Insider: Verizon Caps FiOS At 10 TB And DSL At 1.5 TB

carlbme said:
Oh crap. Today is the 4th of May and just checked and so far I've transferred 5.2TB on our 75/75 line.

*sigh*

That's not good for me. Since it's almost all traffic for work I wonder if I can get my work to pay for a business class line to my house? HA, yeah right. I understand that 10TB is a lot for most users. However, for some of us it's not. I do a lot of working with VM's between our office servers, Azure, and Amazon's EC2. Not to mention checking code in for various projects.

Combine that with the streaming me, my wife, and my two teenagers do to various TV's/devices, downloading of games, etc... So yeah, 10TB could be easily reached fairly easily.
Click to expand...
5.2TB after basically 3 full days? Assuming you are constantly transferring up and down at 75 over those 3 days, that's only like 3.9TB. Jesus man, if you are really moving that much data the whole "streaming and my wife, and two teenagers" is irrelevant because there's no bandwidth for them to do anything!

Yeah if you're moving that much data, I really think other solutions are in order ;)
 
Wierdo said:
So in other words... 10TB on a 500mbps (62.5MBps) FIOS connection is capped at 1.85 days at full utilization?

Seems awfully far from the goal of providing a monthly service. The 50mbps service seems to be a more "reasonable" 18.5 days though.

Basically the lesson is don't waste money on higher tier service plans?
Click to expand...

Why are you measuring this in throughput and not data? The cap is on data. If they provide an OC-192 straight to your house and you eat 10TB in 5 minutes are you really going to sit there and whine they your ISP only allots you 5 minutes of internet per month? What a ridiculous argument. It's 10 TB, thats it, which is a pretty reasonable amount.
 
The maximum bandwidth I've ever used is around 75-80GB in a month. If those are caps for consumer service, I don't see what the big deal is.
 
MrCaffeineX said:
I believe the term you are looking for is "truck nuts". My friend has a pair on his F-150. I don't really get the appeal, but I have to admit that his truck nuts are bigger than mine, so maybe that's the appeal?

Paying for usage a la public service utilities like electricity, water or sewer may just be the first step in transitioning to a traditional public service utility model. The lines are already pretty grey in this area, especially with electric companies providing fibre to the home in some states/municipalities. Either way I'm pretty sure it will just be a system to get us to pay more for less.

The argument could be made that light users are subsidizing heavy users in an unlimited usage model, but we would also have to take into account that the majority of the costs for such services are simply in setting up the infrastructure to deliver the service. Therefore, the minimum amount per GB that a light user would have to pay may not work out to be significantly cheaper than what they are paying now, if there are any savings at all. The ISPs operate with huge profit margins for Internet service in most cases and I doubt they would be willing to pass any theoretical savings on to the consumer anyway. The more likely scenario is simply light users will pay approximately the same amount as they currently do and heavy users will pay more than they currently do.
Click to expand...
The problem is when one user in the group becomes a significant percentage of the traffic of the group causing capacity issues in the area. This leaves the "suits" with two options: a) increase capacity by deploying new hardware which costs tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on what existing and potential capacity, or b) tell that one asshole to knock it off and get 20-30% of your capacity in that area back for free.


Guess which one they chose.
 
It's hard for me to figure out how to burn more than 2TB per month right now. But I still detest the necessity.

I can say however that FIOS on the west coast has been having gigantic capacity issues for the better part of a year now. My personal opinion is that they have some gigantic abuse going on somewhere. I got an email from Frontier's DM out here that they had capacity issues going on between where I live and northward to Seattle and they hoped to have it fixed mid April. It's a little better but still not there yet.

No idea if Frontier is following Verizon's lead on these caps or not.
 
Ducman69 said:
Is it really though? Those Comcast/Time Warner anti-trust investigations showed that Comcast is enjoying I think they said a 107% profit margin on home internet sales alone.

In any business, that is a HUGE profit margin, and means that they could have a more reasonable 15% profit margin and have absolute fortunes to spend on infrastructure upgrades and just have the CEO buying a slightly smaller private island.
Click to expand...

This is especially impressive given how poorly they are run.
 
-Dragon- said:
The problem is when one user in the group becomes a significant percentage of the traffic of the group causing capacity issues in the area. This leaves the "suits" with two options: a) increase capacity by deploying new hardware which costs tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on what existing and potential capacity, or b) tell that one asshole to knock it off and get 20-30% of your capacity in that area back for free.


Guess which one they chose.
Click to expand...

Or C) They already have the hardware in the ground for more capacity and choose not to use it....until Google Fiber comes into the neighborhood with faster speeds and lower prices. And in the interim screw everyone over and tell the higher-usage customers to can it.
 
-Dragon- said:
The problem is when one user in the group becomes a significant percentage of the traffic of the group causing capacity issues in the area. This leaves the "suits" with two options: a) increase capacity by deploying new hardware which costs tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on what existing and potential capacity, or b) tell that one asshole to knock it off and get 20-30% of your capacity in that area back for free.


