or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon responds to FCC concerns over data throttling, calls method 'measured and fair'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Verizon responds to FCC concerns over data throttling, calls method 'measured and fair'

post #1 of 68
Thread Starter 
In response to U.S. Federal Communications Commission chief Tom Wheeler's concerns over Verizon's plan to throttle LTE data speeds for high-use customers, the nation's No. 1 carrier called the practice fair and said it is not alone in using such tactics.




In a note to the FCC, a copy of which was obtained by The Verge, Verizon's SVP of Federal Regulatory Affairs Kathleen Grillo said the carrier's "network optimization" initiative affects a small number of customers and only "under very limited circumstances."

When Verizon's network is particularly congested in a specific area, the cellular provider intends to limit 4G LTE speeds for customers with grandfathered-in unlimited data accounts who "have an out-sized effect on the network," a practice better known as "data throttling."

"This practice has been widely accepted with little or no controversy," Grillo writes. Further, Verizon claims its policy is better for consumers than similar plans currently employed by T-Mobile, which allows the Uncarrier to throttle "regardless of whether customers are at a location experiencing congestion."

Under the terms, slated to take effect in October, power users may see slower than normal data speeds when performing high bandwidth operations like streaming high-definition video or playing real-time games.

"Our practice is a measured and fair step to ensure that this small group of customers do not disadvantage all others in the sharing of network resources during times of high demand," Grillo says.

Last week, FCC Chairman Wheeler wrote to Verizon CEO Daniel Mead, voicing concern over the carrier's forthcoming rule change.

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

According to Re/code, Mead met with press in New York on Monday to clarify the issue, saying the company was surprised by Wheeler's letter because Verizon employed the same tactic to rein in rampant 3G data use in 2011.

"I don't think the FCC really understood what we were doing," Mead said.
post #2 of 68

The act itself is not fair, therefore no stipulations as to the throttling can be fair.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #3 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The act itself is not fair, therefore no stipulations as to the throttling can be fair.

Actually it makes all the sense in the world. We don't let hogs compromise our transportation highways so why would we allow it on an electronic highway?

Beyond all of that the carriers really should be forced to a pay by bit system so that these heavy users have some incentive to curtail usage. Think about it, Bell's telephone system work for decades paying by the minute. It made sense back then because paying for time on the system encourages people to moderate usage thus keeping the network from becoming saturated. Structuring costs on a data network that values the data transmitted would do the same thing.

Paying by the bit would be far more fair then what we have now.
post #4 of 68
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
We don't let hogs compromise our transportation highways so why would we allow it on an electronic highway?

 

Yep, people sure are prevented from driving more than others¡

 
Beyond all of that the carriers really should be forced to a pay by bit system so that these heavy users have some incentive to curtail usage.

 

WHY SHOULD ANYONE BE FORCED TO USE LESS DATA AT ALL?! HOW IS THIS AN ACCEPTABLE ANSWER?! People want more of your content? You lay more cable. Problem solved.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #5 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

People want more of your content? You lay more cable. Problem solved.

 

It's not the big part with the cables that's the problem. It's that last bit from the tower to the cell phone — no cable!

post #6 of 68
If ur paying for unlimited data then u should b able to use as much as u want
post #7 of 68
If you choose to eat at a restaurant that markets an all-you-can-eat buffet and you pay their advertised price per plate... Would it be fair if the manager makes you eat off a smaller plate than the other patrons because you eat more than the average person? Or, if you order the all-you-can-eat BBQ rib platter, would it be fair if the manager instructs the waitress to take twice as long to replenish your plate as the other customers because you are eating more than the average... Is it fair to put into place barriers for the sole purpose of discouraging users from getting all they can from a service for which they are paying and were marketed?
post #8 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post
 

 

It's not the big part with the cables that's the problem. It's that last bit from the tower to the cell phone — no cable!

Exactly. The issue here is one of economics. These companies can't put in more antennas because of government regulation and the public don't want ugly antennas. Then you someone who has an unlimited data plan who watches Netflix all day, effectively slowing that cell for everyone else. The solution is to reduce that user's bandwidth to provide a level of service that everyone else is also paying for.

