Slashdot Mirror
Verizon CEO Says "We Will Hunt Heavy Users Down"
Zerocool3001 writes "In an interview with WSJ editor Alan Murray,Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg talks about how the FCC's broadband access studies are wrong (and the US is definitely 'number one, not even close'), how he had someone else stand in line for him Saturday to pick up his iPad, and how Verizon will soon hunt down, throttle and/or charge high-bandwidth users on its network."
Pay out the nose for our high speed internet! but if you dare use that speed we will lock you up.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
Verizon will soon hunt down
"The Most Dangerous Game hunt down" or the boring old e-mail notification? Because if it's the former, I might start seeding large sets of prime numbers labeled as "Natalie Portman sex tape" through my noisy neighbor's unsecured wifi network connected to his Verizon FIOS.
My work here is dung.
If they don’t want people to use the bandwidth they’re given, they shouldn’t advertise that they offer that much bandwidth.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
That is unacceptable!!
Now would you like to buy a bigger bandwidth package that we won't let you use? How about switching to FIOS, the best bandwidth in the country outside of a T3... that we still don't want you to use.
Now that they are finished deploying fiber, they have to spend their time doing something, right?
I'm against big government just as much as anybody, but it's high time to realize that we can no longer trust our critical communications infrastructure to these clowns.
morons who were arguing it was better to let companies 'regulate themselves' ?
now the people will be 'hunted down, throttled/charged' for the service they have ALREADY PAID FOR, in full.
Read radical news here
This is it, people! The end of the internet as we own it! After the ruling yesterday anyway... oh and also that combined with the fact that earlier this year we took a step towards corporate personhood, allowing corporations to participate in the political and legal process.
Say goodbye to the free and open internet. Say hello to the tiered-pricing model, and the metered-usage model. These companies don't care about the users. They care about the bottom-line and profits. The free market won't help here, because obviously they're going to strong-arm any competition.
Welcome to the Digital dark age. The US, the pioneer of the internet, will end up as a backwater province of the intarwebs.
Maybe I'm being cynical and alarmist. Oh well.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Owning the iPad seems to accrue more and more douchebag bonuspoints, these days.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
"We're so far ahead of everyone else, it's "not even close."
Wiki article -- "List of countries by number of broadband Internet users" (and yes I realize % wise, we have more, but if you look at it that way, South Korea and Canada have than us..
Although he is right on some of the issues, he is swinging and missing on some of the key issues. The FCC has to regulate somehow, if he as a better method that doesn't just poll in a way Verizon will come out #1 I'm sure they'd listen. But trying to regulate data usage isn't gonna fly for anyone Ivan. We've got to try to be better, so many people don't even have broadband...
~Mekkah
Because that's not how it was sold to people.
If your water was sold to you "up to 10,000 gallons a month for only $39.95!" and you sign up for it... then on day #13 someone knocks on your door saying "uh, you've been taking some mighty long showers. we're going to have to charge you extra, even though you havn't come close to your 10,000 gallons yet", you might be pissed.
I'm actually with you on this. The cake^H^H^H^H flat-rate offerings are a lie. If they had reasonable per GB charges and easy ways to monitor them throughout the month, I see no reason not to go that route. A few bucks per GB in $0.01 increments would be fine with me.
The CB App. What's your 20?
When customers become "the enemy", the company needs to find something better to do with it's resources, IMHO.
then pay for it.
If you sell me an "up to" 1mbps connection, then I've paid for up to 1mbps. If you want to sell me a 250MB/mo connection, go right ahead and do that.
Don't sell me an "up to" 1mbps connection then come along and claim that its actually 250MB/mo and send your sockpuppets to demand that I pay more.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The basic story here is the same with insurance company representatives commenting about the state of US healthcare...
It's all about finding a very small selected slice of data that shows "We're #1 in the world!!!1!!ONE!", in this case about internet access (thanks to legacy phone modems), then pretend that misrepresented data represents the entire market.
But the bullshit only starts there - the REAL problem, it is asserted, are the people who "exploit" the service provided to them, in order to actually ask that full service advertised be provided to them. You know, like insurance customers who actually get sick and need financial support promised to them - those folks, and people who watch too many videos are the REAL problem with the system!
So, serving the interests of the real valued customer, the stockholder, they proclaim a holy jihad against the users of their service who don't give them good enough return in terms of contracted usage of service. Same scam, different sector.
Ryan Fenton
What the fuck does "heavy user" mean? Turns out the article mentions it.
He specified and said that the company would throttle the ones using smartphones past their bandwidth limit. Yeah, that's why I don't use a smartphone for that shit. It's spelled out in the contract for a reason. Turns out he's not making some ridiculous claim or stating that the company'll start throttling home based networks.
Crazy that.
