or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › FCC chairman slams Verizon's 'all the kids do it' defense to data throttling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FCC chairman slams Verizon's 'all the kids do it' defense to data throttling

post #1 of 65
Thread Starter 
During a news conference on Friday, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler responded to Verizon's claims that its planned data throttling program is a "widely accepted" practice, saying that an "all the kids do it" argument is not justifiable.

FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler


According to The Wall Street Journal, Wheeler chided Verizon for its defense of an upcoming "network optimization" change, which consisted of pointing fingers at other U.S. cellular providers, calling it an attempt to "reframe the issue."

"'All the kids do it' was never something that worked with me when I was growing up and didn't work with my kids," Wheeler said.

In July, Verizon announced plans to slow down data speeds for a select group of high-use subscribers when its 4G LTE network bogs down. The shift is scheduled to take effect in October, when users with grandfathered-in unlimited data plans may see slower than normal data speeds when performing high bandwidth operations like streaming high-definition video.

"My concern in this instance is that it is moving from technology and engineering issues into business issues," Wheeler said. "Such as choosing between different subscribers based on your economic relationship with them."

The statement echoes arguments raised when the FCC chief sent a letter to Verizon CEO Daniel Mead last week, voicing concern over the proposed throttling plan.

Today's comments were made in response to a rebuttal letter from the telecom's SVP of Federal Regulatory Affairs Kathleen Grillo, who defended "network optimization" by saying the "practice has been widely accepted with little or no controversy."

When smartphones first hit market, cellular providers like Verizon and AT&T offered unlimited data plans to help spur on sales. A boom in popularity, largely driven by Apple's iPhone, left the telcos with an infrastructure poorly equipped to deal with the glut of data-hungry subscribers, which in turn prompted the halt of unlimited plans.

At the time, both Verizon and AT&T let subscribers keep their all-you-can-eat data allotments as long as they continued to pay the same top-tier monthly fee in perpetuity. With faster wireless technology and ever-increasing demands for more data, however, companies have started to throttle speeds for power users. Verizon, for example, says the practice is an appropriate response to deal with those subscribers who use a "disproportionate amount of network resources and have an out-sized effect on the network."

An FCC spokesperson said other U.S. carriers have today received letters asking similar questions to those posed to Verizon.
post #2 of 65
Wheeler's just angry because Verizon called the FCC out on their bulls**t.
post #3 of 65
It would be nice if the FTC would hold companies accountable for differences between their advertising and their actual implementations.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #4 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moreck View Post

Wheeler's just angry because Verizon called the FCC out on their bulls**t.

What sort kind of a shill defends a global corporate conglomerate for data throttling, by deflecting attention to the FCC?
post #5 of 65
Accepted by who? Certainly not the consumers! I don't accept this at all and I doubt if given the choice anyone would.
post #6 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moreck View Post

Wheeler's just angry because Verizon called the FCC out on their bulls**t.

Help me understand which part of what FCC did is bullshit?

post #7 of 65
So why, Mr. Wheeler, did you tell me to get over myself when I wrote to you to complain that AT&T was doing that to me on my "grandfather unlimited data plan" essentially rendering my phone useless after only 2GB of usage? This is all posturing. Wheeler comes from the very industry he's supposed to regulate, and cannot be trusted.
post #8 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

It would be nice if the FTC would hold companies accountable for differences between their advertising and their actual implementations.

Anyone remember "Unlimited Internet" when the @home network existed?

Yeah... times a changing.

See over time, the marketing for something good eventually backfires when it becomes too good due to grandfathering.

Today we have either "umetered" or "capped" internet plans along with specific tiers of bandwidth which is easily imposed by technical constraints of the customer premises equipment. With wireless this is impractical, so instead the throttle at the connection level. My LTE connection has a far superior symmetric bandwidth (at 4:1 D:U) than the cable companies asymmetric bandwidth (which is 20:1 D:U)
post #9 of 65

It seems to me that no one, on either side of the issue, is interested in standards of quality for customers. Promises of speeds up to X are meaningless if the average speed actually provided is only 50% 0f X. Flat rate should not be defined as speeds flattening to near zero after X megabytes. If internet connectivity is to be a necessary utility, then there needs to be discussion about quality. You're not getting electricity if the current is too weak to light a bulb, nor are you getting water if only a trickle drips from the faucet.

