For those interested parties below is our "experience" with Webreseller. You should not assume that the following applies to everyone nor that these problems still exist but that as stated, this was our experience while with them. Not mentioned in the below except is the fact that we repeatedly had numerouse non move related downtimes ranging from 1 hour up to 7 and 13 hours of hardware related downtime. The below thread should be followed in reverse order.

---------

You recentenly changed your TOS from 14 days to 30 days when you launched your new site which was WAY after our cancellations and departure from your company. We even notified you the very day of the charge and informed you that it was incorrect. As per the RAID, it was not installed and it was a supported item. You don't install a piece of hardware and say ok, here ya go, it's working pay up and when it fact it was never installed nor working. That is in most simplest terms liaring not to mention fraud and deception.

CK

> As mentioned, this is being sent to outside collection and WHBL for
> processing, if you wish to call and discuss this tomorrow that is fine,
> however, our TOS is very clear and you did not give proper
> notification... As far as the raid, it was installed and it WAS NOT a
> supported item.
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Kotran [mailto:cdkotran@asysstance.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:59 PM
> To: rob@webreseller.net
> Cc: billing@asysstance.com
> Subject: RE: Collection Notice
>
>
> We would not have had to perform a charge back if you would not have
> over charged the credit card or if you refunded the overcharge in a
> timely fashion. When one refuses to refund money not due to them, one
> must take action into their own hands, hence my call to Amex. Charging
> ones credit card for services not rendered is exactly like stealing
> money.
>
> CK
>
>> When a client perform a charge back, it immediately goes to
>> collections.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Kotran [mailto:cdkotran@asysstance.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:39 PM
>> To: rob@webreseller.net
>> Cc: billing@asysstance.com
>> Subject: RE: Collection Notice
>>
>>
>> The charges in question that were reversed by Amex where charges after
>
>> the fact. The 2 servers in question were cancelled and you over
>> charged the CC for them even after the approriate notice had been
>> given according to the TOS at that time. As per the RAID stuff that
>> we did NOT charge back, THE SERVERS DID NOT HAVE FUNCTIONING RAID
>> IN/ON THEM. Your own support staff could not even prove after given a
>> month to do so that the RAID was installed or that is was working.
>> This account is in dispute, not collections.
>>
>> CK
>>
>>> Mr. Kotran,
>>>
>>> We will pursue this legally and will be turning this over to our
>>> collection agency. Everything you requested had been installed and
>>> the
>>
>>> charges were current and should apply. Furthermore, we will be
>>> submitting this to the WHBL for consideration.
>>>
>>> Thank You
>>> Robert Greenawalt
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Christopher Kotran [mailto:cdkotran@asysstance.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:46 PM
>>> To: leslie@webreseller.net
>>> Cc: billing@asysstance.com; rob@webreseller.net
>>> Subject: Re: Collection Notice
>>>
>>>
>>> You can't collect what your not owed. The charged back amounts are
>>> amounts overcharged by your company to our credit card. We have an
>>> electronic contract / trail proving as such. In addition, we did not
>
>>> charge back the amounts charged for the RAID configurations that were
>
>>> not provided as stated. When you sell something to someone and it is
>
>>> suppose to include other items that are not provided but you paid for
>
>>> it, that is fraud / deception and illegal. So, should you feel the
>>> need to continue to collect on something that is not owed to you, we
>>> will be compelled to file charges against your company. And as per
>>> the issue of you having in house counsel as noted in your previous
>>> email, I would not be bragging about that. That's actually a bad
>>> thing
>>
>>> for you.
>>>
>>> Christopher Kotran
>>> Asys Stance, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Mr. Kotran,
>>>>
>>>> Your account is being sent to collections for the amount due of
>>>> $304.88 plus chhargeback fees. We would like to resolve this issue
>>>> without sending this to an outside collections agency, however, if
>>>> we
>>
>>>> do not here from you with 24 hours we will proceed with NCO & D&B
>>>> collections. Please note that as part of our collections effort, we
>>>> will instruct our collections company to proceed as necessary. This
>>>> can result in negative information on all three major credit bureau
>
>>>> reports and additional legal fees.
>>>>
>>>> Thank You
>>>> Leslie McMichael
>>>> WEBRESELLLER.NET

I got stuck into paying another month because of that change in their terms of service.

