elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
1 recommendation |
elray
Member
2013-Aug-26 12:17 pm
Houkouonchi: 1 of 45Many years ago Sprint got in trouble for "firing" customers.
But they were right.
While I admire Houkouonchi's technical setup and application, it is a business, and he should not expect to operate at those volumes with impunity, and have the other 5 million ratepayers subsidize him. (Her?) How much would a Colo facility charge for this use?
Those who repeatedly, deliberately and conspicuously push the limits of a consumer agreement, eventually, ruin it for everyone else.
Verizon has actually been very generous, to date, but eventually, they could just shrug and apply Comcast-inspired caps - and believe me, theirs would actually be accurate and stick. Lets hope they remain happy with a 10TB soft cap. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
1 recommendation |
axus
Member
2013-Aug-26 12:38 pm
Verizon _should_ explicitly state their caps, and not really care what those bytes are used for. This way everything is clear, and they can guarantee themselves a profit.
I don't see how Verizon explicitly stating a 5TB cap ruins it for the rest of us. I'm not saying they go out and pay for some new hardware to implement the cap, simply change the language they use to match the reality of the situation. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2013-Aug-26 1:09 pm
said by axus:Verizon _should_ explicitly state their caps, and not really care what those bytes are used for. This way everything is clear, and they can guarantee themselves a profit.
I don't see how Verizon explicitly stating a 5TB cap ruins it for the rest of us. I'm not saying they go out and pay for some new hardware to implement the cap, simply change the language they use to match the reality of the situation.
Forcing Verizon to state a hard-cap, because of the actions of an infinitesimally small minority of customers, takes away their ability to dynamically apply management techniques that benefit the vast majority of customers. It won't be 5TB. |
|
(Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66
|
I agree stfu, I don't want a hard cap because they are going after 45 people who use an incredibly excessive amounts of data. I myself use 1 - 1.5 TB/month and I know my usage might be considered somewhat excessive compared to a normal user, but they don't bother me because it's not too awful. Force them to state a cap and I will undoubtedly be over that amount. Forcing companies to put in hard caps in situations like this is not a win for users, when they start flagging users at .5 to 1 TB then maybe we need to understand the cap.
For all but the smallest minority of users on FiOS the service is completely unlimited, you have to really try to use the service in a manner for which it's not intended to get into this fraction of a fraction of a fraction of users who are being targeted. |
|
| |
to elray
said by elray:"ability to dynamically apply management techniques that benefit the vast majority of customers."
What does that mean in non-corporatespeak? |
|
Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI
1 edit
1 recommendation |
to elray
Good luck finding a colo that only provides non-professional services.
Most colos charge an arm and a leg because they have limited room, limited power, and are VERY well connected.
This guy only has a single internet connection, with residential power, and a non-datacenter grade setup.
He doesn't need all that other crap that gives him 5 9s disaster recoverey, and why should he pay someone else for services he can provide himself?
All he wants is a residential grade connection where he can pay a fair prices for the bandwidth he uses.
I hate how ISPs have no middle ground. Either your residential and get a data cap and "no servers", or you need 9s and a dedicated line.
I don't need 5 9s, I just want some flipping bandwidth. Sell me BANDWIDTH!
edit: by "very well connected, I've seen some colos advertising that they are directly connected to over 1,000 different networks while having an additional 3 different Internet Exchanges, each with redundant paths.
That kind of bandwidth is expensive. It is low latency high quality bandwidth. I don't need to run a stock-exchange out of my house, I don't need to worry about microsecond jitter. Give me residential quality bandwidth, but on an all you-can-eat platter and for a price that the ISP makes money, aka "fair". I just want the option. |
|
| |
Indeed,
Can't I just but a crap-ton of connectivity, without having to pay for the SLA that usually comes with it?
I hate that there isn't anything between Residential and Business, like POWER USER |
|
SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL
1 recommendation |
to elray
Problem is without flat out stating what the cap is across the board, it becomes arbitrary. Without a published cap, what's to say today's 10TB becomes tomorrow's 5TB, and what was my "legal" usage all of a sudden becomes non gratis? Worse yet, there's nothing saying that region A gets the same soft cap as region B, again, because there's no official published number.
Either post the official limitations of the service and DON'T call it unlimited, or make it unlimited and deal with that 1%. Can't have it both ways. |
|
 rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
3 recommendations |
to MovieLover76
said by MovieLover76:For all but the smallest minority of users on FiOS the service is completely unlimited No, it absolutely IS NOT. Those users have only the perception of unlimited because they haven't hit the soft cap. Perception is not reality. The dictionary definition of "unlimited" is: (emphasis added is mine) 1.) not limited; unrestricted; unconfined. 2.) boundless; infinite; vast; 3.) without any qualification or exception; unconditional.The service fails to meet the definition of unlimited the moment Verizon says "your consumption is excessive". By the way, bandwidth pricing at the datacenter is sub-$1 per megabit at sufficient commit, and sub-$2 in many more cases. So $300/month on an all-fiber FTTP network (carrier owns the entire loop) that allows sustained 100 Mbps transfers is not a completely unreasonable expectation these days. |
|
| |
to serge87
If you tell people the cap is 1TB, you will end up with lots of people who usually use a lot less than 1TB actually shoot for 1TB/month because they now feel like they "paid for 1TB" so announcing an official cap to reduce the usage of a few may cause a much larger traffic increase as a whole from people who would normally not even think of trying to use anywhere near that much.
