Verizon initiates 'network optimization' to throttle bandwidth of heavy data users - Page 2

That's crazy on a mobile plan.

One would think they would throttle the top 5% for 24 hours, not for an entire month. Their current plan will end up throttling way more than 5% simultaneously because they keep giving new groups of 5% a month-long throttle.

I do not think that "Verizon is doing nothing to increase capacity". Sorry if I was unclear.

I'm fairly certain that the contract specifies that data speeds are not guaranteed. That likely forecloses the possibility of lawsuits.

And to say that slower data = limited data is just twisting words. Your scenario would apply, but only to a customer who otherwise downloads at the maximum theoretical speed 24/7/365. I'd be willing to bet that no such customers even exist. For every other customer (i.e., every cuistomer), slower speeds = more time, and not less data.

Yes this is grounds to get out of your contract but all the carriers except sprint have limits on their plans. Sprint may not have the phone you want. Seems that they have figured a way to increase sales without keeping up with infrastructure speeding to match.

You are the kind of customer the wireless internet service providers don't want. Frankly, I don't want to be a customer of a wireless provider that allows usage like that. If we all used 65 to 80 GB per month of data then the cost to us might be $300/month. I don't need or want a limitless internet at that price.

I have no problem with Verizon throttling people like you. I also have no problem if they slow down your internet.

I mean seriously, how does someone even use 7GB a month? Lame.

What he said ^

Not taking sides here but it only seems like yesterday I heard similar comments about 7 MB and believe it or not I recall 7 KB being considered a measurable amount of data

I think you were agreeing with me?

This is not only total nonsense, it's disgusting. You should be ashamed to use a Holocaust reference in such a casual way.

Speaking out against Fascists and losing your life over it are in no way the same thing as a reasonable data cap for selfish a-holes.

Unlimited plans encourage a-holes who then abuse said plan without a thought about anyone but themselves. There are several such idiots posting in this very forum today.

If people were all nice and brought up properly and thought of their neighbours to a reasonable degree, then unlimited plans would truly be unlimited. Unfortunately we are living in an age of selfish jerks and low morals so there will never be truly unlimited plans in our future.

Get over it, and get over yourself.

The people you reference, who died in Germany during WWII, had more morals in their little fingers than any of the data hogs whining on this forum today have in their whole body.

Much of this discussion just illustrates the basic flaw in the concept of an unlimited data plan in a data transport infrastructure that cannot possibly handle the data flow rates that can be generated by the end users. None of this would be an issue, and it would be much fairer, if everyone just paid for their usage. Ideally, market forces would dictate installed bandwidth and price per data unit.

If the LightSquared fiasco ever gets fixed then maybe we will see some movement in the right direction.

The contract is to protect the carrier, not you. If they break the contract then the initializing party is voiding it and you can switch carriers/phones without paying an ETF, but I'm pretty sure there is specific wording that allows them to do what they are doing without invalidating the agreement.

First of all, the people who died in WWII had infinitely varying amounts of morals. Some were saintly, some were horrible, and the average ones was average.

Secondly, there is nothing immoral about using all the data that you want, if the plan you purchased allows you all the data you want. This is not some situation where limited amounts of natural resources are available, nor is it a zero sum game, nor is the bandwidth a community-owned good.

This is a commercial situation where customers pay for services, and have no obligation to other customers. Instead, it is up to the vendor to serve its customers in the manner it promised. The vendor has the obligation to the customers. No customer has any moral obligation to forego the services he bought and paid for.

You seem here to choose the side of the authority figures rather than the victims. I can only guess where your loyalties would have lain in 1930's Europe. Surely not with the ones who were said to be ruining the economy for everyone else?

If what you say is true, then IMO, the data transport infrastructure needs to be improved.

Give it up folks. Verizon is playing us like suckers. This crap was created in the corner office because these schmucks have to find new ways of squeezing money from the consumer.
Dude, think about all the people that watch tv.MILLIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! have you heard of the tv folks throttling sh** up?

It is unlimited. They never said anything about speed so they are in the clear on that

I agree, but that being a demand-driven process, it will always lag.