Even if you limit yourself to continent-sized federations, the Russian Federation is still 2 Mbit/s ahead (9.8 mbit/s) of the States of the Union (7.8 Mbit/s).
So that puts us at #2, just ahead of the EU (6.9 Mbps), Canada, Australia, China, and Brazil (2.5 Mbit/s).
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
This CEO is smarter and harder working than you as evidenced by the fact that he makes more money than you. You think you know better than your betters? If there was anything wrong with what he said, the magic of the Free Market would have prevented him from saying it! If you want the nannystate to do everything for you, move to a communist country like Canada or Europe with all the other collectivist socialists!!!!!!11!1!1oneone [/conservative]
Product focus shifted from metered Internet connectivity to unmetered connectivity ten years ago. The ISPs are making a killing off of unmetered services; much more than they would with metered products. That means that your grandparents who check their inbox once a week pay just as much as the guy with the box running fifty consecutive torrents at all times. So what if you pay by the gigabyte? Then these ISPs would cease to generate profit.
First Murdock displays his love for it, now the CEO of Verizon not only says he wanted one, but send one of his minions to pick it up for him. If someone were trying to paint the iPad in a bad light, couldn't get it better than this.
Now what, someone using the iPad to kick puppies and stomp kittens?
When the big guys (AT&T and Verizon) killed the Northpoints and the Rhythms of the world, because they froze them out of co-lo arrangements, and made access to CO's as difficult and as painful as possible, and used lobbyists to push for legal changes and litigated like hell.
And in 2005, when MCI and Verizon merged, and the NY PSC said "ok, well at least allow naked DSL to our citizens:, you know all Seidenberg did was extend and pretend, just wait out the 30-day memory of the American press and public, then just set about killing competition again. (Source: http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=165700989)
Verizon and FIOS will give it to you sideways, and you will smile and like it. Because, you didn't do anything to fight the mergers, call your congressperson, get out there and stop market consolidation when it was clearly headed this way in 2005. Maybe you were too busy playing Everquest, but all I know is that the efforts I put to write letters were up against an onslaught of Verizon lobbyists and attorneys. And guess who won?
After health care, the teabaggers would go apeshit if the US-DOJ Antitrust stepped in and forced another set of breakups in telecom. But, in truth, it's what needs to happen to get back options as a consumer. Read it and weep.
n Japan, where everybody looks at Japan as being so far ahead, they may have faster speeds, but we have higher utilization of people using the Internet.
What we we utilizing these people that are using the internet for?
Assuming he meant to say "we have more people using the internet..." wouldn't that make sense, seeing as how we have almost triple their population?
Yes. Verizon has put more fiber in from Boston to Washington than all the Western European countries combined
Imagine that, Western European countries haven't put as much fiber in from Boston to Washington... who'da thunk it?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Essentially, using what you legitimately pay for will be seen as a contract violation to them, when legally you are in the right. Sadly, almost all people don't have the funds to take them to court, so that is how they will get away with it.
"We're so far ahead of everyone else, it's "not even close."
Oh wait...
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Interesting read. I still don't consider the US #1 in broadband. I do defend it when people compare it to the faster much smaller in terms of sq mileage and people countries. I'm sure Verizon goes many steps further to qualify their self claim of #1.
I had a Comcast rep come to my door just last week asking/begging me to come back to Comcast/xfinty. One of the many reasons why I switched was the cap Comcast was enforcing where I hadn't heard about Verizon's until now. My usage while not torrent heavy it is still active and I work from home 3 days a week so I would be concerned on any limitation. I have a 20/20 package and that seemed to floor him. "20 up?" he asked.
....... Thus ends my attempt at wit or whatever
Bandwidth and usage are two different things.
So you have the ability to use up your allotment faster, big deal, if they have it in their contract that they may restrict your access if you exceed a published cap then I cannot see how anyone has a problem.
Before chiming back, "its not there", post it as well.
No, I am not with Verizon, then again I don't believe in paying any phone company that wants me on a contract.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You do realize that all of those are public utilities, and if not run by the government, are regulated heavily?
Once you add decent, enforced regulation, I'd be happy with metered access. Til then, no fucking way I'm going to Comcast/Verizon/ATT pad their profits because they happen to, between them, have 90% of all broadband and mobile internet (last mile) access.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
What's ridiculous is the disparity between flat rates (that aren't really flat if you use too much) and the metered rates. My company pays for my BB contract, so I'm not sure how much that is, but I remember when I got my first data plan with Sprint for my Treo back in the day, and the choices were:
Yes, that's kiloBYTE, meaning roughly $10.00 per MB, or $10,000 per GB. And of course, they rounded up to the next KB with each transaction, so if I downloaded a 1.2 KB email, that was $0.02, rather than looking at my transactions as a whole over the month and rounding, say, 1005.2 KB up to 1006.
