Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet

Verizon CEO Says "We Will Hunt Heavy Users Down" 738

Posted by timothy
from the from-his-secret-soundproofed-bunker dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon CEO Says "We Will Hunt Heavy Users Down"

Comments Filter:
  • Come to Verizon! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by butterflysrage (1066514) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:52PM (#31779192)

    Pay out the nose for our high speed internet! but if you dare use that speed we will lock you up.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They'll get the Verizon guy, as well as his posse out for you.

      http://nycom.com/images/network2.jpg [nycom.com]

      And that map of the US with all that red? Those are targets.

    • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:57PM (#31779310)
      Queue the theme from Jaws: "We're going to need a bigger Internet"
      • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:57PM (#31780274)

        Queue the theme from Jaws:

        Cue. It's cue. As in "This is my cue to pipe in the theme for Jaws". Granted, queue can make sense in a CS-type queuing up the theme, but....

        Ah, fuck it. Go mangle the English language. I'll be curled up in bed, sucking on my language-nazi thumb.

        • I, at least, appreciate your effort. Unfortunately, it's hopeless.

        • by decep (137319) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @02:30PM (#31780756)

          This thread has peaked my interest.

        • Re:Come to Verizon! (Score:5, Informative)

          by Phrogger (230179) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @04:11PM (#31781932) Homepage

          > Ah, fuck it. Go mangle the English language. I'll be curled up in bed, sucking on my language-nazi thumb.

              Under the flourescent lights, no doubt. Some might say that your a looser! Their wrong, in a worser way than normal. You're comment inspires they're ire but you can likely find the compliment to it in any forum these days. It's pandemic.

              Phew,I'm glad to have that out of my system. :-)

          For the wannabe language-nazis:
          It's fluor, not flour. A fluorescent lamp is coated with a fluor.

          "Your" is possessive. "You're" is contraction of "you are", i.e. Your belt might be loose or looser. But you're probably going to be a loser if you gamble in Lost Wages.

          Worser is not a word. Never has and I hope it never is. Things go from bad to worse to worst.

          Their/they're/there: "Their" is possesive, i.e. Their car is green. "They're" is a contraction of "they are", i.e. They're there already.

          A compliment is a nice thing said about you: "You look marvelous" is a compliment. A complement is a match or counterpart (in the literal sense) for something. A Philips screwdriver and screw complement each other. Or it refers to a roster: The platoon is at full complement.

          "It's" is contraction of "it is". Its wrong to use it's in any other way.

              Well, those are my pet peeves anyway. :-)

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by dargaud (518470)

            "It's" is contraction of "it is". Its wrong to use it's in any other way.

            It's been a long time since I last heard something as wrong as that...

        • by Bobb Sledd (307434) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @04:29PM (#31782118) Homepage

          WHAT DO YOU WANT, CUE?

    • Re:Come to Verizon! (Score:5, Informative)

      by theaveng (1243528) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:59PM (#31779328)

      I use Verizon DSL.

      The rate is reasonable ($15), and I've never been throttled, or received notice that I used too many gigabytes. (In theory I could download 233 gigabytes each month, if I bittorrented 24/7, which I usually do.)

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:21PM (#31779754)

        I'm guessing you have 1 Mbit judging by your numbers? That might be fine for you, but seeing as 100 Mbit is the lowest I could get even if I tried here in Sweden, I can't imagine going back to what I had literally 14(!) years ago. And no, I'm not saying I need 1 Gbit/s (my current speed) 24/7, however, once you experience how fast your every day Internet becomes, there's no turning back.

        • by Random BedHead Ed (602081) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @03:16PM (#31781276) Homepage Journal

          100 Mbit is the lowest I could get even if I tried here in Sweden

          Didn't you hear the CEO of Verizon? He says we're number one! That's us in the US, not some Vikings of the north. Stop clouding the debate with your "facts."

          You know, it feels like time to deregulate again. It hasn't worked for the last decade and a half, but I'm sure it will work from now on. Too bad there are no countries on the Internet except the US or we'd be able to compare broadband policies and consider something different.