 

I think this is a fair tradeoff for those who are abusing a cell site at the determinate of other paying customers. The other solution would be to just kick the user off the network and I'm sure there is language in the contract that would allow someone to have their contract cancelled if they are not following the rules. Of course I don't have the contract, but it sounds like Verizon is trying their best to keep everyone happy.

post #9 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dminnici View Post

If you choose to eat at a restaurant that markets an all-you-can-eat buffet and you pay their advertised price per plate... Would it be fair if the manager makes you eat off a smaller plate than the other patrons because you eat more than the average person? Or, if you order the all-you-can-eat BBQ rib platter, would it be fair if the manager instructs the waitress to take twice as long to replenish your plate as the other customers because you are eating more than the average... Is it fair to put into place barriers for the sole purpose of discouraging users from getting all they can from a service for which they are paying and were marketed?

I think what you are forgetting here is that this customer is eating up all of the food and other customers are being turned away or told that certain dishes are not available because of the fat lard that sits in the corner eating ribs all day.  If that happened, you can bet that the restaurant would change the policy to allow them to kick the user out for bothering other customers and effecting the service of the restaurant. Unfortunately, cellular companies can't point someone out and call the police in this case, but they can make sure that other paying customers also get what they paid for.  That's what this is about.

I'm not trying to say cellular companies are 100% innocent in this, and they shouldn't have marketed things as "all you can eat" nor have written their contracts to be grandfathered as they did if they foresaw network congestion.

 

You all can see how people abusing the cell site is effecting others and how that's not fair, right?

post #10 of 68
If they throttle your speed, that sets a lower data download capacity for the billing period. If you slow it down it is not unlimited as it is in fact being limited. If they did not throttle you, you could have downloaded more.

Simple answer is that they stop calling it unlimited.
post #11 of 68

this is like saying a resturant has the right to stop fat guys from going to the buffet line for the 4th time since they might run out of shrimp for some of the other customers.

 

DEAL WITH IT.

 

The fat buy paid for all you can eat.  He deserves it.  Its the resturant's responsibility to make sure there is enough food.

 

Verizon's customers paid for all you use data.  Its Verizon's responsibility to make sure the infrastructure can support it.

 

If they really want to lighten the load to the infrastucture they should have never offered unlimited data in the first place.  Or they should offer plans at a discounting price to these grandfathered in customers in exchanged for a limited amount of data.

 

And how rich of Verizon to out T-mobile.  Unlike Verizon T-mobile has no caps and they will NEVER charge you amoral overage charges.

post #12 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post
 

I think what you are forgetting here is that this customer is eating up all of the food and other customers are being turned away or told that certain dishes are not available because of the fat lard that sits in the corner eating ribs all day.  If that happened, you can bet that the restaurant would change the policy to allow them to kick the user out for bothering other customers and effecting the service of the restaurant. Unfortunately, cellular companies can't point someone out and call the police in this case, but they can make sure that other paying customers also get what they paid for.  That's what this is about.

I'm not trying to say cellular companies are 100% innocent in this, and they shouldn't have marketed things as "all you can eat" nor have written their contracts to be grandfathered as they did if they foresaw network congestion.

 

You all can see how people abusing the cell site is effecting others and how that's not fair, right?

 

Problem is Verizon wants its cake and eat it to.

 

They want to continue to charge these customers a huge bill for unlimited data.  

But they want to limit their data at the same time.

 

They either need to allow unlimited data or negoiate with these users to give up unlimited data and give them a significant discount.

post #13 of 68
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
this is like saying a resturant has the right to stop fat guys from going to the buffet line for the 4th time since they might run out of shrimp for some of the other customers. DEAL WITH IT.

 

No, but you’re great at wrong analogies.

 

The fat buy paid for all you can eat.  He deserves it.  Its the resturant's responsibility to make sure there is enough food.

 

Thanks for making our argument for us. The above is the opposite of the first thing you said.

 
If they really want to lighten the load to the infrastucture they should have never offered unlimited data in the first place.

 

Or build out more.

 

they will NEVER charge you amoral overage charges.

 

You have as much proof of this as you do of a 5.5” iPhone.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #14 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

Problem is Verizon wants its cake and eat it to.

