Verizon sends service termination warning to a FiOS user that used ~7 TB of data for several consecu - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47628398]Which lines? Their backbone, certainly. But the ones connecting the neighbourhood to the city-wide router (or whatever topology Verizon uses) are a lot more narrowband, and a lot more liable to clog up because of only a few heavy users, which would not be an issue if those users were geographically distributed more widely. [/QUOTE] I mean if occasionally he's peaking at 500mbps and clogging up the local network, that should be managed. Reasonable network management is covered under net neutrality, and no one expects to get 500mbps during peak hours. But he's not at full utilization, he's only at ~20 average, their local should be able to handle that.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47628361]I don't think you or anybody else here would be happy with paying for a 50mpbs connection where the price was determined by assuming you will be at 50mbps every second of every day of every year.[/QUOTE] I like this because it really puts things into perspective. Even though people may say that Verizon and similar are the devil, they do cave a lot in order to allow the consumer to afford such high speed connections. If connections were priced based around their highest potential usage, we'd all be paying as much as we are right now for significantly slower connections.

[QUOTE=Levelog;47628421]I mean if occasionally he's peaking at 500mbps and clogging up the local network, that should be managed. Reasonable network management is covered under net neutrality, and no one expects to get 500mbps during peak hours. But he's not at full utilization, he's only [B]at ~20 average[/B], their local should be able to handle that.[/QUOTE] averages != peaks

Also for those wondering, it's probably not torrenting. If he was using most of his traffic via p2p, Verizon would definitely be getting termination notices, and that would have been the stated reason. [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=LordCrypto;47628428]averages != peaks[/QUOTE] Did you even read my post? I said if he's peaking at 500 and clogging the network, that should be managed. People keep saying that he shouldn't expect to be using his full connection all time time, but he really isn't. Unfortunately there is no publishing of his actual usage, only average. If his peaking isn't being properly managed based on the local network, it's Verizons fault for being incompetent.

Honestly that's a good point with the P2P thing, I'm glad you mentioned it, but it also leads to more confusion. I care less about the outcome of this situation and more about what exactly this guy possibly does to transfer 7+ TB of data a month consistently, it seems.

[QUOTE=Levelog;47628429]Also for those wondering, it's probably not torrenting. If he was using most of his traffic via p2p, Verizon would definitely be getting termination notices, and that would have been the stated reason. [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] Did you even read my post? I said if he's peaking at 500 and clogging the network, that should be managed. People keep saying that he shouldn't expect to be using his full connection all time time, but he really isn't.[/QUOTE] he says it averages out to 20 every second so he's peaking at 500??/

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;47628168]Am I the only one to think that Verizon isn't in the wrong?[/QUOTE] facepunch loves to take everything 100% literally and will defend it no matter how ridiculous it sounds because "oh they said it it's their fault for saying it now they have to deal with it" when they don't realize verizon is a business and can do whatever the fuck it wants, even 7tb of data a month is completely fucking insane and everyone here knows it

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;47628439]Honestly that's a good point with the P2P thing, I'm glad you mentioned it, but it also leads to more confusion. I care less about the outcome of this situation and more about what exactly this guy possibly does to transfer 7+ TB of data a month consistently, it seems.[/QUOTE] He could be uploaded or downloading a lot of videos completely legally, he could have multiple people in his house frequently streaming ultraHD videos on Netflix or similar, it doesn't just have to be one malicious way he's racking up 7tb of usage, it could be a dozen completely typical and legal things adding up. [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=LordCrypto;47628443]he says it averages out to 20 every second so he's peaking at 500??/[/QUOTE] I don't understand what you're saying. If he is peaking at 500, which is his maximum connection speed, Verizon should be using network management so he is not peaking at 500 when the local network cannot handle it.

See nowhere does it say that he ran 20mbps most of the time, the user purely said that to put what his service entails into context. In fact, he says that he has irregular usage, in which for days the connection can be idle. Now that's all fine and good, but to get to 7tb a month he'd definitely need to be using a lot of data at once at some point.

I would like to point out this has nothing to do with "clogging the lines" or whatever, they literally just want this person to pay more money: [quote]If the subscriber can't decrease usage, he should purchase a business-class plan, the letter said.[/quote]

Time to get Business class internet.

