Slashdot Mirror

Comcast never stopped running Sandvine, did they? Verizon definitely is man-in-the-middling DNS, I can see that from home - and despite promising to provide alternative DNS servers for the small number of customers able to understand their chicanery, those "alternative" servers are unreachable from my FIOS connection.

I switched to FIOS because Comcast was chopping my SSH sessions after a certain period of time regardless of whether they were active or not. This made it very hard to work from home. Hijacked DNS was a relatively small issue, I just use Google's public DNS servers.

Pelosi's grandstanding is all very well, but it would be nice if there was some way to enforce this sort of legislation, and currently there just isn't. Providers do what they want regardless of laws, and there's currently no way to stop them.

What the fuck is that "redirectingat.com" link? Some spyware data harvester?

Here is the real link:

https://www.verizon.com/about/news/protecting-our-customers-identity-theft-and-fraud

Also none of this even matters since nobody in the world uses CDMA except Verizon, so you won't be taking your Verizon branded phone to another carrier anyways.

Why are the U.S. taxpayers subsidizing these failing industries? Look at Comcast. They only had $4.3 billion in free cash flow in the second quarter of 2018. Why should we pour more of our hard earned money down the drain for a company which can't survive without its corporate welfare payments?

And what about Verizon? They've only had $26.2 billion in free cash flow so far this year. What a travesty that such a failing company has to beg for money from the taxpayers.

"Lets not forget, this is their data, not ours."

Let's not forget, most cell companies today have contractual privacy policies in place which promise to safeguard such information unless disclosed "to comply with valid legal process." Additionally, Federal law (47USC222) specifically burdens cellcos with maintaining such records in confidence. It's not "their data" to do with as they want.

Contrast to Smith v. Maryland, where the court's reasoning for not requiring a warrant for so-called "meta-data" hinged on a lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy. At the time, there was no promise of privacy for the data as there is today.

Verizon FIOS has been offering gigabit for $80 or $85 for a while now.

Oops. Correction: That's the TV/phone/gigabit-internet bundle for $80.

Now, if you actually get the TV, there's set-top-box fees & premium channel fees & everything else. So much so that I chopped a lot of cash off my bill, like $150, by dropping TV. It actually got to the point where I could but a new DVD, perhaps not all the very latest releases, but a new DVD every day of the month for less money than Cable-TV.

As a long-time FIOS user, my bill did rise over time. But after calling Verizon, they dropped it back down to $85. Even without the TV. And with no contract!

GP might want to look up some stories regarding the term "Comcastic". In particular Comcast's billing of customers for returned equipment. (Can you prove you returned it? In court!) Small claims court helps!

I've also seen some problems with Comcast's network, years back, where you could see traffic from other users on their network. (Relating to a failed router update disabling DHCP lease renewal resulting in masquerading as other users.) Kind of like using wireshark over WiFi at the airport, only worse.

As a media outlet recently reported, an employee of one of our vendors put information into a cloud storage area and incorrectly set the storage to allow external access. We have been able to confirm that the only access to the cloud storage area by a person other than Verizon or its vendor was a researcher who brought this issue to our attention. In other words, there has been no loss or theft of Verizon or Verizon customer information.

I'd guess they don't have sanitation engineers in Oregon ? or software engineers ? Do they register train engineers the same as structural engineers ?

https://www.verizon.com/about/...

> Where do you live where you can get cable Internet at a single address from multiple companies?

Some boston suburbs (but not boston proper).
You can get verizon fios/fios-tv, Comcast ISP and TV, and RCN ISP and TV all at the same address.

Source: I use to live there. Now I live in chattanooga where I get EPB gigabit fiber for cheaper than any of the choices I had available in Arlington.

Well no, people complain constantly that the wireless carriers "already built the networks and now they're just raking in profits". But if you want to talk about wired, although Verizon sold a big chunk of their wireline etwork in 2015, they also spent $5 billion upgrading wireline infrastructure the same year.

http://www.verizon.com/about/s...

If you want to know about the financials of a public company, you look at the same document the company's owners (stockholders) look at, its annual report. It's about 80 pages or so detailing how much they spent, on what, how much revenue they had from what sources, etc. Here's Verizon's:

http://www.verizon.com/about/s...

You'll see they invested $28 billion in increasing capacity. Of that, $5 billion is wireline (POTS) and $23 billion is wireless.