I think that the main reason that the providers like to promote unlimited plans is because that way, most customers actually end up paying hugely inflated data rates but somehow feel they are getting a good deal.

OMG what can Verizon do to increase their capacity?

Buy T-Mobile!

It faded away just around the same time that Sony stopped mocking Microsoft's limited backward compatibility on the Xbox 360.

Because these companies are run by professional liars.

Read your contract. They reserve the right to make changes. All you can really do is fight and be allowed to leave without paying an EFT.

Basically SUCK IT.

I prefer what Vodafone does here in New Zealand. Although we don't have an unlimited plan what Vodafone does is reduces the speed so that instead of 10Mbps it slows it to 3Mbps for everyone. That way the network is not congested.

Meanwhile Telecom keeps full speed and suffers constant slowdowns to less than 1Mbps in some cases down to 256Kbps.

Sometimes full speed isn't a good thing.

Something you gots to remember, is that both AT&T and VZ (and T-Mo) all resell bulk minutes to the MVNOs. So the cell overloading may be for lots of reasons (other than the obvious).

Noooo, there called marketing experts ...

I'm sure they're making up the dividing line as they go along. Heck, I'm somewhat surprised they notified anyone, much less pre-announced it long before they put it to action. When landline ISPs started throttling connections, they didn't say anything until people figured it out.


Your first line is very confusingly worded, but I don't think it's necessarily like that. I think the fact that they paid for what was called unlimited, means they are technically paying for their usage, unless they're infringing on the terms of the contract. If the user violated the terms of the contract, then they should take the penalties outlined in the contract.

In many ways, I'm unsympathetic to both sides, I don't trust a telco any farther than I can throw one of their repair trucks. They shouldn't have been using unlimited in any of their advertising. On the user side, cellular data isn't supposed to replace DSL.

Why not? Are there technical limitations?

Some communities around here are experimenting with free public wifi everywhere. I don't know any technical details re speed/bandwidth, but I think it is 802.11g. ISTM that it is intended to replace DSL, but maybe it is just supposed to supplement it. Isn't wifi g a lot faster than DSL?

OTOH, the cell companies have no problem piggybacking off of their customer's WIFI. All the equipment they sell to consumers will switch from the cell company's cellular data to the customer's (or anybody else's) WIFI connection whenever possible. Hell, they even provide devices that plug into the customer's wired system, using wired bandwidth, to handle cellular calls and phone/tablet data. Femtocells? Isn't that what they are called?

IMO, all this pious bullshit about data hogs is just that: bullshit. People are offered a deal, they buy it, and then get crucified by certain misguided folks in this forum when they actually want to use what they bought and paid for.

ISTM that the celco's are the bad guys here. They sell more data plans then they can handle with their existing infrastructure, they welsh on the deals they made, that long-time customers have bought and paid for, and they sell phones that steal bandwidth from wired WIFI base stations wherever and whenever possible, whether that base station is paid for by their customer or paid for by the next-door neighbor or by a restaurant of by the local government, or whoever.

And then there are the misguided fools who side with the cellcos, instead of with the customers. Stockholm syndrome? The cellcos sell data plans that they cannot possibly service. The company now in question has seen its stock rise more than 50% in 3 years, presumably due to profit growth, and pays a dividend of more than 5%. Note that they could put the dividend towards actually providing the services that they have sold, but instead, they change the deal and deny bandwidth to their customers.

I don't understand the knee-jerk allegiance to profit-making ventures, when they deny customers the deal that the customer paid for, and when they simultaneously and blatantly jigger their phones to steal WIFI bandwidth wherever and whenever it is available, paid for/provided by third parties.

Data hogs? WTF? Try "Ripoff Cell Companies".

They have projections as to what they will need for bandwidth, given the number of data plans that they sell. They sell as many data plans as they can, knowing that their system cannot handle the demand for bandwidth. I don't see it as demand-driven when they are able to project the demand. With tens of millions of existing data points, they can and do project future needs.