          • by uvajed_ekil (914487) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @04:56PM (#31782438)
            Didn't you hear the CEO of Verizon? He says we're number one! That's us in the US, not some Vikings of the north.

            He ain't no dummy, he know that AMERICA is the best country on earth!!! We don't need no commie Sweden universal healthcare, vacation time, infant mortality rate, life expectancy, or high speed web conneckshuns, cause we're number 1!!!! Start saying it, then repeat, over and over, repeatedly, with great repetition and redundancy, and you'll believe it too! Unless you hate America and freedom, you know we're NUMBER 1!!!!

            PS: Don't forget that Verizon, GM, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft, Anheuser Busch, and Fox News have what you want and are AMERICAN - trust them, no matter what they say, and give them money. Unless u r a gay-loving commie terrorist. You do love your country,right????
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Protoslo (752870)
        If you read the whole transcript, you'll see that he was talking about tiered pricing for their phone business only.

        This is -- thank you for the question. Thank you for your comment. This goes to my investors so they don't think we're crazy.

        So when you look at this question -- so let's look at the dichotomy between a carrier and the Silicon Valley types.

        So most people think a carrier wants to charge for every minute on a linear basis in perpetuity, infinity. That's what you guys think, right? You're r

    • by ircmaxell (1117387) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:01PM (#31779384) Homepage
      Actually, that makes me wonder if Verizon would be liable for false advertising based on that... They offer you 15mbit internet, and then cap you at 1gb/month. Sure, they may say that in the fine print but would a good lawyer be able to get around that (basically saying that they implied unlimited transfer based on the main advertisement)? I mean I've never heard anyone say that there's a cap on it... Car companies aren't allowed to tell you that you'll get 400mpg, and then put in the fine print that it will only happen if you are coasting down a hill with the engine off. Making your product look better in advertising is nothing new, but doesn't this come down to blatant coercion?
      • by theaveng (1243528) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:09PM (#31779506)

        They never said your connection had an unlimited number of bytes. They only advertised the speed you can expect to get, upto the advertised byte limit. (For Comcast it's 250 GB; don't know Verizon's limit.)

        No doubt Verizon is also getting a lot of flack from their cable channels, about how users are downloading the shows instead of watching the channels.

        • by ircmaxell (1117387) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:19PM (#31779684) Homepage

          They never said your connection had an unlimited number of bytes.

          True, but they never said that I should expect otherwise either (except deep into the fine print). It's all about what the average person expects, not what they find reasonable. If an ad said "This car gets 400mpg", the average person would expect it to mean 400mpg averaged over a tank not an instantaneous value at some point in time. I guess my question is if you said "This plan has 15mb/s" to the average person, would they expect that to be the peak instantaneous transfer rate, or would they expect it to be the average value over a period of time (that you could transfer approximately 4.8TB over the course of a month)? I would think the latter. Plus, if you look at datacenters and web hosts, they explicitly state that you get 200gb of transfer on a 100mbps link, or a 100mbps link billed at 98%, or a unlimited 100mbps link. If I just told you that you were purchasing a 100bmps link, which would you (the average person) infer from that? I would assume one of the latter two, since 200gb is a LOT more limiting than 100mbps (and hence would normally be the disclosed factor). And that's the whole point...

          • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:37PM (#31780028)

            If an ad said "This car gets 400mpg", the average person would expect it to mean 400mpg averaged over a tank not an instantaneous value at some point in time.

            So... you propose a new disclaimer for ISP services - "15Mbps downhill in a hurricane."

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by mcgrew (92797) *

              So... you propose a new disclaimer for ISP services - "15Mbps downhill in a hurricane."

              My car computes its gas mileage on its own, and gives either an average since the counter was last reset, or mileage at that particular point in time. Once on a straight, empty back road a passenger asked how fast it would go, so I showed her (until she said "ok ok slow down"). I found that the mileage indicator stops with two digits; as I was coasting, the "at the moment" reading steadily rose to 99 mpg.

