Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links


Shells Virtual Desktop
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Server.net
CPLicense.net
VPS Server
Buy VPN
Vultr
VMs for AI
HostDare
HostDare
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
InterServer VPS
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Best VPN
High-Performance Bare Metal Server Solutions
Karvl.com
Server Mania Cloud Hosting
DataWagon Hosting
AlphaVPS Hosting
Evoxt.com
Clouvider
VPS Hosting with NVMe
Residential IPs in the US & 4G Mobile Proxies in EU & US with Unlimited Bandwidth
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
Rabisu - Hosting Solutions
Shells Virtual Desktop

Categories

In this Discussion

Home › Providers
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.

Billing experience with Clouvider at beginning of 2022

13

Comments

  • ralfralf Member

    @darkimmortal said:

    @ralf said:

    @darkimmortal said:

    @nik said:
    Honestly the facts seem to be clear:

    You didn't cancel your contract. Clouvider charged you for it. Simple as that.

    They can't rent out to other customers, since there is still a contract with you. So they are losing money. A contract is not automatically ending only because you don't pay.

    The constructive dismissal behaviour from Clouvider makes it less clear cut than that. It would make an interesting lawsuit and I’m kind of surprised it didn’t become one

    What are you on about?

    Constructive dismissal is about employment law. It has exactly zero relevance to the topic in hand.

    Even as an analogy, it's a bad one. In constructive dismissal, an employer hopes that the employee resigns (voluntarily ends the contract) so that they don't have to pay redundancy pay. The analogy doesn't even relate as neither party ended the contract, and even if either of them had there wouldn't have been a penalty payable from either side.

    The closest analogy would be booking a hotel and having a payment authorisation on your card instead of taking a deposit. When you don't show up, you get charged the first night as a cancellation fee, and it's taken from the pre-authorised transaction on your card.

    Of course it’s an analogy. It’s the same behaviour from the provider/employer side, but not the same reason for doing so. Clouvider wanted to keep milking a bad customer or have them go elsewhere without directly firing them

    Then for all the reasons I said before it's a bad analogy.

    If Clouvider didn't want them as a customer, they'd have just told them so and cancelled the contract, as per the ToS. There's literally no reason for them to want to do it the round about way that's being hypothesized.

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider
    edited January 2025

    Our summary after reviewing the OP's post.

    • The Customer is a B2B (Business-to-Business) client who entered into a contract with us in 2020.
    • Under the contract, we provided services on a quarterly recurring basis, with a 30-day notice period required for termination if the Customer chose not to renew.
    • The Customer had a history of significant abuse issues, which escalated towards the end of the relationship, including serious outbound DDoS attacks and hosting botnet controllers.
    • we went above and beyond to assist the Customer in complying with the contract and applicable laws, offering recommendations such as software to detect and mitigate outbound DDoS attacks.
    • Despite promises from the Customer, there was minimal actual effort to reduce abuse, leading to delays in us taking more severe action.
    • we implemented several measures to address the abuse, including blocking IPs, throttling servers, suspending individual servers, blocking the destination IPs, and ultimately suspending the entire account.
    • The Customer was warned multiple times that failure to control breaches would result in charges for processing abuse reports and/or termination of contract.
    • When abuse levels remained uncontrolled, we began charging the Customer for processing abuse reports to recover costs and incentivise more proactive compliance. The Customer has been informed about this beforehand on multiple occasions.
    • Despite past issues, and after the Customer was already being charged for processing the abuse reports, the Customer requested us to reinstate their account and continue providing services. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.
    • the Customer continued using our services for further 6+ months.
    • after that period, without further discussion, come invoice due date, the Customer abandoned their account without notice, failing to terminate services or engage with us. The invoice became overdue.
    • we made numerous attempts to contact the Customer and recover the payment due. When these efforts failed, we exercised our contractual right to charge the Customer’s card on file as a last resort to recover part of the outstanding debt.
    • In response, the Customer disputed the legitimacy of the contract that we have been trading with the Customer under for years, and threatened legal action, chargebacks, and negative publicity. we responded by outlining the legal basis for our actions.
    • The Customer then posted slanderous reviews on Trustpilot and Google that grossly misrepresented the facts.
    • After consulting their lawyer, the Customer reached out to offer a partial payment towards the overdue invoice.
    • As a final gesture of goodwill, we agreed to discount the overdue invoice by 50%, provided the Customer immediately returned the servers and removed the slanderous reviews. The Customer complied, and we fulfilled our part of the agreement, resolving the matter.
    • Despite this resolution, in December 2024, years later, the Customer resurfaced on LET, referring to we as “Scamvider.”
    Thanked by 10skorous ralf MichaelCee angstrom dev_vps emgh MikeA sliix cybertech gbzret4d
  • barbarosbarbaros Member
    edited January 2025

