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.
NovixLink: Advertised "US Dual-ISP Native Residential IPv4" vs Delivered IP2Location "DCH" - What ar
Provider / Service: NovixLink - US Dual-ISP Native Residential IPv4 VPS
At the time of purchase, the product description on the checkout page was explicitly listed as:
"1x Dedicated US Dual-ISP Native Residential IPv4"
However, the actual IP address delivered is classified by IP2Location as:
"DCH (Data Center / Web Hosting / Transit)"
What are your thoughts on this?
(Full ticket logs and screenshots are available via PM upon request.)
Comments
Buying residential IPs violates the ToS of the original line owner and should not be supported here.
Now hypocrisi aside id help you but i have zero idea of that field
有志者事竟成
I don't think violating a ToS is against the rules here. Unless it's illegal or considered blackhat, it's probably technically allowed.
Thanks for the comment and encouragement!
To clarify, my main intention with this thread is simply to share this factual data and discuss whether NovixLink's practice—advertising a service as "US Dual-ISP Native Residential IPv4" while delivering an IP classified as "DCH"—is considered acceptable or standard practice in the industry.
Appreciate the thoughts and just opening it up for community discussion!
Each database has different information,perhaps he's referring to databases that label it "ISP"
My thoughts are that since you posted it publicly, all IP geodb companies will classify all their ASNs as DCH now unless it’s actually a residential connection.
Correct. Matter of time.
If that's the case, it's actually a positive outcome. It helps protect consumer transparency and ensures buyers can make fully informed decisions before purchasing.
How is it positive when you are sold x and gets y instead ?
Sorry for the confusion! I meant that having accurate data updated is positive for the community, as it helps future buyers make informed decisions and avoid being misled. But absolutely, for my individual order, being sold X and receiving Y is completely unacceptable.
Hi @xunjiumen,
We recently came across your post and wanted to share our side of the experience. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to explain.
We understand why the term "residential IP" led to a different expectation, and we apologise for the confusion. For the product you purchased, the published standard was IPinfo's AS Type = ISP. Your ticket confirmed that the assigned IP showed ISP in IPinfo, while IP2Location showed DCH. Both results can exist because the databases use different classification systems.
That is why we specify the database and criterion used for delivery rather than promise the same classification everywhere. The product page linked to those standards and the refund policy before purchase, and provided a test IP for customers to check against their own requirements. We would also have been happy to explain the IP2Location result before you ordered.
Our website separately lists ISP Residential IP and Home Broadband IP products. You purchased the Cogent Basic plan at CAD 7.99/month. Our Cox Home Broadband range currently starts at CAD 19.99/month, with Basic at CAD 24.99/month. These use different network resources with different costs. For customers specifically looking for a home broadband operator, Cox is the relevant product range.
We also recognise that a service can meet its published standard yet still be unsuitable for someone's needs. Our ordinary refund policy allowed eligible customers to apply within 24 hours of payment, with no more than 10 GB used, subject to the published processing and payment fees. In this case, the first ticket was submitted approximately 44 hours after activation, after that window had passed.
We discussed these points in the tickets and provided our final response on August 21. Our position is that the service met the standard published for this order, while we appreciate that you expected something different.
You are welcome to share your experience or pursue the matter through any available channel. We simply wanted to explain the product distinction and the options available at the time, so readers can consider both perspectives.
NovixLink
I was ready to walk away, but this disingenuous PR spin forces me to drop the real facts.
1. The false advertising is hardcoded in your own database
You publicly apologized for "customer misunderstanding" and privately blamed "browser translation." But my portal UI is 100% English, while the SKU in your database is hardcoded as:
Product/Service: 美国CG双ISP住宅IP国际带宽VPS-LAX-BGP Basic基础版 (IP: 149.7.2.112)
You deliberately bundled "CG" (Cogent, a datacenter provider) with "双ISP住宅IP" (Residential IP). Price does not give you a license to advertise X and deliver Y.
2. 44 hours is for discovery, not remorse
Yes, I opened the ticket at 44 hours. It takes time to deploy, test, and discover that the IP is flagged as DCH/Datacenter across major fraud databases. Your 24-hour refund policy covers buyer's remorse, not materially misdescribed goods.
3. Polite in public, silenced when cornered
When your management could no longer defend the technical and logical contradictions in private, their final response (Aug 21, 04:43 AM) was to threaten and censor:
"Do not create repeated tickets... we will treat them as duplicate or SPAM tickets and close them without reply."
You cut off support and threatened to label a customer as "SPAM" simply because you ran out of technical answers, but put on a smiling mask here. I'll let the community judge.
A quick follow-up question for @NovixLink:
Do you need me to publish the complete, unredacted ticket transcripts right here so the community can see every single reply from your team?
Here is the unedited screenshot from my client portal confirming the exact product SKU mentioned above.
And one final question: If everything you delivered was perfectly legitimate and as advertised, why did you silently edit the product description on your official website just now?