 

They want to continue to charge these customers a huge bill for unlimited data.  

But they want to limit their data at the same time.

 

They either need to allow unlimited data or negoiate with these users to give up unlimited data and give them a significant discount.

Do you know the terms of the contract with these users? If it's like my grandfathered ATT contract, it's quite reasonable for unlimited data.  I wouldn't call it huge. ($40/month for unlimited text and data).  Do you know how much they are charging? Is it comparable to current rates that are capped at a certain amount?

The fact is that under these proposed changes, they never take away unlimited data, they are just reducing the bandwidth at sites that are getting crunched.  The end user has the option to move to a less trafficked site, or deal with lesser data speeds in those scenarios, which is exactly what everyone else would have to do anyway.

 

I guess you believe that when purchasing a car that you will have an open road and the wind in your hair. You must get really annoyed at traffic jams.

post #15 of 68

It's been echoed year after year, that Verizon and AT&T have been simply sitting on unused spectrum that could be leveraged to clear congestion. They simply don't want to use it. They want their cake and they want to eat it as well.

 

They have no excuse. Use it, lose it, or suck it up and start either building additional capacity or cranking up that R&D. America needs another Bell Labs to kick the industry where it hurts.

post #16 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

 

 

You have as much proof of this as you do of a 5.5” iPhone.

 

T-mobile give unlimited data in most of their plans.  

You just buy how much high speed data you want.  Once you use that up you get regular speed data for free.  You will never pay extra for data.  Ever.

 

Again you are speaking about things you know nothing about.  That ski is very tall.

post #17 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post
 

It's been echoed year after year, that Verizon and AT&T have been simply sitting on unused spectrum that could be leveraged to clear congestion. They simply don't want to use it. They want their cake and they want to eat it as well.

 

They have no excuse. Use it, lose it, or suck it up and start either building additional capacity or cranking up that R&D. America needs another Bell Labs to kick the industry where it hurts.

 

exactly.  Compare the USA's infracsturture compared to Japan.  Its a total joke.  

post #18 of 68

VZN nickel and dime-ing people instead of giving people great service. Oh well now everyone knows what I've known about VZN forever. Don't deal with them. You'll pay for data by the gig and they'll still throttle you. Their 3G and LTE is slow as all heck. 

post #19 of 68
OK for all the people in here siding with the TELCO's how about I give you my account info and you offer to pay my monthly bill of $187. each month-

THIS IS A BUNCH OF BS AND CRAP and the GOVT NEEDS TO REIN THESE SUCKERS IN WITH SOME REGULATION they offered my an ALL YOU CAN EAT DATA PLAN to get me into a contract and they need to stick to the AGREEMENT they first said oH the 3G plan is going HI SPEED to LTE and then now they have something called XLTE so they have the technology and capability to offer this bandwidth and for the VERIZON A$$HOLE to say we are a small group of customers and its not affecting the entire customer base then why throttle us I PAID/PAYING for a FULL UNLIMITED DATA PLAN and I WANT IT or their should be some CLASS ACTION SUIT FILED against these THIEVES and give me my GODDAM $$$$ BACK!!!! they are always price gouging the small guy like me and I just got an iPAD AIR and they want to charge me $40 extra to use my DATA PLAN I ALREADY HAVE WITH THEM-- I CANNOT WAIT FOR THE NEW iPHONE6 to come out I will be getting the 5.5" iPHONE and since I am grandfathered in I will use that instead of my iPAD AIR and I will watch YOUTUBE VIDEOS and NETFLIX MOVIES (even when I 'm not watching a MOVIE i will still have one playing in the background while i sleep to GET MY $$$ WORTH SCREW THEM!!!!! -- now which one of you asswipes wants my acct number to start paying my bill????
post #20 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitzandbitez View Post

 I PAID/PAYING for a FULL UNLIMITED DATA PLAN and I WANT IT or their should be some CLASS ACTION SUIT FILED against these THIEVES and give me my GODDAM $$$$ BACK!!!!

