Comment by rovr138 3 days ago
straining is also ambiguous and disingenuous.
if we believe the plan was $200 and the upgrade was to a $2,000 plan.. there's no way a $2,000 user would be "straining" Cloudflare's network.
We spend more than that. If we are putting a strain on Cloudflare, they're not at the scale we think they're at.
Why are you straining so hard and spending so many words to defend general scumminess.
Invisible limits are an anti-pattern, simple as that.
See my other comment[1]. I'm not sure why you're straining so hard and spending so many words to defend "general scumminess", like the the right of a gambling site hosting dozens of domains (to evade government bans) on shared cloudflare IPs, or people expecting to get 1.2PB of bandwidth served out of a $200 CDN plan.
You want this to be complicated so badly, but it's not.
Hidden limits are an anti-pattern.
There is no counter-argument.
If they have a hard limit they can cut people off well ahead of 1.2PB of bandwidth with less ambiguity: it's a strictly better situation.
If 1.2 PB is a problem, then why don't they just specify a bandwidth limit of say 1 PB? They specifically say "unlimited bandwidth", so yes, what they are doing _is_ scummy because there is a very obvious incongruity between what they claim and what they actually offer.
Seems like you don't really have any issue with the underlying business decision (ie. pushing a high usage customer to a higher tier plan) and are only upset about the wording the salesperson used. All the points you've made applies to ISPs as well. Most neighborhoods are probably provisioned well enough that a single customer saturating their 1gbit connection isn't going to bring the network down to its knees, but that doesn't mean ISPs aren't justified in pushing such customers to a higher tier offering (eg. dedicated circuit).