How do you connect to the "cloud" without a network? Wi-fi is LAN, or are you assuming LAN is only ethernet?

I said cellular. I meant cellular.

Nobody out there is going to give you a free cellular data plan

Yeah. They will. It's already happening.

http://www22.verizon.com/whole...

"Verizon's Mobility Services include wireless voice, text messaging and wireless data packages for both 3G CDMA & 4G LTE. Adding our Mobility Services to your product suite lets you offer variety in voice and data services that keep your customers productive - at the office and on the go. Additionally, you will retain and grow your customer base with Verizonâ(TM)s Mobility Services as the technology platform to deliver IoT applications and solutions."

It won't be free, it will be "free"... the cost will be front loaded into the purchase price; or covered by some other subscription fee, or advertising revenue. How much do you think 1GB of data per unit over a 5 year period is going to cost at wholesale x 1 million units...

no, customers do not "demand" locked phones.. they DO however, demand the gimmicky handset giveaways and other promotions, and *that* is what "demands" a locked phone to keep the phone on carrier for the duration of whatever contract requirement the carriers throw at it..

Verizon doesn't lock most of their phones and the ones that they do lock, they will unlock for you without too much of a hassle.

http://www.verizon.com/about/c...

what you SHOULD be saying is that hardware and service should be separated.

Most carriers are allowing customers to have a 0% financing for their phones that are separate from the service. You can pay off the phone and move to another service or you can bring a compatible phone to their service.

hardware should cost what hardware costs.. a couple hundred usd, at minimum, for all but the cheapest devices.. unlocked and not carrier specific. a cdma should work on either cdma provider, a gsm should work on any gsm for voice and any carrier for data,

Most phones support LTE and work with GSM or CDMA. A GSM only LTE phone won't work with a CDMA carrier if it can't get an LTE signal. Then you have an issue with some phones don't support all of the LTE bands.

But CDMA sucks and only used by a few carriers worldwide.

services should cost what service costs... which is, a hell of a lot less than it does now due to it currently subsidizing hardware promos,

Phone carriers in the U.S. have moved away from subsidized plans toward service + (optional) finance plans. You can pay for the phone up front and just pay for service.

"smart phone" mandatory surcharges and data plans HAVE TO GO. ever hear of wifi-only data? no? it's entirely feasible, preferred even by many.. but carriers don't want you to have a smart phone that only does wifi data.

http://get.tracfone.com/smartp...

Plans do come with limited data but it's only $15/month. If you spend most of your time on wifi. There are plenty of free/low cost VOIP apps that include a phone number.

and the software ON the hardware needs to be supported and updated with security and bug fixes for the life of the hardware.. at least 7-10 years or more.. so you can jump off the upgrade train, keep a good device long-term, and do the environment a favor.

7 or 10 years support for phone? These were the top of the line phones in 2006:
http://www.cnet.com/news/best-...

But, in telecom do they capitalize it?

Verizon doesn't:
http://www.verizon.com/home/fi...

AT&T doesn't:
https://www.att.com/internet/

So, who uses B when they should use b?

Everything else is prerecorded or on-demand, with on-demand really our go-to now -- so fuck you, CW removing your channel from it years ago; we haven't watched a single program of yours since, on any platform.

What?

http://tv.verizon.com/series/6...

I am not sure what cable network you have, but FiOS has CW shows offered on their On-Demand, for free even! They also stream directly from their website (which that might be a link for, but FiOS also had their own on-demand of the same show)

First, the person I responded to did not specify that they were getting a point of presence for the prices quoted, just upload/download speeds.

Second, I suspect you don't really know what a Point of Presence is if you think that commercial grade internet service piped into your home or business equates to having a PoP. Unlike you, I don't have to guess that you don't know much about business and commercial grade connections because you've proven it.

Third, getting back to upload/download speeds (which is what I was responding to):
http://www.verizon.com/smallbu...
500 mb/s up and down, $360/month.

Fourth, don't even start whining about how FIOS isn't available to you. You want to know what's available in your area, do your own search. It's not my fault that you were too lazy to look for a better provider and wound up paying out the ass for sub-par service like the person I responded to.

