It is rather difficult to understand how a service can be described as “fraudulent” when the pricing is publicly displayed before purchase, the service is prepaid voluntarily, and the customer is fully aware of the price before placing an order.
It is equally interesting to see a support response time of “up to six hours” presented as something outrageous when our clearly stated ticket response target is **within 24 hours**. Apparently, responding significantly faster than the published service standard is now being cited as evidence of poor service.
As for the IP change, every such change was announced in advance through both service announcements and email notifications. Customers were given prior notice before the change took place. Saying that the IP was “forcibly changed without any prior consultation” while simply ignoring the notices that were sent does not make those notices disappear.
The accusation of “extortion” is even more creative. Our standard service scope and any additional technical assistance are clearly distinguished. Charging for additional technical work outside the included support scope is called a **paid service**, not extortion.
To summarize: the price was disclosed before payment, the service was prepaid voluntarily, support responded within the published timeframe, and IP changes were communicated in advance through multiple channels.
Being dissatisfied with a service is perfectly understandable. Rewriting these facts into a story about “fraud,” “deception,” and “extortion,” however, is something entirely different.