Another thing that bothered me was I purchased a supermicro with a 50 dollar setup fee. *this was before the website change* Then about a hour after I purchase the server they up the setup cost to 100 dollars and tell everyone on webhosting talk that they are taking 50% off the setup as a "special promotion" or something like that.

They still owe me a refund from last April, Robert claims in public here on WHT it was issued but refuses to send anything to me showing it was ever issued, he lies here on the board claiming he has done so.

I throw this challenge out to Robert send the verification to my PM box and lets let Chicken see that it is sent, then he can confirm it was sent. If you refuse to do that then do not claim you have sent proof of the refund, which you never have, and then try and lie about it here to make yourself look good.

Here is your chance Robert to prove your claim that you have sent me verification and shut me up for good.

If Webreseller.Net tries to hurt MY credit rating by pulling this, I'll let you all know.

this is being sent to outside collection and WHBL for processing.


LOL :)

Unfortunately there are always companies out there that do not follow "the customer is always right". It takes messages on WHT to get them to act, strange.

At the end of day, for whatever reason, the customer wasn't happy, enough to get themselves angry and stressed to chargeback, why would any company risk their reputation rather than just refunding the customer and selling on the server??? :rolleyes:

Well, I just heard from them after all this posting, and they (again) have what they need to fix my card. It should appear by tommorrow .............

Copy of Email Body ...................

Ken,

To let you know, if you perform a chargeback, (you are more then welcome to post this on WHT as I am sure you will), for the last month that you were obligated to you will be sent to NCO collection and your remarks on WHT will certainly help with our case. We bent over backwards for you and you were warned about the problems that could happen by the migration and you did it anyway. You have been refunded the $75.00 as we said we would do.

Thank You
Leslie McMichael


......................................
What if you didn't do a chargeback to a vendor, and instead sent THEM to collections for the amount of credit due?

Not my plan, but just for laughs, I have to ask one of my lawyers about that one.

Originally posted by KENTROPOLIS
Not my plan, but just for laughs, I have to ask one of my lawyers about that one.

I think that the first thing "one of your lawyers" will tell you is to stop posting about it in public.

=mazz=

Originally posted by MattF
Unfortunately there are always companies out there that do not follow "the customer is always right". It takes messages on WHT to get them to act, strange.


I don't know the situation, nor do I particularly care to, but there are times when a company has to stand their ground. The old "customer is always right" thing is true only to a point.

=mazz=

Originally posted by Al Mazzola


I think that the first thing "one of your lawyers" will tell you is to stop posting about it in public.

=mazz=

You're probably right. But if you can't use free speech responsibly ... aw, heck with it. It's too late to be philosophical.

:confused:

Originally posted by KENTROPOLIS
You're probably right. But if you can't use free speech responsibly ... aw, heck with it. It's too late to be philosophical.

:confused:

ITs not philosophy, its doing what your lawyer recomends. Do not sya a thing at all. If you must say something, let him speak on your behlaf on all legal matters. Have him notify the other parties legal counsel to serve all motions, stipulation, demans, etc, to him.

Funny thing is I remember their cancel page used to recently say 14 days while their TOS said 30. It seems now they have changed it.

Why it takes them 30 days to cancel an account is beyond me. Why not just end it at the end of the customers billing cycle?

This is between you and webreseller and nobody here really needs to know

Originally posted by goodness0001
This is between you and webreseller and nobody here really needs to know

Except to document it so WHT functions as a sort of BBB that way when people think about going with WR.net they can see good and bad reviews.

Except for the fact that most people do not post any real facts and therefore at most it is all heresay. Sure there probably is an issue to be addressed, but basically people use WHT to get leverage whether they are telling the truth or not.

I have a server with a IDE raid controler and it is totally transparent to the OS, so unless you had physical access to the server there is no way for you to know whether it is installed or not. It is not like SCSI raid where it is needed on the linux kernel level to have that particular raid controllers driver.


I know this because my desktop has built in promise IDE raid..


I cant say whether you do have it or you don't but i see no reason for them to claim it was installed and didnt install it. It would be a huge liability if your hardrive crashed and you lost all your data because there wasnt a spare with a mirror.. I don't think webreseller would risk getting sued over an extra 20-30 bux a month..

But thats just my 2 cents.......



Originally posted by cdkotran
For those interested parties below is our "experience" with Webreseller. You should not assume that the following applies to everyone nor that these problems still exist but that as stated, this was our experience while with them. Not mentioned in the below except is the fact that we repeatedly had numerouse non move related downtimes ranging from 1 hour up to 7 and 13 hours of hardware related downtime. The below thread should be followed in reverse order.

