or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon's plan to throttle LTE speeds draws scrutiny from FCC chairman
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Verizon's plan to throttle LTE speeds draws scrutiny from FCC chairman

post #1 of 39
Thread Starter 
Verizon is planning to restrict LTE data speeds of customers still holding on to unlimited data plans, but the program has "deeply troubled" FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler, who sent a letter to the carrier asking for clarification on the new policy.


FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler


As part of its "network optimization" initiative, Verizon plans to slow down 4G LTE data speeds for subscribers with unlimited data plans when the network is particularly congested.

In response, U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Wheeler sent a note to Verizon CEO Daniel Mead on Wednesday, voicing concern over the change and requesting that a few questions regarding the policy be answered. A copy of the letter was obtained by GigaOm.

"'Reasonable network management' concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams," Wheeler wrote. "It is disturbing to me that Verizon Wireless would base its 'network management' on distinctions among its customers' data plans, rather than on network architecture or technology."

Specifically, the carrier plans to start limiting customers who "fall within the top 5 percent of data users on our network, have fulfilled their minimum contractual commitment, and are on unlimited plans using a 4G LTE device." Under the terms, slated to take effect in October, these users may see slower data speeds when performing high bandwidth operations like high-definition video or gaming apps.

The practice, known as throttling, has been a major concern for both consumers with grandfathered-in unlimited data plans and carriers that can apparently no longer deliver on their promises.

"I know of no past commission statement that would treat as 'reasonable network management' a decision to slow traffic to a user who has paid, after all, for 'unlimited' service," Wheeler wrote.

Wheeler also asks three questions of Mead:
  1. 1. What is your rationale for treating customers differently based on the type of data plan to which they subscribe, rather than network architecture or technological factors? In particular, please explain your statement that, "If you're on an unlimited data plan and are concerned that you are in the top 5% of data users, you can switch to a usage-based data plan as customers on usage-based plans are not impacted."
  2. 2. Why is Verizon Wireless extending speed reductions from its 3G network to its much more efficient 4G LTE network?
  3. 3. How does Verizon Wireless justify this policy consistent with its continuing obligations under the 700 MHz C Block open platform rules, under which Verizon Wireless may not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the C Block networks; how can this conduct be justified under the Commission's 2010 Open Internet rules, including the transparency rule that remains in effect?

Before the smartphone -- and subsequently the cellular-connected tablet -- caught on, providers offered unlimited data plans alongside the devices as a way to spur sales in an unknown market. With popular products like the iPhone, smartphone use exploded, causing cellular data consumption rates to rapidly increase. Carriers were left with an infrastructure not equipped to deal with the unexpectedly high data demands, prompting the use of stop-gap practices like throttling.

Unlimited data contracts were quickly quashed, but subscribers already on the most-expensive plans were allowed to keep them as long as monthly payments continued. The rollout of speedier next-generation cellular technology like 4G LTE effected even faster data consumption rates.

For its part, Verizon claims throttling will help give the other 95 percent of its customers a consistent usage experience, saying the policy affects only a small number of people.

"What we announced last week was a highly targeted and very limited network optimization effort, only targeting cell sites experiencing high demand," Verizon said in a statement provided to Re/Code. "The purpose is to ensure there is capacity for everyone in those limited circumstances, and that high users don't limit capacity for others."

post #2 of 39
It is time for companies to honor their obligations or get fined. Companies should not be allowed to alter the terms of service whenever they want but not allow users to alter the terms of service regarding the cell phone carriers.

This is a good sign that the FCC is leaning toward Net Neutrality.
post #3 of 39
Companies fleecing their customers. Again.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #4 of 39
Good for you FCC.
post #5 of 39

This is remarkable.  Very nice to see the FCC directly advocating for consumers.  Bravo.

post #6 of 39
Let them spend the necessary money to accommodate the changing consumer demands. Why put the onus of profitability on the backs of their customers. Looks like communal punishment to me.
post #7 of 39
[privately] 4) How exactly will my eventual salary and bonus be impacted [when I leave the FCC and am hired back by the industry] if I can make this issue go away without you looking like the douchebags you are?
post #8 of 39
They are grandfathered in and technically not in a contract status. I'd say verizon is extending unlimited as a courtesy. Granted I do think its total bs. Like this is really gonna make a difference on their towers. Just not sure there's much weight with the FCC inquiry given these people are no longer under contract. VZW could end unlimited anytime.
post #9 of 39
"Honor their commitments" - can someone help me understand, didn't these contracts end long ago? What prevents Verizon from saying fine, we were trying to be gracious, but we are just eliminating the "unlimited" plans? Other than turning away the users that may walk to Sprint because of it?
post #10 of 39

