[londons_explore]

They should just be upfront... "If your service uses a disproportionately large amount of any of our resources for the amount of revenue it generates, we will ask you to either pay extra or leave. We'll try to give you a notice period to leave, but in extreme cases the period will be very short or none at all".

Then the TOS should give examples of common things that trigger use of this policy, for example running an image/video host.

I'd like them to commit to always offering a monetary amount which would satisfy them. Often in business, a migration is a slow and painful process, so simply paying 10c/GB to serve video/images might be preferable.

[mynameisvlad]

They are extremely upfront about this:

> 2.8 Limitation on Serving Non-HTML Content

> The Services are offered primarily as a platform to cache and serve web pages and websites. Unless explicitly included as part of a Paid Service purchased by you, you agree to use the Services solely for the purpose of (i) serving web pages as viewed through a web browser or other functionally equivalent applications, including rendering Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) or other functional equivalents, and (ii) serving web APIs subject to the restrictions set forth in this Section 2.8. Use of the Services for serving video or a disproportionate percentage of pictures, audio files, or other non-HTML content is prohibited, unless purchased separately as part of a Paid Service or expressly allowed under our Supplemental Terms for a specific Service. If we determine you have breached this Section 2.8, we may immediately suspend or restrict your use of the Services, or limit End User access to certain of your resources through the Services.

[noncoml]

“a disproportionate percentage of pictures, audio files, or other non-HTML content is prohibited”

1. It doesn’t help that the “percentage” is ambiguous

2. A couple of days warning or suggestion to move to a higher paying plan would be nice instead of just shutting them down.

I’m this case Cloudflare reminds me a quote from Big Lebowski: “You're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole.”

[mynameisvlad]

The complaint is that Cloudflare was not upfront about this limitation. They are clearly quite upfront. They more or less say exactly what the other commenter accuses them of not being upfront about.

> 1. It doesn’t help that the “percentage” is ambiguous

Would it have mattered? OP said they are using them as an image proxy; that's nearly 100% traffic served. Any way you interpret the word "disproportionate", running an image proxy will trigger.

> 2. A couple of days warning or suggestion to move to a higher paying plan would be nice instead of just shutting them down.

How they choose to handle an issue is also outlined upfront in their ToS. It's not really relevant in the context of this thread.

They may be an asshole, but they straight up told you, the other commenter, and OP exactly what they don't allow and what will happen.