---------

You recentenly changed your TOS from 14 days to 30 days when you launched your new site which was WAY after our cancellations and departure from your company. We even notified you the very day of the charge and informed you that it was incorrect. As per the RAID, it was not installed and it was a supported item. You don't install a piece of hardware and say ok, here ya go, it's working pay up and when it fact it was never installed nor working. That is in most simplest terms liaring not to mention fraud and deception.

CK

> As mentioned, this is being sent to outside collection and WHBL for
> processing, if you wish to call and discuss this tomorrow that is fine,
> however, our TOS is very clear and you did not give proper
> notification... As far as the raid, it was installed and it WAS NOT a
> supported item.
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Kotran [mailto:cdkotran@asysstance.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:59 PM
> To: rob@webreseller.net
> Cc: billing@asysstance.com
> Subject: RE: Collection Notice
>
>
> We would not have had to perform a charge back if you would not have
> over charged the credit card or if you refunded the overcharge in a
> timely fashion. When one refuses to refund money not due to them, one
> must take action into their own hands, hence my call to Amex. Charging
> ones credit card for services not rendered is exactly like stealing
> money.
>
> CK
>
>> When a client perform a charge back, it immediately goes to
>> collections.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Kotran [mailto:cdkotran@asysstance.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:39 PM
>> To: rob@webreseller.net
>> Cc: billing@asysstance.com
>> Subject: RE: Collection Notice
>>
>>
>> The charges in question that were reversed by Amex where charges after
>
>> the fact. The 2 servers in question were cancelled and you over
>> charged the CC for them even after the approriate notice had been
>> given according to the TOS at that time. As per the RAID stuff that
>> we did NOT charge back, THE SERVERS DID NOT HAVE FUNCTIONING RAID
>> IN/ON THEM. Your own support staff could not even prove after given a
>> month to do so that the RAID was installed or that is was working.
>> This account is in dispute, not collections.
>>
>> CK
>>
>>> Mr. Kotran,
>>>
>>> We will pursue this legally and will be turning this over to our
>>> collection agency. Everything you requested had been installed and
>>> the
>>
>>> charges were current and should apply. Furthermore, we will be
>>> submitting this to the WHBL for consideration.
>>>
>>> Thank You
>>> Robert Greenawalt
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Christopher Kotran [mailto:cdkotran@asysstance.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:46 PM
>>> To: leslie@webreseller.net
>>> Cc: billing@asysstance.com; rob@webreseller.net
>>> Subject: Re: Collection Notice
>>>
>>>
>>> You can't collect what your not owed. The charged back amounts are
>>> amounts overcharged by your company to our credit card. We have an
>>> electronic contract / trail proving as such. In addition, we did not
>
>>> charge back the amounts charged for the RAID configurations that were
>
>>> not provided as stated. When you sell something to someone and it is
>
>>> suppose to include other items that are not provided but you paid for
>
>>> it, that is fraud / deception and illegal. So, should you feel the
>>> need to continue to collect on something that is not owed to you, we
>>> will be compelled to file charges against your company. And as per
>>> the issue of you having in house counsel as noted in your previous
>>> email, I would not be bragging about that. That's actually a bad
>>> thing
>>
>>> for you.
>>>
>>> Christopher Kotran
>>> Asys Stance, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Mr. Kotran,
>>>>
>>>> Your account is being sent to collections for the amount due of
>>>> $304.88 plus chhargeback fees. We would like to resolve this issue
>>>> without sending this to an outside collections agency, however, if
>>>> we
>>
>>>> do not here from you with 24 hours we will proceed with NCO & D&B
>>>> collections. Please note that as part of our collections effort, we
>>>> will instruct our collections company to proceed as necessary. This
>>>> can result in negative information on all three major credit bureau
>
>>>> reports and additional legal fees.
>>>>
>>>> Thank You
>>>> Leslie McMichael
>>>> WEBRESELLLER.NET

Originally posted by goodness0001
Except for the fact that most people do not post any real facts and therefore at most it is all heresay. Sure there probably is an issue to be addressed, but basically people use WHT to get leverage whether they are telling the truth or not.

So you are saying cdkotran is a liar?