They're full of crap. When AT&T decided to turn my "grandfathered" so-called unlimited plan into a 2GB plan by throttling so brutally that even getting email became impossible, I filed complaints with the PUC and the FCC, and I got a very polite reply (6 months later) explaining to me that there was nothing they could do. I switched to T-Mobile and everyday I tell myself how lucky I am to have made that move. Ahole carriers like AT&T and Verizon pull these stunts all the time, just because they can -- you can't even sue them, thanks to the arbitration clause they put in their contracts. Considering the recent shenanigans the FCC pulled with net neutrality, I'm willing to bet this is total posturing and they won't actually be doing shite to protect the consumer. But hey, prove me wrong, FCC. And defend net neutrality while you're at it.

post #11 of 39
Quote:
 "..and that high users don't limit capacity for others."

 

Lol. So its the stoners' fault again.. /s

post #12 of 39
"fall within the top 5 percent of data users on our network,"

Likely that is anyone who streams one 30 minute show per day, maybe even once per week !
post #13 of 39
"Considering the recent shenanigans the FCC pulled with net neutrality, I'm willing to bet this is total posturing"


Got to agree LordJohnWhorfin.

Fact is that with Netflix now havin to pay AT & T, Netflix expect most newcomers to be forced out.
This has just removed most US competition with all non Netflix users etc losing big time. Netflix users also lose as they get to have less choice/higher fees.
post #14 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprint3GIssues View Post

"Honor their commitments" - can someone help me understand, didn't these contracts end long ago? What prevents Verizon from saying fine, we were trying to be gracious, but we are just eliminating the "unlimited" plans? Other than turning away the users that may walk to Sprint because of it?

 

The contract is meant to lock someone into the plan for a period of time (like 24 or 36 months). After that, the plan they're on is supposed to continue, unless they sign onto a new plan. The benefit of signing onto a new plan is you get a new phone for free or for a subsidised amount. Otherwise, you just pay month to month on your original plan.

post #15 of 39

That's nice, FCC. How about investigating why customers are paying through the nose for very limited data caps for wireless carriers? Is there price collusion going on between the major cell phone carriers on why their plans seem almost identical?

post #16 of 39
So you guys are ok with having crap data speeds if you are in a congested area because a few unlimited users are downloading crazy stuff and abusing their unlimited data? I would prefer if they get temporarily throttled in that circumstance so everyone has fair access to the frequency. There should have never been unlimited plans anyways IMO, people should be encouraged to save bandwidth / frequency rather than a free unlimited buffet.
post #17 of 39
It's time these carriers stop treating 5GB a month like it is some obscene amount of data that only someone abusing the network will use. I hit between 4 and 5GB a month consistently under normal usage. No tethering and using wifi at home and in the office. With the way the iPhone updates apps and other apps that continually refresh data the phone moves a lot of bits. Plus LTE lets you move 100 or more megabytes of data without even breaking a sweat.

Thankfully I moved to T-mobile who has never once given me a single problem about my usage and has constantly done things to lessen what data usage counts against my plan like not counting streaming music from all major music services and even throwing in tethering so I don't have to feel like I'm breaking the law just to use my phone as a modem for my computer.
post #18 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJohnWhorfin View Post
 

They're full of crap. When AT&T decided to turn my "grandfathered" so-called unlimited plan into a 2GB plan by throttling so brutally that even getting email became impossible, I filed complaints with the PUC and the FCC, and I got a very polite reply (6 months later) explaining to me that there was nothing they could do. I switched to T-Mobile and everyday I tell myself how lucky I am to have made that move. Ahole carriers like AT&T and Verizon pull these stunts all the time, just because they can -- you can't even sue them, thanks to the arbitration clause they put in their contracts. Considering the recent shenanigans the FCC pulled with net neutrality, I'm willing to bet this is total posturing and they won't actually be doing shite to protect the consumer. But hey, prove me wrong, FCC. And defend net neutrality while you're at it.

 

I've switched to T-Mobile also. 

 

Best decision ever.

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #19 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphafox View Post

So you guys are ok with having crap data speeds if you are in a congested area because a few unlimited users are downloading crazy stuff and abusing their unlimited data? I would prefer if they get temporarily throttled in that circumstance so everyone has fair access to the frequency. There should have never been unlimited plans anyways IMO, people should be encouraged to save bandwidth / frequency rather than a free unlimited buffet.