I'm sure rates have gone down since then, but there's no way that delivering data cost them $0.01 per KB if they were offering flat rates of $15/mo.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Already there are 20+ people decrying that line. The summary is super-misleading. Seems to me that if you have enough time to write one of those screeds about it, you ought to spend 60 seconds to at least scan the article first. Here's what it really said:
Finally, if you're a high-bandwidth user of Verizon's smartphone data services, the company will soon hunt you down and throttle you. (The company has long had a maximum transfer limit on monthly data plans.)
OK? They never sold their wireless plans as unlimited, unlike their fiber internet product. Verizon is pretty douchey, but at least not that way.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
That's nonsense. Any networking technology that's not point-to-point involves many nodes sharing limited bandwidth. One of the goals of packet switching is precisely to allow nodes that use some shared bandwidth intermittently to get full bandwidth during their use.
Suppose you have 10 nodes sharing a 100Mbps network, and each of these nodes only talks about 5% of the time. What way would you prefer the bandwidth to be shared?
Are you adequate?
Ask any European if they're not somewhat envious of the advancements of smartphone technology in the US. So it just seems to me this is just not even close.
We are not even a little envious. In fact, the use of smartphones in the US is considered somewhat of a joke. The iPhone, although pretty and easy to use, was a couple of steps backwards functionality wise.
And were does he think all the latest smartphones (WinMobile, Android, Symbians) are coming from? HTC isn't US, neither is Nokia. And Google Nexus was produced by HTC.
We have high speed mobile internet everywhere, something the US will never have, considering the fact that the US is so much larger and less densely populated.
If you look at Europe, they publish penetration rates of 150 (percent), 160 (percent), 170 percent meaning that people have more than one phone, two phones, three phones.
You know why? Roaming rates are so high. My guess is you probably have two or three different phones to carry to—to use in different countries because your roaming rates are so high. And you say, yes.
No, it's because everyone have at least one phone, just as the numbers indicate. Some people (myself included) have more than one phone because we use them for different purposes (work/personal for me, some kids have one phone on prepaid and another on a regular subscription).
I've never heard of anyone buying a second phone to use in another country.
But those are the people we will throttle and we will find them and we will charge them something else.
Fuck you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Being a Verizon consumer and having a broadband mobile data package that I use when tethering, I receive txt messaging reminding me when I've come close to my quota. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I go over I was under the impression that I would be charge steeply per MB over my quota. So I wonder, being a consumer that they already have on record (since I pay my bill), when they come to my address on record to find me using my quota as advertised, will Verizon physically throttle my usage by exchanging my device for an less capable model?
It's ridiculous how little BW I use on my Verizon account each month, and how much I get charged for it. So I'm not surprised the high bandwidth users will be hunted down and charged. They do that to low bandwidth users. They do it to everybody. They're not treating high BW users any differently from anybody else.
The summary and the page the summary links to are VERY misleading and most of the rants posted above are all based on incorrect assumptions. If you want the real picture, read the actual interview. I'll try to clarify some of these issues as objectively as possible. Not arguing one way or another here, but some of the ranters need to chill out.
1. Verizon is "hunting down" heavy users of it's 3G broadband (i.e. Verizon Wireless) NOT it's FIOS or DSL. It is also important to note that Verizon Wireless does NOT offer unlimited data usage in its data plans (I'm a subscriber). The unlimited Verizon plans refer specifically to voice and text. So anyone screaming bloody murder about punishing users for using what they paid for can STFU. You aren't paying for unlimited, so you won't get unlimited.
2. The iPad. The summary and the linked article really spin this one into something it's not. According to the actual interview, Verizon (as a company) had several people stand in line for iPads because Verizon is interested in the device (as they should be) and want some to play/experiment/develop/whatever with. The CEO did not dispatch a personal assistant to stand in line so he could have his own iPad without the need to stand in line with those filthy "commoners". The summary and linked article puts its own spin in order to imply the latter, but nothing in the actual interview suggests this at all.
3. US #1 in broadband? This guy defines being #1 in broadband a little differently than the FCC and most people. While the FCC is looking at broadband speed, he looks more at broadband penetration and utilization. Now I don't know the exact numbers, and no sources were really cited in the actual interview, so this is still pretty debatable. However, I think he brings up a good point in how we rank broadband. If a country has the highest speeds available in the world, but only a select few can actually get access to it, then are they really #1 in broadband? I would argue that being the best would be a combination of speed, availability, reliability, and even cost. Again, though, some fact-checking needs to be done on this one.
In summary, Slashdot has once again gone for sensationalism, and the linked article is probably worse. I wouldn't mind it so much if it didn't spark all of these threads making arguments about things that were never said or even implied by the person in question. This is supposed to be a site for intellectuals, yet we can't seem to have an intellectual debate over the issues, because the real issues have been so clouded. I urge everyone to read the actual interview, even though it is quite lengthy. There is a lot of good stuff in there and it gives some good insights into how one of the largest companies in the country feels about issues from net neutrality to health-care. The real answers are not quite as evil as you might think.
