suspended.

Stupid host, AI backed logic (Servito FYI AI always agrees with you.)

Void

[@Servitro said]
The offer you quoted says the traffic is "subject to our fair use policy".

Is this policy defined somewhere?
Unless it specifically says x amount of data cannot be transferred in y amount of time, customer simply used what they paid for.

it had pushed 1,136 GB (not 1.136 GB): about 1,040 GB outgoing and 96 GB incoming.

If you advertise 1TB traffic and 625Kbps after, it’s up to you to ensure the traffic is throttled after the quota. You can’t use vague terms like fair use policy and expect customers to keep track of it and suspend once crossed.

neurostuff

@Mumbly said:
There's a saying: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes"

On that note, OP, welcome to the forum, and congratulations on your first post. I hope you didn't join just to tell us that. Or did you?

I registered specifically to speak out about this outrageous situation. I've actually been reading this forum for a long time and have purchased VPS services from three different hosting providers, none of which have ever caused me problems like this.

LEBUserJoe

@Servitro said:
To be clear, we are not keeping the VPS from the customer for the rest of the year. The traffic allowance resets on 11 December. From then on we're happy to unsuspend the VPS, and the customer can keep using it for the rest of the paid year under the same fair use terms as everyone else. What we won't do is refund a plan whose full month of resources was used up on purpose within hours.

stupid fucking logic, why not unsuspend now? its 625kbps ffs whats the issue? whats this logic are you literally retarded

Obelous

@LEBUserJoe said:

@Servitro said:
To be clear, we are not keeping the VPS from the customer for the rest of the year. The traffic allowance resets on 11 December. From then on we're happy to unsuspend the VPS, and the customer can keep using it for the rest of the paid year under the same fair use terms as everyone else. What we won't do is refund a plan whose full month of resources was used up on purpose within hours.

stupid fucking logic, why not unsuspend now? its 625kbps ffs whats the issue? whats this logic are you literally retarded

OP might max out the node's shared port with 625kbps!!!