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

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;47633720]it probably has nothing to do with a data cap, it's probably more to do with the amount of bandwidth he's constantly using at any given time and the amount of saturation it's causing for the surrounding area. my neighbourhood has this problem, it's so over saturated by netflix people that my 100 MB/s speed drops below 10 mb/s every single day from 7 pm to 10 pm. my isp has to build a new node here to split the traffic and that's probably what verizon would have to do in this situation, except they'd be building a new node entirely for one person because their usage is so excessive that most people would be hard pressed to even use that much on purpose. I don't think it's reasonable to expect verizon to spend upwards of $30,000 to accommodate this guy, nor do I think it's reasonable for them to tell everyone else in the area to fuck off and deal with slow internet because some cunt is downloading the complete series of seinfeld 400 times a day.[/QUOTE] Except they just want him to pay about $100 more for a business plan and everything would (presumably) be perfectly fine? This isn't "oh, this guy is overloading the area with his usage, if he doesn't cut back we can't offer him service because it's degrading the service for everyone else", it's "this guy is actually using the connection he bought reasonable and he doesn't seem to be violating the ToS, let's use the 'excessive' cause to get some more money out of him".

I use about 500gb each month. Which is not that much but still alot compared to some people. I only game. Watch youtube and torrent stuff sometimes. It just adds up quickly. I got a limit of 1300 gb or something A month technically its the unlimited here in belgium I think.

[QUOTE=cani;47633692][B]Does this business plan run on a different network?[/B] Otherwise no, it wouldn't be harming the network if they are suggesting he just switch packages...[/QUOTE] This is a very important point as well.

[quote]The subscriber pays $315 a month for Verizon's 500Mbps plan, according to DSLReports.[/quote] Nothing of value lost, that's mad overpriced anyhows & with a shitty service included? Fuck'em.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47633837]"this guy is actually using the connection he bought reasonable and he doesn't seem to be violating the ToS, let's use the 'excessive' cause to get some more money out of him".[/QUOTE] but the "excessive cause" is part of the ToS futhermore, the ToS states: [quote]If you are a month-to-month Service customer, either you or Verizon may terminate this Agreement any time by giving notice to the other as set forth in this Agreement.[/quote] So it's really up to Verizon, either way. Sure, it goes to show that Internet services aren't "unlimited" in the sense that you can saturate the connection 24/7 but everyone that can even conceive a way of doing that already knows this. This is a non-issue.

Not sure how this guy could be racking up such high data usage, but hey....a business has to keep it's standard of quality. If there were people being affected by this guy's high data usage, then Verizon is in the right here. I don't think it should be an issue for this guy to crank it down a little bit. [B]Seriously, you have to do quite a bit to reach 7 TB.[/B]

[QUOTE=DaMastez;47633837]Except they just want him to pay about $100 more for a business plan and everything would (presumably) be perfectly fine? This isn't "oh, this guy is overloading the area with his usage, if he doesn't cut back we can't offer him service because it's degrading the service for everyone else", it's "this guy is actually using the connection he bought reasonable and he doesn't seem to be violating the ToS, let's use the 'excessive' cause to get some more money out of him".[/QUOTE] are we sure the business plan doesn't use a separate node or otherwise actually solve the problem of saturation? also don't most ISPs include with their business plans rentals and installations of hardware designed to accommodate these sorts of things?

[QUOTE=TheManInUrPC;47634005]Not sure how this guy could be racking up such high data usage, but hey....a business has to keep it's standard of quality. If there were people being affected by this guy's high data usage, then Verizon is in the right here. I don't think it should be an issue for this guy to crank it down a little bit. [B]Seriously, you have to do quite a bit to reach 7 TB.[/B][/QUOTE] But how is him switching to a business plan on the same network going to relieve those affected? If they just wanted him to do something as easy as switching plans odds are it's still on the same local lines to his house. [editline]30th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Bruhmis;47634405]are we sure the business plan doesn't use a separate node or otherwise actually solve the problem of saturation? also don't most ISPs include with their business plans rentals and installations of hardware designed to accommodate these sorts of things?[/QUOTE] I'm not quite sure how Verizon does it, but a brief googling didn't answer my question. Sure in-house hardware could be different, but that would do nothing for the problem.

