Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Do providers have a right to terminate service WITHOUT notification?
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.

Do providers have a right to terminate service WITHOUT notification?

priestpriest Member
edited September 2017 in General

Are there any rights at all for customers or is it an all rights reserved thing? What is the norm?

Am not talking about something to go to court to enforce/seek redress on, but just something that makes the hosting industry a civil one.

Let's start with when can a provider terminate a service without pre notification.

Poll not found
    «13

    Comments

    • Depends on the Terms of Service you agreed to when signing up.

      Thanked by 4nice WSS pbgben ricardo
    • CConnerCConner Member, Host Rep
      edited September 2017

      Aidan said: Depends on the Terms of Service you agreed to when signing up.

      Most providers have something like that in their ToS.

      Thanked by 2Aidan WSS
    • Ok. Hope the providers here speak on this.

      @CConner said:

      Aidan said: Depends on the Terms of Service you agreed to when signing up.

      Most of the providers have something like that in their ToS.

    • Common decency dictates that they should notify you of a service termination.

      On occasion, you may not have the right to expect common decency, but that shouldn’t be any provider’s SOP.

      Thanked by 3priest emg WSS
    • jackbjackb Member, Host Rep
      edited September 2017

      If you break the ToS willingly and severely - generally yes most suppliers will have immediate suspension/termination in their ToS; for example if a newly activated customer starts sending spam or DoS they don't need to be given a warning.

      Bit rude if they don't offer you a backup of your data (assuming the problem wasn't illegal data).

      Thanked by 1WSS
    • What if it was none of those?

      What some providers do is beyond rude. And it seems ToS is the smokescreen to hide the evils and ills they feel_ free _to do.

      @jackb said:
      If you break the ToS willingly and severely - generally yes most suppliers will have immediate suspension/termination in their ToS; for example if a newly activated customer starts sending spam or DoS they don't need to be given a warning.

      Bit rude if they don't offer you a backup of your data (assuming the problem wasn't illegal data).

    • Yes. If client doesn't follow rules and is a threat to their neighbors and other

    • jackbjackb Member, Host Rep

      @priest said:
      What if it was none of those?

      What some providers do is beyond rude. And it seems ToS is the smokescreen to hide the evils and ills they feel_ free _to do.

      If you list some specific examples people can tell you their opinion.

    • OnApp_TerryOnApp_Terry Member
      edited September 2017

      If it maliciously impacts other users, yes. An example of this, would be a CPU miner.

      If it's a malicious act towards the provider, or towards internet users, such as a chargeback or a phishing site, then no proactive notice needs to be given for service suspension.

      If it's unintentional, then the provider should make every effort to work with the customer.

      Thanked by 1priest
    • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
      edited September 2017

      If your provider cannot agree with what I'm about to say, they don't care about their customers:

      If you are causing problems for other customers, you must be removed from the equation immediately. This may mean suspension, limitation, or termination. Every scenario has it's own set of variables.

      Any provider who actively chooses (as in has the choice in front of them and makes the decision) to let one customer impact others in a way that reduces their service or risks it's loss cannot claim to care about their customers.

    • There are quite a number of situations that are totally 'non-threatening' and for which providers terminate service.

      @jackb said:

      @priest said:
      What if it was none of those?

      What some providers do is beyond rude. And it seems ToS is the smokescreen to hide the evils and ills they feel_ free _to do.

      If you list some specific examples people can tell you their opinion.

    • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider
      edited September 2017

      Without notice?

      Yep absolutely for a large number of reasons.

      Do you feel it is ok to lock up a child murderer without notice or should we give him advance warning?

      Without reason... that would be different, not that the client is necessarily entitled to a long explination in every case, but there should be a valid reason behind the decision.

      For example, if a client threatens me or the company or other customers in any way that would be an immediate termination with zero communication.

      Thanked by 1WSS
    • jackbjackb Member, Host Rep

      @priest said:
      There are quite a number of situations that are totally 'non-threatening' and for which providers terminate service.

      @jackb said:

      @priest said:
      What if it was none of those?

      What some providers do is beyond rude. And it seems ToS is the smokescreen to hide the evils and ills they feel_ free _to do.

      If you list some specific examples people can tell you their opinion.

      Please list specific examples.

    • I am not really sure what do you mean by a notification? If you mean a prior notice before suspension/termination? I doubt this is gonna happen, though it depends on why he's getting suspended/terminated.

    • Gamma17Gamma17 Member
      edited September 2017

      What i would expect from a decent provider/service is suspension and and at least a chance to talk with support to either resolve issue or get data backup.