"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 #10 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJohnWhorfin View Post

So why, Mr. Wheeler, did you tell me to get over myself when I wrote to you to complain that AT&T was doing that to me on my "grandfather unlimited data plan" essentially rendering my phone useless after only 2GB of usage? This is all posturing. Wheeler comes from the very industry he's supposed to regulate, and cannot be trusted.

I am not defending the FCC for one second here, rather thinking out loud ... We are also have the original grandfathered unlimited data plan with AT&T and keep wondering if the apparent high cost is worth the 'unlimited. The reason we have not bailed is it's nice to look at the monthly $180 bill (for two iPhones) and see $00.00 next to every single data entry whether full speed or slowed ... (I have not experienced any slowing but then we don't watch Netflix on our phones). I shudder to think of not having the plan to be honest. When, once a year, we are driving from Florida to New England, or flying on vacation (in the USA), we can use the iPhones to stream maps, music whatever ... all for free. I am pretty sure it is still worth the higher base rate for the plan. Not having ever had any other plans we are believing this on faith to some extent. Does anyone think we are crazy to keep the plans when there are cheaper plans with paid data? I realize the question is almost impossible to answer without serious data analysis but my gut says it is worth keeping.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #11 of 65
Interesting fact: approximately two million people are still using AOL's dial-up services.

Yeah. I know it's got nothing to do with the thread topic.

But doesn't that just blow you away!

My condolences to them all.
There's nothing your wife/girlfriend/partner wouldn't like more than your 6 Plus...
Reply
There's nothing your wife/girlfriend/partner wouldn't like more than your 6 Plus...
Reply
post #12 of 65
Disproportionate amount? Bull. 4.7 gig is their benchmark, yet they sell data plans for 10, 20 gigs a month vs. 4.7. They want people to pay for the bandwidth now. Call it like it is Verizon. Call it like it is ATT. Report it like it is "writers". Voice and text do not make them money because there were so many ways to get around both utilizing data through VOIP and text apps. Heck iMessage. I do believe in the concern over network congestion. Towers can get bogged down. But! It's not because of unlimited users. It's because of all users now having the technology to access the data, and more people than ever have smart phones and towers get overloaded. Thus I go back to, money. Verizon can pull unlimited. That's their right. These people are not under contract anymore. The ol FCC man needs to state that too. But, verizon needs to tell us the real reason. Not some bs about network management. It's NOT about that. It's about money.
post #13 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I am not defending the FCC for one second here, rather thinking out loud ... We are also have the original grandfathered unlimited data plan with AT&T and keep wondering if the apparent high cost is worth the 'unlimited. The reason we have not bailed is it's nice to look at the monthly $180 bill (for two iPhones) and see $00.00 next to every single data entry whether full speed or slowed ... (I have not experienced any slowing but then we don't watch Netflix on our phones). I shudder to think of not having the plan to be honest. When, once a year, we are driving from Florida to New England, or flying on vacation (in the USA), we can use the iPhones to stream maps, music whatever ... all for free. I am pretty sure it is still worth the higher base rate for the plan. Not having ever had any other plans we are believing this on faith to some extent. Does anyone think we are crazy to keep the plans when there are cheaper plans with paid data? I realize the question is almost impossible to answer without serious data analysis but my gut says it is worth keeping.

For $90 a month you can do the same on T-Mobile.
post #14 of 65
I used 4+ GB of data last month and I did notice a slow down towards the latter part. It was frustrating.
post #15 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Does anyone think we are crazy to keep the plans when there are cheaper plans with paid data?

Not crazy at all. I too have a 'old' plan with a set number of minutes, and unlimited data. I used to never go over 10 GBs, but for the last 2 months I've used 15-20 GBs. A paid data plan for me would cost me much more than I'm paying now.
"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 #16 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I am not defending the FCC for one second here, rather thinking out loud ... We are also have the original grandfathered unlimited data plan with AT&T and keep wondering if the apparent high cost is worth the 'unlimited. The reason we have not bailed is it's nice to look at the monthly $180 bill (for two iPhones) and see $00.00 next to every single data entry whether full speed or slowed ... (I have not experienced any slowing but then we don't watch Netflix on our phones). I shudder to think of not having the plan to be honest. When, once a year, we are driving from Florida to New England, or flying on vacation (in the USA), we can use the iPhones to stream maps, music whatever ... all for free. I am pretty sure it is still worth the higher base rate for the plan. Not having ever had any other plans we are believing this on faith to some extent. Does anyone think we are crazy to keep the plans when there are cheaper plans with paid data? I realize the question is almost impossible to answer without serious data analysis but my gut says it is worth keeping.

