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.
I used my monthly traffic allowance of 1 TB as soon as I could, and then Servitro suspended my VPS
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
i told u admin never ban him lmao
this forum> @forest said:
well he is free to ignore since no admin will give a fuck about scam
Next up... "Idling is against our unwritten AUP"
well well well,What's the fair‑use policy? Basically, the provider can just shut you down whenever they feel like it. Hah, after that crappy AI service, now our VPS host is rolling out a 5‑hour traffic cap? They give you 1 TB a month, but you can't burn through it in a flash. Otherwise it's a breach of the so‑called fair‑use clause (which, by the way, was never even disclosed as a hidden term). If I’m getting this right.
1 TB allowance can be used within any time customer wants. Tafak is the policy where i should limit my port use within alloted limits?
All of the responses from their side seems more like a "Because he said so, he is at fault." Even with this argument, I think it would have been better for them to appologize and uphold their own advertisment of money back and updating their policy rather than leaving it to make a stink. It is bad publicity.
Okay, seems I was wrong.
Depending on their contract with upstream, it could cost them to have certain type of customer. These are types of contract they might do
1. commit 1G on 1G
2. commit 1G on 10G plus overage;
3. 95th percentile billing
So, I'd assume they're on overage/95th percentile billing. If per mbps overage is $0.5 and it got raised by 3mbps, it'd cost $1.5.
On the other hand, it's unlikely he got suspended because of other network shenanigans like sending millions pps or opened hundreds K to millions of tcp session
I think this discussion is going in the wrong direction, so let me clarify once more.
We have been in this business for almost 2 years now, and this is the first time we have had a case like this.
We do not suspend customers for using their traffic. As we said before, many of our customers have used 100% of their monthly allowance and their servers are still running today.
This case was different:
That is why the server was suspended for review, not because 1 TB was "used too fast" in itself.
Our team reviewed the case again. We agree that our terms on the website did not explain this clearly enough, so the customer has been fully refunded and the service has been cancelled. We are now updating our terms with a clear, written fair use section so there is no confusion in the future.
Normal usage, including using the full monthly allowance, is and will remain fine on our services.
Don't bother. There's blood in the water - they won't stop.
We are not bothered by this, we are just explaining the scenario. We believe most hosting providers would have done the same in this situation.
You keep digging the hole for yourself.
So, perfectly within your AUP.
He tested it, within the AUP, and you panicked.
So, you couldn't prove he was against anything in your terms?
I don't think the hosting business is really for you, is it?
Our offer clearly said "1 TB Traffic*, subject to our fair use policy", and in our view using the full month's allowance in about 13 hours, on purpose, broke that fair use.
The issue on our side is that the fair use policy was not clearly written on our website. That is the only reason we made an exception and refunded the customer in full.
We are adding a clear fair use section to our terms, and that is all we have to say on this case.
So, where's the line? 24,72h?
Hi, can you please refund my order? I think it doesn’t meet my needs, thank you
Sure. Please open a ticket from your client area with your order or invoice number. If your order is within our 7-day money-back guarantee, we will process the refund for you.
I’m sorry, I disagree with this.
That said, your business, your rules, just make sure to specify it in your ToS, and do not speak on behalf of all the other providers.
We seem to be going in circles now, and honestly, it's been a fun ride. 🙂
To sum it up one last time: we refunded the customer because our fair use terms were not clearly written on our website. That's it. There's no hidden line to find here, and the clear fair use section will be in our terms soon.
Poking at this any further is just wasting your time and ours.
Fair enough, point taken. We'll make sure it's clearly in our ToS. Thanks.
i have to say, as a provider, you have so little bandwidth, 200mbps is not "flood", you should easily handle the traffic as a normal provider
i'm actually looking forward to seeing how this is written up in their tos, can't even imagine the wording.
anyway they refunded op and parted company so it's over until next episode.
cuz somehow i just feel there's gonna be another episode.
What the hell am I reading 😂
So if I had 1 TB to use, but using it “on purpose” was the problem? Was I supposed to use it accidentally? 😂
If there’s a limit on how quickly that allowance can be used, publish it. Customers shouldn’t have to guess whether “1 TB per month” means whenever they need it or a few carefully rationed gigabytes with breakfast.
Good to hear you’re clarifying the rules especially make the usage rate clause more accurate. Usually that part comes before enforcing them.
And if you’re using VirtFusion, perhaps set a speed limit per VM through the VPS package settings. If 200 Mbps counts as “abuse” to you, why make that speed available and then suspend customers for using it?
Well, whats the need to use 1TB in 13h to just check the speed limits? Cant it be 10mins to check the speed?? Isnt a YABS enough?
OP just acted fraudulent for a refund.
As far as I can determine, the issue has been resolved, so I'm closing this thread in order to prevent an endless debate about the legitimacy of the original complaint
Thread closed
I've also modified the thread title in order to make it reflect the issue more accurately
For the historical record, the original title was:
Another modification of the thread title
The previous (modified) title was:
Also moved thread from General to Providers