      Straight up termination/data deletion is IMO too extreme, but some providers definitely do it. Personally i try to avoid such providers if possible because i do not like the idea that my service can be randomly deleted because something went wrong, like some application hanged and started using all available CPU...

    • @jarland said:
      If your provider cannot agree with what I'm about to say, they don't care about their customers:

      If you are causing problems for other customers, you must be removed from the equation immediately. This may mean suspension, limitation, or termination. Every scenario has it's own set of variables.

      Any provider who actively chooses (as in has the choice in front of them and makes the decision) to let one customer impact others in a way that reduces their service or risks it's loss cannot claim to care about their customers.

      I am kind of reminded of the whole Spamhaus <->vpn provider situation. You have a customer impacting others through their vpn service, but you havent immediately terminated him.

      Im not saying you should have, but that shows that there obviously isnt a black&white thing going on, Mr. Calvinist Entity.

    • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
      edited September 2017

      @MagicalTrain said:

      @jarland said:
      If your provider cannot agree with what I'm about to say, they don't care about their customers:

      If you are causing problems for other customers, you must be removed from the equation immediately. This may mean suspension, limitation, or termination. Every scenario has it's own set of variables.

      Any provider who actively chooses (as in has the choice in front of them and makes the decision) to let one customer impact others in a way that reduces their service or risks it's loss cannot claim to care about their customers.

      I am kind of reminded of the whole Spamhaus <->vpn provider situation. You have a customer impacting others through their vpn service, but you havent immediately terminated him.

      Im not saying you should have, but that shows that there obviously isnt a black&white thing going on, Mr. Calvinist Entity.

      Figured someone would try to bring that up for kicks. Go ahead and tell me how that situation reduces the service of another customer ;)

      Under no circumstances is someone having to use their knowledge of how to manage an unmanaged server (firewall, web server config, etc), especially on another external provider, a valid modifier.

    • MagicalTrainMagicalTrain Member
      edited September 2017

      @jarland said:

      @MagicalTrain said:

      @jarland said:
      If your provider cannot agree with what I'm about to say, they don't care about their customers:

      If you are causing problems for other customers, you must be removed from the equation immediately. This may mean suspension, limitation, or termination. Every scenario has it's own set of variables.

      Any provider who actively chooses (as in has the choice in front of them and makes the decision) to let one customer impact others in a way that reduces their service or risks it's loss cannot claim to care about their customers.

      I am kind of reminded of the whole Spamhaus <->vpn provider situation. You have a customer impacting others through their vpn service, but you havent immediately terminated him.

      Im not saying you should have, but that shows that there obviously isnt a black&white thing going on, Mr. Calvinist Entity.

      Figured someone would try to bring that up for kicks. Go ahead and tell me how that situation reduces the service of another customer ;)

      Im not trying to bring that up for kicks. Im trying to show that its clearly not black and white. And it pretty clearly reduced the service of other customers by their emails being bounced due to being listed at Spamhaus.

    • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

      @MagicalTrain said:

      @jarland said:

      @MagicalTrain said:

      @jarland said:
      If your provider cannot agree with what I'm about to say, they don't care about their customers:

      If you are causing problems for other customers, you must be removed from the equation immediately. This may mean suspension, limitation, or termination. Every scenario has it's own set of variables.

      Any provider who actively chooses (as in has the choice in front of them and makes the decision) to let one customer impact others in a way that reduces their service or risks it's loss cannot claim to care about their customers.

      I am kind of reminded of the whole Spamhaus <->vpn provider situation. You have a customer impacting others through their vpn service, but you havent immediately terminated him.

      Im not saying you should have, but that shows that there obviously isnt a black&white thing going on, Mr. Calvinist Entity.

      Figured someone would try to bring that up for kicks. Go ahead and tell me how that situation reduces the service of another customer ;)

      Im not trying to bring that up for kicks. And it pretty clearly reduced the service of other customers by their emails being bounced due to being listed at Spamhaus.

      Where did I ever say that anyone, ever, looked upon complaints from spamhaus and actively chose not to act on them? Troll elsewhere please.

    • MagicalTrainMagicalTrain Member
      edited September 2017

      @jarland said:

      @MagicalTrain said:

      @jarland said:

      @MagicalTrain said:

      @jarland said:
      If your provider cannot agree with what I'm about to say, they don't care about their customers:

      If you are causing problems for other customers, you must be removed from the equation immediately. This may mean suspension, limitation, or termination. Every scenario has it's own set of variables.

      Any provider who actively chooses (as in has the choice in front of them and makes the decision) to let one customer impact others in a way that reduces their service or risks it's loss cannot claim to care about their customers.

      I am kind of reminded of the whole Spamhaus <->vpn provider situation. You have a customer impacting others through their vpn service, but you havent immediately terminated him.