Fibre is all well and good, but the last mile into everyones home is still going to have to be a cable connection for higher-than-dsl speed

My Verizon FIOS service begs to differ. So do the lucky folks with Google Fiber. In fact, when I used to have DSL my 10+ meg connection was on par with the local cable provider's speeds -- without the terrible latency at peak times that my cable-subscribed neighbors experienced.

Your statements might be colored by a poor experience with DSL. Some installations are better than others -- it seems to be a neighborhood-by-neighborhood issue. It's obvious you've never had fiber of any type, and you don't even mention satellite or metropolitan WIFI. Cable is not the end-all, be-all internet provider.

http://www.verizon.com/support...

FiOS is working on it. Some of their routers don't support it yet, and as they use funky routers, it isn't exactly like you can go to Best Buy and get a new one.

Telecom is hugely profitable, mobile telecom even more so.

Could you provide some data to support that statement? Not that I think the roaming charges are reasonable (since they are completely disconnected from actual costs for the operators), but that would just mean that domestic charges should go up and international/roaming rates should go down.

Look for example at the Vodafone annual report (big PDF), income statement on page 96. On 38 bn UK pounds annual revenue, the made 5 bn loss (before taxes, not including the profitable sale of their stake in Verizon).

Or the T-mobile US numbers on 2014 (full year). Page 6: US$ 14 bn revenue; net income US$ 0.25 bn. That does not look like a hugely profitable business to me. Or the balance sheet on page 5: US$ 57 bn assets, and only US$ 16 bn of stockholder's equity; a ratio of 3.6:1, which I'd consider pretty large for a company that is not making a large profit and that has to deal with rapidly depreciating infrastructure.

Here's Verizon 2014 full year: US$ 127 bn revenue, US$ 12 bn net income. That looks more healthy. But look at the balance sheet: US$ 232 bn assets, and just US$ 14bn in equity (16:1 ratio). I would be very hesitant to invest in a company with such a balance sheet. To my surprise, the stock market thinks differently with a P/E of 21.

I'm not a finance expert, so if I misinterpret the numbers, please correct me.

The reason CDN wants China is money. So, if China wants to block that, it's their country. Painting "freedom" on a capitalistic venture is not fooling the Chinese government.

Hell, Verizon is riding on edgecast.

Surveying friends and family (including a couple hundred facebook friends), calls at first seemed random, but in more recent months, appear to specifically be targeting people over 50. The most recent calls have asked for me by name. This leads me to believe that they're using someone's pilfered (or purchased?) address list. Has AARP had any breaches lately?

Curious, what type of lines are the calls coming in on? There's a huge list of folks, mostly over 50, listed by name, freely available to scammers... The White Pages. Many of them are online and easy to spider. Most telcos still print the physical books, too, although you have to request one now instead of having them dropped off by default. Since these directories are comprised primarily of landlines, it's a safe bet that whoever answers most of the calls will be a baby boomer.

While that is a fair point... Those speeds will increase over time.

Just this month, Verizon FIOS upgraded our service with what they call "SpeedMatch":

http://campaign.verizon.com/fa...

So if you have 35 megabits down, now you have 35 megabits up. 75 down, 75 up, etc...

Granted, not everyone has FIOS, or can get it, but it may well provide pressure to others (Comcast we're looking at you) to match it.

> Verizon decided they wanted a piece of the action, and degraded service. It's been shown that it was intentional, and not the result of insufficient hardware.

Level3 and Verizon both disagree with you. They both agree that the 7 interconnect routers became saturated as the Netflix traffic increased, and both have published diagrams explaining it for laymen. Links are below. Anyone,who knows how to use traceroute can confirm that fact. The only question is whether Netflix or Level3 will pay to upgrade that connection.

http://publicpolicy.verizon.co...

http://blog.level3.com/open-in...

Whether Netflix is using Verizon as an ISP or if they are peers is of course the crux of their dispute. Looking at the definition of "peer" in the dictionary, they don't seem to meet the definition.

Verizon: Meet the Board. Practically an invitation.

https://www.verizon.com/investor/bo_meettheboard.htm

I have Verizon FIOS and I have done similar tests myself, and it isn't just netflix. The webcomic modestmedusa.com and the site acidsquirrel.com load very slowly, and this has only been for the past week or so. If I go through a VPN or ssh X forwarding, it is lightning fast. I too assumed it was due to throttling of some sort, until I found this:

        http://forums.verizon.com/t5/F...

