[Updated] Verizon Scolds FiOS User for Consuming 7 TB Every Month

[Nineshadow]

Which is why Optus Cable suffers from massive congestion problems.

 

Depending on the CVC of the infrastructure you will find that consuming 7TB a month is very expensive for an ISP and is likely to make them lose a profit. Consuming so much data and using that amount of bandwidth is meant for business plans. Seems like the only way to use 7 TB in one month would be to use it for business purposes.

Verizon doesn't pay but around a quarter of a Cent for every Gigabyte crossing egress (4Gigs would equal 1 cent). So at that rate, 6 Terabytes would cost Verizon around $15.36 for the month.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

I have a plan with peak and off-peak hours. 

 

If I use more than 500GB during peak hours (noon until midnight), they throttle me back from 30Mbit to 10Mbit during peak hours. 

Off-peak (midnight 'till noon) my unlimited really is just that, no data caps and no throttling whatsoever.

 

No idea what happens if I start using several TB per month though.  Usually I'm around the 200-300GB mark

[That Norwegian Guy]

I'm not surprised at anything by US ISPs anymore. If you pay for the best plan you can get, why the blue fuck would there be a cap? Who are sitting at these board rooms and coming up with this Bloc-level bullshit? The US became so capitalist that they did a full loop into communism.

 

"You pay for 500mbps unlimited? Curb your usage, wealthy scum!"

[Ex14]

• ....I don;t know about you guys, but it DOES seem excessive. Usage wise. 7TB Is ALOT to go through, no matter what you're doing.

[ShadowCaptain]

• ...I don;t know about you guys, but it DOES seem excessive. Usage wise. 7TB Is ALOT to go through, no matter what you're doing.

 

I agree 7TB is A LOT of data, I doubt 99.999% of home users get anywhere close, generally only people using it for commercial gain or business etc would be getting close to this

 

I mean filling like 2 or 3 hard drives of data a month is crazy

[Nick Paviour]

if it was that easy to end a contract with my ISP i would do that every time. Trying to end a contract early with my ISP is a major ball ache, i'll try this next time....

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

I agree 7TB is A LOT of data, I doubt 99.999% of home users get anywhere close, generally only people using it for commercial gain or business etc would be getting close to this

 

I mean filling like 2 or 3 hard drives of data a month is crazy

 

Indeed, but he doesn't have to be filling.  Perhaps he's uploading data, like seeding torrents 24/7.  That could explain a thing or two.

[ShadowCaptain]

Indeed, but he doesn't have to be filling.  Perhaps he's uploading data, like seeding torrents 24/7.  That could explain a thing or two.

 

maybe, but i guess that amount of data is still hell of a lot, 

[CaliJL]

7 TB damn, I don't even go through that much in a year. 

[PerfectTemplar]

Verizon doesn't pay but around a quarter of a Cent for every Gigabyte crossing egress (4Gigs would equal 1 cent). So at that rate, 6 Terabytes would cost Verizon around $15.36 for the month.

Source? Verizon wouldn't be paying for any data consumption but bandwidth used. This is usually in the $/Mbps. For example, NBN charges $17.50 per megabit of bandwidth in Australia, which is a bit high and should be a dynamic pay for what the RSP uses at $11-13. That is still pretty damn standard. If you don't know how ISPs actually operate you shouldn't complain about them. 7TB of data consumption would imply a very high bandwidth rate 24/7, which would be costing Verizon thousands of dollars. This is why they have conditions in the ToS to prevent this happening, it isn't because they just want to be dicks.. If you want to use that much bandwidth, pay for a business plan and all the added costs associated.

 

 

We don't disclose exactly what we pay for transit, but I can give you a relative sense of regional differences. To start, let's assume as a benchmark in North America you'd pay a blended average across all the transit providers of $10/Mbps (megabit per second per month). In reality, we pay less than that, but it can serve as a benchmark, and keep the numbers round as we compare regions. If you assume that benchmark, for every 1,000Mbps (1Gbps) you'd pay $10,000/month (again, acknowledge that’s higher than reality, it’s just an illustrative benchmark and keeps the numbers round, bear with me).

 

 

https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-relative-cost-of-bandwidth-around-the-world/

 

Pricing varies on the region, it might not be $10 USD a month per Mb for verizon but it's certainly more than $5 thus they have a reason to stop people from costing them so much money.

[Nineshadow]

Source? Verizon wouldn't be paying for any data consumption but bandwidth used. This is usually in the $/Mbps. For example, NBN charges $17.50 per megabit of bandwidth in Australia, which is a bit high and should be a dynamic pay for what the RSP uses at $11-13. That is still pretty damn standard. If you don't know how ISPs actually operate you shouldn't complain about them.

It's how much it would cost them to deliver that data, not how much they charge for it.

 

It doesn't cost them thousands.

[PerfectTemplar]

It's how much it would cost them to deliver that data, not how much they charge for it.

 

It doesn't cost them thousands.

Updated my post with more information. It would indeed cost them thousands. There is no doubt that the price to provide him the bandwidth required for that amount of data is higher than the price he pays for his broadband.

 

EDIT: Yeah, a minimum of around $200 USD a month to provide him that bandwidth I think. Assuming there is zero additions costs not accounting for backhaul congestion, customer service complaints ect.

[Nineshadow]

Updated my post with more information. It would indeed cost them thousands. There is no doubt that the price to provide him the bandwidth required for that amount of data is higher than the price he pays for his broadband.

 

EDIT: Yeah, a minimum of around $200 USD a month to provide him that bandwidth I think. Assuming there is zero additions costs not accounting for backhaul congestion, customer service complaints ect.