 

A 100GB cap would be reasonable.

 

Problem is companies are putting caps at 5GB which is normal use IMO.

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #20 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

A 100GB cap would be reasonable.

 

Problem is companies are putting caps at 5GB which is normal use IMO.

Not only are we paying outrageous prices per GB for wireless carriers, we are also told what we can and cannot do with it. Why do I have to pay extra for tethering? This is not a carrier specific feature.

post #21 of 39

Don't get your hopes up. This pushback against Verizon is just political theater and it will go nowhere. Let's not forget who Tom Wheeler is: venture capitalist, former top lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries (National Cable Television Association and Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association.) This is a guy who in 2011 argued that the government should approve a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, before said merger was killed by his predecessor, Julius Genachowski. 

 

Since that merger was blocked T-Mobile acquired additional spectrum from AT&T, successfully merged with MetroPCS to give it enough spectrum to compete with Verizon and AT&T nationwide, and has turned the wireless industry on its head by ditching wireless contracts and giving consumers different payment options for their wireless devices.


Edited by freediverx - 7/31/14 at 7:08am
post #22 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphafox View Post

So you guys are ok with having crap data speeds if you are in a congested area because a few unlimited users are downloading crazy stuff and abusing their unlimited data? I would prefer if they get temporarily throttled in that circumstance so everyone has fair access to the frequency. There should have never been unlimited plans anyways IMO, people should be encouraged to save bandwidth / frequency rather than a free unlimited buffet.

Bandwidth, like an unused appointment slot at a hair salon, is an expiring asset. There's no reason not to want to use the full capacity at all times. Use it or lose it to Father Time. Having said that, Verizon's way out of this fuss with the FCC is to just come back and restate their policy to apply to all customers, regardless of data plan. "At certain times and in certain locations where our network comes close to saturation, we will throttle any customer who at that time while using those saturated assets is consuming a large amount of data." Something like that. This would remove the FCC's objection regarding VZ playing prejudice against a segment of their customer base, while achieving essentially the same result. After all, it's mostly those with unlimited data plans who would be downloading massive amounts of data, so it's mostly those who would be affected, just without VZ saying as much. I'm a VZ customer on a month to month grandfathered unlimited data plan. I keep it even though I don't often utilize a lot of data, but its a relatively inexpensive plan that let's me use whatever data I need without worry, which is great when I'm traveling and therefore not always connected to wifi. If I'm throttled at some point when data traffic is high where I'm located and I can't get on wifi, well, that's not going to end my life.
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
I don't care about what the ignorant masses perceive as truth. I'm concerned with the facts on the ground.
Reply
post #23 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphafox View Post

So you guys are ok with having crap data speeds if you are in a congested area because a few unlimited users are downloading crazy stuff and abusing their unlimited data? I would prefer if they get temporarily throttled in that circumstance so everyone has fair access to the frequency. There should have never been unlimited plans anyways IMO, people should be encouraged to save bandwidth / frequency rather than a free unlimited buffet.

 

The problem is they aren't making any correlation between throttling unlimited data users based on their actual usage in total or on their usage at peak times. You could have a guy that does most of his network usage between midnight and 3am when it impacts no one and he gets throttled while trying download an attachment during the day while racing to catch a connecting flight simply because he has an unlimited plan.

 

As long as you are not breaking any of the terms of service you are never abusing an unlimited plan. The person using as much data as they like on a plan they were offered and paid for should not be made to feel like second class citizen. Any carrier that points at these customers and blames them for their network congestion should be sued for libel and slander. Its not the user's fault there is congestion. It is the carriers' fault for over subscribing their capacity. They were offered a service that the carrier was contractually obligated to provide and made hefty profits on at a time when network usage was not prevalent as it is today. The reality is, it is the tiered data customers that came after the unlimited plan customers that caused the strain on the network. 

 

Imagine if McDonalds had a sale and they said if you come in by 1pm and you buy a big mac for full price you can get the second big mac for 25¢. Then say 200 people come in by 1pm.  Seeing that they will have to make 400 big macs the manager starts getting nervous because they only have supplies to make 500 big macs a day and they did not anticipate such a large turn out for this sale. After fulfilling some of the orders for customers that bought two the manager then starts asking customers if they would accept a voucher to come back for their second big mac tomorrow because they won't have enough big macs for the rest of their customers that day. Some customers accept the voucher while some still insist on their second big mac for 25¢. After the sales period is over the regular customers start ordering single big macs at regular price and the store very quickly runs out.