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;47628474]See nowhere does it say that he ran 20mbps most of the time, the user purely said that to put what his service entails into context. In fact, he says that he has irregular usage, in which for days the connection can be idle. Now that's all fine and good, but to get to 7tb a month he'd definitely need to be using a lot of data at once at some point.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone here is understanding what I'm saying. If his usage (actual transfer rate, not total data used in a month) at times is causing other customers issues, then [B]Verizon should be doing something to fix that[/B]. Whether it's upgrading the infrastructure (unlikely) or not allowing him to use damaging transfer rates at peak hours, it should be up to them to manage their own network. Not just hope their customers use the internet how Verizon would prefer. [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Metalcastr;47628478]Time to get Business class internet.[/QUOTE] If he's not using it for business, why should he?

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;47628175]they can maintain that level of service for maybe 1tb a month not 7 fucking terabytes in a month that's 120 copies of gtav pc download, in a month, for multiple months at that point you should be looking into business class plans[/QUOTE] If they cannot maintain a 500mbit connection at full saturation(IE Downloading and uploading at max throughput 24/7/365) they shouldn't sell a 500mbit connection. Simple as that. Sell what you have, not what marketing claims you have.

TLDR of my post is that Verizon should be fixing this issue, not terminating a paying customer. [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] Muh merge

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47628477]I would like to point out this has nothing to do with "clogging the lines" or whatever, they literally just want this person to pay more money:[/QUOTE] I don't think its unreasonable for them to suggest he does such a thing, again its all about precedent. If they don't at least try and figure out this situation, then what's stopping small businesses from hopping on a cheaper plan and claiming it's just for personal use, while still transferring as much data as they did before. It's the smart call from a business standpoint, it's just that because there's been no need for clarification in the past, there's no real solid terms that Verizon can just give out of nowhere. This is a big situation for ISPs in general, because this lays the stones down for what Verizon will have to call an 'unlimited cap'. Now, Verizon is a big ISP, and a lot of others will follow their lead, be it to try and one-up them or just as a general guideline of what they should set their cap at. It's an interesting case overall because it has larger implications than what will happen to this one individuals service.

[QUOTE=TestECull;47628496]If they cannot maintain a 500mbit connection at full saturation(IE Downloading and uploading at max throughput 24/7/365) they shouldn't sell a 500mbit connection. Simple as that. Sell what you have, not what marketing claims you have.[/QUOTE] so you're expecting not nine nines, but a full 100 hah

[QUOTE=Levelog;47628491] [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] If he's not using it for business, why should he?[/QUOTE] I get what you're saying, and I feel like my argument has slowly drifted from the original "Its unreasonable for him to be using that much data!" and more towards the fact that it's a very shaky bridge that Verizon are walking on right now, because they're setting up the groundwork for what could be significant changes in the concept of an 'unlimited residential plan'. Honestly Business class internet isn't really about being used for business, and more for drawing a line between high-data users and low data users. It just so happens to be that once you get up into the heavier connections, the average consumer base is that of businesses, so it's just easier to market it as such.

Can we please drop the ridiculous act of taking "unlimited" literally in this context? The service is "unlimited" for virtually all private use. Unlimited, as opposed to data caps measured in Gbs you could actually reach with reasonable private use. If you have data needs of 7TB/month you should realize that a standard service isn't going to cut it and chances are he was breaching the ToS either way. In the end it's up to Verizon whether they want to keep him as a customer, isn't it?

[QUOTE=TestECull;47628496]If they cannot maintain a 500mbit connection at full saturation(IE Downloading and uploading at max throughput 24/7/365) they shouldn't sell a 500mbit connection. Simple as that. Sell what you have, not what marketing claims you have.[/QUOTE] i can't even imagine the cost of such a service, no residental end-user would be able to even fathom affording it though.