"Residential" is not some intrinsic property of an IP address itself that it materially possesses or lacks. All it means is that IP reputation databases and the like have not yet realized it's being used for hosting. If you were given an IP that comes from a residential ISP, the fact that some databases have changed their classification is not the provider's fault. It's your fault for not checking.
It's a pretty short refund period, but it doesn't take 24 hours to check the IP you were allocated with various databases.
If you're creating repeated tickets for the same issue, that is spam.
Yes please. That is the LET way.
@Forest Appreciate the feedback, but your logic misses three fundamental technical and legal prerequisites:
1. Cogent (AS174) was born in a datacenter, not "reclassified later"
You argued that database classifications can drift. But this isn't a case of a residential ISP whose tags changed over time. The IP assigned is AS174 (Cogent Communications)—a Tier-1 global backbone and transit provider. It was born in a datacenter and has never operated eyeball residential broadband. Slapping "Native Residential" on an AS174 IP is deliberate misrepresentation from minute one.
2. The legal principle of "Reasonable Reliance"
Yes, querying an IP database takes minutes. But you ignore the fundamental consumer principle of Reasonable Reliance. A consumer enters a transaction relying in good faith on the merchant’s explicit specifications. A buyer purchases a VPS to deploy workloads, not expecting they must audit the seller like an adversary within 24 hours. The latent defect was uncovered through actual deployment and testing. A 24-hour policy applies to buyer’s remorse, not to discovering a breach of contract under reasonable reliance.
3. An unresolved dispute is NOT "SPAM"
The prerequisite for labeling a ticket "spam" is whether the substantive issue has been addressed. Under your logic, any host can give an evasive non-answer ("TOS says so"), and the moment the customer insists on a real technical resolution, the host can label it "duplicate spam" as a convenient pretext to pull the plug. That’s not ticket hygiene; that’s weaponized evasion.
Now, to answer the "LET Way"—and since @NovixLink is actively reading and replying in this thread:
I’ll put the ball in your court, @NovixLink: Say the word. Do you want me to publish our entire, unredacted ticket and email correspondence right here for full community transparency?
While we wait for their answer, here is a quick preview of how NovixLink's definitions collapsed in private:
Lee defining "Native": "‘Native’ simply refers to US IP resources." (Claiming any US datacenter IP is native).
Harry Qin cornered on "Residential": "The term 'Residential' has varied meanings in different markets, so we did not define it." (Admitting they sold a product named "Residential" without even defining it).
Harry Qin explaining "Dual-ISP": "It does not mean two physical uplinks or two ASNs, it is just our product taxonomy." (Admitting Dual-ISP is purely marketing fiction).
Harry Qin's 04:43 AM final response: Blaming the Chinese product title on "browser translation" (debunked by my English UI screenshot), then threatening to mark future tickets as SPAM and close them.
blablabla mjj ai slop wall
just publish it instead of being lame and threatening to do it.
@Obelous @forest Fair enough. As requested, here are the full, unedited ticket communications from NovixLink.
Personal information has been redacted for privacy. Read for yourselves and be the judge:
And i always believed my operations are the most shady around here, residential proxies is just a nightmare
Haha, fair point. A complete rabbit hole for a CAD 7.99 VPS. 😅
You need to respond specifically to this:
You arguing SKUs is pointless. If the criteria is IPInfo showing ISP, then you've confirmed they met that.
It's common to have multiple sources to supply a production item and not expose that to customers. A widget might need to be made with resistors from Samsung or Rohm but are identical in specs. No model difference required.
Yes, it's unequivocally spam to open multiple tickets for the same issue. Full. Stop. You might have an argument if you only open a new one if the last ticket is closed and can't be reopened.
@TimboJones Appreciate the perspective, but your arguments fall apart on three counts:
1. The resistor analogy collapses because it assumes "conforming goods"
Your resistor analogy relies on an unstated prerequisite: Samsung and Rohm resistors are conforming, identical-spec components of the exact same type that satisfy the circuit's design specifications.
In this dispute, NovixLink merely delivered an IP, but not the promised specification of IP. Equating "any IP delivered" with "conforming delivery" surreptitiously strips away the prerequisite of contractual conformity.
If you want an accurate real-world analogy:
You order a vehicle prominently advertised as a "Street-Legal AWD Off-road SUV" (Dual-ISP Residential). The dealer delivers an agricultural tractor (Cogent Datacenter), and points to a hidden footnote in their manual:
"In our dealership, anything with four wheels is defined as an AWD SUV. If you wanted an actual highway-capable SUV, you should have bought our $20 model next to it."
A datacenter IP is flagged as DCH across fraud databases. It simply does not possess the functional attributes of a residential IP. This is a fact.
