3 ms·
Perhaps. Or perhaps they block or throttle your account. Stopping payment is the nuclear option, you can't expect any cooperation with outstanding payments on y
by mseebach 9y ago
Perhaps. Or perhaps they block or throttle your account. Stopping payment is the nuclear option, you can't expect any cooperation with outstanding payments on your account (not that you necessarily can with a fully paid up account), and your position, if you should choose to pursue legal action, just got a lot more complicated.
- corford 9y agoTo be clear, the only time any of this matters is when a huge, unexpected bill arrives. Day to day, you should anticipate any big, legitimate bills and make sure funds are there to settle them (or you scale back usage to avoid getting smacked). It's when a big bill lands in error or is introduced sneakily that having a separate "cloud only card" can save you. In that case, it's the supplier that's gone nuclear and you're just responding in kind.
- mseebach 9y agoSure, but that's just not what we're discussing here. The author of the original article clearly authorised the increased spend (but obviously not the sudden change causing it), and could have declined (presumably at the cost of having his app throttled or shut down). Nothing about a "cloud only card" would have changed his situation the least.
- corford 9y agoTotally agree. If he/she authorised it after being given an opportunity to decline then, yes, it's absolutely on them. /me clearly didn't read the article ;)
- dexterdog 9y agoI've had an invoiced account with AWS since 2007. We have been 9 months behind on payments at times and they have never suspended the account. Keep a line open with then and they will be reasonable. We are currently current with then but have been behind for more that 2/3 the history of the account.