This is the same company that charges me 5 dollars per gig if I go over on my 50$ a month plan for 30 gigs. This isn't an ethical debate, these guys aren't losing any money or victims. 315 dollars a month for 7 TB worth of data? I could rent a dedicated server with literally unlimited bandwidth for 100 dollars a month and the server host wouldn't give a shit if I used and downloaded 7 terabytes a month. This guy took the worst case scenario costs for how much a gigabyte costs a telenet company and estimated 1.9 cents per gigabyte. 1.9 * 7,000 = 133 dollars for 7 TB. I'm so sorry that poor Verzion only made 188 dollars in excess profit. [url]http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/brainstuff/what-does-a-gigabyte-of-internet-service-really-cost-a-look-at-the-worst-case-scenario.htm[/url] Think of data like health insurance, some people use the internet a shit ton but a majority of people don't even use a gigabyte of data. Think of how much money Verizon is making off these low demand consumers, it's madness.

[QUOTE=TestECull;47628496]If they cannot maintain a 500mbit connection at full saturation(IE Downloading and uploading at max throughput 24/7/365) they shouldn't sell a 500mbit connection. Simple as that. Sell what you have, not what marketing claims you have.[/QUOTE] this is not how networks work at all please don't be dumb testecull [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Llamalord;47628536]This is the same company that charges me 5 dollars per gig if I go over on my plan 50 dollar a month plan for 30 gigs. This isn't an ethical debate, these guys aren't losing any money or victims. 315 dollars a month for 7 TB worth of data? I could rent a dedicated server with literally unlimited bandwidth for 100 dollars a month and the server host wouldn't give a shit if I used uploaded and downloaded 7 terabytes.[/QUOTE] that's cool and legit because they're specifically designed for that level of transfer residential infrastructure is not quite at the "i can handle 7tb in a month" level

[QUOTE=Llamalord;47628536]This is the same company that charges me 5 dollars per gig if I go over on my plan 50 dollar a month plan for 30 gigs. This isn't an ethical debate, these guys aren't losing any money or victims. 315 dollars a month for 7 TB worth of data? I could rent a dedicated server with literally unlimited bandwidth for 100 dollars a month and the server host wouldn't give a shit if I used and downloaded 7 terabytes a month.[/QUOTE] That's totally valid on the scale you're thinking of, but when that service is literally now being spread to millions of people, that becomes less and less feasbile

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;47628522]I get what you're saying, and I feel like my argument has slowly drifted from the original "Its unreasonable for him to be using that much data!" and more towards the fact that it's a very shaky bridge that Verizon are walking on right now, because they're setting up the groundwork for what could be significant changes in the concept of an 'unlimited residential plan'. Honestly Business class internet isn't really about being used for business, and more for drawing a line between high-data users and low data users. It just so happens to be that once you get up into the heavier connections, the average consumer base is that of businesses, so it's just easier to market it as such.[/QUOTE] I don't see how any low data user would be paying for a 500mbps connection then, aside from Verizon jut wanting to bleed them dry. If you want high data users to buy a business connection, then don't offer a fucking 500mbps home connection.

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;47628405][B]if ... it turns out the dude's pirating a shitton of movies or some shit, every major media company that was violated would start headhunting [del]Verizon[/del] him super hard[/B] Yeah I was gonna say that maybe SETI@Home would've been a big player here, but if folding@Home is anything similar, I remember the whole deal being that it's crazy CPU intensive over anything else. [B]Seems like the dude's definitely skirting around what he's up to.[/B][/QUOTE] Right now, I bet the MPAA's lawyers are trying to figure out a way to get Verizon to squeal about what this dude's been doing, because he's clearly doing [I]something[/I] that he doesn't want the public Internet to know about, but he also wants to have his bitchfest about Verizon. He's trying to have his cake both ways with the flimsiest of obviously-false alibis. From Wikipedia's article on SETI@Home: [QUOTE]Observational Data are recorded on 2 Terabyte SATA hard disk drives at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, each holding about 2.5 days of observations, which are then mailed to Berkeley.[13] Arecibo does not have a high bandwidth Internet connection, so data must go by postal mail to Berkeley.[14] Once there, it is divided in both time and frequency domains work units of 107 seconds of data,[15] or approximately 0.35 MB, which overlap in time but not in frequency.[13] These work units are then sent from the SETI@home server over the Internet to personal computers around the world to analyze.[/QUOTE] 7TB, 0.35MB at a time, is [B]two million[/B] SETI@home work units. Where is this guy on the leaderboard and why haven't we heard of the guy who's single-handedly finding E.T.? By comparison, [URL="http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_user.php?userid=101662"]the #2 individual contributor to SETI@Home according to their own leaderboards[/URL], with ~64,000 hours of CPU time, has completed 4,137 Work Units, or less than 1.5GB of bandwidth. Since the year 2000. The #1 guy's stats don't list his WU count, but his contribution score is a bit under double #2's and I'm pretty sure it's not this guy. And if he is somehow doing 2 million WU a month or equivalent across different distributed-computing projects, the DEA should've kicked his door in because that amount of electrical draw in a residential home is typically assumed to be a grow op! [URL="https://twitter.com/KarlBode/status/593407666531266560"]It kind of seems like DSLreports know they're being bullshitted with the SETI@Home alibi.[/URL] :v: [QUOTE=No Party Hats;47628527]i can't even imagine the cost of such a service, no residental end-user would be able to even fathom affording it though.[/QUOTE] True 500Mb/s is basically an OC-12 line. If you want a dedicated OC-12 that you can fully saturate 24/7, [B][URL="http://www.michigan-bandwidth.com/index.php/fiber-circuits/oc-12"]that starts at $16,000 a month[/URL][/B]. Most places won't even give you a price and instead want you to call for a quote.

