So how much bandwidth were you using, and what proportion of it was images? Like, is it a obviously cut and dry case or is there actually some ambiguity?
(There's some very good reasons to leave terms a bit vague rather than specified exactly, but then you probably wouldn't expect enforcement in cases that are ambiguous.)
Just a guess, but I'm wondering if it's more about their system detecting someone serving almost entirely image requests, versus someone serving 20-40 images per web page, a pattern more consistent with images served alongside a web page.
It also has to reach a critical point. Serving maybe 100k unique visitors and 1tb in a month isn't that big of a deal, but 100x that might be enough to where you're using a lot more than every other free customer.
Comments
So how much bandwidth were you using, and what proportion of it was images? Like, is it a obviously cut and dry case or is there actually some ambiguity?
(There's some very good reasons to leave terms a bit vague rather than specified exactly, but then you probably wouldn't expect enforcement in cases that are ambiguous.)
We are a really small business. We have a headless CMS. We just use media for Content purposes. Nothing out of the ordinary.
He said "image proxies" so I guess 100%?
Tell me one web site where images and video doesn’t count for most of the size. The time of 35k image on a 50k text page is long gone.
Just a guess, but I'm wondering if it's more about their system detecting someone serving almost entirely image requests, versus someone serving 20-40 images per web page, a pattern more consistent with images served alongside a web page.
It also has to reach a critical point. Serving maybe 100k unique visitors and 1tb in a month isn't that big of a deal, but 100x that might be enough to where you're using a lot more than every other free customer.
Non-trivial amounts of Javascript for example
https://almanac.httparchive.org/static/images/2021/page-weig...
news.ycombinator.com