              With the cruise s

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by theaveng (1243528)

            It's all about what the average person expects

            Not correct. The judges go by what's written on the page, not by random guessing. If there's no mention of a rate cap, but there's a clause that says "this contract may be altered at any time by XYZ corporation," then the judge will find in favor of the letter of the contract. i.e. They can install a 250 gigabyte cap later on.

            Of course the moment a contract is altered, the second party (you) has the right to cancel it.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by nextekcarl (1402899)

            "This car gets 400mpg"

            That sort of thing is probably even why car companies are not allowed to post any mpg ratings except for what the EPA tests show, even when they are known to be rather inaccurate (as was discovered and eventually corrected for (I believe) with hybrids like the Prius). Sometimes industries basically end up demanding regulation even if they don't want it. And then they twist it to keep new players out, but that's another debate...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by EdIII (1114411) *

        Making your product look better in advertising is nothing new, but doesn't this come down to blatant coercion?

        No, It's a blatant fucking lie

        They say 15mbit Internet and unlimited. Well geee... what would be the unlimited part? I would think most people would expect that the unlimited part is how much you could transfer in a billing period.

        If that is true, then Cox advertises one thing and then delivers something else. Especially, since the last time I checked the dictionary Unlimited meant, "without limi

        • by Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @02:03PM (#31780378)

          >They say 15mbit Internet and unlimited. Well geee... what would be the unlimited part? I would think most people would expect that the unlimited part is how much you could transfer in a billing period.

          I agree with your sentiment, but there is a different usage of "unlimited" that has more currency in the land of ISP. That is in relation to time. Used to be plans had limited numbers of minutes that you could be online. So, perhaps they mean you can be online an unlimited number of minutes at high speed, but you just aren't allowed to do much. Verizon are still scum, though.

    • Re:Come to Verizon! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:02PM (#31779400)

      Summary and title are misleading; article refers to the smartphone data service explicitly, not DSL/FiOS internet users.

    • Re:Come to Verizon! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:02PM (#31779406) Journal

      Seidenberg talks about how the FCC's broadband access studies are wrong (and the US is definitely 'number one, not even close')

      I think he meant to say "definitely not number one, not even close" as that would be true. What he actually said is malformed rubbish.
      The US is well behind countries such as Japan and Korea, which have widespread high speed access, either uncapped or with caps far higher than levels in the US. The Nordic countries also generally have uncapped high speed services. If you pay for bandwidth, it's there without any monthly capacity limits. I have 100/10 fiber to the house in rural Finland, and there are no caps. On bandwidth tests, I get the speed I'm paying for - all the time.

      • Re:Come to Verizon! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by iamhassi (659463) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:29PM (#31779898) Journal
        " I have 100/10 fiber to the house in rural Finland, and there are no caps. On bandwidth tests, I get the speed I'm paying for - all the time."

        And you use it for what, exactly?

        I've had my same 10/1 cable internet service for nearly ten years in the US. Two years ago I cancelled my regular TV cable service and went purely internet based media, streaming Hulu, torrents and iTunes to my TV. I don't even have an antenna for OTA programming. I haven't suffered, I still watch TV every night, and surf the net constantly without ever wishing for higher speeds.

        If I had 100/10 fiber my activities wouldn't change. Even though I'm constantly downloading everything the internet has to offer I have never felt like I needed a faster speed. It'd be like having a car capable of 200mph when the speed limit's 65, sure it's fun to have but how often would I get to use all that power?

        I think Ivan Seidenberg is absolutely right. All the tech news I've read, I don't see Japan and Europe coming out with anything amazing thanks to their faster internet services. Hulu is based in the US and only accessible to US citizens. PlayON, which I use to stream Hulu content to the TV, is based in the US [wikipedia.org]. Sites I use daily, eBay, Slashdot, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Myspace and many others, all created in the US. The best phones of the past decade, Google Android/Nexus and iPhone, were both created in the US for the US network, not other countries that are suppose to have amazing wireless networks.

        So tell me, all you other countries of the world with amazing fiber internet connections, what are you doing with your bandwidth? Are you using that 100mbps download often, or does it sit idly by at a few mbps 99% of the time?
        • Re:Come to Verizon! (Score:5, Informative)

          by Zedrick (764028) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:38PM (#31780050)
          > And you use it for what, exactly?