I really dont think you are in the poisition to say that.

sometimes i think goodness works for webreseller. heh

Originally posted by ameen
I have a server with a IDE raid controler and it is totally transparent to the OS, so unless you had physical access to the server there is no way for you to know whether it is installed or not. It is not like SCSI raid where it is needed on the linux kernel level to have that particular raid controllers driver.


I know this because my desktop has built in promise IDE raid..

Look out, its Promise RAID. (Worst storage controllers ever)

Second, yes, you can tell:

http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/Linux-Promise-RAID1-HOWTO/x158.html

There are various other ways you can tell as well.

And if you get a real RAID controller, it will send you emails when a drive goes down, pages as well, and let you add up to 16 harddrives, and offer true hardware RAID with 1 co-processor actve for every 4th set of physical drives installed. All that can be configured from within the OS.

I love how people think they KNOW everything. That is for the SCSI controller, maybe if you READ my post you could see i was referring to the IDE RAID CONTROLLER. IT IS TRANSPARENT TO THE OPERATING SYSTEM. GG thx...


Originally posted by Acronym BOY


Look out, its Promise RAID. (Worst storage controllers ever)

Second, yes, you can tell:

http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/Linux-Promise-RAID1-HOWTO/x158.html

There are various other ways you can tell as well.

And if you get a real RAID controller, it will send you emails when a drive goes down, pages as well, and let you add up to 16 harddrives, and offer true hardware RAID with 1 co-processor actve for every 4th set of physical drives installed. All that can be configured from within the OS.

I also never claimed they used promise controllers. .
get a clue


Originally posted by Acronym BOY


Look out, its Promise RAID. (Worst storage controllers ever)

Second, yes, you can tell:

http://www.linux.org/docs/ldp/howto/Linux-Promise-RAID1-HOWTO/x158.html

There are various other ways you can tell as well.

And if you get a real RAID controller, it will send you emails when a drive goes down, pages as well, and let you add up to 16 harddrives, and offer true hardware RAID with 1 co-processor actve for every 4th set of physical drives installed. All that can be configured from within the OS.

Originally posted by ameen
I love how people think they KNOW everything. That is for the SCSI controller, maybe if you READ my post you could see i was referring to the IDE RAID CONTROLLER. IT IS TRANSPARENT TO THE OPERATING SYSTEM. GG thx...

I love how people randomly hit the caps lock key.

Look at the page, it says:

# cat /proc/scsi/fasttrak/0
Promise FastTrak Series Linux Driver Version 1.2.0.14
Adapter1 - FASTTRAK100 TX2
Array - Array[1] : 1X2 Mirror (OK)
Drive -
1 : IC Primary /Master 41174MB BASE(0xb400) BM(0xc400) IRQ(11) UDMA5
3 : IC Secondary/Master 41174MB BASE(0xbc00) BM(0xc408) IRQ(11) UDMA5

That is not SCSI. Get a clue, yourself.

There are two ways you can tell.

One, Promise does not make any SCSI products. Take a look yourself: http://www.promise.com/product/product_eng.asp

Two, it says UDMA5, a protocol oringally developed by Quantum Corporation and Intel that supports burst mode data transfer. It is also known as ATA-100, which is most deifntly not a flavor of SCSI.

So please explain to me how this IDE controller is somehow transparent to the OS. :rolleyes:

Oh wait, thats right, its not transparent, I can see it right there, along with its config. :rolleyes:

And simply becuase you are probably confused as to why it says SCSI, you should read up a bit about IDE-SCSI emulation under linux http://www.drahthaar.clara.net/cdr/ide-scsi.html as well as many other places. It is used very often with tape drives and zip drives as well as CDRs and is used almost always when dealing with RAID controllers. Windows 2000 does the same with pretty much any IDE controller. But you knew all that, right?

Originally posted by ameen
I also never claimed they used promise controllers. .
get a clue

It doesnt matter what they run, any hardware RAID controller worht its weight it kitty litter will be configurable throught the OS, emaning you can tell if one has been installed or not.

Get a clue yourself :rolleyes:

And this still proves my original point, that yes, you can verify the installation of a hardware RAID controller.

Let's stop suggesting we get a clue now shall we. Only discuss the issue/topic please.

no i do not work for webreseller, i have several servers there and I have found them extremely helpful and cost effective. They have saved me several hundred dollars a month with their services. I have other servers at a couple of other datacenters and they do not compare.

