Hacker News Reader

Comment by jsheard | Hacker News Reader

I mean how CF has advertises "unlimited bandwidth" and "unmetered DDOS protection" on their free and flat-rate paid plans, which abruptly turns into not-unlimited pay-per-gigabyte if they decide you're using them too much, but you're not allowed to know where that line is so you can plan around it. It's a fun surprise where they suddenly ask you to pay 10x more out of nowhere.

View on HN

Just a tiny nit, 10x more of 0 is still 0. Your point still makes sense though

Can you point to a single example of CF doing this to a legitimate entity that wasn't obviously abusing their plan? Every time this comes up it's always some shady website that's getting the limited treatment.

And it's not "unlimited bandwidth", it's "unlimited bandwidth with restrictions". That's an important and critical distinction. I'm not sure I understand the position that somehow CF needs to subsidize every customer.

Nobody said CF needs to subsidize every customer. The rules need to be clear though, not secret. Same with anthropic's usage limits, since they're not public they can degrade the service you're paying for at any point in time with no notice.

I'd much rather have "unlimited" bandwidth with restrictions and the current ambiguous enforcement than clearly defined limits and strict enforcement which penalizes all customers. The current model benefits considerably more people than the alternative.

The oxymoronic style of marketing bullshit: unlimited with restrictions, free but only if you pay, lifetime membership for three years, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com