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
"But when we now go after the very, very high users, the ones who camp on the network all day long every day doing things that--who knows what they're doing--those are the--"
He obviously doesn't comprehend the nature of he service and devices that his company sells. Srsly, just...wow.
That line was aimed at smartphone users. Smartphones are DESIGNED to "camp on the network all day long every day doing things". Like getting mail updates, weather updates (activated and enabled by default!), and the like. And those are just built-in services included with the phone that are designed to run constantly. There are also IM apps, twitter apps, navigation apps (one provided BY VERIZON!!!), etc. which are constantly generating network traffic.
A person who does not understand the product and/or service that his company sells should not be in a position to dictate policy and this guy's the freakin' CEO!
And it's all the government trying to stick their nose in and tell them how to run their business. Again, "wow". The government isn't forcing Verizon to advertise their services as unlimited. That's all Verizon. The government got involved when ISPs started to LIMIT the service provided to people with those UNLIMITED plans. If they want the government to stay out, don't advertise a product or service that you don't want to deliver. Offer the products and services that you're willing to provide. If people feel your product or service has value within the terms that it is offered, they will buy it.
And people who use the service they were sold are "abusers" because they're in the top 10 percent. That the hell is that crap? There will ALWAYS be a top 10 percent. Makes it awful convenient if you want to ensure there's always a villain.
This guy seems pissed that he might be forced to deliver the service that his company advertised and sold.
CmdrTaco: We here at Slashdot recognize our obligation to bring resposible opposing viewpoints to our articles. Here now with an editorial reply is Miss Emily Litella.
Emily Litella: What all this fuss I keep hearing about Verizon's CEO wanting to hunt down heavy users? Why it's outrageous! Hunt down fellow human beings? Why that's murder! A man gains a little power and he thinks he can do whatever he wants! Any why single out the heavy users? They're slower and make bigger targets! Is he a cannibal? If he wants real sport he should be hunting the skinny ones! And it's a fine way to be treating customers anyway! He should be going after people who use Boost Mobile! If I hear one more person saying "Where You At?" I'll get a gun myself!
CT: Um, Ms. Litella..
EL: What, what?!
CT: Mr. Seidenberg was referring to heavy broadband users, not heavy people. And when he said "hunt them down" he was speaking metaphorically. He wants to charge people who use broadband all the time more than those who don't.
EL: Oh, I see. That's very different.
CT: Yes.
EL: Kind of a misleading headline.
CT: Well, we'll speak to timothy about that.
EL: Never mind. But this guy's still being a dick though.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
>>>Just imagine if you had 5 or 6 data pipes from different companies crossing your yard.
It would be just ONE metal pipe, with the fibers/coax/twisted-pair cables inside that single government-owned metal conduit. Also the metal pipe, like most water/sewer pipes, would run down the middle of the street not through people's yards.
Jeez.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Does anyone here on /. have any views or experience with Atlantic BB along these lines? Meaning, have you ever head of caps per month, or received any type of warnings for such? I have to admit, I'm guilty of using torrents on occasions (far from 24/7 basis, more like 2 days a month), but I mostly just game online and browse.
Its becoming a bit of a problem, because I would like to downgrade my service but I don't want to deal with a cap or anything. The prices have been going up and up over the past two years, with nothing new to offer recently than Lifetime and E! in HD, so I would like to offset the cost of my internet cost while keeping all of my HD stations. $190 a month for 2nd tier internet access, HD package with HBO (only $5 extra), and two DVRs (its very necessary in our house to have them, with two girls under 10). Could potentially save a bit going with the basic tier internet, but I don't want to handicap myself without knowing what I'm asking for.
I'd hate to keep throwing money at them if they keep use it to add junk stations. Regardless, its hard to get a real view on their internet access because its quite hard to find someone else that uses Atlantic BB and knows what they're talking about. Most of my friends use Verizon DSL, and other people at work have Atlantic but just take the "Hey, thats what it costs so I pay" mentality. Anyhow, hope theres a fellow Atlantic BB'er out there who can offer a point of view!
"... they may have faster speeds, but we have higher utilization of people using the Internet"
Translation: "our network is totally saturated and overloaded"
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
As the GP notes, it's already happened . When I left Japan in summer 2005, the slowest speed I could possibly get was around 24MBps, for a whopping $30/month ($20/month for the first three months). I have no idea what the minimum ISP offering is there now, but I'm sure it beats the pants off anything I could get here in USia. For that matter, here in Seattle, I get around 1.5MBps, for substantially more than $30/month... <sigh.>
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."