 

When the next customer in line orders a big mac the manager takes his money then tells him there are no more big macs because these greedy bastards came in and bought them all while pointing at the customers in the dining room that are enjoying their 2 big macs. When the new customer looks at him and says "but I just paid you for 1 big mac," the manager says "you can come back tomorrow and you can have your big mac then, we simply don't have the supplies to make more big macs today, because these greedy bastards bought all our inventory during our sale." The confused customer takes his voucher for his delayed big mac and leaves. This goes on for a while until new customers are demanding the store provide them with the big macs they are taking their money for and then telling them they can't provide and not offering a refund just a delay in providing the big mac.

 

The manager at this point is realizing all the revenue he lost by not selling those 25¢ big macs for full price and seeing the stress it is causing his new customers by not having them to give, decides to rush into the dining room and start screaming at all the patrons enjoying their two big macs purchased during the sale and snatching them off their tables, telling them they are fat and greedy, damaging McDonald's good name and hurting all the future customers that just want a big mac. He then proceeds to give the snatched big macs to the new customers and collects their money.


Edited by Eric Swinson - 7/31/14 at 7:27am
post #24 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprint3GIssues View Post

"Honor their commitments" - can someone help me understand, didn't these contracts end long ago? What prevents Verizon from saying fine, we were trying to be gracious, but we are just eliminating the "unlimited" plans? Other than turning away the users that may walk to Sprint because of it?

Verizon started tiered plans a little over 2 years ago. Anyone that signed up before then (like me 1wink.gif), and hasn't upgraded still has unlimited data.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #25 of 39
Classic bait and switch.
post #26 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Swinson View Post

The problem is they aren't making any correlation between throttling unlimited data users based on their actual usage in total or on their usage at peak times. You could have a guy that does most of his network usage between midnight and 3am when it impacts no one and he gets throttled while trying download an attachment during the day while racing to catch a connecting flight simply because he has an unlimited plan.

As long as you are not breaking any of the terms of service you are never abusing an unlimited plan. The person using as much data as they like on a plan they were offered and paid for should not be made to feel like second class citizen. Any carrier that points at these customers and blames them for their network congestion should be sued for libel and slander. Its not the user's fault there is congestion. It is the carriers' fault for over subscribing their capacity. They were offered a service that the carrier was contractually obligated to provide and made hefty profits on at a time when network usage was not prevalent as it is today. The reality is, it is the tiered data customers that came after the unlimited plan customers that caused the strain on the network. 

Imagine if McDonalds had a sale and they said if come in by 1pm and you buy a big mac for full price you can get the second big mac for 25¢. Then say 200 people come in by 1pm.  Seeing that they will have to make 400 big macs the manager starts getting nervous because they only have supplies to make 500 big macs a day and they did not anticipate such a large turn out for this sale. After fulfilling some of the orders for customers that bought two the manager then starts asking customers if they would accept a voucher to come back for their second big mac tomorrow because they won't have enough big macs for the rest of their customers that day. Some customers accept the voucher while some still insist on their second big mac for 25¢. After the sales period is over the regular customers start ordering single big macs at regular price and the store very quickly runs out.

When the next customer in line orders a big mac the manager takes his money then tells him there are no more big macs because these greedy bastards came in and bought them all while pointing at the customers in the dining room that are enjoying their 2 big macs. When the new customer looks at him and says "but I just paid you for 1 big mac," the manager says "you can come back tomorrow and you can have your big mac then, we simply don't have the supplies to make more big macs today, because these greedy bastards bought all our inventory during our sale." The confused customer takes his voucher for his delayed big mac and leaves. This goes on for a while until new customers are demanding the store provide them with the big macs they are taking their money for and then telling them they can't provide and not offering a refund just a delay in providing the big mac.

The manager at this point is realizing all the revenue he lost by not selling those 25¢ big macs for full price and seeing the stress it is causing his new customers by not having them to give, decides to rush into the dining room and start screaming at all the patrons enjoying their two big macs purchased during the sale and snatching them off their tables, telling them they are fat and greedy, damaging McDonald's good name and hurting all the future customers that just want a big mac. He then proceeds to give the snatched big macs to the new customers and collects their money.

How I understand it is if a user in the top 5% in data usage he/she will get throttled only if the particular cell site is at capacity. Once that user is on a less busy cell site his/her speed will return.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #27 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphafox View Post

I would prefer if they get temporarily throttled in that circumstance so everyone has fair access to the frequency.