Guess which one they chose.
Click to expand...

There is obviously an assumed formula that a certain percentage of people will be offline at certain times, and not fully utilize their connections at others, etc. etc so you don't have to be able to support the full speed beyond the last mile.

Maybe on average you only need to provide 20% (completely made up example figure) of the bandwidth you have sold after the first mile, due to these averaging effects.

If Verizon is having trouble here, it is because either this formula is too low or they have oversold capacity.

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily need 150mbit/150mbit 24 hours a day, but I do use a lot of it with my offsite backup service backing up all of my RAW DSLR pictures and videos, as well as video streaming, and I would like it to be there if I wind up needing it.

In the last two days I've probably transferred ~200GB. No idea how much I average in a month.
 
who the fuck watches SD movies with such a fast connection?

stupid way to quantify it
 
This thread is funny.. people saying "Cannot understand how you can hit 10tb in a month! Holy hell!" Yet atleast 3 people have said how easy they do..Also.. I wish verizon or someone would run out this way x.x
 
Also, we barely manage 150gb monthly, but then again we only have up to 5Mbps down.
 
MrCaffeineX said:
I believe the term you are looking for is "truck nuts". My friend has a pair on his F-150. I don't really get the appeal, but I have to admit that his truck nuts are bigger than mine, so maybe that's the appeal?
Click to expand...

There's actually a name for those things? Ugh, some people. On a weird coincidental note, I saw a car with those things yesterday evening when I was out getting snackies. Some people...:rolleyes:
 
I video edit indie movies. A 4k uncompressed mjpeg is about 4 tb for an hour and a half. Not even my local small business plan comes close to supporting this.
 
bigdaveberg said:
This thread is funny.. people saying "Cannot understand how you can hit 10tb in a month! Holy hell!" Yet atleast 3 people have said how easy they do..Also.. I wish verizon or someone would run out this way x.x
Click to expand...

Yeah, but lets be clear what we are talking.

10TB / month can be reached by an average transfer speed of only ~4000 KB/s

That really doesn't seem that outrageous.

This isn't 2001 with 768KB/s DSL anymore.

This is 2015. We have HD streaming, IP radio, cloud backups, Steam downloads, OS/Software Updates, IP voice, IP video chat, etc. etc.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I use 10+TB every month (or even have ever done so for any month, I've never checked so I don't know) but I don't want to be subject to an arbitrary limit that can come back and bite me if I have a particularly high usage month.

Some might say that having completely unblocked consumer internet service is an unrealistic pipe dream. I disagree. It's what we have had to date, and it has worked out fine.

This is just an excuse to reduce spending on infrastructure, and instead limit consumer choice at a time when ISP's have obscene profits and consumers are hurting,

Time to break out the pitch forks folks.
 
I recall there being rumors of a rumored 10TB cap for fios a couple of years back, but it's nice to know that it is confirmed. I think the most I've ever done in a month with 150/150 is somewhere between 2.5-4TB when I had to re-download my steam library (which I think is ~2TB).

10TB is more than enough, but like others, I still don't like the idea of being limited on such a fast connection. I guess it could be moot since FiOS is selling a big portion of their business to Frontier anyways.
 
McFry said:
Why are you measuring this in throughput and not data? The cap is on data. If they provide an OC-192 straight to your house and you eat 10TB in 5 minutes are you really going to sit there and whine they your ISP only allots you 5 minutes of internet per month? What a ridiculous argument. It's 10 TB, thats it, which is a pretty reasonable amount.
Click to expand...

Because they advertised it as unlimited. Their fault, not the customers. Don't false advertise, end of story.
 
bigdaveberg said:
This thread is funny.. people saying "Cannot understand how you can hit 10tb in a month! Holy hell!" Yet atleast 3 people have said how easy they do..Also.. I wish verizon or someone would run out this way x.x
Click to expand...

And you can get a decent view of the population make up of data users, a few people can easily do it while most people can't even comprehend using that much data in a month, hell most people don't even have that much hard drive storage.

So goes to show these data caps tend to affect the smallest portion of users. Now what I don't buy that these companies always try to hammer home is "the top 3% of users use most of the data"
 
Those that can't comprehend using 10TB a month are going to use a lot less. Should be easy to average out with those that use more.

If they can't offer unlimited, don't sell unlimited.
 
sKiDmArK said:
But like others, I still don't like the idea of being limited on such a fast connection. I guess it could be moot since FiOS is selling a big portion of their business to Frontier anyways.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware of this. Any linkage?
 
Zarathustra[H];1041585632 said:
I wasn't aware of this. Any linkage?
Click to expand...

Never mind, I googled. (I assumed it was more oscure than that, as I had never heard of it)

Looks like mainly places thousands of miles away from where I live :p
 
Could be worse. I have Comcast with a 300gb cap (upload+download) and hit it monthly with a house of four using netflix and gaming. $10 per 50gb afterward. Even if you only use 1gb of the 50gb.

-_-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top