All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Servitro. com is a fraudulent hosting provider.
neurostuff
Member
Servitro suspended my VPS after I used the advertised monthly 1 TB traffic allowance and refuses to refund my money!
Order date: November 11, 2026
Virtual-1 | AMD EPYC 7443P
- 1 vCore
- 4 GB DDR4 RAM
- 25 GB SSD
- 10 Gbps Port
- 1 TB monthly traffic allowance
- 1x IPv4
- 1x IPv6 /64
Price: $20/year (coupon code: S8KQX51KF6)
I used the advertised monthly traffic allowance of 1 TB within approximately 13 hours. Before doing this, I specifically contacted their support team to clarify what would happen after reaching the traffic limit.
Their support team explicitly confirmed in the ticket that my connection speed would simply be throttled to 625 Kbps after exceeding the traffic allowance.
However, instead of following the policy communicated by their own support team, Servitro suspended my entire VPS.
On November 12, 2026, just one day after purchasing the service, my VPS was completely inaccessible.
Servitro refuses to restore my VPS and also refuses to refund my $20, despite advertising a 7-day money-back guarantee.
I paid $20 for a year of service and received just 13 hours of access.
Essentially, Servitro took my money. This is outrageous!
Click to view screenshots of support ticket correspondence
Comments
@Servitro why scam this poor man
Today's MJJ Drama: Is pushing 1TB of traffic in 13 hours fair use?
https://lowendtalk.com/post/quote/222738/Comment_4918013
Hi,
We'd like to give the full picture, since a few important points are missing above.
The VPS was not suspended for reaching the 1 TB limit. When a customer uses up the monthly traffic, the port is limited to 625 Kbps and the VPS keeps running. Many customers who have used 100% of their traffic are online right now at the reduced speed. That is the normal rule, and it is what our support explained.
This case was different. The VPS was ready at 07:30 UTC on 11 November. By about 20:12 UTC the same day, it had pushed 1,136 GB (not 1.136 GB): about 1,040 GB outgoing and 96 GB incoming. That is roughly 199 Mbit/s non-stop for almost 13 hours, more than the whole month's allowance on the first day. In the ticket, the customer wrote that the traffic was generated on purpose "to test the speed limitations" of our service.
The offer you quoted says the traffic is "subject to our fair use policy". Deliberately maxing out a shared port for half a day to burn through a full month of traffic is outside fair use. It affects other customers on the same node, which is why we act on it manually.
Our 7-day money-back guarantee covers normal use of the service. It does not apply when the fair use policy has been violated and the plan's full monthly resources were consumed on purpose within hours. So the refund was declined, and the service stays suspended.
We have explained this in the ticket several times and showed the traffic numbers. We also offered to cancel the service if the customer wants. Cancelling was never forced on them.
We're happy to discuss this further in the ticket.
Sorry to hear about this. Just curious, how can you use up so much traffic in a short time
@angstrom please have a look
To add one more point, since some may ask why we don't simply refund $20 to end the discussion:
The amount is not the issue, and we could easily refund it. But a refund here would tell anyone that they can take a cheap plan, push a full month of traffic through a shared port in a few hours on purpose, and still get their money back. Nothing would stop the same thing from being repeated with a new account, here or with any other provider. That is unfair to the customers who share the node and use the service normally.
So our decision is to cancel the service for violating the fair use terms, without a refund. This is not about the money. It is about applying the same rules to everyone.
How is 199mbps "maxing out a shared port" if it's a 10gbps port?
hmm... now we are getting to the heart of undefined expressions. what is fair, anyway?
that guy may have been bothering the system and possibly other users for 13 hours. but isn't it unfair that he now has to sit around for 29 days and 11 hours with only 625 kbps and can't bother others anymore?
Fair question, and you're right: "maxing out a shared port" was poor wording on our side. 199 Mbit/s does not saturate a 10 Gbps uplink, and that was never the problem.
The 10 Gbps is the node's uplink, shared by every VPS on that node. The problem is the traffic volume, not the port speed. A $20/year plan includes 1 TB per month, and traffic is a shared, paid-for pool that we size for normal use across all customers. This VPS ran at about 199 Mbit/s non-stop from the moment it was built. At that rate a single $20/year VPS would move around 60+ TB per month. It used more than the whole month's allowance within the first 13 hours, and the customer told us it was done on purpose to test our limits.