Verizon's TOS explicitly forbids class action lawsuits. You can thank the Supreme court for that. If you have grievances to take up with them, then you'll have to do so in private arbitration.

post #21 of 68

no VERIZON is going to lose customers to T MOBILE it is already happening

post #22 of 68

exactly my point these ARE CORRUPT THIEVES AND SYSTEM OBONGO AND HIS SUPREME COURT JESTERS HAVE THE GODDAM SYSTEM RIGGED FROM THE TOP!!! how can they have NO CLASS ACTIONS??? WTF IS THAT???? oh AMIERKKA has been HIJACKED BY CORPORATE  CON ARTIST THIS IS NOT THE COUNTRY I WAS BORN IN IT IS SOME NAZI RUN OUTFIT!!! 

post #23 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yep, people sure are prevented from driving more than others¡
Do you own a car? As for driving people who do drive more than others, they do pay more it is called an excise tax on gas. If you drive commercially, trucking for example you pay more and have fundamental restrictions on where you can go.
Quote:
WHY SHOULD ANYONE BE FORCED TO USE LESS DATA AT ALL?! HOW IS THIS AN ACCEPTABLE ANSWER?!
Get a grip here nobody would be forced to use less data. Rather they would have to make a decision on where to spend their dollar. The individual would determine the value of the service he wants to use against other expenses he is responsible for. It is no different than going to the store and having to make a decision between chicken out of a can and a really nice steak.
Quote:
People want more of your content? You lay more cable. Problem solved.
Ahh but you failed to understand the Internet, your service provider is just that, content often has little to do with them.

Assuming here you are old enough to have bills but how do you pay for gas and electricity? Every place I know about it is based on usage. So why not have this utility be usage based? In a very real sense that is what an Internet provider is, instead of a pipe of water or gas it supplies data that you consume.

Think about it what is more fair than charging based on usage? If your neighbor is an idiot and leaves the windows open all winter shouldn't he have to pay more for his heat? Would you want to underwrite his usage via your bill?

Like it or not the current system has moderate users underwriting the usage of the heavy users. That has to go.
post #24 of 68
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

You will never pay extra for data.  Ever.

 

Once again, thanks for pretending you know anything whatsoever about the future.

 

Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
Do you own a car? As for driving people who do drive more than others, they do pay more it is called an excise tax on gas.

 

Except that’s not the point. I can drive on the road 5 minutes out of the year or 525600 minutes out of the year.

 

Guess what happens when a road gets bottlenecked? THEY BUILD MORE ROADS.

 
Get a grip here nobody would be forced to use less data.

 

Except that’s explicitly what is happening right now.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #25 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dminnici View Post

If you choose to eat at a restaurant that markets an all-you-can-eat buffet and you pay their advertised price per plate... Would it be fair if the manager makes you eat off a smaller plate than the other patrons because you eat more than the average person? Or, if you order the all-you-can-eat BBQ rib platter, would it be fair if the manager instructs the waitress to take twice as long to replenish your plate as the other customers because you are eating more than the average... Is it fair to put into place barriers for the sole purpose of discouraging users from getting all they can from a service for which they are paying and were marketed?

Funny story. An ex-coworker of mine was actually asked to leave a steak buffet because he was consuming too much. It happens. But I think he got a refund.

iPhone 5 64GB, iPhone 4S 16GB, mid-2011 iMac, Apple TV 2nd Gen, iPod Nano

Reply

iPhone 5 64GB, iPhone 4S 16GB, mid-2011 iMac, Apple TV 2nd Gen, iPod Nano

Reply
post #26 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dminnici View Post

If you choose to eat at a restaurant that markets an all-you-can-eat buffet and you pay their advertised price per plate... Would it be fair if the manager makes you eat off a smaller plate than the other patrons because you eat more than the average person?
Have you been in a buffet lately. They effectively do throttle you via various methods one of which is tiny plates. Another is sizing portions smaller than rational.
Quote:
Or, if you order the all-you-can-eat BBQ rib platter, would it be fair if the manager instructs the waitress to take twice as long to replenish your plate as the other customers because you are eating more than the average...
Certainly! Most people would look at this as the manager doing you a favor. Beyond that a resturant can only serve up so many plates an hour so it would be only fair to make sure some of the other customers get some bandwidth (ribs). Look at this way what would you think of a resturant that made you wait while they served up a fat cat.

