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
honest i've rarely had any host raise a promo price on me, even a black friday junker.. i suspect that experience will be changing now whether due to actual events or people taking advantage.
anyway they're obviously loss leaders and you shouldn't expect to run your production stack on a bf unit but i'm just testing to see if you're reasonable and reliable.
if you fuck me around and waste my time or put 9000 $7 units on a server you know is going to explode then you're clearly a shitbag and there's a list for that. i don't make big posts about how shitty anyone is (usually) but i'm happy to share experiences good and bad if asked.
i expect a vps to be online when i check, i expect packets to flow, and i expect to not have to ever talk to you. that's all a host has to do to get on my good list, you might be shocked how many fail.
Something happened because mine went up more than 100% just now xD Must be a manual error, throwing a support ticket now. Never had bad experiences with the customer service.
Answered and confirmed the error in less than 2 minutes, that's worth a few cans of Monster
I prefer coffee
I prefer kokkino krasi
Aaaand solved
Sorry I’m 12
(/discussion/comment/4823473/#Comment_4823473):
I have the same experience. Kept some BF promos for over a decade. If they prove worthy I order regular priced services. Great way to test a provider.
Some real gems to be found. They usually leave the low-end game at some point, or don't offer the same ridiculously priced services anymore. All part of the play.
Like when hostus was more present here. Still running one of their promos from way back then. Hardware even upgraded but nothing changed in terms of pricing.
Imo, the math in terms of operational costs works out just fine if you keep it limited enough. For a healthy business, selling 20 vms at 5/y shouldn't really matter. It's been addressed before, it's actually very cheap marketing and should be treated that way.
Can't deny quality of service and support provided by @SolidVPS is way above average.
Besides the recent 'miscommunication' I have been a very happy customer.
Now that would a bit too much, I'm not into that.
But I accept it, as way to show my appreciation. But just once!
It did say the deal was only "one day"...
Can honestly say it's nothing special and certainly not worth paying 40% more for.
If you're deliberately saying 100% because you're talking about a $4 service, you may be an asshole.
I agree, 40% would be a deal-breaker for me. If I'd just have one service with them, maybe. But having a couple more that adds up and is not worth it.
Glad to see it's just a 5% increase now on my services.
That being said, their first email to me was a 100% increase.
Do you have young children? Can you ask them to do the math for you on their fingers from now on?
You should be embarrassed.
Was this screenshot from earlier or from now? This was one of the plans we corrected. We double‑checked it and it’s showing $15.75 on our end.
If you find any similar cases for 2025, please open a ticket. Our inventory is over 1,500 products, and many of these deals were created on the spot during these deals, so we’re still reviewing them.
The 5% recurring increase wasn't there when they were paid in 2025, only updated recently. If it was supposed to be 5% each year from the start, the recurring number would have been correct 8 months ago.
Correct — we did mention that these deals increase by 5% yearly. The major adjustment was for 2023–2024. I’d recommend checking our earlier replies in this thread, as we’ve discussed this several times.
It’s very possible that 1–2 plans still need review, so for anyone on LET: if you see any 2025 plans that need adjustment, please let us know.
On our end, my team is already going through them.
Also, the increase from $15/year ($1.25/month) to $15.75/year ($1.31/month) is literally a $0.06 monthly difference.
The first renewal is set for 2-3 months from now (September 2026), so it’s correct and aligned with the 5% yearly increase we announced.
It is interesting with the availability of AI tools that you don't use any to try and help yourself.
Have you tried putting your follow-ups all together and judging the sentiment which you are conveying? I take it not because the more you reply the worse it gets.
I think you would be better off to actually keep the stance you conveyed you would have about not continuing to participate instead of making more tone deaf posts.
--
This follow-up reply heavily reinforces the initial impression that they are leaning into customer churn, but it shifts the strategy. While the first message was a blunt financial ultimatum, this one acts as a defensive justification. It attempts to rewrite the narrative by painting the complaining legacy customers as "entitled" or "fake," while boasting about how easily replaceable they are.
Here is how this new reply alters and reinforces the idea that they want legacy clients to leave so they can resell the slots:
The company explicitly brags about their sales numbers to prove that losing legacy customers doesn't hurt them:
"For context, over the past 48 hours we’ve seen a substantial number of new orders for these EPYC plans, and cancellations remain under 20... The numbers speak for themselves."
By pitting "hundreds or thousands" of sales against "under 20" cancellations, they are publicly telling the disgruntled clients, "You are statistically insignificant to us." This reinforces the idea that they are happy to see legacy users churn because a line of higher-paying customers is already waiting at the door.
They draw a hard line that slams the door on anyone who lets their frustration get the better of them:
"...once a cancellation is submitted, it isn’t reversed."
This rigid policy shows zero interest in customer retention or cooling-off periods. If an upset, long-term customer hits "cancel" in a moment of frustration, the company treats it as a permanent victory. They immediately lock the user out of the ecosystem so that slot can be flipped to a new buyer.