It all depends. If you're keeping your unlimited data plan for that one time a year you make that drive, and the remaining 11 months you use very little data, then you could be saving enough money every month to pay for that one month of overages.

Like you said, we need more information on how much data you use. I still have 3 phones on unlimited, but we all use almost 5 gbs each. Their 15gb shared data is more than what we pay for, so we'll stick it out for awhile.
post #17 of 65
The more I think about this the more I'm convinced that Verizon is doing the most reasonable thing.

When, and only when, the network throughput is constrained (the network is incapable of meeting the demands of all current consumers), something has to give. If you think about three classes of consumers, would you choose to share the "pain" equally or favor some classes over others. Class one are consumers who haven't used much data (during the current month or some time period). Class two are considers who have been using a ton of data--but are specifically on a plan where they pay for every additional byte. Class three are consumers who choose to pay a fixed price for "unlimited data" AND have been among the highest consumers of data during the current time period. I would argue that it's is very reasonable that this third class of consumers would have their bandwidth throttled (not turned off, or "crippled") to maintain the highest possible quality of service for the other two classes. Remember, that a consumer on an unlimited plan who hasn't used much data this month is in Class 1.

If telecom is too political to think about this clearly, try these two metaphors: the water supply or an all-you-can-eat option at a restaurant.

You are the water district manager in charge of supplying water to a large community. During the summer, due to limited water and high demand, you don't have the supply to give everyone the water pressure they demand/expect. Imagine you could control water supply at this level of precision. One household has used a normal amount of water. A second is specifically on a high-volume plan and pays for every gallon. The third is on an "unlimited" plan. Household 2 and 3 have pools and large lawns and have used 10 times the water the first household has used. Again, seems perfectly reasonable to me that household three should be throttled to maintain the water pressure for households one and two. If household three doesn't like it, he can certainly switch to the pay-as-you-go high-volume plan. He he getting screwed because his water isn't "unlimited?" At no point is his water turned off, and if supply permits, he could fill his pool 30 times. But just like he wouldn't expect his "unlimited" plan to be able to supply a Las Vegas hotel (with 4000 rooms, fountains, pools, and golf courses), he shouldn't expect that unlimited means that he's the top-priority customer when bandwidth is allocated.

I'll leave the all-you-can-eat shrimp metaphor as an exercise for the reader.
post #18 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by b9bot View Post

Accepted by who? Certainly not the consumers! I don't accept this at all and I doubt if given the choice anyone would.
Maybe if they took $10 a month off, but you know they would not.
post #19 of 65
Purely political stunt by the FCC. Tit-for-tat response to Verizon's outspoken stance on net neutrality.
post #20 of 65

Verizon haven't told you that majority of Deaf and HH are still on Grandfather Unlimited plans.  Verizon doesn't want to reveal this to FCC and anyone else. Same for AT&T TAP Plan too.  We were very concern about their using illegal throttle on our Grandfather plans.

 

You may not realize that Video calls consumed 2-3 MB per minute.  

14 hours video calls = 1GB data 

3GB = 42 hrs video calls monthly

6GB = 84 hrs video calls monthly

:no: Wireless carriers just throw in unlimited LD calls and unlimited SMS.

We all have to watch our data budget closely.

 

We rely on our Video calls thru Video Relay Service (VRS) and Point to Point calls. 

We must stress that it is illegal for any wireless carriers to put throttle on our video calls due to the protection of life, health, safety or property. (911 calls) - FCC.

 

How would you feel that if they put throttle on your voice calls? How about VoLTE? Both Verizon and AT&T want to use VoLTE to be a bill as voice calls not the data usage at all. The problem is that both LTE and VoLTE are on same data line (internet based). That is net neutrality violation!

 

We all want to make sure that we must have video interoperability  that need to have LTE and VoLTE to be integrate as interoperability.

You guys have all voice interoperability on every telephone and mobile devices, but we do not have video interoperability yet.