      Im not saying you should have, but that shows that there obviously isnt a black&white thing going on, Mr. Calvinist Entity.

      Figured someone would try to bring that up for kicks. Go ahead and tell me how that situation reduces the service of another customer ;)

      Im not trying to bring that up for kicks. And it pretty clearly reduced the service of other customers by their emails being bounced due to being listed at Spamhaus.

      Where did I ever say that anyone, ever, looked upon complaints from spamhaus and actively chose not to act on them? Troll elsewhere please.

      Jesus, @jarland. Thats not what Im saying. Dont tell me im trolling when im simply trying to talk normally with you.

      You said: If a customers negatively impacts a service of another customer, the first customer should be terminated. But thats not what happened in the spamhaus situation. You (nevermind it being positive or negative, I have no opinion on that) decided not to terminate the vpn provider customer, to the (short term) detriment of other customers because they are also listed in spamhaus.

      Now, please, consider what I said seriously and dont simply stamp me off as troll. You should know Im not trying to be.

    • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
      edited September 2017

      @MagicalTrain said:

      @jarland said:

      @MagicalTrain said:

      @jarland said:

      @MagicalTrain said:

      @jarland said:
      If your provider cannot agree with what I'm about to say, they don't care about their customers:

      If you are causing problems for other customers, you must be removed from the equation immediately. This may mean suspension, limitation, or termination. Every scenario has it's own set of variables.

      Any provider who actively chooses (as in has the choice in front of them and makes the decision) to let one customer impact others in a way that reduces their service or risks it's loss cannot claim to care about their customers.

      I am kind of reminded of the whole Spamhaus <->vpn provider situation. You have a customer impacting others through their vpn service, but you havent immediately terminated him.

      Im not saying you should have, but that shows that there obviously isnt a black&white thing going on, Mr. Calvinist Entity.

      Figured someone would try to bring that up for kicks. Go ahead and tell me how that situation reduces the service of another customer ;)

      Im not trying to bring that up for kicks. And it pretty clearly reduced the service of other customers by their emails being bounced due to being listed at Spamhaus.

      Where did I ever say that anyone, ever, looked upon complaints from spamhaus and actively chose not to act on them? Troll elsewhere please.

      Jesus, @jarland. Thats not what Im saying. Dont tell me im trolling when im simply trying to talk normally with you.

      You said: If a customers negatively impacts a service of another customer, the first customer should be terminated. But thats not what happened in the spamhaus situation. You (nevermind it being positive or negative, I have no opinion on that) decided not to terminate the vpn provider customer, to the (short term) detriment of other customers because they are also listed in spamhaus.

      Now, please, consider what I said seriously and dont simply stamp me off as troll. You should know Im not trying to be.

      Let me help you read it :)

      Any provider who actively chooses (as in has the choice in front of them and makes the decision) to let one customer impact others in a way that reduces their service or risks it's loss cannot claim to care about their customers.

      ...

      actively chooses (as in has the choice in front of them and makes the decision) to let one customer impact others in a way that reduces their service or risks it's loss

      ...

      actively chooses (as in has the choice in front of them and makes the decision)

      One has to get to that abuse complaint before one is actively facing the decision of what to do with it. That requires that one complete the workload that came before it first, or choose to let something else suffer by putting it first. Prioritization of handling issues is not a choice to ignore issues.

      (I edited to remove the worst run-on sentence of my life, because it was terrible lol)

    • I was under the impression that you chose to not terminate the vpn customer from your other comments because it wasnt him actively being the spammer/botnetter, just one of his customers. (you said something about wanting more information to track the specific customer of the vpn service down to shut him down) If I misunderstood that, I apologize.

    • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
      edited September 2017

      @MagicalTrain said:
      I was under the impression that you chose to not terminate the vpn customer from your other comments because it wasnt him actively being the spammer/botnetter, just one of his customers. (you said something about wanting more information to track the specific customer of the vpn service down to shut him down) If I misunderstood that, I apologize.

      That was different from the spamhaus issue and addressed above. You do not know from that VPN/forum spam situation whether the complaint came from a customer or not. What you know is that they reported spam on their forum from a VPN provider. What you also know is that it's your job, as a server administrator, to deal with such things. If you don't want people accessing your website from a VPN, block datacenter IP ranges. If you expect to shut down every VPN service out there because someone once used one of their IPs to spam a forum... that's just not logical.

      Even if they were a customer, asking them to use their server for it's actual function, like blocking traffic they don't want, is not a reduction of their service or a risk of it's loss. It's asking them to be an administrator of their server, which is a fairly reasonable expectation as nothing you can do as a self-managed provider is going to prevent them from having to be the admin of their server.

