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
if i remember correctly you don't refund at any according to your policies when it was an entire issues from your side and was a normal user expected normal usage and was describedas threatened in let ?
Yeah 🤗
Yeah that's what I just said, i said he was not...
We all do that, aren't we?
The core problem is bait-and-switch marketing. You sold the service advertised as unlimited bandwidth, and customers subscribed based on that promise.
If your only concern is the 2% heavy users, there are mature ways to handle it: pre-written Fair Use Policy published before purchase, per-VM rate limiting, traffic shaping and fair queueing. These methods only target the heavy users without breaking the unlimited bandwidth promise you sold to everyone.
You cannot retroactively redefine what counts as "abuse" after customers have already signed up and started consuming traffic. The definition of abuse must be clear and disclosed at the time of purchase, not made up later when your transit cost becomes too high.
Material changes to service terms require advance notice and a grace period for existing customers. Changing billing/bandwidth rules immediately without prior warning is not acceptable. The issue is not the 2% users, it is that you are shifting your capacity planning risk onto existing paying customers.
Bandwidth procurement and capacity planning are your business risks, not your customers’.
When you listed the plan as unlimited bandwidth, you should have accounted for large traffic consumers. Your miscalculation of transit costs should not be fixed by breaking promises to existing customers.
If your multi-tenant platform cannot isolate heavy users without breaking your advertised unlimited bandwidth promise, that is a limitation of your infrastructure, not customer fault. Traffic shaping and per-VM burst limits are standard industry tooling.
Under EU consumer law, material changes to an ongoing service contract require prior notice and a right to cancel without penalty.
Unilaterally introducing new bandwidth overage charges immediately without advance notice is questionable.
The terms advertised at purchase form part of the contract.
There's no bait here, we had unlimited bandwidth for over 2 YEARS (SINCE INCEPTION) (FYI even when we had 10TB limits at first, extra bandwidth was not charged, so was unmetered in reality). and people used hundreds of TB of bandwidth for YEARS without issues, what kind of bait is there? are you out of your mind?
The problem came just now, after some public advertising about of generosity and many many people started abusing with no regret.
Cmone let's stop this idiocracy, we've been WAY TOO GENEROUS, and people abused what we used to offer.
If you don't know the full course of things please avoid commenting without any context.
If you purchased recently before the change, happy to give a refund, LIKE WE DID WITH SOME ALREADY.
The fact that 98% of users are unaffected, there are few complaints and new deployments keep rising, does not justify unilaterally changing core service terms.
Silence from most users is not consent. Many are simply not hitting the new limits yet. Contract terms apply to every paying customer, not decided by majority vote.
Make no sense, we had to take immediate action, there is no waiting time when you have abusers using 8 Gbps in and out 24/7 on all nodes.
I would have liked to have time to do prior notices or whatever bureaucratic thing you suggest.
I’m not asking for a refund and I’m still actively using your service. I’m not here to argue or demand compensation.
I appreciate you offered generous unlimited bandwidth for years, and I understand you are facing bandwidth pressure from heavy users.
My concern is not about blocking your efforts to mitigate abuse. I agree you need ways to protect the platform and other tenants. What I find improper is the way this rule change was rolled out: no advance notice and no grace period for existing customers.
I’m bringing this up hoping for a better process for future updates, which will benefit both your business and all users long-term.
You know ZERO about our customers, most of the customers who were using large amounts of traffic already had paid contracts in place, only abusers were.
Can you kindly give me your account email? At least I can see if you were an abuser or not and avoid this useless discussion.
I understand sudden, node-wide bandwidth pressure requires immediate operational action to protect the network.
But there is a critical distinction: emergency traffic shaping or rate limiting targeting only those high‑usage instances is an operational fix. Changing the core commercial terms of the plan and introducing new overage fees for all users is a contractual change.
You could immediately throttle the small number of abusive VMs to protect your links without rewriting the service agreement for every existing customer.
I fully get you wished you had time for advance notice. The takeaway is that resource isolation and per‑instance traffic safeguards should be in place ahead of time, to prevent reaching this crisis point in the first place.
I’m still using your service and only want better processes for future similar situations.
But whoever you are, you would have suffered anyway from the abuse on the network made by others, so it's pointless to keep crying about the fact that we removed the fair use policies.
Because if you were sitting on a node with 8Gbit in and out constant you would have complained anyway.
And trust me we evaluated all possible options, throttling, banning specific users, etc..
I understand no provider can please everyone and criticism is inevitable online. But that does not make discussion about the process of changing terms meaningless.
My point is not that you should ignore the 8Gbps traffic issue. Targeted throttling or suspension of the specific high‑usage instances affects only the small group causing the load, instead of rewriting the plan terms for every customer.
I appreciate you evaluated multiple options. I’d be curious to know why targeted per‑instance traffic limits were ruled out as the primary mitigation, rather than changing the core terms for all existing users.
I remain an active user without requesting a refund. I only hope future large changes can be handled with better communication.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I respect your final decision, and I will continue using the service. I hope future major changes can have better advance communication.
That’s why I asked if you could do some kind of limit. I actually found you guys through AI around a year ago, and unlimited bandwidth was one of the key things that caught my attention.
But even 5–10 TB at this price with this hardware is damn good, especially with no random price hikes.
BLAST ME
Surely will be done thanks for understanding, we're reworking a bit the plans (to go up in bandwidth allowance) already, maybe will come a correction in 1 month or so, currently monitoring the feedbacks and usage.
yeah no, they can.
i genuinely wish your clanker get a better meat proxy. not the one that fail to check some basic pages and feed it to context prompt properly.
One has to live in some uncivilized country where this actually takes effect.
Changing terms of service is not the same as changing the terms of an executed contract.
just chargeback and move on, we're all here because we're trying to max value.
MJJ really trying protect unlimited bw chicken
Wow is that how your parents talk to you?
"Keep crying" son...
I wasn't. Please refund me eleventy million dollars.
"Starting to..." and "change was immediat [sic]". The throttling was the solution for the 2%. You're not making your case.
tl;dr no lessons learned.