 

For this reason, we must have video interoperability so that we have choices to call either video call or voice call.  Video interoperability is for everyone. We must tell FCC and wireless carriers that throttle is illegal to use on Video & Voice calls on LTE/VoLTE. 

 

Bless to have iPhone in our hands!

post #21 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylo View Post

It all depends. If you're keeping your unlimited data plan for that one time a year you make that drive, and the remaining 11 months you use very little data, then you could be saving enough money every month to pay for that one month of overages.

Like you said, we need more information on how much data you use. I still have 3 phones on unlimited, but we all use almost 5 gbs each. Their 15gb shared data is more than what we pay for, so we'll stick it out for awhile.

Yes, sorry I was ambiguous, I mean an annual road trip plus several air trips. We probably have three of four vacations a year where we fly as well as the road trip. I think I just convinced myself we are better off with the unlimited data plan. Shame I can't use the tethering to an iPad or Mac with it though! 1biggrin.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #22 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

The more I think about this the more I'm convinced that Verizon is doing the most reasonable thing.

When, and only when, the network throughput is constrained (the network is incapable of meeting the demands of all current consumers), something has to give. If you think about three classes of consumers, would you choose to share the "pain" equally or favor some classes over others. Class one are consumers who haven't used much data (during the current month or some time period). Class two are considers who have been using a ton of data--but are specifically on a plan where they pay for every additional byte. Class three are consumers who choose to pay a fixed price for "unlimited data" AND have been among the highest consumers of data during the current time period. I would argue that it's is very reasonable that this third class of consumers would have their bandwidth throttled (not turned off, or "crippled") to maintain the highest possible quality of service for the other two classes. Remember, that a consumer on an unlimited plan who hasn't used much data this month is in Class 1.

If telecom is too political to think about this clearly, try these two metaphors: the water supply or an all-you-can-eat option at a restaurant.

You are the water district manager in charge of supplying water to a large community. During the summer, due to limited water and high demand, you don't have the supply to give everyone the water pressure they demand/expect. Imagine you could control water supply at this level of precision. One household has used a normal amount of water. A second is specifically on a high-volume plan and pays for every gallon. The third is on an "unlimited" plan. Household 2 and 3 have pools and large lawns and have used 10 times the water the first household has used. Again, seems perfectly reasonable to me that household three should be throttled to maintain the water pressure for households one and two. If household three doesn't like it, he can certainly switch to the pay-as-you-go high-volume plan. He he getting screwed because his water isn't "unlimited?" At no point is his water turned off, and if supply permits, he could fill his pool 30 times. But just like he wouldn't expect his "unlimited" plan to be able to supply a Las Vegas hotel (with 4000 rooms, fountains, pools, and golf courses), he shouldn't expect that unlimited means that he's the top-priority customer when bandwidth is allocated.

I'll leave the all-you-can-eat shrimp metaphor as an exercise for the reader.

I hear you on the reasonableness, but in the same vein, in the situation where the unlimited data plan is causing a constraint and they have to throttle, it would seem reasonable to offer a discount or rebate surely to folks they contacted with and accept money from, for unlimited data?

The water analogy doesn't hold water ... see what I did there? 1smile.gif .... You don't specifically contract for an unlimited amount of water in the first place. We did contract and for unlimited data. Just saying.
Edited by digitalclips - 8/9/14 at 10:39am
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #23 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB88MacUser View Post

Verizon haven't told you that majority of Deaf and HH are still on Grandfather Unlimited plans.  Verizon doesn't want to reveal this to FCC and anyone else. Same for AT&T TAP Plan too.  We were very concern about their using illegal throttle on our Grandfather plans.

You may not realize that Video calls consumed 2-3 MB per minute.  

14 hours
 video calls =
1GB
data 

3GB = 42 hrs video calls monthly

6GB = 84 hrs video calls monthly

1oyvey.gif  Wireless carriers just throw in unlimited LD calls and unlimited SMS.
We all have to watch our data budget closely.

We rely on our Video calls thru Video Relay Service (VRS) and Point to Point calls. 
We must stress that it is illegal for any wireless carriers to put throttle on our video calls due to the protection of life, health, safety or property. (911 calls) - FCC.

How would you feel that if they put throttle on your voice calls? How about VoLTE? Both Verizon and AT&T want to use VoLTE to be a bill as voice calls not the data usage at all. The problem is that both LTE and VoLTE are on same data line (internet based). That is net neutrality violation!