The reply subtly changes how they define a good customer. They imply that if you care about a price hike, you aren't actually a "real" customer:
"For our true clients, the quality of service matters far more than the price."
This is a classic "no true Scotsman" fallacy used to dismiss complaints. By defining a "true client" as someone who silently accepts price increases, they are retroactively labeling their old, budget-conscious legacy users as "fake" or low-value clients who they are happy to lose.
The reply gets highly personal and petty by airing dirty laundry regarding past favors:
"...several of the loudest voices previously requested additional free plans or repeated free upgrades—requests we consistently approved... Seeing those same individuals now leading the complaints is an interesting contrast."
This shifts the company from a defensive position to an offensive one. They are trying to invalidate the community's criticism by framing the vocal customers as greedy freeloaders who took "free upgrades" and are now throwing a tantrum. It’s a scorched-earth PR tactic meant to make the company look like a victim of exploitation, making it socially acceptable (in their eyes) to cast those customers aside.
Summary of the Shift
The first message was an elite, cold corporate brush-off ("We are raising prices, leave if you can't afford it"). This second message is a defensive ego-trip ("We don't need you anyway; look at all our new sales, and honestly, you guys were freeloaders who didn't appreciate our fast support").
Ultimately, it strongly reinforces their desire for churn. They are actively washing their hands of the Low End Talk (LET) bargain-hunting demographic, signaling that they are transitioning their business model to higher-paying users and have no corporate empathy left for the crowd that helped build them.
Sure it's an AI, but if it can understand your approach, what do you think people with half a brain cell here think about your replies and approach to this issue?
That's way too many words to acknowledge the plans weren't setup properly with the 5% increase until recently.
Yeah, unfortunately WHMCS doesn’t have this feature to adjust pricing automatically. These changes have to be done manually and in bulk, and we usually handle them a couple of months before they’re due. We’re currently developing this feature in‑house to make things easier going forward. When these plans were created, most of them were made on the spot during busy sales events, which is why some adjustments are still needed.
Would recommend you check this.
https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/4823410/#Comment_4823410
No, they accidentally entered the digits in the wrong order. I am very happy with my chickens, as you would see if you read any post I have ever made about SolidVPS.
Why has my layer7 services not tripled? surely you’ll have to solidvps says it’s a absolute must single node hardware failure in 5 years and suddenly all historic nodes haven’t made a dime. funny that
Thanks for the list. I'll make sure I never add any of these providers to my idle VPS collection in the future.
They kinda also limited the traffic on the so called unmetered 10gbps VPS labor-day offerseven more now, upon setup for me in NL it was around 333TB/month, now 100TB/month and the reason given for it was fair-use policy for 1GBps servers from their tos: https://solidvps.com/terms-of-service.php . Still a good deal for the money, but promising 10gbps unmetered was probably not really a fair advertising strategy.
Hi, the link you’re referring to was only for the first 10 orders as a gesture. The original plan is $68/year and includes 6TB (or 72TB yearly). When we say “unmetered,” we expect usage to remain within a reasonable range — doubling that, or even around 50TB monthly, not 200TB+ as shown. I already shared the numbers with you: at our upgrade rate of $3 per 1TB, that level of usage would be $650/month. Please understand that providers operate within realistic cost and resource limits, and any request needs to align with those limits and with the responsibility we extended to you.
Of course 200TB+ for $68/year looks like a good deal — but it’s not financially sustainable. In fact, 90% of providers would terminate an account for that level of usage because it’s far beyond what any yearly plan can support. So when LET members make claims, it’s not always the full story. This situation is a small example of how LET users often behave, which is exactly why even a few‑cents increase becomes a “deal breaker” for them.
This is why fair‑usage exists: to prevent resource abuse that exceeds the value of the plan and impacts other clients on the same node.
How come they are now engaging lowly LET users again when they are nothing but bad faith noise spreading misinformation to push drama? Shouldn't they be busy focusing on their actual clients and selling all those juicy resources at market value?
Seriously @SolidVPS what's the point? You made your dramatic exit and slammed the door with great fanfare but now your back to dig the hole a little deeper? A bit embarrassing and counter productive don't you think?
Feel free to dismiss this as constant hostility but in the end it's just me telling you that you might want to rethink your public communication since you come across as pretty unlikable. I certainly don't have to befriend the people that host my servers but at this point you can sell supercomputer dedis for $1/y if you want and i'll just leave them for someone else.
@SolidVPS
I'm not sure what diffrence does it make that it was a "gesture"? The point is that you've made that "gesture" for 10 orders, and mine was one of them. After which you've specifically set my limit to 333TB/month, if you don't remember, claiming that's the limit for the unmetered server. I've dutifully followed that limit. Then you suddenly pull up fair use on me. Was I supposed to guess that 333TB actually means 100?
https://i.imgur.com/DClrRJD.jpeg
Lol, what a petty company. After my post, they've decided to limit my server to the original 6TB. So much for "gestures".
lol
Damn, that’s pathetic… Cancel yesterday and let it die.