To put it another way if you stop into a BBQ you have a reasonable expectation to get some BBQ. You would not expect to have to wait while the waitress runs platter after platter to the two legged pig.
Quote:
Is it fair to put into place barriers for the sole purpose of discouraging users from getting all they can from a service for which they are paying and were marketed?
Certainly if it means keep access to the rest of the world open. The fundamental problem here is that this RF based system can only handle so much data per geographical area. It isn't like land based systems where you can just plug in more hardware and fiber.

Another way to look at this is being stuck in an airport during a snow storm. If you ever had this happen to you you will have like experienced problems even getting a voice connection over your cell phone. Effecitvely the phone company has to throttle and at times deny connections to make the system usable at all. In the end no matter what the cell company does there is only so much bandwidth available in a given area for a given technology.
post #27 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

Exactly. The issue here is one of economics. These companies can't put in more antennas because of government regulation and the public don't want ugly antennas. Then you someone who has an unlimited data plan who watches Netflix all day, effectively slowing that cell for everyone else. The solution is to reduce that user's bandwidth to provide a level of service that everyone else is also paying for.
Exactly! Worse it is often the same people that whine about cell towers that expect perfection out of their cell service.
Quote:
I think this is a fair tradeoff for those who are abusing a cell site at the determinate of other paying customers. The other solution would be to just kick the user off the network and I'm sure there is language in the contract that would allow someone to have their contract cancelled if they are not following the rules. Of course I don't have the contract, but it sounds like Verizon is trying their best to keep everyone happy.

It is certainly fair and more so throttling can be done dynamically when it is needed. If the cell is lightly loaded there shouldn't be any throttling. However if the cell location is over subscribed the most rational thing to do is to throttle the heavy user.
post #28 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Problem is Verizon wants its cake and eat it to.

They want to continue to charge these customers a huge bill for unlimited data.  
But they want to limit their data at the same time.
I didn't read it that way. They will be limiting a customer's speed. His data will reman unlimited.

Speaking of which what exactly does unlimited mean because data rates have always been variable depending upon a number of factors.
Quote:
They either need to allow unlimited data or negoiate with these users to give up unlimited data and give them a significant discount.

Or the users could grow up and learn to use other resources for their data needs. For example WiFi.
post #29 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryA View Post


Funny story. An ex-coworker of mine was actually asked to leave a steak buffet because he was consuming too much. It happens. But I think he got a refund.

 

Your ex-co-worker just proved that there is something called a free lunch!

post #30 of 68

Is there no way the cellular companies can cancel these old unlimited contracts, and push those customers onto new contracts?

 

Seems like that's what they would want to do, so I don't really understand why they don't.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #31 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post
 

Exactly. The issue here is one of economics. These companies can't put in more antennas because of government regulation and the public don't want ugly antennas. Then you someone who has an unlimited data plan who watches Netflix all day, effectively slowing that cell for everyone else. The solution is to reduce that user's bandwidth to provide a level of service that everyone else is also paying for.

 

I know what you're saying, but where is the math? How is it determined that traffic needs to be regulated? What is the trigger-point for starting the reduction process? How is it determined who gets throttled and how much throttling is required? At what point is the throttling stopped?  Is throttling an on-off process or is the throttling stepped up or down according to specific conditions? What are those conditions? You want to talk economics? So do I. Show me the numbers, show me the calculations.

 

These are the questions that really need to be asked by the FCC of every provider; and the FCC needs to require the answers from every provider. You can bet that probably none of the providers has a formal, documented, and quantifiable system in place; and you can be certain that there is no system-wide standard process.

 

An unlimited data account is meaningless if the speed is measured in nanobits per fortnight.

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #32 of 68
Interesting. I don't think throttling is fair, nor do I think the problem isn't one with a technological answer. How much evidence has Verizon set forth to prove that mega-users are the problem that Verizon says they are? Who does the internet really belong to? Has it become a utility? It seems that there are more questions to be answered here.