We all want to make sure that we must have video interoperability  that need to have LTE and VoLTE to be integrate as interoperability.
You guys have all voice interoperability on every telephone and mobile devices, but we do not have video interoperability yet.

For this reason, we must have video interoperability so that we have choices to call either video call or voice call.  Video interoperability is for everyone. We must tell FCC and wireless carriers that throttle is illegal to use on Video & Voice calls on LTE/VoLTE. 

Bless to have iPhone in our hands!

as being deaf myself, I do agree with that person above. I had no choice but to have 10GB data sharing plan for this very reason. this cost me $115.00 per month. this included unlimited voice plan which I don't really need but AT&T still require me to add this plan instead of their "TAP plan" for the deaf and hard of hearing.

Please excuse my lame English grammar. American Sign Language is my first language and English's the second.
Tallest Skill, you can edit my English grammar for me. My English grammar sucks! lol

Reply

Please excuse my lame English grammar. American Sign Language is my first language and English's the second.
Tallest Skill, you can edit my English grammar for me. My English grammar sucks! lol

Reply
post #24 of 65
The best and fairest system is: "pay for what you use" while receiving daily updates for how much you owe.

Unlimited plans is utopian nonesense.
post #25 of 65
What does VZW consider power users? Someone who uses more than 500mb a month?
This is what it boils down to. VZW can decide someone that uses 500mb or 1GB-5GB a month is someone who needs to be throttled and we have no say in that matter.
Thus leaving us to flip the bill.
post #26 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by YvesVilleneuve View Post

Unlimited plans is utopian nonesense.

 

Then why did the carriers offer them? This isn't a case of consumers cheating the system. The carriers oversold their network and now want to claw back some bandwidth at the expense of paying customers.

 

Since none of the service analogies have convinced you, let's try making the "product" a physical object. Let's say Apple has a sale on Mac Pros. They sell so many that they run out. Instead of making more, Apple tells you that once you've used the one you bought for 100 hours in any given month you'll have to start sharing it. See, they sold one to your neighbour too, but they don't have one to give him so you have to let him use yours. Does that make sense to you? If not, then neither does limiting one's data use after an arbitrary threshold.

 

If the carriers can't keep up with demand it's up to them to produce more product. That is, build out the network to support the plans they offered and sold.

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 #27 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

Then why did the carriers offer them? This isn't a case of consumers cheating the system. The carriers oversold their network and now want to claw back some bandwidth at the expense of paying customers.

Since none of the service analogies have convinced you, let's try making the "product" a physical object. Let's say Apple has a sale on Mac Pros. They sell so many that they run out. Instead of making more, Apple tells you that once you've used the one you bought for 100 hours in any given month you'll have to start sharing it. See, they sold one to your neighbour too, but they don't have one to give him so you have to let him use yours. Does that make sense to you? If not, then neither does limiting one's data use after an arbitrary threshold.

If the carriers can't keep up with demand it's up to them to produce more product. That is, build out the network to support the plans they offered and sold.
I don't understand your analogy, probably because it isn't a real world Apple product/service.

These unlimited plans should never have been grandfathered-in in the first place. Telecoms or consumers never actually anticipated the ultimate success of smartphones. The marketplace is always changing.

I don't believe anyone should be throttled unless everyone is being throttled. If Telecoms don't have enough capacity they have two choices: raise prices or increase capacity.
post #28 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by YvesVilleneuve View Post

These unlimited plans should never have been grandfathered-in in the first place.

 

But unlimited plans WERE grandfathered, voluntarily, by the carriers, just like it was the carriers who offered the plans in the first place! What anyone thinks SHOULD have happened is irrelevant. The issue at hand is how to deal with the situation the carriers created for themselves. It's not fair to penalize the buyer because the seller sold more product than he could deliver.

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 #29 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moreck View Post

Wheeler's just angry because Verizon called the FCC out on their bulls**t.