That's exactly what they what VZW wants to do. The throttling is only temporary. Until the site becomes less congested, or the user moves to a less congested site.

When unlimited data was introduced there were no tv/movie/music streaming apps. YouTube wasn't as big as it is today. Our Internet usage has grown exponentially since the introduction of the smartphone.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #28 of 39
I am far from a Verizon fan, but their plan is far better than the BS that ATT origionally imposed. ATT put the cap in place no matter what the network status was. You could be the only person on that tower, but you were still limited to dial up speeds. At one point ATT's 5% kicked in below 2GB. So a person on a $20 tiered 2GB plan could get 2GB of data, but the $30 unlimited plan could not. That backlash made them change their policy so that the cap could never fall below whatever $30 of tiered data would get you.

Is unlimited over tiered throttling right? No. But why is FCC going after Verizon and not ATT who has a much worst program and is almost as big as Verizon?
post #29 of 39

I'm glad the FCC's speaking up about this. My Verizon Unlimited Data Lines have served me well over the years. In any case, I plan on selling one of those unlimited lines soon. If anyone here's interested, feel free to PM me.

LOL people should just enjoy whatever phone they prefer and stop being d-bags about other phones they don't use. Fanboys are pathetic, regardless of whether they are Android or Apple ones.
Reply
LOL people should just enjoy whatever phone they prefer and stop being d-bags about other phones they don't use. Fanboys are pathetic, regardless of whether they are Android or Apple ones.
Reply
post #30 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


That's exactly what they what VZW wants to do. The throttling is only temporary. Until the site becomes less congested, or the user moves to a less congested site.

When unlimited data was introduced there were no tv/movie/music streaming apps. YouTube wasn't as big as it is today. Our Internet usage has grown exponentially since the introduction of the smartphone.

 

 

So are you telling me the wireless carries, many of them steeped in offering traditional terrestrial network services and connectivity (including core internet backbones) did not believe that demand for wireless internet connectivity would grow? I understand that demand, growth and peak capacity are almost always out of alignment, but we have been capped at the same numbers for 3-4 years now. If the carriers ran a Chinese buffet, the buffet would have 10,000 items, the restaurant would seat 20 people with 2000 people waiting outside for a table and there would only be 3 plates to go around for everybody. Anytime some did manage to make it to the buffet a guy would yell at them "You eat too much!"

post #31 of 39

Have you complainers written the Chairman yet? His email is tom.wheeler@fcc.gov. 

 

Below is the letter currently waiting in the inbox for a response 6 months later. Took me about 30 minutes. I'd urge you all to spend some time and show Tom your appreciation, and your thoughts on the previous commissioner's non-action. 

 

 

 

Dear Chairman Wheeler:

 
This morning I read a interesting letter from you to Verizon Wireless' CEO regarding their network management practices to throttle the top 5% of their users. 
 
Your statement "I know of no past Commission statement that would treat as "reasonable network management" a decision to slow traffic to a user who has paid, after all, for "unlimited" service." is why I'm writing to you today. 
 
You see, I'm an AT&T customer. And when AT&T began throttling back in 2011, we all had "unlimited data" plans. What did we do when AT&T throttled our connection speeds from 3G to 2G speeds on HSPA and HSPA+ technology? We wrote to the FCC. And the FCC did NOTHING for us consumers. 

http://www.cultofmac.com/133903/att-starts-throttling-heavy-iphone-data-users-to-2g-speeds/

Granted this wasn't your commission then. But the precedent has been set since AT&T began the throttling practice in 2011. Then Verizon joined them, throttling congested networks on their 3G towers. AT&T still today throttles any unlimited customer on a grandfathered unlimited data plan, even if they have an LTE plan. Republic wireless, T-mobile, Straight Talk, Sprint.. they all have throttling as part of their bandwidth limits for customers. Perhaps you are a VZ user and just now realized you are being throttled on LTE? Where has this fire been for the rest of consumers? 

I've written numerous FCC complaints regarding bandwidth restriction and faulty bandwidth meters on AT&T's network, only to have an AT&T spokesperson tell me "well, there's nothing we can do unless more people complain". 

That's the problem, is that the FCC gets our letters and doesn't review policies that could solve our complaints. The FCC just hands the complaints to the carrier and says "Here Mr AT&T, you have a complaint to deal with, and the FCC doesn't care". 