People claimed it was a DNS issue. I thought that was nonsense until I tried it. When I use OpenDNS, it solves the problem: both modestmedusa.com and acidsquirrel.com load lightning fast. I don't use Netflix, but maybe someone could try it and see if it fixes that problem?

Verizon has pointed that out. Multiple times:

http://publicpolicy.verizon.co...
http://publicpolicy.verizon.co...
http://publicpolicy.verizon.co...

Verizon has pointed that out. Multiple times:

http://publicpolicy.verizon.co...
http://publicpolicy.verizon.co...
http://publicpolicy.verizon.co...

Verizon has pointed that out. Multiple times:

http://publicpolicy.verizon.co...
http://publicpolicy.verizon.co...
http://publicpolicy.verizon.co...

Some ISPs have started offering a "no sports" package that's cheaper and doesn't include it. For Verizon's plan, it's $25 cheaper.

Their status page promised roll-outs starting in late 2012, but it also has horrifically bad information, even for an ISP ("Verizon will use a IPv6/56 address format, which means this will support 56 LANs.") I've asked about it several times, but no one at any level seems to know what's going on. The routers have been IPv6-enabled since spring of 2013, which got a lot of people excited. There's a rumor that the hold-up has to do with newer set-top boxes and broken IPv6 stacks, but no one knows how believable that is. (I don't buy it. I just think Verizon is refusing to spend the money necessary to implement it.)

Except, according to Verizon's own published chart those links are at 48% peak utilization. It seems is some headroom there. http://publicpolicy.verizon.co....

Up above, you posted that the problem is that Level 3 charges, "300% higher than any other provider out there..."
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Which means: You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I thought issue was between Verizon Core Network, and Level 3. By which, Verizon needed to up their interconnect count to Level 3, since in the US, it's saturated at 100%. This is absolutely Verizon not wanting to expand it's gate to a Tier 1 ISP, Level 3. This falls on Verizons shoulders and no one else.

As for your, They've got a huge multi-billion dollar network to maintain and the front door to that network is the least of their concerns.? I'd agree with you, but this Verizon Corporate announcement, squashes that.

Relevant statement from April 2014:
Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE, Nasdaq: VZ) today reported its fifth consecutive quarter of double-digit percentage growth in operating income and earnings per share.

I pay my ISP.

For an "up to" connection. That makes no promises whatsoever regarding speed or reliability. So long as they're making a good faith effort you have no right to complain. If they're pocketing your money and providing you with nothing you've got a right to complain, even with the "up to" language, because that would constitute fruad. They're not doing that though, and not even the biggest shrill for Netflix would suggest that they are.

Here's the relevant snippet from the Verizon Online Customer Agreement. It's worth noting that every ISP on the planet has similar language:

"VERIZON DOES NOT WARRANT THAT ANY OF THE SERVICE, EQUIPMENT, OR OTHER EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZED BY VERIZON FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICE WILL PERFORM AT A PARTICULAR SPEED, BANDWIDTH OR DATA THROUGHPUT RATE, OR WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, ERROR-FREE, SECURE, OR FREE OF VIRUSES, WORMS, DISABLING CODE OR CONDITIONS, OR THE LIKE"

Telecoms all over the country are hurting because of this and lobbying heavily to get their regulation lifted. (I've worked for both. I currently work for a Telecom)

Their profits say otherwise. Verizon, for example, has been raking in record profits for multiple past quarters.

Verizon Caps Strong Record of Success in 2013 With Fourth Consecutive Quarter of Double-Digit Earnings Growth

Oh those poor telcos. I just won't be able to sleep at night over their pain and suffering. *rolls eyes*

Netflix is having all these problems because they use Cogent, the cut-rate morons of the transit world...

This has happened hundreds of times, long before they carried Netflix streaming video:

http://www.pcworld.com/article...

https://secure.dslreports.com/...

https://secure.dslreports.com/...

https://secure.dslreports.com/...

http://www.complaints.com/2008...

http://publicpolicy.verizon.co...

http://www.prnewswire.com/news...

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/s...

https://www.datacenterknowledg...

etc., etc.

There's really no reason for ISPs to wrangle with Netflix

Verizon has two reasons to wrangle with Netflix.