    You should've just terminated the OP at the first place but the money they pay must be so sweet that you couldn't kick them out instead you bent yourself to do best to keep him as a customer.

    If a customer with single dedicated server would do 10% of what OP has done (based on what Clouvider said above) they would be kicked out after the first major issue.

    Nice.

    Edit: Am I the only one keep typing their brand as Cloudiver?

    Thanked by 1sillycat
  • ObelousObelous Member

    @Clouvider said: such as software to detect and mitigate outbound DDoS attacks

    (off topic but what software can do this?)

    @barbaros said: If a customer with single dedicated server would do 10% of what OP has done (based on what Clouvider said above) they would be kicked out after the first major issue.

    Well yeah, easier to look the other way when you're getting paid almost £13k/quarter lol

  • sillycatsillycat Member

    @barbaros said: Am I the only one keep typing their brand as Cloudiver?

    I spell it as cloudvider. They need a namechange ASAP.

    @barbaros said: You should've just terminated the OP at the first place but the money they pay must be so sweet that you couldn't kick them out instead you bent yourself to do best to keep him as a customer.

    If a customer with single dedicated server would do 10% of what OP has done (based on what Clouvider said above) they would be kicked out after the first major issue.

    +++

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider

    @Obelous said:

    @Clouvider said: such as software to detect and mitigate outbound DDoS attacks

    (off topic but what software can do this?)

    FastNetMon can detect attacks both ways, we recommended this to the OP in the hopes that they can auto suspend services that cross triggers.

    Thanked by 7barbaros Obelous Rubben emgh ralf ScreenReader gbzret4d
  • sammsamm Member

    Everyone is so stupid, blaming poor Clouvider for everything. World is not fair. huh

    Thanked by 1ethanblake87
  • RubbenRubben Member

    @Clouvider said:

    @Obelous said:

    @Clouvider said: such as software to detect and mitigate outbound DDoS attacks

    (off topic but what software can do this?)

    FastNetMon can detect attacks both ways, we recommended this to the OP in the hopes that they can auto suspend services that cross triggers.

    I hope they weren't using CentOS 7 because the email server setup guide said it was the fastest.

    Thanked by 1sillycat
  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited January 2025

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    Thanked by 2ralf skorous
  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad

    damn

    Thanked by 3ralf Rubben dev_vps
  • RubbenRubben Member
    edited January 2025

    @emgh said:
    damn

    damn

    its interesting when we get full stories right? i like it how everyone only says the part out loud that best proves their narrative

    Thanked by 1emgh
  • ralfralf Member

    @Rubben said:

    @emgh said:
    damn

    damn

    its interesting when we get full stories right? i like it how everyone only says the part out loud that best proves their narrative

    damn

    Thanked by 1emgh
  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad

    @ralf said:

    @Rubben said:

    @emgh said:
    damn

    damn

    its interesting when we get full stories right? i like it how everyone only says the part out loud that best proves their narrative

    damn

    damn

  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad

    @Rubben said:

    @emgh said:
    damn

    damn

    its interesting when we get full stories right? i like it how everyone only says the part out loud that best proves their narrative

    damn

  • sillycatsillycat Member

    @Rubben said: its interesting when we get full stories right? i like it how everyone only says the part out loud that best proves their narrative

    Welcome to complaining, hating, arguing and debating 101.