I hope you enjoy upgrading to a metered plan like the rest of us, and enjoy the 15$ overages that AT&T already has users paying, with meters that are not regulated. Wireless carriers want to bill a public resource like a water meter and not be regulated as a public utility. The FCC is letting them do so, at the public's expense. 
 
 
Thanks for your time,
post #32 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Swinson View Post


So are you telling me the wireless carries, many of them steeped in offering traditional terrestrial network services and connectivity (including core internet backbones) did not believe that demand for wireless internet connectivity would grow? I understand that demand, growth and peak capacity are almost always out of alignment, but we have been capped at the same numbers for 3-4 years now. If the carriers ran a Chinese buffet, the buffet would have 10,000 items, the restaurant would seat 20 people with 2000 people waiting outside for a table and there would only be 3 plates to go around for everybody. Anytime some did manage to make it to the buffet a guy would yell at them "You eat too much!"

No. It just grew beyond their expectations, and ability to keep up. More and more cables isn't something that can be just willed into existence.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #33 of 39

So Verizon collects from Netflix for customer streaming, and then throttles the customer anyway? (And offers the customer a more expensive data plan, without throttling their streaming.)  This is Verizon charging twice for the same bandwidth: once to Netflix and again to the consumer.  Unless Verizon exempts Netflix streamers usage from the throttling!

post #34 of 39
Quote:
"'Reasonable network management' concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams," Wheeler wrote. 

 

Well that's just ignorant, IMO.  Everything that any company does should enhance revenue streams in one way or another. Revenue is the purpose of business.  Even South Park's underpants gnomes knew, despite vagueness in the process, that the end result was PROFIT.  Whether you are improving your supply chain, your distribution chain, your advertising, or the brand of toilet paper in your corporate lavatories, the result should be an overall improvement to the bottom line.  

post #35 of 39
Originally Posted by alphafox View Post
There should have never been unlimited plans anyways IMO, people should be encouraged to save bandwidth / frequency rather than a free unlimited buffet.

 

This is completely insane. How can anyone think this way and expect to keep his genes alive?

 

Originally Posted by sestewart View Post
Wireless carriers want to bill a public resource like a water meter and not be regulated as a public utility. The FCC is letting them do so, at the public's expense. 

 

Good. It’s better than the alternative: treating cellular networks like a public utility and HAVING A GOVERNMENT GRANTED MONOPOLY with COLLUSION ENFORCED rather than litigated. 

post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphafox View Post

There should have never been unlimited plans anyways IMO

 

Interesting thought but utterly irrelevant since they WERE offered. By carriers, to entice subscribers. No one forced them. Now that they have more business than they can handle, they want to offload their planning whoopsie to paying customers instead of taking the mountains of cash they must be making if they're so swamped with users that they can't keep up and using it to build out higher capacity infrastructure.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphafox View Post

people should be encouraged to save bandwidth / frequency rather than a free unlimited buffet.
 

It's NOT a free buffet! It's a package offered by the carrier like any other, and users PAY for it.

 

If Exxon offered unlimited monthly gas for $500 per month, then discovered that sometimes their pumps can't keep up, should the people who subscribed to the monthly plan be told that from now on they can only take 10 gallons at a time if the station they visit happens to be busy? If every station is busy, well, tough luck.

 

Would YOU accept that? I wouldn't. My first question would be how much they plan to reduce the cost of my subscription since the volume of product being delivered is reduced.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #37 of 39
There are choices out there that allow a person avoid doing business with the likes of Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile along with all of their sub carriers. If people would just consider what their real cell phone needs are, then look around, many might discover they don't have to play their game. How many people who use a cell radio equipped device need unlimited data? I am on WiFi 95% of the time. Maybe if people didn't spend 85% of your waking life staring at a phone, some of their problems might go away.
post #38 of 39
There advertising there towers have twice the bandwidth but 5% of useres overloads them?
post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by sestewart View Post
 

Have you complainers written the Chairman yet? His email is tom.wheeler@fcc.gov. 

 

Below is the letter currently waiting in the inbox for a response 6 months later. Took me about 30 minutes. I'd urge you all to spend some time and show Tom your appreciation, and your thoughts on the previous commissioner's non-action. 

 

 

 

Dear Chairman Wheeler:

 
<...>

 

Did you get the same generic "FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR58" you need to fill out this form response I received?  I guess I was emailing it wrong.  :D

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon's plan to throttle LTE speeds draws scrutiny from FCC chairman