          Downloading stuff?

          I moved two months ago, from an apartment with 100/100Mb to this one, where I can only get 30/30Mb. Now it takes minutes to download the latest 24/Caprica/In Plain Sight/Criminal Minds etc. Sure, not really a problem and I'm much better off than people in the 3rd world etc etc, but the point is that you always "need" the best available once you've gotten used to it.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by barrkel (806779)

          The US has a large advantage in that it is an affluent, monolingual and fairly culturally homogeneous single market. Capital costs of innovation can be amortized faster in the US than anywhere else.

          • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @02:17PM (#31780572)

            Pretty much every other nation on Earth has a more homogeneous culture than the United States. This is reflected in the fact that entertainment is more diverse in terms of content and cultural appeal.

            Neither is the US more monolingual than most European or Asian nations. Head down to the DMV and you can probably get a test in most languages. In most other countries you might get English if you're lucky.

            I do agree with you that the US has a higher level of affluence than most nations. Actually, it's more accurate to say Americans have more disposable income, probably because they get to keep more of what they earn. Japan is one of the exceptions, which is why they've got such a strong market and my companies that make consumer products thrive there.

    • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:08PM (#31779482) Homepage Journal

      He's laid more fiber from Washington to Boston than all of Europe. Hmmm. He's probably telling the truth. If Verizon has laid one mile of fiber somewhere between Washington and Boston, and they don't own a single foot of fiber in Europe, then he's technicaly telling the truth. Or, if we choose to look at that another way, European telcos have not put down any fiber between Washington and Boston - so Verizon has laid more fiber than all of Europe.

      But, he's obviously trying to claim that Verizon owns more fiber between those two cities than all of the governments and telcos in Europe have ever put down, combined, in Europe. Which seems pretty preposterous. I'm willing to bet without even googling that is a lie.

      BUT, from everything our European freinds write here and elsewhere, their service covers them EVERYWHERE. Gigabyte service even out in the boonies. Our boonies still depend on dial up phone modems.

      The braggart loses, no matter how we slice and dice his comments.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheKidWho (705796)

      He's talking about Verizon Wireless customers, not landline.

      But yeah, it's easy to misquote an article to get a horde of /. nerds over zealous.

  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Achra (846023)
      According to TFA, it is only smartphone heavy users which will be hunted down. I can keep leeching on my FIOS as hard as I like! Hah!
  • Dishonest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clone53421 (1310749) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:53PM (#31779224) Journal

    If they don’t want people to use the bandwidth they’re given, they shouldn’t advertise that they offer that much bandwidth.

    • Re:Dishonest (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:13PM (#31779584) Journal

      Murray: You didn't stand in line on Saturday? [For an iPad]

      Seidenberg: No, I had somebody else stand in line. (Laughter.) But we had people standing in line.

      With that sense of entitlement, I'm not surprised he's so angry with heavy downloaders using their service to its fullest.

      • Re:Dishonest (Score:4, Informative)

        by Frett2 (630407) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @02:43PM (#31780924)
        In his defense that quote was taken out of context. In the actual interview being quoted he is referring to his company purchasing a few iPads to explore the technology.

        From the interview transcript [cfr.org]:

        SEIDENBERG: -- they want, when they do it. (Laughter.)
        But, on balance, they're good for the industry. They create -- if you don't mind, I'll just -- let me extend to the iPad --

        MURRAY: Yeah, sure --

        SEIDENBERG: -- just to give you a -- (inaudible) -- everybody's familiar with this. So, like everybody else, you know, we're interested in it. So we had our -- some of our technology people go out and buy a couple of devices --

        MURRAY: You didn't stand in line on Saturday?

        SEIDENBERG: No, I had somebody else stand in line. (Laughter.) But we had people standing in line.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Delwin (599872) *
      Cox Communications is clear on their per-month usage caps so at least you know what you're buying.
    • 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.

