On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Nick Sheppard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/12/13 19:02, Nick wrote: >> >> Quoth Roger Dingledine: >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 04:00:06PM +0000, Nick Sheppard wrote: >>>> >>>> At the end of the month I got a bill for 120 dollars. And Amazon >>>> were quite right - they were charging me for the 1024 GB of storage >>>> I had accidentally asked for by not changing the default when I set >>>> up the instance. The first 30 GB were free, the other 994 I was >>>> paying for. And I was only actually using 1.5 GB ... >>> >>> >>> *Storage*? As in, disk space? Surely you mean bandwidth, but you >>> seem quite clearly to mean disk space, so I'm confused. >> >> >> Sounds to me like Amazon decided the instance should be given 1024GB >> of disk space by default, regardless of the fact that it (obviously) >> remained completely unused. >> >> Nick, if Amazon were a reasonable company that certainly ought to be >> the sort of thing you could say "I didn't realise, it was >> misleading, and I didn't use the offered space, please refund me". >> However given their love of automation and robotic offerings I >> suspect such pleas would be ignored. > > > Nice idea, but I don't think I'd have a case. The 1024 GB is there on the > setup screen (at least it is for eu-west-1), there were many ways I could > have seen how much unused storage I had, I could have checked my bill more > often, I could easily have set up an email alert for when the bill passed a > set threshold ...
@AWSSupport replied to my tweet saying they have reached out to you via the AWS Support Center at https://aws.amazon.com/support. -- Runa A. Sandvik _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