Verizon presents a perspective, but is that the best one?
post #33 of 68
Some of us with unlimited plans don't have cable or DSL as options like most people. I have Verizon's 20 GB Home Fusion plan, in addition to my and my wife's unlimited phone plans and my daughters' 2 GB and 4 GB plans. My son only uses the Home Fusion because he doesn't have a phone. Internet usage is a complete nightmare in my house! Do you know how fast we blow thru the limited plans? Sometimes within 2 weeks! My kids are often on internet restriction until I get home from work, then they all connect to my phone via wifi hotspot. I can do so for free, but my wife's phone cannot. My whole family absolutely hates Verizon's limited plans! I wish they made allowances for us who don't have the option to use other sources. I know this initiative says it only applies to high traffic areas, but I'm not sure I believe it. It's only a matter of time, I believe, before they throttle all unlimited plans in an effort to frustrate us enough to switch to limited. I pay Verizon a fortune every month and this kind of stuff makes me want to give Verizon a piece of my mind! I think most people that are media centric and have teenagers, would be shocked at how much data is actually used every month!
post #34 of 68

I live in an area where we don't get cable or DSL and rely totally on Verizon for internet for my whole family, including 3 teenagers.  We also have Verizon's Home Fusion with 20 GB plan.  My girls have 2 GB and 4 GB plans.  My son doesn't have a phone and only uses Home Fusion.  My wife and I are unlimited, but only I can tether for free.  

 

Internet usage is a complete nightmare for my family!  As a media centric family, we blow thru our limited plans w/in 2 weeks sometimes and the kids are on internet restriction while I'm at work.  When home, they all feed off my phone's hotspot.  It's already frustrating enough that Verizon won't offer unlimited home plans, like Home Fusion, for those of us with no other internet options, but if they start to throttle us, that's going to make life miserable.  I know this is only supposed to be in high usage areas and only when traffic is high, but I don't believe it.  I think they're targeting all with unlimited plans.  I think most people would be surprised how much internet a typical family with teenagers uses.  

post #35 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I didn't read it that way. They will be limiting a customer's speed. His data will reman unlimited.

Speaking of which what exactly does unlimited mean because data rates have always been variable depending upon a number of factors.
Or the users could grow up and learn to use other resources for their data needs. For example WiFi.

 

Dont be ridiculous.  Reducing speed is like giving someone dial-up internet speed when they paid for high speed internet. 

 

These customers paid for unlimited HIGH SPEED DATA.  PERIOD.  These carriers pocketed BILLIONS by signing up millions of people to these plans.  They should have thought about possible problems BEFORE they offered these plans.   But no, they want their cake and eat it also.  They should have put limits lets say 200GB a month.  That would probably cover 99.9% of their unlimited users.  But they were greedy and wanted to attract that final 0.01% of users.

 

Grow up?  What if they don't have WiFi at home?  Why should they sacrifice for the phone company?  We always hear 'buyer beware'.  This time it should be 'seller beware'.  If you are going to say UNLIMITED HIGH SPEED DATA you better back it up or don't advertise it as such.

 

So stop with the corporate BS. 

JUST. STOP. IT.

 

Verizon agreed to the contract and now they have to stick with it.  PERIOD.  You think Verizon will let you out of the contract if it doesn't benefit them?  HELL NO.  If you lose your job you think they give a sheet?  Hell no.  They will demand payment and say you signed a contract.  So why is it that Verizon can break the contract without consequence?

 

Again if the carriers don't want to give unlimited data then offer a lower rate as an alternative.  They are not doing that.  They want to charge the same HIGH PRICES but give LESS SERVICE.  Can you not see the motivation here?  All Verizon wants to do is make more money.

post #36 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Exactly! Worse it is often the same people that whine about cell towers that expect perfection out of their cell service.
It is certainly fair and more so throttling can be done dynamically when it is needed. If the cell is lightly loaded there shouldn't be any throttling. However if the cell location is over subscribed the most rational thing to do is to throttle the heavy user.

 

And who's going to make sure they only throttle when it absolutely neccessary? 

Are you really going to trust Verizon to 'do the right thing' when doing the wrong thing will provide them more profits?  Really?

 

Next thing you know they will start throttling 99% of the time.  And what can customers do?  NOTHING.  Since most are stuck on 2 year contracts. 

