TL;DR: We've been on the Cloudflare Business plan ($250/month) for years. They suddenly contacted us and asked us to either pay them $120k up front for one year of Enterprise within 24 hours or they would take down all of our domains. While this escalated up our business we had 3 sales calls with them, trying to figure out what was happening and how to reach a reasonable contract in a week. When we told them we were also in talks with Fastly, they suddenly "purged" all our domains, causing huge downtime in our core business, sleepless nights migrating away from CF, irreparable loss in customer trust and weeks of ongoing downtime in our internal systems.
It baffles me that you can advertise something as “unlimited” and then impose arbitrary limits after the fact. AWS and Google advertise their CDN rates with tiers for certain bandwidth limits. It seems like CF is advertising as “unlimited” and then once you’re fully invested, they pull the bait and switch and say you’re over the limit for that tier. Based on those HackerNews links, it seems systemic and something the FTC should fine them, like they did with AT&T over the same thing.
We’ve been using CF for a long time as enterprise and non enterprise customers and while their support went to absolute shit compared to what it was, I agree with the first comment on that article.
Casino was in violation of TOS and the only solution was BYOIP with enterprise plan. They were given 48 hours to correct, but tried to weasel their way out of it for two weeks when CF finally shut down their account.
I’m 100% on the side of CF in this instance. This also explains the sales calls. There was no tech issue to resolve.
I didn’t saw anything on the post that suggests that was the case. They start with a reference to a urgent call for a meeting from cloud flare to discuss specifics on how they were using the hosting provider’s service, which sounds a lot like they were caught hiding behind the host doing abusive things,and afterwards they were explicitly pointed out for doing abusing stuff that violated terms of service and jeopardized the hosting service’s reputation as a good actor.
That’s how I read this too, they were upset that this company was using so much and “only” on their lower tier. But, if they didn’t want that then that means either their billing/account code has bugs in it because it didn’t lock them out and force an upgrade… or it was mislabeled (intentionally or not). On all accounts, CF’s problem, not this company’s