In my opinion, no matter how you look at it, it boils down to Verizon's fault. It's their fault for offering a connection they shouldn't be for home use, or it's their fault for not doing proper network management during peak traffic. Edit: I guess I should qualify as my opinion with the current facts, not speculation.

[QUOTE=Levelog;47628555]In my opinion, no matter how you look at it, it boils down to Verizon's fault. It's their fault for offering a connection they shouldn't be for home use, or it's their fault for not doing proper network management during peak traffic.[/QUOTE] you mean the guy running servers from home and complaining that verizon is calling him on it by using folding@home as a shitty excuse right

[QUOTE=MoonlessNight;47628524]Can we please drop the ridiculous act of taking "unlimited" literally in this context? The service is "unlimited" for virtually all private use. Unlimited, as opposed to data caps measured in Gbs you could actually reach with reasonable private use. If you have data needs of 7TB/month you should realize that a standard service isn't going to cut it and chances are he was breaching the ToS either way. In the end it's up to Verizon whether they want to keep him as a customer.[/QUOTE] The average consumer will take it literally though. More to the point, why are they offering such high download speeds if customers can't use those speeds for more than a day before they exceed what Verizon considers reasonable? That's my biggest issue here; this isn't someone who's download movies 24/7 and after a month reached 7Tb in usage, it's someone who with the connection they are paying for can reach that in a day. Why is it unreasonable to expect to be able to use a connection you're paying at the speed you're paying for for more than a day out of the month?

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47628562]The average consumer will take it literally though. More to the point, why are they offering such high download speeds if customers can't use those speeds for more than a day before they exceed what Verizon considers reasonable? That's my biggest issue here; this isn't someone who's download movies 24/7 and after a month reached 7Tb in usage, it's someone who with the connection they are paying for can reach that in a day. Why is it unreasonable to expect to be able to use a connection you're paying at the speed you're paying for for more than a day out of the month?[/QUOTE] when you're not pirating shit, or running servers, or god knows what cause it isn't folding@home

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;47628558]you mean the guy running servers from home and complaining that verizon is calling him on it by using folding@home as a shitty excuse right[/QUOTE] If he's using a shitton of server stuff from his home, that's against TOS. It says nowhere that he's doing it. As the information stands right now though, I'm sticking to my word. My opinion will change with the facts though, that's called objective thinking. [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] Also I think we're all of the consensus that it obviously isn't folding@home or anything similar. I've got 3 systems folding almost 24/7 and rarely even hit 1tb total usage a month.

[QUOTE=Levelog;47628566]If he's using a shitton of server stuff from his home, that's against TOS. It says nowhere that he's doing it. As the information stands right now though, I'm sticking to my word. My opinion will change with the facts though, that's called objective thinking.[/QUOTE] the fact that he claims folding@home is the cause which for the biggest guy on the folding@home leaderboards is just under 3gb in like 15 years [editline]29th April 2015[/editline] so therefore he's most likely pirating or something, which is against the AUP, but he wanted to bitch to dslreports