 

IT is very basic:

 

Corporations need to deliver what they PROMISE.

If you say UNLIMITED HIGH SPEED DATA you better deliever it or STFU and allow the customer to break its contract.

Its the Corps that breached the contract the customer should be able to break off the contract without any penalty.

post #37 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

Verizon agreed to the contract and now they have to stick with it.  PERIOD.  You think Verizon will let you out of the contract if it doesn't benefit them?  HELL NO.  If you lose your job you think they give a sheet?  Hell no.  They will demand payment and say you signed a contract.  So why is it that Verizon can break the contract without consequence?

Given an appropriate notice period and on the assumption that there is no outstanding debt on either side, I really don't understand why they can't do this.  Do Verizon's contract extend until the end of time with no break clause on Verizon's side?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #38 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



Certainly! Most people would look at this as the manager doing you a favor. Beyond that a resturant can only serve up so many plates an hour so it would be only fair to make sure some of the other customers get some bandwidth (ribs). Look at this way what would you think of a resturant that made you wait while they served up a fat cat.

To put it another way if you stop into a BBQ you have a reasonable expectation to get some BBQ. You would not expect to have to wait while the waitress runs platter after platter to the two legged pig.
Certainly if it means keep access to the rest of the world open. The fundamental problem here is that this RF based system can only handle so much data per geographical area. It isn't like land based systems where you can just plug in more hardware and fiber.

Another way to look at this is being stuck in an airport during a snow storm. If you ever had this happen to you you will have like experienced problems even getting a voice connection over your cell phone. Effecitvely the phone company has to throttle and at times deny connections to make the system usable at all. In the end no matter what the cell company does there is only so much bandwidth available in a given area for a given technology.

 

Its the resturant's problem to supply enough food.  PERIOD.

 

If you promise ALL YOU CAN EAT deliver it.  By and large most people can't even eat half of the cost of a buffet.   They make money on 99 guests and ONE GUESTS loses them money and they want to kick him out?  That is total BS.

 

Again its the restuarants problem not the customer.  If you PROMISE it, deliver it or refund people their money.

 

If Verizon can't deliver UNLIMITED HIGH SPEED DATA that they PROMISED then they need to allow people to get out of their contract and receive some kind of refund or lower rate.  You can't change things upstream.

 

Its like saying a car company gives its customers a LIFETIME WARRANTY.  But some of the car owners kept their cars for 50+ years.  So now the car company says we can only extend the LIFETIME WARRANTY for 10 year.  BS.  You really think people who already bought the cars with the knowlege that they got a LIFETIME WARRANTY will be happy?  HELL NO.  You would either need to pay them a significant refund or allow them to return their cars for a complete refund.  This is business 101.  Contract LAW.  If one party breaches the contract then the other party has the right to break the contract or seek damages or compensation. 

 

What Verizon is trying to do is BREACH their contract and at the same time not allow the customer to break free of the contract or seek damages.  Do you not see where this slippery slope is heading?  Next thing you know Verizon will say that their servers are getting full of text messages so you only can text 50 times a month and then you will get charged extra.  They they will say their voice bandwidth is full so they need to limit voice to 200 minutes a month. .......ect, ect, ect.

post #39 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

Given an appropriate notice period and on the assumption that there is no outstanding debt on either side, I really don't understand why they can't do this.  Do Verizon's contract extend until the end of time with no break clause on Verizon's side?

 

I have no idea.

 

But Verizon loves the revenue they get from 99% of these unlimited data plan users.  Its the 1% that uses big data that makes them mad.

 

They want their cake and eat it. 

 

They could easily tract down the 1% that is using 1000GB a month a cut them off.  But they don't want to do that.  They want to use these 1% high users as scape goats so they can throttle the entire 100% of users.

post #40 of 68

How are Verizon not allowing the customer to break free of the contract?  Surely all of these people are on contracts from years ago and Verizon would be more than happy to transfer them to a newer contract?

 

Your slippery slope is a bit silly, since Verizon doing that would lead to them being slaughtered by the competition.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Verizon responds to FCC concerns over data throttling, calls method 'measured and fair'
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon responds to FCC concerns over data throttling, calls method 'measured and fair'