One of those times when it would be really nice to have a "thumbs down" option...

post #30 of 65
My answer is stop the grandfather clause. If the telecoms can't legally do it then the government should give telecoms the power to do it since it violates the government's Net Neutrality policy anyhow.
post #31 of 65

The more I think about this the more I'm convinced that Verizon is doing the most reasonable thing. When I

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 

 

But unlimited plans WERE grandfathered, voluntarily, by the carriers, just like it was the carriers who offered the plans in the first place! What anyone thinks SHOULD have happened is irrelevant. The issue at hand is how to deal with the situation the carriers created for themselves. It's not fair to penalize the buyer because the seller sold more product than he could deliver.

Except that when the grandfathered plans were first sold was before 3G and well before LTE.  Even with throttling it's faster than EDGE, so how are they being penalized?  Show me where in my grandfathered AT&T contract it says that they have to provide me X mbps or whatever.  You can't expect Red Lobster to serve you 1,000 shrimp an hour even if you pay for an "all you can eat" meal.  You're only entitled to stay until they close eating what they can serve you at a reasonable rate.  If you don't like it, next time eat somewhere else, or switch carriers.  Or read your contract more carefully next time.

post #32 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by YvesVilleneuve View Post

I don't understand your analogy, probably because it isn't a real world Apple product/service.

These unlimited plans should never have been grandfathered-in in the first place. Telecoms or consumers never actually anticipated the ultimate success of smartphones. The marketplace is always changing.

I don't believe anyone should be throttled unless everyone is being throttled. If Telecoms don't have enough capacity they have two choices: raise prices or increase capacity.

Again those unlimited data plans were not 'grandfathered'. Verizon does not allow anyone with a unlimited data plan to sign another contract with unlimited data. All those that still have unlimited data are either still using the same phone, bought a used one, or purchased one at full retail.
"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 65
Why now??

Simple, because Verizon made the simple mistake of just publicly announcing their plan to throttle Unlimited Customers and Making a Clear Distinction between Tiered Data & Unlimited Data Plans by treating them Differently When Using the 700MHz LTE Spectrum.

By treating Customers Differently when using LTE, Verizon is in Violation of the Agreement made with the FCC when they Purchased/Leased the 700MHz Frequency Block assigned to them. The Agreement Prohibits Any Interference by Verizon Which Would Inhibit a Customers Ability to Use the 700MHz Network.

Obviously Verizon's Lame Excuse of "Everyone Else Is Doing It" Should be irrelevant and the FCC needs to look at ALL CELL PROVIDERS NETWORK THROTTLING PRACTICES!!! That means AT&T, Sprint, T-mobile, & All The Regional Carriers Too!!!
post #34 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Again those unlimited data plans were not 'grandfathered'. Verizon does not allow anyone with a unlimited data plan to sign another contract with unlimited data. All those that still have unlimited data are either still using the same phone, bought a used one, or purchased one at full retail.
In any case, if the FCC wants to respect the spirit of net neutrality it has to make unlimited plans illegal. Verizon and others are perfectly within their rights to throttle speed, which happens to be more net neutral than the FCC's position. It's election year, so all you will get is posturing from the FCC. Maybe they will eventually see the light that not being hypocritical is more productive.
post #35 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

I'll leave the all-you-can-eat shrimp metaphor as an exercise for the reader.

 

Scene: Courtroom. Homer Simpson is suing the Sea Captain for deceptive advertisment, after being ejected from the defendant's “all-you-can-eat” seafood restaurant. Mr. Simpson's wife Marge is on the witness stand, being questioned by Lionel Hutz, attorney representing Mr. Simpson.

 

Mr. Hutz: Mrs. Simpson, what did you and your husband do after you were ejected from the restaurant?

Marge: We… pretty much went straight home.

Hutz: Mrs. Simpson, you're under oath.

Marge: We drove around until 3 am, looking for another all-you-can-eat fish restaurant. [Murmurs from courtroom audience]

Hutz: And when you couldn't find one?

Marge: We went fishing. [sobbing; Courtroom audience gasps]

Hutz: [to jury] Do these sound like the actions of a man who had all he could eat?

Jury members (all of whom appear overweight): No!

A jury member: That could've been me!

 

– from "New Kid on the Block", The Simpsons, Season 4, Episode 8 (12 Nov 1992).

post #36 of 65
Comcast here in the Bay Area just started a tiered plan where you can pay extra to have the internet work like it should.
post #37 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB88MacUser View Post

Verizon haven't told you that majority of Deaf and HH are still on Grandfather Unlimited plans.  Verizon doesn't want to reveal this to FCC and anyone else. Same for AT&T TAP Plan too.  We were very concern about their using illegal throttle on our Grandfather plans.