Not having an official cap gives them a lot more leeway in how to handle extreme cases without affecting "normal" subscribers who are well under the tickle threshold most of the time. |
|
|
clone (banned)
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN
1 recommendation |
to rebus9
While, in most cases, I totally agree with people who bring up the definition of unlimited (and have done it myself on numerous occasions), this guy is ludicrous. 77TB in a month on a 300Mbit/sec connection is essentially saturating the connection every second of every hour of every day of the entire month. 77TB/31days/24hours/60minutes/60seconds = 29 Megabytes per second (~300 Mbit/sec) for the entire month.
When you pay for residential broadband, you are pretty much buying it under the understanding that it's unlimited to use it whenever you or people in your household want to use it. Not to saturate the connection for the entire month. Not for setting up racks of servers to stream media to your entire family. It's is a blatant TOS violation. This is what commercial connections are for.
This guy isn't getting kicked off FiOS because he went over some cap, he's getting kicked off for abusing the network, which I absolutely agree with in this case. |
|
Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI |
to rebus9
This is what I'm talking about. $2/mbit and another $30/month for infrastructure. I would mind paying $200/month if I knew I had 85mbit of truly unlimited bandwidth. |
|
| Bengie25 |
to clone
Commercial connections are not for high bandwidth, they are for SLAs.
Actual prices from L3 for a T1 is $300, which is 1.544mb/s, or you can get a 1gb Ethernet connection for $6,000. 20x more expensive, but 647x faster. Why? Because bandwidth is relatively free compared to infrastructure.
Why charge for bandwidth on the last mile? Because up until recently, copper infrastructure had limits. Now we are starting to get all fiber connections that have virtually no limits.
High consuming customers should have to pay their fair share, so charge them a fair price. Like rebus9 said, $2/mbit is fairly standard for guaranteed bandwidth.
Remember, bandwidth is not the same as data. 1mbit constant is about 350GB/month. What networks charge for is peak bandwidth. 95th percentile.
But yes, even then 300mbit average on a 300mbit connection is going to be at least $600 with the above. |
|
| |
to elray
you can get a server at 100tb.com on softlayer bandwidth, which is like the best, for $200/month. burstable to a full gigabit, which i have no problem hitting. |
|
| |
to SunnyD
Does Verizon advertise "unlimited"? I was just on their site and didn't see that word. Do their TOS state "unlimited"?
Even if they do, keep in mind that they are only unlimited as long as you are abiding by the other TOS - such as no servers. |
|
 TamaraBQuestion The Current Paradigm
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx ·Verizon FiOS
Ubiquiti NSM5
Synology RT2600ac
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)
|
to buzz_4_20
said by buzz_4_20:I hate that there isn't anything between Residential and Business, like POWER USER
It would appear, by this very thread, that Verizon Business FIOS is not business at all, but rather "Power User". |
|
Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI |
But Verizon Business FIOS has a data cap. It's just not advertised. |
|
2 recommendations |
to rebus9
Here we go again with the word unlimited. Lets stop using the word "unlimited". everything has limits..well except for things like "space". But when it comes to data usage we need to quit lying to ourselves. There is a limit. They just dont "want" to tell you what it is |
|
| |
anonome to elray
Anon
2013-Aug-26 6:20 pm
to elray
You're quite mistaken. Nobody else is "subsidizing" any one customer no matter how much his/her usage amounts to. Every customer "subsidizes" everyone's usage to one degree or another since everyone pays relatively equally for having the network exist at all. The only way that one customer accounts for more usage than others is for him/her to take advantage of periods where utilization is low or even practically non-existent. One customer's usage doesn't affect any other customer's usage or experience at all, nor does it cost Verizon anything extra. That's the way networking works. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
to serge87
It means complex, dynamic, realtime analysis of usage and application of throttling relative to the class of account, type of data, feeds, routing, etc.
Contrary to popular whining found on this forum, not all data is equal. Some is urgent/realtime, other can wait a month, some is lossy, some is peak, some is paid, some is "free", some is illegitimate.
Verizon has suggested that they might be taking a more comprehensive approach to managing data flows. For instance, that might mean a "toll free" (cap-exempt) off-peak period from 1 AM - 5 AM, when no cap applies, and you are only throttled to 50% of all available shared bandwidth on your node.
It may mean new "share everything" tiers which allocate bandwidth by device, i.e. 2.4Mbps for Rokus, 64K for ATAs, 1M for tablets. It may mean nominating the adult/business computer gets the lion's share, while the kids get enough for cartoons only.
There are a lot of ways to manage what you only think is a limitless resource other than the brute-force cap concept. Unfortunately, leaving such sophisticated decision-making to the corporation means you'll have to trust them to work in your best interest. Personally, I would trust Verizon today - where I don't trust most, but no doubt, someone will call me a shill for saying so.