How would it cost them that much??

 

Here ISPs offer unlimited gigabit connections for $15/month and they still make a heck of a profit.

[PerfectTemplar]

How would it cost them that much??

 

Here ISPs offer unlimited gigabit connections for $15/month and they still make a heck of a profit.

In Romania? Presumably because only about 14% of the country has broadband and the bandwidth usage is extremely low. It's very different in countries with 70-100% broadband usage rates with very high bandwidth consumption. something like 90% (as of this year not reflected on wiki)or more Australians have broadband and use a lot of bandwidth which is why it's more expensive here.

[Takata]

Unlimited means unlimited. If Verizon wants to limit the amount of data that people like this guy can download and upload, they should have sold him a capped plan. Having Terms of Service that seemingly serve no purpose but to contradict the reasonable interpretation that there is no limit to the amount of data you are allowed to move, is misleading.

 

I can see reasons for some of the rules existing though. If you were allowed to resell the service or allow 3rd parties to use it, you could theoretically offer access to your whole neighbourhood, and warp the market for internet access in your area.

[PerfectTemplar]

Unlimited means unlimited. If Verizon wants to limit the amount of data that people like this guy can download and upload, they should have sold him a capped plan. Having Terms of Service that seemingly serve no purpose but to contradict the reasonable interpretation that there is no limit to the amount of data you are allowed to move, is misleading.

 

I can see reasons for some of the rules existing though. If you were allowed to resell the service or allow 3rd parties to use it, you could theoretically offer access to your whole neighbourhood, and warp the market for internet access in your area.

Unlimited doesn't actually mean unlimited in the ToS you agree to. All ISPs over the world have a limit to bandwidth. There is no unlimited bandwidth on this planet.

[Nineshadow]

In Romania? Presumably because only about 14% of the country has broadband and the bandwidth usage is extremely low. It's very different in countries with 70-100% broadband usage rates with very high bandwidth consumption. something like 90% (as of this year not reflected on wiki)or more Australians have broadband and use a lot of bandwidth which is why it's more expensive here.

The US has 28% broadband and Romania has like 16-17%, even though I don't like numbers like these.

 

And bandwith usage isn't low at all D:.

[mikeeginger]

Well it's in TOS but Verizon didnt handle this well surprise surprise

 

Now if only they could come forward to 2015 not 1990  

[PerfectTemplar]

The US has 28% broadband and Romania has like 16-17%, even though I don't like numbers like these.

 

And bandwith usage isn't low at all D:.

On wiki it says Romania: 14%. United States is 81%

[Takata]

Unlimited doesn't actually mean unlimited in the ToS you agree to. All ISPs over the world have a limit to bandwidth. There is no unlimited bandwidth on this planet.

But the ToS are excessivey vague in several areas. If this is being used for a business or for a server (however you define "server"), then it's a clear violation of the ToS. If it's something else, then it's not clear, since Verizon hasn't declared what amount of data is considered "excessive". Also, there is the implication that since the connection is so fast, it would be expected to use proportionally more data.

[PerfectTemplar]

But the ToS are excessivey vague in several areas. If this is being used for a business or for a server (however you define "server"), then it's a clear violation of the ToS. If it's something else, then it's not clear, since Verizon hasn't declared what amount of data is considered "excessive". Also, there is the implication that since the connection is so fast, it would be expected to use proportionally more data.

Being used for a business can include, livestreaming, uploading photos, videos, and pretty much any other file. Also downloading large files including all those uploading. If you use it for work and use huge amounts of data you should be on a business plan. The plan provided is clearly for residential, personal use.

[Doughnutnator]

It's not all shitty, depends on where you live you can get fiber up to 200mbps up AND down from Axtel for example, here in Monterrey I get fiber from Telmex but it's capped severely since I'm on their lowest available plan which gives me 20/5mbps

Back on topic, The cap wouldn't be so unreasonable if he wasn't paying 315 fucking dollars. I'm sure you can get that much bandwidth allowance and perhaps more if you were to buy a server. And no the issue isn't "you're downloading too much" the issue is Verizon fucking selling a speed they can't fucking sustain on their infrastructure and betting that nobody will ever get anywhere near what they're paying for in terms of usage.

Data caps are fucking stupid, the internet is not a finite resource, given proper infrastructure you can sustain those transfers and more.

Español Yo tengo Totalplay, no me quejo mucho, no es muy caro. Pero no tengo cobertura de Axtel.

[TroubleKlef]

But the ToS are excessivey vague in several areas. If this is being used for a business or for a server (however you define "server"), then it's a clear violation of the ToS. If it's something else, then it's not clear, since Verizon hasn't declared what amount of data is considered "excessive". Also, there is the implication that since the connection is so fast, it would be expected to use proportionally more data.

 

Which lies the fundamental problem with ISPs. They have discretionary power to determine what is "excessive" on a case by case basis. 

[Dabombinable]

Which lies the fundamental problem with ISPs. They have discretionary power to determine what is "excessive" on a case by case basis. 

Think of it this way, you wouldn't be agreeing to a set amount of 'excessive' data, so ISP can't really complain about heavy internet usage without being seen as total dicks.

[Sakkura]

I agree 7TB is A LOT of data, I doubt 99.999% of home users get anywhere close, generally only people using it for commercial gain or business etc would be getting close to this

 

I mean filling like 2 or 3 hard drives of data a month is crazy

 

Most people also don't pay $315 for a 500 Mbps plan. He paid for a connection that could transfer tons of data, and then had the gall to actually use it. Clearly unreasonable to use your internet plan 30 hours per month.