    • by jwietelmann (1220240) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:23PM (#31779782)
      1. I rent a vacation home from Verizon.
      2. I decide that I like the vacation home so much that I move in full-time. Verizon happily continues to accept my rent.
      3. Memorial Day weekend comes. 20 families show up with their kids.
      4. It turns out that Verizon rented the same house to 20 other people.
      5. Verizon slaps me with a surcharge for "over-using" the house that I rented.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Muad'Dave (255648)

      Not that I condone their tactics, but I think you're confusing bandwidth with usage. Assume I have a 20Mbit down connection and a 250GByte/mo cap. That's 100000 seconds or about 27.7 hours of full speed download.

      I would _much_ rather have access to the full 20Mbit/sec with the cap than have them limit my download speed to 771kbit/s* so that it would be impossible for me to 'go over' my cap in any given month.

      Your electrical service is the same way - they sell you (in the US) 120/240V service with a maximum

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Richy_T (111409)

        I'd rather have a guaranteed unlimited relatively low bandwidth with a limited amount of bursty high-bandwidth activity. Most of what I download I'm in no hurry for but it would be nice to be able to kick in some real speed from time to time.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Muad'Dave (255648)

          That would make web browsing painful. Comcast has this boost feature that gives you +50% or so speed increase for the first 10+- secs of a connection. I can see it kick in on speedtest.net. Nice for getting website images, but useless (as intended) for torrents.

  • by Skarecrow77 (1714214) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:53PM (#31779228)

    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.

  • Yaay (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:54PM (#31779232)

    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.

    • Communist! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Benfea (1365845) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:04PM (#31779438)

      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]

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by jollyreaper (513215)

        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]

        You forgot to mention welfare sponges, liberals, jews, the global warming hoax, and water fluoridation. Other than that, 9/10. :)

  • by unity100 (970058) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:55PM (#31779252) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • This is it. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vivin (671928) <vivin,paliath&gmail,com> on Thursday April 08, 2010 @12:56PM (#31779284) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by geekoid (135745)

    really out of touch.

    Yeah, we got more fibre laying around, but the consumer cost is higher, and the speed is lowest. And that's what the FCC is talking about. The speed the consumer has, not total fibre that's just lying around, or how much Verizon uses.

    And then he compares it to cell phones. wtf?

  • "Finally, if you're a high-bandwidth user of Verizon's smartphone data services, the company will soon hunt you down and throttle you."

    This comes to mind:
    http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3567/homeruchokingubartad.jpg [imageshack.us]

    What a P/R master though! So customer friendly. And all this time, I thought when I buy "unlimited" service, I didn't expect unlimited bandwidth (physical impossibility) but I do expect unlimited access... how stupid of me.

  • I use Sprint. With Sprint, if you are on 4G network, you can use Unlimited. I have 5gb limit on 3G networks. Where I Live, I get 4G connection. Just the way sprint is doing. I am renewing my contract with them.
  • Hah (Score:2, Funny)

    by Jaysyn (203771)

    Verizon: Do you hear me now, motherfuckers?

  • by RyanFenton (230700) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:02PM (#31779390)

    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

  • Not # 1 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by theaveng (1243528) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:03PM (#31779424)

    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).

  • by vivaoporto (1064484) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:07PM (#31779458)

    how he had someone else stand in line for him Saturday to pick up his iPad

    First Murdock displays his love [slashdot.org] 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?

  • by GPLDAN (732269) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:07PM (#31779466)
    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 [informationweek.com])

    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.
  • by RingDev (879105) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:07PM (#31779474) Homepage Journal

    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

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @01:34PM (#31779974)

    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.

  • by dbc (135354) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @02:46PM (#31780952)

    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.

  • by businessnerd (1009815) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @02:50PM (#31781000)
    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 [cfr.org]. 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.
  • by jtownatpunk.net (245670) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @03:10PM (#31781206)

    "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.

  • by RevWaldo (1186281) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @03:11PM (#31781228)
    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 [hulu.com].

    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.
  • Translation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Skapare (16644) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @05:36PM (#31782936) Homepage

    "... they may have faster speeds, but we have higher utilization of people using the Internet"

    Translation: "our network is totally saturated and overloaded"

Dead? No excuse for laying off work.

Working...