I try to say positive things about companies because all everyone else here does is b-i-t-c-h. Frankly if you have a problem with a company, i really dont care. State your problem and move on, not everyone is going to have a great experience with a company. If they did then there would only be 1 web host provider.

So for every negitive comment, i will post a positive comment, i can go all day.

You know what your right i didnt even read the page or your post properly. Been tired and out of it for the past couple of weeks because my son was born 14 days ago and we havent gotten barely ANY sleep.

I apologize for my response to your response, but you did come at me a bit aggressive.


Ameen.






Originally posted by Acronym BOY


I love how people randomly hit the caps lock key.

Look at the page, it says:

# cat /proc/scsi/fasttrak/0
Promise FastTrak Series Linux Driver Version 1.2.0.14
Adapter1 - FASTTRAK100 TX2
Array - Array[1] : 1X2 Mirror (OK)
Drive -
1 : IC Primary /Master 41174MB BASE(0xb400) BM(0xc400) IRQ(11) UDMA5
3 : IC Secondary/Master 41174MB BASE(0xbc00) BM(0xc408) IRQ(11) UDMA5

That is not SCSI. Get a clue, yourself.

There are two ways you can tell.

One, Promise does not make any SCSI products. Take a look yourself: http://www.promise.com/product/product_eng.asp

Two, it says UDMA5, a protocol oringally developed by Quantum Corporation and Intel that supports burst mode data transfer. It is also known as ATA-100, which is most deifntly not a flavor of SCSI.

So please explain to me how this IDE controller is somehow transparent to the OS. :rolleyes:

Oh wait, thats right, its not transparent, I can see it right there, along with its config. :rolleyes:

And simply becuase you are probably confused as to why it says SCSI, you should read up a bit about IDE-SCSI emulation under linux http://www.drahthaar.clara.net/cdr/ide-scsi.html as well as many other places. It is used very often with tape drives and zip drives as well as CDRs and is used almost always when dealing with RAID controllers. Windows 2000 does the same with pretty much any IDE controller. But you knew all that, right?



It doesnt matter what they run, any hardware RAID controller worht its weight it kitty litter will be configurable throught the OS, emaning you can tell if one has been installed or not.

Get a clue yourself :rolleyes:

And this still proves my original point, that yes, you can verify the installation of a hardware RAID controller.

Just wanted to clarify on our testing for the presence of the RAID controller:

The method used to determine whether or not the RAID controller was or was not installed was that I contacted the manufactured and acquired a demo version for testing purposes. According to the manufacture, of which was provided by Webreseller in the early days, and our test system, if the RAID controller was installed and configured, the physicall disks behind the controller would not be revealed to the operating system. The name duplidisk would be revealed instead. Our servers showed a combination of Maxtor and WD along with their associated serial numbers in the log files. In addition, we discovered a stability factor with the duplidisk and P3 and P4 motherboards. We were able to easily crash our test system repeatedly with the RAID controller installed. A variety of motherboards were used for testing.

Originally posted by ameen
Been tired and out of it for the past couple of weeks because my son was born 14 days ago and we havent gotten barely ANY sleep.


congrats on the new baby!

So you tested the presence on the webreseller server with this method?
Originally posted by cdkotran
Just wanted to clarify on our testing for the presence of the RAID controller:

The method used to determine whether or not the RAID controller was or was not installed was that I contacted the manufactured and acquired a demo version for testing purposes. According to the manufacture, of which was provided by Webreseller in the early days, and our test system, if the RAID controller was installed and configured, the physicall disks behind the controller would not be revealed to the operating system. The name duplidisk would be revealed instead. Our servers showed a combination of Maxtor and WD along with their associated serial numbers in the log files. In addition, we discovered a stability factor with the duplidisk and P3 and P4 motherboards. We were able to easily crash our test system repeatedly with the RAID controller installed. A variety of motherboards were used for testing.

Why thank you:)
Originally posted by neil


congrats on the new baby!

Yes, I compared the logs to that of the logs on the test servers and discussed the logs with the manufacture. There was no doubt in their mind that the RAID controllers where either not installed or configured.

Update for those following this thread... So after many many many many emails back and forth there is a currently a peace proposal on the table between WR and I. I'll let you know if it stands. On other notes, Rob has been very fast with his email replies tonight.

Glad things look to be working out for you.

ameen, sorry for snapping at you, congrats on the little one!