Instead of throttling customers, maybe they need to throttle their sales staff? As in limiting the number of new data plans they sell, so that they can provide the promised service to existing customers? Waiting to take on new customers until they can reasonably be expected to get what the new customer is being sold?

Naw. That's not what they do.

Generally, long complicated contracts which are offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis are called "contracts of adhesion". While most contracts bind each party to what they agreed to, special rules apply to contracts of adhesion. I'm not saying that any of those special rules apply to the cellco contracts, but in general, overly onerous terms can be avoided in such contracts.

Given that in the US we have a situation where the cellcos are an oligopoly, I wonder whether the old contract of adhesion doctrines need to be dug out, dusted off and used against the cellcos.

The current situation is that many people entered into unlimited bandwidth contracts, are now paying full price, no longer are subject to any ETFs, but are losing the benefit of the bargain, due to weasel worded cellco contracts of adhesion. Their remedy seems to be to suck it up and leave. They get no commensurate benefit, to the extent that they now have no ETFs that they can avoid.

The cellcos suck. They are immoral and exploitative of their long-term customers. Anybody who takes their side is equally immoral, IMNSHO.

There is a major difference between cellular data and WiFi.

With WiFi, you're dividing space and frequencies a lot more granularly because you have an access point every few hundred feet. Even then, it doesn't always work well.

With cellular data, one tower has to feed a few square mile's worth of customers. Even if it is divided by sector antennas and wider frequency bands, it's still quite limited.

With DSL or cable, you get your own "space" in the form of a wire direct to the CO. A cable is like your own private set of frequencies that don't interfere with others, and others don't interfere with you.

OK. I thought we were discussing the differences between DSL and cellular. But I asked about whther there were technical limitations that made cell data service a bad choice compared with DSL/wifi.

As far as having an AP every few hundred feet, I don't see that as an argument against using cell data. The number of cell towers is not limited. Low power solutions are now in the news, which have small footprints. I don't understand why populated areas cannot have as many cell antennas as they have street lights - on every few hundred feet. In the boonies, there are no street lights, and so I understand that there is no real incentive to have as much bandwidth available. But in normal communities, I think that better bandwidth is feasible.

WRT DSL giving you your "own space", I think that is an imperfect point. My understanding is that wired bandwidth is shared just like wireless bandwidth. So the "data hogs" meme could apply equally to DSL as to wireless data.

In both cases, if the advertised bandwidth is not available, then the seller needs to build out its infrastructure, or as an alternative, stop selling services it is unable to provide.

Maybe bandwidth should be a publicly funded service? Like roads and water and sewer and streetlights? I don't know enough to have any firm opinions, but I'd love to hear the pros and cons.

Assuming you can get terrestrial broadband (DSL being one kind), I agree.

The ground truth is that VZ(wireless) bought out Alltell. Alltell was primarily a rural wireless provider. Many people in those same rural areas cannot get DSL to this day. Many people in those same rural areas do not have any other 3G option than VZ EV-DO (AT&T has been particularly bad about extending GSM 3G outside of major highway corridors, or large metro areas).

See how we have arrived at this situation ?

One solution would be for VZ to get out there and do as complete as possible 4G LTE rollout (in other words, make 4G available everywhere that EV-DO exists).

I think you are over-complicating the issue. Bandwidth costs money to build. As with most kinds of service, cellular data transmission relies on investment in infrastructure, ultimately paid for by customer. A particular problem with data is that the market has an almost unlimited appetite, and the more bandwidth that becomes available, the more the market adapts to make use of it. The huge increase in HD media streaming represents the biggest manifestation of that at present, on both the cellular and DSL/cable networks.

Because Unlimited isn't defined by speed, rather amount. and if you look in the terms there is likely one saying that speeds may be reduced for some users. ANd even that 'unlimited' isn't a guarantee of how much data you will actually get



I don't particularly care for the use of the term rape but that's that a totally different issue and discussion.

That said, the carriers are pulling bigger moves to get money from us than this. Like not having device subsidies on their own line so even once we pay off our device we pay the same rate. or the same rates on full price phones. ETFs that reduce at less than what we paid each month. What about carrier locking still being allowed in the US. Tons of folks travel internationally all the time and yet with phones, especially smartphones, you are locked into ATT unless you want to pay someone to unlock it. But then if it turns out to be a lemon or the unlock screws up something you are SOL cause you voided the warranty.