[For the record, we don't have Verizon services. They're overpriced for our needs compared to what TWC delivers.] |
|
Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI |
to anonome
" Nobody else is "subsidizing" any one customer no matter how much his/her usage amounts to. Every customer "subsidizes" everyone's usage to one degree or another since everyone pays relatively equally for having the network exist at all."
Truth.
It is ironic that a network is only as useful as the number of people it connects.
Kind of like Google saying "We're going to start charging ISPs to connect to us", then suddenly Google has no customers and the ISPs have less value for their Internet services.
Unless you're a small ISP, bandwidth is relatively cheap. I can't see the bandwidth costs being more than the cost of enforcing data caps. |
|
TamaraBQuestion The Current Paradigm
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx ·Verizon FiOS
Ubiquiti NSM5
Synology RT2600ac
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)
|
to Bengie25
said by Bengie25:But Verizon Business FIOS has a data cap. It's just not advertised.
Sounds like grounds for an entrapment and or false advertising law suit. |
|
| |
to FrontirCynic
Not once have I ever heard FiOS advertised as UNLIMITED, so honestly, I dont know why everyone has bunched up panties. Ive heatrd and seen maybe 1000 FiOS commercials in my life. |
|
| ITALIAN926 |
to PaulHikeS2
NEVER |
|
| ITALIAN926 |
to TamaraB
Yea first you find an advertisement where FiOS proclaims its internet is UNLIMITED. Then find your lawyer. |
|
| |
to Bengie25
said by Bengie25:Commercial connections are not for high bandwidth, they are for SLAs.
Actual prices from L3 for a T1 is $300, which is 1.544mb/s, or you can get a 1gb Ethernet connection for $6,000. 20x more expensive, but 647x faster. Why? Because bandwidth is relatively free compared to infrastructure.
Why charge for bandwidth on the last mile? Because up until recently, copper infrastructure had limits. Now we are starting to get all fiber connections that have virtually no limits.
High consuming customers should have to pay their fair share, so charge them a fair price. Like rebus9 said, $2/mbit is fairly standard for guaranteed bandwidth.
Remember, bandwidth is not the same as data. 1mbit constant is about 350GB/month. What networks charge for is peak bandwidth. 95th percentile.
But yes, even then 300mbit average on a 300mbit connection is going to be at least $600 with the above.
Verizon doesn't spend anywhere near $2/mbit. They own their own backbone. |
|
| sonicmerlin |
to elray
said by elray:It means complex, dynamic, realtime analysis of usage and application of throttling relative to the class of account, type of data, feeds, routing, etc.
Contrary to popular whining found on this forum, not all data is equal. Some is urgent/realtime, other can wait a month, some is lossy, some is peak, some is paid, some is "free", some is illegitimate.
Verizon has suggested that they might be taking a more comprehensive approach to managing data flows. For instance, that might mean a "toll free" (cap-exempt) off-peak period from 1 AM - 5 AM, when no cap applies, and you are only throttled to 50% of all available shared bandwidth on your node.
It may mean new "share everything" tiers which allocate bandwidth by device, i.e. 2.4Mbps for Rokus, 64K for ATAs, 1M for tablets. It may mean nominating the adult/business computer gets the lion's share, while the kids get enough for cartoons only.
There are a lot of ways to manage what you only think is a limitless resource other than the brute-force cap concept. Unfortunately, leaving such sophisticated decision-making to the corporation means you'll have to trust them to work in your best interest. Personally, I would trust Verizon today - where I don't trust most, but no doubt, someone will call me a shill for saying so.
[For the record, we don't have Verizon services. They're overpriced for our needs compared to what TWC delivers.]
Verizon has 2.4 gbit/s shared amongst 32 users on a node. Cable shares q60 mbit amongst hundreds of users and still manages to provide full speed 95-99% of the time. Those GPON nodes are going massively underutilized. This isn't satellite where only in the wee hours of the night is there relative freedom from congestion. There's little doubt houkounouchi's activities had zero inpact on the 31 other users on his node. |
|
 justin..needs sleep
Mod
join:1999-05-28
2031
Apple AirPort Extreme (2011)
|
to elray
said by elray:How much would a Colo facility charge for this use? It depends if it is incoming or outgoing. Funnily enough many hosts often charge only for outgoing. So he *eats* 70TB a month but sends out only 100gb a month then the bandwidth would be free. In theory. Just for comparison the bill at the host for dslreports.com comes to 5 cents per gb, so a 70TB bill - if it were outbound - would be $3500 per month. If it were an amazon setup, and outbound, the price would be double that. On top of the server costs. These are the data center costs for bytes. ISPs charge for speeds and provisioning a service, they tend to assume total traffic is going to average under maybe 100gb over many subscribers, and thus not be a factor in pricing (sub $5/month). |
|
| |
to ITALIAN926
As recently as a month or so ago, one of their commercials boasted via use of the unlimited. |
|
| jimboe |
to ITALIAN926
MANY TIMES |
|
·