You may not realize that Video calls consumed 2-3 MB per minute.  

14 hours
 video calls =
1GB
data 

3GB = 42 hrs video calls monthly

6GB = 84 hrs video calls monthly

1oyvey.gif  Wireless carriers just throw in unlimited LD calls and unlimited SMS.
We all have to watch our data budget closely.

We rely on our Video calls thru Video Relay Service (VRS) and Point to Point calls. 
We must stress that it is illegal for any wireless carriers to put throttle on our video calls due to the protection of life, health, safety or property. (911 calls) - FCC.

How would you feel that if they put throttle on your voice calls? How about VoLTE? Both Verizon and AT&T want to use VoLTE to be a bill as voice calls not the data usage at all. The problem is that both LTE and VoLTE are on same data line (internet based). That is net neutrality violation!

We all want to make sure that we must have video interoperability  that need to have LTE and VoLTE to be integrate as interoperability.
You guys have all voice interoperability on every telephone and mobile devices, but we do not have video interoperability yet.

For this reason, we must have video interoperability so that we have choices to call either video call or voice call.  Video interoperability is for everyone. We must tell FCC and wireless carriers that throttle is illegal to use on Video & Voice calls on LTE/VoLTE. 

Bless to have iPhone in our hands!

This is ridiculous. Even at the best of times, video calls are hit and miss. I would think that text messaging is a lot faster and more reliable - especially in an emergency situation. Plenty of areas still don't have LTE coverage. Should that be illegal too? Should every carrier he forced to provide 100% coverage geographically?
Edited by tenly - 8/10/14 at 2:16am
post #38 of 65
Why do people assume that "unlimited" means "as much as the user wants". It could just as easily (and more realistically) be interpreted as "as much as the ISP is able to deliver". Personally, I think any grandfathered plan should have had its speed permanently throttled to the maximum speed that was available when the contract was originally signed. Why do users of a grandfathered plan assume that they are *entitled* to all of the speed increases that new technology and network upgrades have made possible AFTER they had signed their original contracts. As a group, these users seem like a bunch of whiny, self-entitled, selfish infants.

They should however be happy to know that all of the ISP's are now providing automatic rain checks! If your internet data is not in stock right at this exact moment, you can come back any night between 2am and 4am and there is a very good chance that the data you are looking for will be in stock (and they will probably even have your size!)

Seriously... The most fair way to deal with periods of saturation would be to equally throttle all users attached to the saturated tower until such time as the saturation subsides.
Edited by tenly - 8/10/14 at 2:46am
post #39 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenly View Post

Why do people assume that "unlimited" means "as much as the user wants". It could just as easily (and more realistically) be interpreted as "as much as the ISP is able to deliver". Personally, I think any grandfathered plan should have had its speed permanently throttled to the maximum speed that was available when the contract was originally signed. Why do users of a grandfathered plan assume that they are *entitled* to all of the speed increases that new technology and network upgrades have made possible AFTER they had signed their original contracts. As a group, these users seem like a bunch of whiny, self-entitled, selfish infants.

They should however be happy to know that all of the ISP's are now providing automatic rain checks! If your internet data is not in stock right at this exact moment, you can come back any night between 2am and 4am and there is a very good chance that the data you are looking for will be in stock (and they will probably even have your size!)

Seriously... The most fair way to deal with periods of saturation would be to equally throttle all users attached to the saturated tower until such time as the saturation subsides.

Ouch ... grandfathered in with 2G 1hmm.gif

You make a good point.

I am more than happy with the plan as is, I have never noticed any speed degradation personally and love the zero $ for data on our two iPhones. As usual some folks always take advantage of any system and ruin it for the others.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #40 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by lotones View Post

Comcast here in the Bay Area just started a tiered plan where you can pay extra to have the internet work like it should.

Classic Comcast thinking.

I had a GP for a while with that concept. Her great new idea was ... 'Pay extra to see her within a reasonable time or don't pay and always move to the back of the line of those that paid extra. She called it the 'Concierge Program'. I changed doctor
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • FCC chairman slams Verizon's 'all the kids do it' defense to data throttling
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › FCC chairman slams Verizon's 'all the kids do it' defense to data throttling