zlacker

>>tardis+(OP)
OP, you have garnered a lot of sympathy by the HN community which I believe in part contributed to your problem being resolved. I think it would be fair to provide more info about what the issue was in the end. It's not OK to be like "HN I had a bad experience with Company X" and then be like "k, thx @jgrahamc, bye" when your complaint gets resolved due to the attention it received.

There are so many questions this leaves unanswered:

- Was this a one-off error in Cloudflare's processes? (These things happen on a big enough scale.)

- Were you violating a specific clause of Cloudflare's T&C? How clear was the clause? What did you do to fix this?

- Was the issue that Cloudflare estimated that you're not paying enough given the bandwidth you're consuming? Did you end up signing up for the Enterprise plan?

Transparency would benefit both Cloudflare (in not making people unnecessarily apprehensive about becoming/remaining a customer) and you (in demonstrating that you're handling this issue in a professional and responsible manner).

>>plesiv+Sw
Cloudflare is really transparant about things ( eg. outages).

Reality is that Cloudflare serves 60% of the internet and this issue popped up. They are checking it internally what happened, as I understand from jgrahamc.

>>NicoJu+TD
I don't think you realize it, but your answer while being wrong on many levels isn't even saying what you think it is saying. Reading your message, what one understands is "Cloudflare has so much on their hand you would be stupid to give them your business and think they would have time to deal with it", aka run away.