  • DazzleDazzle Member
    edited January 2025

    nvm

    Thanked by 1dev_vps
  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad

    @Dazzle said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    What about the throttling?

    That part is what annoys the Customer. Maybe Clouvider can explain on what basis they do that?

    To make outgoing DDoS way less effective I’d bet.

    Thanked by 1ralf
  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member

    @Dazzle said:

    nvm

    :)

    Thanked by 1Dazzle
  • DazzleDazzle Member

    @emgh said:

    @Dazzle said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    What about the throttling?

    That part is what annoys the Customer. Maybe Clouvider can explain on what basis they do that?

    To make outgoing DDoS way less effective I’d bet.

    Damnit you fast my man.

    Thanked by 1emgh
  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad

    @Dazzle said:

    @emgh said:

    @Dazzle said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    What about the throttling?

    That part is what annoys the Customer. Maybe Clouvider can explain on what basis they do that?

    To make outgoing DDoS way less effective I’d bet.

    Damnit you fast my man.

    That’s word for word exactly what my last date told me before she left and blocked my socials.

    Thanked by 1Erisa
  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member

    @emgh said:

    @Dazzle said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    What about the throttling?

    That part is what annoys the Customer. Maybe Clouvider can explain on what basis they do that?

    To make outgoing DDoS way less effective I’d bet.

    Main thing is that OP agreed (in writing) with the terms that provider has right to limit (or even terminate) the services on its solo discretion.

  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @Dazzle said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    What about the throttling?

    That part is what annoys the Customer. Maybe Clouvider can explain on what basis they do that?

    To make outgoing DDoS way less effective I’d bet.

    Main thing is that OP agreed (in writing) with the terms that provider has right to limit (or even terminate) the services on its solo discretion.

    Don’t every single provider have this in their TOS?

  • DazzleDazzle Member

    @emgh said:

    @Dazzle said:

    @emgh said:

    @Dazzle said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    What about the throttling?

    That part is what annoys the Customer. Maybe Clouvider can explain on what basis they do that?

    To make outgoing DDoS way less effective I’d bet.

    Damnit you fast my man.

    That’s word for word exactly what my last date told me before she left and blocked my socials.

    Wkwkwk.. (a lol expression).

    Thanked by 2emgh dev_vps
  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member
    edited January 2025

    @emgh said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @Dazzle said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    What about the throttling?

    That part is what annoys the Customer. Maybe Clouvider can explain on what basis they do that?

    To make outgoing DDoS way less effective I’d bet.

    Main thing is that OP agreed (in writing) with the terms that provider has right to limit (or even terminate) the services on its solo discretion.

    Don’t every single provider have this in their TOS?

    Not in these exact words and only in scenario of abuse or serious wrongdoing.

    The additional terms OP agreed gave the unconditional rights to the provider. Provider does not share any reasoning or cause of action. Since OP agreed to such one-sided clause, there is likely to be a very good reason.

    Thanked by 1emgh
  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @Dazzle said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    What about the throttling?

    That part is what annoys the Customer. Maybe Clouvider can explain on what basis they do that?

    To make outgoing DDoS way less effective I’d bet.

    Main thing is that OP agreed (in writing) with the terms that provider has right to limit (or even terminate) the services on its solo discretion.

    Don’t every single provider have this in their TOS?

    Not in these exact words and only in scenario of abuse or serious wrongdoing.

    The additional terms OP agreed gave the unconditional rights to the provider. Provider does not share any reasoning or cause of action. Since OP agreed to such one-sided clause, there is likely to be a very good reason.

    I’d imagine most providers have this since they often don’t want to share the reason but I could be wrong.

    Please more bold text next time.

  • RubbenRubben Member

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @Dazzle said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    What about the throttling?

    That part is what annoys the Customer. Maybe Clouvider can explain on what basis they do that?

    To make outgoing DDoS way less effective I’d bet.

    Main thing is that OP agreed (in writing) with the terms that provider has right to limit (or even terminate) the services on its solo discretion.

    Don’t every single provider have this in their TOS?

    Not in these exact words and only in scenario of abuse or serious wrongdoing.