2. The vendor subsequently updated their product copy (Check the screenshots)
You claim that meeting IPinfo's ISP tag makes the "Dual-ISP Residential" SKU argument pointless. If that were the case, why did @NovixLink subsequently remove both "Dual-ISP" and "Residential" from this exact CAD 7.99 product on their website?
You can check the merchant's current live product description against the original order specification from my client portal—both screenshots were uploaded earlier in this thread for comparison. It now explicitly reads: 1x Dedicated US Native ISP IPv4, Global Tier-1 Network. Even the host recognized the discrepancy and actively modified their product copy.
3. The flaw in your "ticket spam" logic
Under your logic, any merchant could provide a single evasive reply to an issue, and then refuse to resolve anything further simply because any subsequent follow-up from the customer would be dismissed as a "duplicate ticket."
Management explicitly stated: "Do not create repeated tickets... we will treat them as duplicate or SPAM tickets and directly close them without further response." Preemptively shutting down unresolved disputes by labeling them "spam" is not ticket hygiene; it is an evasion of support.
yeah no, OP is in the wrong here. you didn't read the ToS.
in https://novixlink.com/en/legal/terms-of-services
IP lookup guide links to https://novixlink.com/knowledgebase/48/?language=english
which tell you to use iplense
at this point, the provider obligation is completed. if you want to argue abount semantics or doing mental gymnastics, that's not covered in the services.
if you're not agree with checking method defined in knowledgebase 48 then you shouldn't buy it in the first place. no provider is going to bother with dozens of popular ip lookup check, the chance is not zero for someone just come over with their own ip lookup service then harass the provider with it.
check your refund condition, take the L and move on.
Honestly, this thread was already dead and buried until @NovixLink’s PR team decided to necro it for damage control... and now you show up with this. Sigh...
@ScreenReader Nice try, but you just handed me the definitive proof of post-dispute retroactive patching. Did you even bother to read the date in the clause you quoted?
1. Chronological Checkmate (The exact 10-day gap)
Look at the exact wording of the clause you cited:
"4.2 For a Dual-ISP Residential IP first delivered on or after August 29, 2026..."
Here is the screenshot from my client portal confirming my server was provisioned on 19/08/2026:
My service was created and delivered on August 19, 2026—exactly 10 days before the effective date of Clause 4.2! By its own explicit terms, Clause 4.2 does not apply to orders delivered before August 29. Citing a post-dated policy that expressly applies only to future orders is pure comedy.
2. The Baseline Was IPinfo, Not IPLense
Throughout our tickets on August 20–21, both NovixLink operators (Lee and Qin) strictly insisted that IPinfo.io (AS Type = ISP) was their sole standard. Neither of them mentioned "IPLense" a single time.
Introducing "IPLense" and post-dating Clause 4.2 to August 29 only confirms that NovixLink frantically scrambled to patch their TOS and knowledgebase after the dispute erupted.
3. Niche Lookup Sites Don't Change Network Reality
Mainstream anti-fraud databases (MaxMind, IP2Location, Scamalytics) classify AS174 as DCH (Datacenter). Quoting an obscure lookup site that labels a Cogent Tier-1 backbone as "Residential" doesn't change physical reality.
Before telling someone to "take the L", please check your timestamps first. 😉
How many almonds died of dehydration in the creation of these posts and work orders? 🤔
@TimboJones
1. If IPinfo was "the only thing needed", why was it subsequently abandoned?
You state that ensuring both sources show "ISP" in IPinfo was entirely sufficient and other databases are irrelevant. If that standard was truly sufficient, why did @NovixLink subsequently rewrite Clause 4.2 to require an entirely different verification tool (IPLense)? And why did they remove both "Dual-ISP" and "Residential" from this CAD 7.99 product on their website?
When the vendor itself actively overhauled its verification criteria and removed those terms from the live catalog, continuing to rely on that initial single-metric standard is contradictory.
2. "Confusing" is the legal foundation of misleading representation
You noted that updating the description was common sense because people were "confused". In consumer protection law, a prominent specification that creates material confusion and leads a buyer to purchase non-conforming goods is the core definition of a Misleading Representation. If the original specifications were accurate and fully honored, no reasonable consumer would be confused. Acknowledging that the description caused confusion directly confirms that the original marketing lacked accuracy.
3. Management explicitly ruled out opening new tickets
You suggested: "If they close it and you want to reopen it but can't, then open a new one."
However, management’s exact directive in the ticket screenshot stated:
"Do not submit identical content via a new ticket; we will treat them as duplicate or SPAM tickets and directly close them without further response."
Opening a new ticket was not an available avenue; it was preemptively and explicitly prohibited.
We can have different perspectives on these issues, but there is really no need to resort to personal remarks like "annoying" or "you're the problem". The documented timeline, unedited tickets, and the subsequent changes to the live product description speak for themselves. I will leave the facts here for the community to evaluate.
Your responses to me should be 1-2 sentences, tops. You're stuck on irrelevant things. I have no problem with the response from the provider which you haven't effectively commented on.