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;47628512]so you're expecting not nine nines, but a full 100 hah[/QUOTE] I'm expecting the ISP to know the limitations of its own damn network and not sell people internet connections and service plans that the network cannot handle the full utilization of. Is that really too much to fucking ask? Is it really unreasonable to expect ISPs to know their fucking product well enough to know what they have and what they don't?! If this was an electric company nobody would be defending it. But no. It's an ISP. So there's a huge pity party getting thrown for some bizarre reason. It's 100% Verizon's fault. They sold someone a connection their network could not handle and it is 100% up to [i]them[/i] to resolve it, ideally by using some of that massive horde of cash they've accumulated through scummy business practices like what they're doing here to upgrade the network, but if that's not feasible then they can charge the guy less and offer him a slower connection that their network can, in fact, handle. But we know that won't happen because Verizon are greedy, self-centered fuckwits who are more likely to tell this guy to pound sand/try to leverage him into buying an even pricier package instead of doing the right thing.

[QUOTE=TestECull;47628063] And he has every right to use it. [/QUOTE] And they have every right to impose a vague "excessive" cap. People should read what they sign. Unlimited transfer doesn't exist. [editline]30th April 2015[/editline] Also as for the wording of it, in the UK a bunch of ISPs got told by the advertising standards agency to stop using the words unlimited if they were applying caps but an AUP seems to be acceptable as unlimited. If the guy was downloading 7Tb a month during prime hours and causing issues for others (entirely speculation on my behalf) then I could see a warning being acceptable. [editline]30th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Llamalord;47628596]90% of internet users use like 5 gigabytes of less of data a month. It's completely feasible. [B] Regardless of what he is downloading, he was promised unlimited data. Period. Stop the bullshit [/B][/QUOTE] Without seeing the contract he signed, I can bet you he was not promised unlimited data. There is always a restriction or AUP. [editline]30th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;47634648] If this was an electric company nobody would be defending it.[/QUOTE] If an electric company had clauses in the contract informing you that excessive usage would lead to termination and people signed it then I would be defending the electricity company. People should read what they sign and agree to.

[QUOTE=Jsm;47634828]And they have every right to impose a vague "excessive" cap.[/QUOTE] And that is why people are angry. They should not have this right.

[QUOTE=Jsm;47634828]And they have every right to impose a vague "excessive" cap. People should read what they sign. Unlimited transfer doesn't exist. [editline]30th April 2015[/editline] Also as for the wording of it, in the UK a bunch of ISPs got told by the advertising standards agency to stop using the words unlimited if they were applying caps but an AUP seems to be acceptable as unlimited. If the guy was downloading 7Tb a month during prime hours and causing issues for others (entirely speculation on my behalf) then I could see a warning being acceptable. [editline]30th April 2015[/editline] Without seeing the contract he signed, I can bet you he was not promised unlimited data. There is always a restriction or AUP. [editline]30th April 2015[/editline] If an electric company had clauses in the contract informing you that excessive usage would lead to termination and people signed it then I would be defending the electricity company. People should read what they sign and agree to.[/QUOTE] The issue isn't the legality, it's Verizon's shitty business practices. Can they? Of course. Should they? The jury's still out on that one.

No we should be fine with anything that's legal. Even if you're defending Verizon not letting someone utilize 1/25th of the connection they were advertised to as unlimited.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47635166]And that is why people are angry. They should not have this right.[/QUOTE] As long as you are using someone else's service you are at their mercy. I would suggest voting with your feet, but my understanding is that in America the choice seems to be shitty internet or no internet.

He should of bought the business one. They would (usually atleast) upgrade the infrastructure where he is to support higher throughput so it wouldn't effect others.

