Here's the Letter Verizon's Sending Excessive FiOS Users
by Karl Bode 09:42AM Friday Aug 30 2013 Tipped by sashwa
As I recently noted
, Verizon has told me they're in the process of notifying roughly 45 of their 5.8 million FiOS customers that they're using "excessive" amounts of bandwidth. While some users in our forums note they've been using in excess of 77 Terabytes
each month (running a video streaming empire out of your bedroom
will do that), Verizon says anything in excess of 10 Terabytes monthly can get you on their radar.
Another user in our forums
has shared a copy of the letter
Verizon is sending out to these users.
"We have recently become aware of extremely high usage on your account," the letter begins. "This extreme usage is in violation of the Verizon Consumer Online Terms of Service (TOS) and the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)....If the excessive usage continues past September 1, 2013 on your FiOS Internet account, your service will be disconnected on September 18, 2013."
The letter proceeds to notify the customer that he can avoid disconnection if he moves to a FiOS business line, though as we just found out
, those accounts are not exempt from excessive use warnings. Nowhere in the letter does Verizon provide users with any sort of detailed explanation of exactly how much bandwidth they consider to be "excessive."
"Practically speaking, the consumer user experience with Verizon’s broadband networks has no limitations," the company tells me. "However there are terms of service customers agree to and are expected to adhere to. When they do not those customers distort the concept of home service versus business services."
While the warnings are being sent to only a small portion of Verizon customers at the moment, it does leave one wondering how long it will be before Verizon decides to use these users to justify imposing caps and overages on residential FiOS usage. While Verizon has traditionally advertised the lack of caps as a benefit of their all fiber infrastructure over coax and copper, the company has long chosen their words very carefully to leave the possibility of caps open
sometime in the future.
177 comments .. click to read
·Time Warner Cable
|reply to DC DSL |
Re: Nothing wrong with this
Entitled? Wrong. This is a purely contractual matter. Don't sell a service as unlimited if it's not unlimited. Citing 'acceptable use' does not provide the end user with a hard number they must remain below for each billing cycle. The only reason Verizon doesn't give any specifics here is because they want to give themselves legal wiggle room to institute future hard bandwidth caps (which are no doubt coming). And if Verizon *isn't* concerned about instituting future caps, why won't they tell 'excessive' users exactly what amount of bandwidth is considered 'acceptable'? It doesn't pass the smell test.
What's even more damning is that the guy is on a BUSINESS account and they're still threatening him. How does one pay $370 a month for bonded 35/35 fiber on a business account and still not have unlimited usage?
If it's not unlimited, STOP SELLING IT AS UNLIMITED. This is not a difficult concept. Piss or get off the pot, Verizon.
GlennAllenSunny with highs in the 80sPremiumReviews:
|reply to DC DSL |
Verizon might very well offer to upgrade his account to "enterprise"... and then do nothing at all to the actual connection to support his usage--which means that nothing needs to be done, because the network already supports such "excessive" usage. I'm tired of this attitude that some customers have about other customers to the effect that those other customers are abusive and/or criminal because they're doing something different and more than the first customer does by taking better advantage of the service that they're paying for, especially when it apparently doesn't actually affect other customers' usage or Verizon's costs at all.
|reply to DC DSL |
Well if it's 45 users that take the bandwidth of 10,000 people (not a stretch), then Verizon can cull those activities because in residental and small business, servers are not allowed. Running a streaming server on top of copyright violations is a server and a civil matter. And if it's an encrypted tunnel they can not "catch" the person but only exercise the excessive use clause. Every vendor has that in there.
If Verizon deems that 45 of 5 million people are excessive users, oh my god stop the presses.
In the case of AT&T they were cutting off people after using 2GB which is TYPICAL use, not abuse or excessive use. If they start dinging people after 10TB, then I would say that is entirely reasonable. Our family streams all day long, I work from home many days, and all my backups go to the cloud. I typically use 300-500 GB which on non FIOS would give me a $200 bill or more, or simply cut off.
One guy I recall was using all of his video and prepress and copying it to the network for EVERYTHING, which could have been solved by a few bay NAS, and 15TB becomes 1TB just like that. It was also for business purposes, so not really residential.
I see ZERO reason to go after Verizon because their limits are SO HIGH compared to the few hundred gigabytes the others are trying to impose, this is NOT a story except for the fact that to consume 77TB of data you need to do some serious copyright infringement.
Verizon is hands and above the best telco vendor I have ever dealt with from customer service, pricing, and customer focus and that goes for my cell also. Vendors in the past: AT&T, Sprint, TWC, Comcast, Adelphia. The only one that even comes CLOSE is Adelphia, except their PQ sucked. The rest are D or worse, where I give Verizon a B. Nobody gets an A because of their insistence to lock in with STB and not promote CC as a viable alternative and keep VoD on STB.
This continual posting of this is total bullshit, IMHO. All over the place these guys are getting better because of competition. In certain areas, no but major strides have been made. Even TWC has deployed on Roku and now Xbox. They are trying.
|reply to 88615298 |
Re: I guess market penetration finally hit the magic number
That's irrelevant when he received the notice even after moving to the business account. He wasn't implying anything.
DC DSLThere's a reason I'm Command.Premium
Nothing wrong with this
I'm sorry but 77 terabytes is just absurd for someone to be serving out of their house. And, if he's serving-out recorded TV shows to family members elsewhere (as the story was told earlier in the week) that's also not kosher. If they were sending warnings for a few hundred gigabytes, then there would be reason for making a story of this. People need to stop acting like entitled pricks with the right to do whatever they feel like without any restrictions or consequences. I can't wait for this dude to start whining about getting nastygrams from copyright holders, or law enforcement showing up with a warrant and seizing his equipment to find out what all is on it.
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following."