As for the speed throttling, it likely won't affect that many folks in the end even with their goofy way of doing it. Companies like Sprint that say "Unlimited but after 5gb you speed will be cut and cut again after every additional 5gb" will probably hurt more folks. The point in this game is to get folks to stop turning off their wifi and just using 3g for everything and congesting the network. If they do that then there's fewer overloaded towers to trigger the throttle in the first place

That's exactly what they've done. They've stopped selling it. So you're happy, right?


Yeah, that way my grandma can pay for your abuse of "reasonable" use.

It's very simple, you pay for what you use. Unlimited data transfers isn't a real, possible thing, this is a finite resource where one person's use can impact many other people's use. Where a tiny percentage of users DO affect the mass of users. Usage should be charged on a GB to GB basis, as it is going to be going forward. That way heavy users can decided if it's worth it, and if not, they can use another service. Light users should not be forced to pay $30 a month for 1/100th the data that heavy users get.

Thankfully, unlimited is a thing of the past. This debate is already lost by the proponents of unlimited data, they just don't seem to realize it yet.

We were, but you added WiFi into the discussion, which is why I discussed DSL, cellular AND WiFi.


Communities and companies have a hard enough time rolling out city-wide WiFi and making it work. To ask the cellular carriers to do a similar thing on a nationwide scale that is very hard for anyone to do on a city scale is unrealistic. In short, wireless is often not the best tool for the job, especially with high housing densities. For rural, the equation changes because you have a lot fewer subscribers in a given area.


The weak point is different. You can only break down airwaves into so many channels. The backhaul is still shared on DSL, but that's a simpler problem to deal with. The harder problem is usually the last mile.

I don't think I'm overcomplicating it. It is simple.

The telcos should not sell more data plans than they can service. It is not a bad thing for a customer to use a service that they paid for.

Those are my main points, and they are simple.

They have not stopped selling it. They have people who signed up for it and pay for it and do not get it.

[WRT public WIFI]

"Yeah, that way my grandma can pay for your abuse of "reasonable" use."

Your sainted grandma pays municipal taxes for people who throw away more garbage than her, she pays municipal taxes for people who drive more than her, especially on snowy days, and she pays taxes for people who need police protection more than her, like the people who have fancy artworks and valuable crystal and silver. She pays higher taxes due to people who live in wooden houses rather than brick houses with sprinklers. That is quite typical for any municipal service, and so I'm not sure why it is a factor here.


"It's very simple, you pay for what you use."

Were that the deal that the telcos sold, then this debate would not be happening. But given that it was NOT the deal the telcos sold, then IMO, some folks are getting a raw deal.

Good points.

I don't necessarily think that sparsely populated areas are ripe for either wifi or cell service. Most people live in densely populated areas, and they, of course, subsidize the few who live in the boonies.

Given that the last mile is the problem, maybe the most economically efficient solution is to have freely available or municipally funded wireless bandwidth in dense areas? Just as it would be inefficient to expect every homeowner to have a private fire department, maybe it is inefficient to have every homeowner pay for a private last mile service?

I am no expert on any of this. I don't know what the rationale was, for example, for the rural electrification projects (was it just a great depression make-work project, or were there greater goods to having universal electric service, even in low population areas?). Is its better to have multiple companies stringing up ugly cable TV wires compared to having one CATV company per town? I don't know these answers, nor do I know the best mode of analysis to arrive at the best answer.

Interesting topic though.

Clearly you aren't a deep thinker.

Just because there are 100 things that people are forced to pay for despite not using, that doesn't mean that a bunch of whining cell phone-addicted crybabies should get to force them to pay for one more arbitrary thing just because said babies don't want to pay their fair share. Cell phone internet use does not fit under and of the definitions of public goods that should be provided-for through threat of imprisonment and the fact that you think it should is mind boggling.

Does that help you think about it?