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.
Comments
The invoice was automatically created by mistake, as stated it was deleted after 5 minutes of me receiving the notif
Maybe get a warrant from police 😂
The system was still in testing and hade a 500tb bandwidth limit set (super high and not reachable by clients normally) that's why it made the invoice for him
They both sound fishy to me. First, I don't understand how people still believe in unlimited marketing gimmicks like this in 2024. Unlimited disk space, RAM, bandwidth... This is totally nonsense.
The issue started with over-bandwidth usage, as I understood it. Can't the provider check where the bandwidth was used? Is it the OP's fault, or maybe a result of a DDos or XYZ? That would make it clear whether the OP misused the fair usage policy or not.
Now, deleting the server without any prior notice seems very unprofessional to me, as it can cause various problems for the user. Also, sending an overage bill of $550 by mistake and then deleting it is also very childish. They could have canceled it instead of deleting the whole entry.
If the OP's card has been charged, can't he just open a dispute with the bank/PayPal? (If he's telling the truth)
I'm not sure how creating a 100-page thread helps the OP get his money back.
Because what he has been hosting is very much noone's business anyways as long as it's legal and simply using a ton of bandwidth doesn't necessarily imply otherwise.
Sent twice by mistake
You likely don't have to. Simply looking at a dump of outgoing packets likely would have given a lot of clues already.
I get that. Your unlimited limited by AUP construct very much lays the groundwork for such a practice though.
It was canceled not deleted
nbgames doesn't want to listen, he wants to keep his shit as confusing as possible.
It's abuse he's claiming it's not that's what the whole thread is
I'm changing it later today as stated before but it's pretty straightforward
No it isn't, you don't have unlimited traffic, you have a 1Gbps Fair-use port. There is nothing unlimited about that.
Lol, no. You should really quit making yourself look like a fool.
What kind of abuse? He might have been just torrenting a ton of Linux ISOs afterall. Obviously claiming 600TB to be fair use is stretching it a little but beyond that i don't see what you could be referring to (what those 600TB were used for doesn't matter at all beyond legality) and that's pretty much the kind of the fun that comes with using rubber band terms in combination with fine print trying to twist the meaning.
They don't type it and print it on sight? Wouldn't be able to print it and type up the report they just jot it down on a notepad at most
You don't always need to "request" the statement, it can be provided on the spot at the police station if a statement is made there too. I've been given a copy of statements I've made on the spot instead of having to request it. You shouldn't assume all police departments are the same around the world.
I'm not picking sides here, but I have to ask just out of curiosity. Are people really not reading AUP's etc before they click 'agree' and then come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP that they actually agreed upon?
I admit that I do not always read the fineprint, but if I agree on it I have to deal with the possible consequences of not reading it. That's on me and a risk I take when not reading it. Blaming someone else for what is in a contract that I have agreed upon seems extremely entitled and borderline stupid to me.
Just to clarify, I totally agree that the terms could have been made more clear and visible. And also, confusing tb with TB actually makes a hell of a difference, especially in a legal document.
But anyway, op did agree to the terms, if he read them or not is actually on him.
No one reads the AUP or a TOS, everyone clicks on yes yes yes yes. It is not only in this industry, its everywhere.
Not really true, if you have a good lawyer
Well, i do and i think everyone should but i still don't see having wording in there that basically negates the conditions of the original offer as a good business practice.
Agreed. To be honest i'm not entirely sure what OP and the host are fighting about exactly anyways.
I may have missed some comments, but be advised there are printers in some law enforcement vehicles (in the United States), and they do provide case numbers and other info on site while they work with dispatch.
That's not what I asked. I asked if they come bitching when they are in violation of the AUP or TOS that they did not read.
As I said, I do not always read the AUP or TOS, but then again, I do not bitch and cry if I get shut down for being in violation of the AUP or TOS that I did not read.
I just cant get my head around the fact that people are so entitled that they agree to a contract and then complain when they have to follow what's in the contract. It just baffles me, I can not for the life of me understand how they think the world works.
Yeah, people tend to forget how much stuff simply passes by never being actively challenged. Not that long ago it wasn't even 100% certain around here if clicking some "I agree" button would have any legally binding effect at all, let alone some murky fineprint.
I made it more clear, any other changes recommended?
That I totally agree on. Marketing something as "Unlimited" and then asking people to "you have to let us know if you intend to use more than *" might with a bit of a stretch qualify as unlimited, but it's not a nice way of doing it.
Agree, it's kind of hard to figure out what is true and what's not.
Exactly. Besides i very much call bullshit on the noble cause waiving. Outside a very tiny window of usages (where supporting a project could be turned into an advertising opportunity for example) the consumed resources are either economically viable for the host or they aren't and asking nicely isn't going to change that. In the general case the limit won't be waived and an upgrade to a more expensive plan will be mandated to keep the service.
The invoice was generated by mistake by a system in beta that had a crazy high unreachable bandwidth limit hence why i deleted it after 5 minutes
Huh? I'm not sure where you see the connection here unless you want to imply that you'd keep clients using 600TB/m on their $25(?) plan as long as they'd ask in advance?
Why aren't we asking how Nathan failed to monitor a server using 10gbps 24/7 for a week?
Admit you/your automatic abuse system fucked up, issues do happen from time to time. You've learnt your mistake, and I hope you wont go further with this.
Ideally instead of suspension, Providers limit port speeds to 100Mbps, so that client's service doesn't go down.
You could have stated, "150TB soft cap, ticket in to raise" with Unmetered line on the pricing page to avoid confusion.
I'm no one to judge, but doing ^ would save you from another Drama.
GLWS.