    • @jarland said:

      @MagicalTrain said:
      I was under the impression that you chose to not terminate the vpn customer from your other comments because it wasnt him actively being the spammer/botnetter, just one of his customers. (you said something about wanting more information to track the specific customer of the vpn service down to shut him down) If I misunderstood that, I apologize.

      That was different from the spamhaus issue and addressed above. You do not know from that VPN/forum spam situation whether the complaint came from a customer or not. What you know is that they reported spam on their forum from a VPN provider. What you also know is that it's your job, as a server administrator, to deal with such things. If you don't want people accessing your website from a VPN, block datacenter IP ranges. If you expect to shut down every VPN service out there because someone once used one of their IPs to spam a forum... that's just not logical.

      Even if they were a customer, asking them to use their server for it's actual function, like blocking traffic they don't want, is not a reduction of their service or a risk of it's loss. It's asking them to be an administrator of their server, which is a fairly reasonable expectation as nothing you can do as a self-managed provider is going to prevent them from having to be the admin of their server.

      I agree with you, but that was my original point. Simply saying: "customer is affecting somebody, terminate him" isnt what you do. Sometimes you have to weigh multiple options against each other.

      Thats specifically why I commented on this topic. Because you have clearly shown in the past that you dont reduce to black&white, but take multiple avenues into account. Thats why I didnt know why you made it sound like its a black&white issue here.

    • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran
      edited September 2017

      @MagicalTrain said:

      @jarland said:

      @MagicalTrain said:
      I was under the impression that you chose to not terminate the vpn customer from your other comments because it wasnt him actively being the spammer/botnetter, just one of his customers. (you said something about wanting more information to track the specific customer of the vpn service down to shut him down) If I misunderstood that, I apologize.

      That was different from the spamhaus issue and addressed above. You do not know from that VPN/forum spam situation whether the complaint came from a customer or not. What you know is that they reported spam on their forum from a VPN provider. What you also know is that it's your job, as a server administrator, to deal with such things. If you don't want people accessing your website from a VPN, block datacenter IP ranges. If you expect to shut down every VPN service out there because someone once used one of their IPs to spam a forum... that's just not logical.

      Even if they were a customer, asking them to use their server for it's actual function, like blocking traffic they don't want, is not a reduction of their service or a risk of it's loss. It's asking them to be an administrator of their server, which is a fairly reasonable expectation as nothing you can do as a self-managed provider is going to prevent them from having to be the admin of their server.

      I agree with you, but that was my original point. Simply saying: "customer is affecting somebody, terminate him" isnt what you do. Sometimes you have to weigh multiple options against each other.

      Thats specifically why I commented on this topic. Because you have clearly shown in the past that you dont reduce to black&white, but take multiple avenues into account. Thats why I didnt know why you made it sound like its a black&white issue here.

      If what they are doing is actually reducing another customer's service, or risking it's loss, then the grey area can only be defined as choosing not to care about a customer. Asking someone (who may not even be a customer) to use their firewall is not reducing their service or risking it's loss. I stand by this one being very black and white, I defined my criteria for it very carefully so as to be able to do that ;)

      Thanked by 1MagicalTrain
    • @jarland

      guess we kinda arrived at semantics. I see where youre coming from, I dont really agree with the definition though.

    • CloudconeCloudcone Member, Patron Provider

      1st time suspend and inform, but there are some users who promises to avoid policy breaches in the future, and then do the same thing after few minutes.

      Those people gets terminated without notice as per the policies

    • KuJoeKuJoe Member, Host Rep
      edited September 2017

      Any host not reserving the right to terminate service without notification (and exercising this right) either hates themselves or hates offering their clients a stable service.

    • priest said: There are quite a number of situations that are totally 'non-threatening' and for which providers terminate service.

      Why don't you tell us some? And why do you hide behind a "poll" and not giving us the exact situation that caused your account's suspension, if there is one?

      Thanked by 2Zerpy willie
    • Hiding behind a poll? Forget that.

      Tell you some more? I choose not too discuss some things openly - or maybe there is nothing to tell.

      Exact situation that caused suspension? There was no suspension.

      The point is that this is not primarily because of me or about my issue. This is more about how the numerous number of hosts/provider choose to do things.

      I have had varying experiences with providers, and am here learning more. It is better to look at the overall approach of providers rather than looking at specific instances.

      @jvnadr said:

      priest said: There are quite a number of situations that are totally 'non-threatening' and for which providers terminate service.

      Why don't you tell us some? And why do you hide behind a "poll" and not giving us the exact situation that caused your account's suspension, if there is one?

    Sign In or Register to comment.