Member OP
Yearly billing should be banned for new providers. The consumer risk is unacceptable. I have observed three machines vanish this year from providers that collected twelve months of payment and dissolved within ninety days. The practice incentivizes fly-by-night operations. It does not reward stability. Established machines at reputable hosts are one matter. Funding a provider's runway with no track record is another.
Member
Numbers:
As said, age correlates poorly. Ban under 2 years? Maybe. Blanket ban? No.
Member
I buy already from new provider last year, they go down after 4 month, my money gone already. But I also buy from @pieter_rtm, they good already, 2 year no problem. Maybe ban only for provider-provider under 2 year, not all. I lose $18 only, not alot, but still.
The whole point of lowend is cheap yearly deals tho. Im not paying $7/month when I can pay $15/year. Definitely not. A lot of us need that price. Ban new providers sure but dont kill the deals. My cheapest box is €30/month from Leaseweb and it runs fine.
Member
The compromise makes sense. Windows Server licensing costs push providers toward yearly commitments for cash flow. Established hosts can absorb that; new ones cannot. A two-year threshold gives consumers protection without destroying the market for cheap yearly deals. I would support this.
Went down again; ticket open; 14 days; no response; provider was 8 months old; took yearly payment; $22 gone; ban them