[QUOTE=Levelog;47634411]But how is him switching to a business plan on the same network going to relieve those affected? If they just wanted him to do something as easy as switching plans odds are it's still on the same local lines to his house. [editline]30th April 2015[/editline] I'm not quite sure how Verizon does it, but a brief googling didn't answer my question. Sure in-house hardware could be different, but that would do nothing for the problem.[/QUOTE] Ya switching to a business plan is literally them just changing the contract, they wouldn't do new hardware

[QUOTE=Jsm;47635394]As long as you are using someone else's service you are at their mercy.[/QUOTE]Consumer protection laws exist for the reason so a company can't own your soul upon signing the contract. Saying bandwidth cap is unlimited but then telling him he's using too much is the opposite of unlimited. It's not a hard cap but it's not unlimited, that's false advertising.

I thought it was common knowledge that an unlimited service doesn't literally mean unlimited.

[QUOTE=Doozle;47639044]I thought it was common knowledge that an unlimited service doesn't literally mean unlimited.[/QUOTE]It is, but that doesn't mean it's not misleading advertising and or that it's not bad practice. You either stop advertising it as unlimited or be ready to match bandwidth for the speeds you're offering.

[QUOTE=Doozle;47639044]I thought it was common knowledge that an unlimited service doesn't literally mean unlimited.[/QUOTE] He's using a small fraction of the connection speed. Turns out when you offer a customer 500mb/s they'll use terabytes worth of data simply because its able to deliver that much They shouldn't have given out those plans if their network couldn't handle one person using that plan

[QUOTE=Sableye;47639451]He's using a small fraction of the connection speed. Turns out when you offer a customer 500mb/s they'll use terabytes worth of data simply because its able to deliver that much They shouldn't have given out those plans if their network couldn't handle one person using that plan[/QUOTE]But you see, that's their strategy. They're banking on the idea that the user will never use full potential of his service. This idea of overselling is really popular in hosting spaces and it results in shitty service.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47639464]But you see, that's their strategy. They're banking on the idea that the user will never use full potential of his service. This idea of overselling is really popular in hosting spaces and it results in shitty service.[/QUOTE] As stated earlier in the thread, they shouldn't advertise the service as unlimited if they aren't prepared for people to abuse what they pay for. Not only is it blatantly dishonest, its also false advertisement. Does the dude need to use 7TB of data a month? Probably not. Is it his right to since he's paying for the service which is advertised as unlimited? Absolutely. From what I've heard, he hasn't breached the ToS. I might actually care about Verizon's side of the story if they bothered defining what "excessive" usage is. I thought that's what data caps were for. Of course I could just be horribly misinformed, but this seems like a really scummy thing for Verizon to do. Bottom line is, if Verizon can't support it, they shouldn't offer it.

Devil's Advocate for a moment here. This has been brought up before. but seems to be generally overlooked. A lot of ISPs don't really give a crap how much you download, but care about upstream bandwidth. If someone is hosting servers at home, they are perfectly right to complain. Almost every residential contract explicitly bans this.

[QUOTE=Solo Wing;47639554]As stated earlier in the thread, they shouldn't advertise the service as unlimited if they aren't prepared for people to abuse what they pay for. Not only is it blatantly dishonest, its also false advertisement. Does the dude need to use 7TB of data a month? Probably not. Is it his right to since he's paying for the service which is advertised as unlimited? Absolutely. From what I've heard, he hasn't breached the ToS. I might actually care about Verizon's side of the story if they bothered defining what "excessive" usage is. I thought that's what data caps were for. Of course I could just be horribly misinformed, but this seems like a really scummy thing for Verizon to do. Bottom line is, if Verizon can't support it, they shouldn't offer it.[/QUOTE] short version is: his cover story of folding@home is incorrect, there are very few ways to hit 7tb transferred in a month without breaking AUP

$315/mo for half a gigabit a month? Are you fucking serious? That's highway robbery. For $315/mo he can do whatever the fuck he wants on your connection you greedy bastards. Unlimited means unlimited. Not "Unlimited until we say so"

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47643188]$315/mo for half a gigabit a month? Are you fucking serious? That's highway robbery. For $315/mo he can do whatever the fuck he wants on your connection you greedy bastards. Unlimited means unlimited. Not "Unlimited until we say so"[/QUOTE] Unfortunately it doesn't, unlimited might be the terms used in the marketing but it won't be the term used in the contract. It stinks but they are able to get away with it in the US it seems. The price blows my mind though, in the UK you can get 152Mb for like £40 a month and thanks to regulators clamping down on this "unlimited" bullshit it mostly is unlimited (with some minor soft capping if you upload a [I]lot[/I]).