Customers who simply use up their 1 TB keep running at the reduced speed; we have many of those right now. This case was different because the traffic was generated deliberately to burn through the allowance, which is what the fair use clause in the offer is for.
wouldn't it also be fair if providers didn't let unused data from the previous month expire, but instead credited it to the user's account? tell me, what's fair?
Fair resolution would be to charge him for the traffic and tell him to fuck off
While maxing out the traffic allotment in 13 hours wasn't a smart move by OP, you don't get to not provide the service AND not refund the money. In other words, you don't get paid for a year of providing a service then just randomly decide OP's use violated the fair use policy and get to keep his money.
If you own policy is the reduced bitrate, then that should be what OP gets, with a reprimand that maxing out the port isn't allowed.
We suspended instead of throttling because this was not normal usage that happened to hit the limit. The customer told us in writing that the traffic was generated on purpose "to test the speed limitations" of our service. The 625 Kbps limit is for customers who use up their traffic through normal use; deliberately burning through a month's allowance in hours is a fair use violation, and for that we suspend.
a $20/year plan includes 1 TB per month and 12 TB per year!
whether or not i use up that 1tb in a month doesn't matter a bit.
Where is your Fair Use Policy? You have terms and service in https://servitro.com/terms
And only mention is:
Which is way broad term, anything can be considered interfering with your network.
If the customer is on unlimited plan or something, I would get it. But the OP is on a plan that allows 1 TB of usage. So they should be able to use it either in 30 days, or just 1 day, to limit that (which is stupid imho) you can give partial BW usage per day.
I'm sorry but if your network is affected by someone using 1 TB in 12 hours, then it must be a shit network.
I'm not saying give him a refund but the basis of suspension is stupid.
Edit:
This is a stupid logic.
No it wouldn't because you limit it after 1TB so what's your point?
He used the amount he was allowed to use, he didn't saturate the port, so I don't see the issue.
To be clear, we are not keeping the VPS from the customer for the rest of the year. The traffic allowance resets on 11 December. From then on we're happy to unsuspend the VPS, and the customer can keep using it for the rest of the paid year under the same fair use terms as everyone else. What we won't do is refund a plan whose full month of resources was used up on purpose within hours.
define what's normal? you're welcome to cite the bible, but start by defining what's normal. thanks.
Let me ELI5, Layman's term, whatever.
You sold a server to a dude saying that you allow 1 TB usage per month and after that it's decreased to 625 kbps or whatever. You suspended the server after he used 1 TB instead of decreasing port speed.
This is practically falls under, service is not advertised and basis for chargeback. IF you told them that you suspend the server after 1 TB then it would be another story.
We have explained our position to the community and to the customer in detail, so this will be our last reply here.
The service stays suspended because the bandwidth was deliberately used up on purpose, as the customer confirmed in writing. On 11 December, when the monthly traffic allowance resets, we will unsuspend the VPS. It can then be used for the rest of the paid year under the same fair use terms as every other customer.
Apparently another provider goes to the bucket of not to touch in Black Friday, due to their flawed logic.
oh, the lord has spoken.
We accept that our website could explain the fair use terms in more detail. We will update it so that it is clear to everyone before ordering.
it's nice to be able to adjust it afterward. clever.
Where does it say this in your terms? Can you quote the part where it says that you'll do this?
Hi @Servitro
BTW, what's your position on DMCA complaints?
We respond to notices of claimed copyright infringement under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 512). Send notices to [email protected] with the information required by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3). We may remove or disable access to the material and forward the notice to the customer, who may send a counter-notice. In appropriate circumstances we terminate the Accounts of repeat infringers.
At least bother checking their website first
There's a saying: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes"
On that note, OP, welcome to the forum, and congratulations on your first post. I hope you didn't join just to tell us that. Or did you?
This is total BS providers need to stop thinking they can gaslight us like they can with an AI bot.
"On Purpose" is your cause? so me streaming 5 ppl 4K to test if network can sustain fluid media will be abuse? fk testing what if thats my usage of the VPS because it's on purpose every internet service is on purpose? lmfao. this is not abuse of a FUP Port you have provided him a speed and a cap. What he do wrong 200mbps is laughable.