There's really no reason for ISPs to wrangle with Netflix

Verizon has two reasons to wrangle with Netflix.

Landline penetration was low because it is expensive to run cables. In the 1990s I visited a company who were making fixed phones for houses in Chile. These were big analogue mobiles and dirt cheap compared to stringing cables through the mountains.

It's not just for the sticks and/or brutal terrain anymore: Verizon is looking to move a bunch of Hurricane Sandy-damaged landline customers to 'Verizon Voicelink', essentially a tethered cellular-to-copper bridge. Whether this is a statement on the economics of copper/fiber buildout, or an end-run around the regulations affecting wireline POTS service is a matter of some contention...

...actually, the ToS specifically says in section 4.3:

Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. You may not resell, re-provision or rent the Service, (either for a fee or without charge) or allow third parties to use the Service via wired, wireless or other means. For example, you may not provide Internet access to third parties through a wired or wireless connection or use the Service to facilitate public Internet access (such as through a Wi-Fi hotspot), use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). If you subscribe to a Broadband Service, you may connect multiple computers/devices within a single home to your modem and/or router to access the Service, but only through a single Verizon-issued IP address. You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server . Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.

I wonder how this would work with a Fon Linus plan.

So, a business offers a service, but then they institute some kind of "terms" upon which they agree to provide the service. Interesting, I wonder if Verizon has a similar set of terms, to which the customers agree... Maybe they'd put it on the intnernet, the URL would probably be something like: http://www22.verizon.com/about/terms/

Here is the Verizon TOS: http://my.verizon.com/central/vzc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=vzc_help_policies&id=TOS Below are sections where, judging by TFS, he may have been in violation. In my layman's opinion, they had him dead to rights.

"Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. You may not resell, re-provision or rent the Service, (either for a fee or without charge) or allow third parties to use the Service via wired, wireless or other means. For example, you may not .... use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). ....You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.

"You represent that when you transmit, upload, download, post or submit any content, images or data using the Service you have the legal right to do so and that your use of such content, images or data does not violate the copyright or trademark laws or any other third party rights."

ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY

"General Policy: Verizon reserves the sole discretion to deny or restrict your Service, or immediately to suspend or terminate your Service, if the use of your Service by you or anyone using it, in our sole discretion, violates the Agreement or other Verizon policies, is objectionable or unlawful, interferes with the functioning or use of the Internet or the Verizon network by Verizon or other users, or violates the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy ("AUP")."

"Specific Examples of AUP Violations. The following are examples of conduct which may lead to termination of your Service. Without limiting the general policy in Section 1, it is a violation of the Agreement and this AUP to: ... (g) violate Verizon's or any third party's copyright, trademark, proprietary or other intellectual property rights; (h) engage in any conduct harmful to the Verizon network, the Internet generally or other Internet users; (i) generate excessive amounts of email or other Internet traffic; (j) use the Service to violate any rule, policy or guideline of Verizon; ....

"Copyright Infringement/Repeat Infringer Policy. Verizon respects the intellectual property rights of third parties. Accordingly, you may not store any material or use Verizon's systems or servers in any manner that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights, including under US copyright law. .... it is the policy of Verizon to suspend or terminate, in appropriate circumstances, the Service provided to any subscriber or account holder who is deemed to infringe third party intellectual property rights, including repeat infringers of copyrights. In addition, Verizon expressly reserves the right to suspend, terminate or take other interim action regarding the Service of any Subscriber or account holder if Verizon, in its sole judgment, believes that circumstances relating to an infringement of third party intellectual property rights warrant such action."

You are paying for "on demand" bandwidth instead of "always on, always using at full speed" bandwidth.

Please show me where it says that:

http://www22.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/#plans

If I get a connection that offers "300mbps", then I should be able to use... "300mbps". (Subject only to technical limitations, ie: a poor quality connection that limits speed. (Not really a fiber issue). Of course, in that case, it would be fair to prorate the amount I pay to account for the slower speeds. Not that any company actually does that.)