Stating a plan is unlimited and then burying it's true term under a mountain of fine print isn't really acceptable. I know it's the general way but it no way SHOULD be the norm. Everything should be cleanly stated about what you get and the limits of its use as an example. I agree with most people $315 a month for 500mb line is robbery. You can get (Atleast in the UK) 200MB lines for about £50-60 a month. I know US and Canadian prices for net are beyond stupid. At-least from what I noticed when I lived there anyway. On to the main context of my post. At $315 a month for a 500mb line. You'd imagine the only people that WOULD buy and pay to maintain that sort of connection have the need for it and would be using it for what it was designed for, if the usage of such a line was the problem, why offer a residental plan like that if you aren't actually allowed to utilize it? If it was a problem surely you could create a buffer and cap residental plans to a speed and then have buisness plans that work based on larger and faster lines. Anyone in their right mind wouldn't buy a half gig connection just cause they wanted to watch a couple videos and browse facebook/emails. The entire thing is a sham merely because they recommend he buys a buisness class connection. Which won't even change anything except make it cost more. It will still run through the same nodes and will not run via any seperate connections. They are obviously only trying to stomp him out because they want more money. It isn't because he's impeding the local residents or area with his large bandwith usage. If he is uploading and downloading pirated software and games or whatever then ofcourse it breaks the contract agreements and would be cause for termination. But if he HAD downloading and used 7TB of data for piracy then you can sure as hell bet they wouldn't warn him. They'd straight up terminate his contract amongst other things. Why market a 500mb line and then use the excuse of excessive usage when someone actually utilizes a line of that magnitude. It comes across as them wanting more money rather than the person in question impeding others with his antics.

Just gonna put this out there. This is retarded no matter if you view this from the POV of Verizon or the user. If you cannot deliver the service required, then don't advertise it. If you can, then everyone should be able to enjoy exactly that, in the quantity they've paid. This seems only fair. With that said, using up that amount of data can be a bit extreme, and if you [b]REALLY[/b] would need to have THAT kind of availability, you SHOULD order a business line or leased line, because that is really the only thing that guarantees it. Or at least, for what really matters. With my ISP in Denmark, there's been people using up 5TB/month with no warnings at all, running on some smooth sailing fiber connections. Waoo is great on all areas except with the lack of IPv6, but they can also provide the service you pay for.

I dare each and every person in this thread to come up with a name for this kind of plan that isn't false advertising. You can't use "unlimited", because there is a limit, though it's floaty and incredibly rare to hit. You can't define a specific limit because the actual limit is not set in stone and depends too much on uncontrolled variables. yeah see you can't fucking do it, can you? just let them call it unlimited because in the perceptions of 99% of the population it is. pretty much [b]nobody[/b] hits 7TB of data a month except this guy and major businesses.

[QUOTE=lavacano;47646399]I dare each and every person in this thread to come up with a name for this kind of plan that isn't false advertising. You can't use "unlimited", because there is a limit, though it's floaty and incredibly rare to hit. You can't define a specific limit because the actual limit is not set in stone and depends too much on uncontrolled variables. yeah see you can't fucking do it, can you? just let them call it unlimited because in the perceptions of 99% of the population it is. pretty much [b]nobody[/b] hits 7TB of data a month except this guy and major businesses.[/QUOTE] I'm still confused on this part. Where does it say that he got in trouble purely for data usage, and not say, hosting servers at home? Again, ISPs generally care FAR more about upstream bandwidth, because their systems are designed to handle far more downstream than up. Most people suck up data through streaming, file downloads and the like, and upload almost nothing. Someone hosting a server that is getting used heavily can cause serious disruptions to a network, even when someone using 5 times as much downstream bandwidth does not, purely because that's how ISPs build their systems. Are verizon being fucks about this? It's quite likely. They've gone from a great ISP to a really shitty one in a few years. Where's the distinct proof of that here though? I haven't seen any.