    The additional terms OP agreed gave the unconditional rights to the provider. Provider does not share any reasoning or cause of action. Since OP agreed to such one-sided clause, there is likely to be a very good reason.

    did he give right to his first born child too?

    Thanked by 1emgh
  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad

    @Rubben said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @Dazzle said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    What about the throttling?

    That part is what annoys the Customer. Maybe Clouvider can explain on what basis they do that?

    To make outgoing DDoS way less effective I’d bet.

    Main thing is that OP agreed (in writing) with the terms that provider has right to limit (or even terminate) the services on its solo discretion.

    Don’t every single provider have this in their TOS?

    Not in these exact words and only in scenario of abuse or serious wrongdoing.

    The additional terms OP agreed gave the unconditional rights to the provider. Provider does not share any reasoning or cause of action. Since OP agreed to such one-sided clause, there is likely to be a very good reason.

    did he give right to his first born child too?

    Goes without saying

    Thanked by 1Rubben
  • RubbenRubben Member

    @emgh said:

    @Rubben said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @Dazzle said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    What about the throttling?

    That part is what annoys the Customer. Maybe Clouvider can explain on what basis they do that?

    To make outgoing DDoS way less effective I’d bet.

    Main thing is that OP agreed (in writing) with the terms that provider has right to limit (or even terminate) the services on its solo discretion.

    Don’t every single provider have this in their TOS?

    Not in these exact words and only in scenario of abuse or serious wrongdoing.

    The additional terms OP agreed gave the unconditional rights to the provider. Provider does not share any reasoning or cause of action. Since OP agreed to such one-sided clause, there is likely to be a very good reason.

    did he give right to his first born child too?

    Goes without saying

    i guess someone has to work on the dc floor

  • dev_vpsdev_vps Member

    @emgh said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @Dazzle said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    What about the throttling?

    That part is what annoys the Customer. Maybe Clouvider can explain on what basis they do that?

    To make outgoing DDoS way less effective I’d bet.

    Main thing is that OP agreed (in writing) with the terms that provider has right to limit (or even terminate) the services on its solo discretion.

    Don’t every single provider have this in their TOS?

    Not in these exact words and only in scenario of abuse or serious wrongdoing.

    The additional terms OP agreed gave the unconditional rights to the provider. Provider does not share any reasoning or cause of action. Since OP agreed to such one-sided clause, there is likely to be a very good reason.

    I’d imagine most providers have this since they often don’t want to share the reason but I could be wrong.

    Please more bold text next time.

    Such unconditional rights to the provider can be challenged in most jurisdictions.

    ps - not a legal advice. Just sharing my opinion

    Thanked by 1emgh
  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad
    edited January 2025

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @emgh said:

    @Dazzle said:

    @dev_vps said:

    @Clouvider said:
    ….. We reluctantly agreed after the Customer approached us on numerous occasions. This has been done under strict terms, including the right to restrict services at our discretion to manage abuse and terminate services without further notice or refund, at our discretion, if abuse persisted. The Customer agreed to these terms in writing.

    This part was never disclosed by OP.

    @Clouvider did the right thing, in my opinion.

    What about the throttling?

    That part is what annoys the Customer. Maybe Clouvider can explain on what basis they do that?

    To make outgoing DDoS way less effective I’d bet.

    Main thing is that OP agreed (in writing) with the terms that provider has right to limit (or even terminate) the services on its solo discretion.

    Don’t every single provider have this in their TOS?

    Not in these exact words and only in scenario of abuse or serious wrongdoing.

    The additional terms OP agreed gave the unconditional rights to the provider. Provider does not share any reasoning or cause of action. Since OP agreed to such one-sided clause, there is likely to be a very good reason.

    I’d imagine most providers have this since they often don’t want to share the reason but I could be wrong.

    Please more bold text next time.

    Such unconditional rights to the provider can be challenged in most jurisdictions.

    ps - not a legal advice. Just sharing my opinion

    Such unconditional rights to the provider can be challenged in most jurisdictions.

    ps - not a legal advice. Just sharing my opinion

Sign In or Register to comment.