If they don't want me using that much bandwidth, then why did they sell me that much bandwidth? (Note- "They thought you'd use less" is NOT a valid argument. If I buy a all-day pass to an amusement park, can they complain if I arrive at opening, and stay until closing? Of course not. Even though their research may show that 'most' all-day pass users actually only stay 2/3 of the day. )

So in researching a reply to a comment above, limit does come into play (as the article calls out this guy's usage was 30,000 times higher than an average user
The ToS section 4.3. Restrictions on Use states (among other things) "use it for high volume purposes"
http://my.verizon.com/central/vzc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=vzc_help_policies&id=TOS

What does "high volume" mean... well I'm sure 30,000 times that of an average user would qualify

The ToS is everything here, and the ISP can choose to dictate its use as they feel
If those terms are unacceptable to you, you can choose to not use the service

As for fine print... not really. It was pretty easy to find the section in Verizon's online ToS, found with a simple Google search and a very quick scan of the document
http://my.verizon.com/central/vzc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=vzc_help_policies&id=TOS
Section 4.3.
4. AUTHORIZED USER, ACCOUNT USE, AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
3. Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. You may not resell, re-provision or rent the Service, (either for a fee or without charge) or allow third parties to use the Service via wired, wireless or other means. For example, you may not provide Internet access to third parties through a wired or wireless connection or use the Service to facilitate public Internet access (such as through a Wi-Fi hotspot), use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). If you subscribe to a Broadband Service, you may connect multiple computers/devices within a single home to your modem and/or router to access the Service, but only through a single Verizon-issued IP address. You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.

...actually, the ToS specifically says in section 4.3:

Restrictions on Use. The Service is a consumer grade service and is not designed for or intended to be used for any commercial purpose. You may not resell, re-provision or rent the Service, (either for a fee or without charge) or allow third parties to use the Service via wired, wireless or other means. For example, you may not provide Internet access to third parties through a wired or wireless connection or use the Service to facilitate public Internet access (such as through a Wi-Fi hotspot), use it for high volume purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute such use (commercial or non-commercial). If you subscribe to a Broadband Service, you may connect multiple computers/devices within a single home to your modem and/or router to access the Service, but only through a single Verizon-issued IP address. You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server . Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service.

I think the guy should be in the clear. He obviously wasn't running a commercial or industrial service. He was skirting the border there, but he didn't cross it. The summary at least does not imply he was charging for use of his servers to the friends and families and personal use.

He is not a customer that an ISP wants, but everyone gets customers like that. They should turn this around and say, "Hey, look at what you can do with our service. You can run servers for your own data and be faster than other commercial services.*"

*Only good for non-commercial uses.

" You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service."

it's there so they can kick off people who cost more to them than the service brings in money. the guy probably said on the phone "servers" - and anything that responds to an outside query is a server anyways, so it's weasel wording.

http://my.verizon.com/central/vzc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=vzc_help_policies&id=TOS

NOW.. do they have a link to that on the page they sell the service on? fuck no... I doubt the guy even knew that "server" was against the TOS.

The only person claiming this plan is unlimited is the author of the story.

While sometimes the marketing people fuck up, Verizon does not label their plans as being unlimited that I can tell: http://www22.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/fastest-internet-plans/

..I don't see any limit either, just speeds advertised. or anywhere. there's no transfer limits on their marketing.. the only tos that could be found via searching said nothing of it either.

and factually, there is no limit. there's couple of phrases here and there though, like your use must not harm other users of the service.

and then there's this ". You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server. Violation of this section may result in bandwidth restrictions on your Service or suspension or termination of your Service."

the guy fucked up by simply saying that he has couple of rack mounted servers. should have just hung up on the rep, really. or said that he's streaming his personal video from his other house where he keeps cute cats running around. because, if he had so many machines, I doubt he wanted verizon to cut his service.

The only person claiming this plan is unlimited is the author of the story.

While sometimes the marketing people fuck up, Verizon does not label their plans as being unlimited that I can tell: http://www22.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/fastest-internet-plans/

Verizon doesn't call their plans unlimited.

http://www22.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/fastest-internet-plans/

No mention of any unlimited plans.

No, they don't.

http://www22.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/fastest-internet-plans/

Go find the word 'unlimited' on that page.

In the ToS, they specifically mention that excessive use is a reason to boot you off.

http://my.verizon.com/central/vzc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=vzc_help_policies&id=TOS

No, they don't.

http://www22.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/fastest-internet-plans/

Go find the word 'unlimited' on that page.

In the ToS, they specifically mention that excessive use is a reason to boot you off.

http://my.verizon.com/central/vzc.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=vzc_help_policies&id=TOS