I understand your point and even, to a point, agree with it. One small group of users should not cause harm to the entire class. But, the way to fix that is not throttling. Let heavy users pay for the excessive bandwidth.
Or maybe, build enough infrastructure to handle your customer's demands?
Personally, I like the way T-Mobile does it. You get unlimited data at full speed, up to 2 Gigs. After 2 Gigs per billing cycle, you get reduced speeds for the balance of the billing cycle. Easy, predictable and fair. They tell you up front what to expect, and the deal is the deal.
The way Verizon is doing it, you get screwed in month 2 if you need lots of data in month 1. Not only that, you never quite know if or when you will reach the cap. By using percentages instead of hard numbers, they can screw around with impunity.
Or maybe, build enough infrastructure to handle your customer's demands?
Personally, I like the way T-Mobile does it. You get unlimited data at full speed, up to 2 Gigs. After 2 Gigs per billing cycle, you get reduced speeds for the balance of the billing cycle. Easy, predictable and fair. They tell you up front what to expect, and the deal is the deal.
The way Verizon is doing it, you get screwed in month 2 if you need lots of data in month 1. Not only that, you never quite know if or when you will reach the cap. By using percentages instead of hard numbers, they can screw around with impunity.
I see it from the other angle and give more credit to VZW than T-Mobile. VZW is essentially saying that we're not even going to do this unless it becomes a problem at a specific cell site.
If the users who get throttled think paying for their usage, instead of having others pay for their usage, is a better option, they are encouraged to do that. It's what everyone without an unlimited plan does.
VZ's stock price is up over 50% in the last 3 years, and they currently pay a dividend of over 5%. I think that the "others" you refer to need not refer to your fellow customers.
ISTM that those who have paid for unlimited data should get exactly what they pay for, rather than being subject to a changing deal for an unchanging price. The stockholders, who put capital at risk based upon the deals made with customers, should accept the risk and, if necessary, make somewhat less profit.
I see it from the other angle and give more credit to VZW than T-Mobile. VZW is essentially saying that we're not even going to do this unless it becomes a problem at a specific cell site.
If VZ sells more data plans than their existing equipment can handle, then IMO they need additional infrastructure. Maybe instead of throttling 5% of existing customers, they should increase network capacity to handle the traffic that is generated by their ever-increasing customer base? Seemingly, they are increasing the subscriber base faster than they are increasing network capacity able to handle the new customers.
If a customer uses data, and then later VZ sells huge amounts of data plans in his neighborhood without increasing network capacity, the original customer gets screwed.
If VZ sells more data plans than their existing equipment can handle, then IMO they need additional infrastructure.
If a customer uses data, and then later VZ sells huge amounts of data plans in his neighborhood without increasing network capacity, the original customer gets screwed.
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
If you think VZW is doing nothing to increase capacity, then say so and give some evidence to support it.
Agreed, I bet there will be a tiny [1] after the word 'unlimited' in their advertising from now on that will be a reference to a footer in 3 point text saying "[1] Not really"
Why not simply state the facts clearly what ever they are? I'm sure most people understand the need for a cap of some kind to be fair to all but we should know exactly what it is and how it applies. No need for tricks. This is yet another of so many situations where the US BCP needs more teeth to bite those that play games (BTW I wish they'd apply this to political ads and speeches from all concerned). I quote: Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive; Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and Advertisements cannot be unfair. Wouldn't it be refreshing if these things were enforced!
I thought the US gov't was trying to remove regulation from industry, and if they can't do that, defund regulatory agencies that act as watchdogs of consumer protection. And all this in the name of growth and 'jobs creation.' This is what you get when such an agency has no teeth or the gov't sends an industry insider to the chair of that agency. Otherwise, we'd have free text messaging by now, there never would've been unlimited plans issued in the first place, and the largest mobile providers wouldn't have price collusion (nevermind the fact there are only 2 of them).
Finally, why doesn't Verizon just be the better person and give some arbitrary threshold before throttling. If they say top 5%, all they are doing is discouraging their own customers from using the products they purchased. If they put a cap of 2, 3, 4, or 5 GB before throttling, at least the customer would know what they can use before they'd get throttled and wouldn't have to wringe their hands every time they want to use their phone. Or better yet, build a 4G network that's worth upgrading to a tiered data plan. And for the sake of all things holy, put more than one or two tiers in the plans!!! This whole 2GB for tier 1, 4GB w/ tethering for tier 2, and oh there's no tier 3 plan is a bunch of bananas, excuse my language. :-P Some people (not me) want/need to use more data, let them pay for it. If you charge $70 a month for 10GB, you'll make more money off those users. And then I won't have to hear them complain about how they're getting throttled for using their jailbroken iPhones to illegally tether to a network and now they can't play WoW over 3G anymore.
Me too till I woke fully up! I was imagining NetFlix
BTW, you have FiOS in Spain?
Nah, FTTH isn't picking up steam in Spain yet, but cable companies are starting to offer nice speeds: 30/1, 50/5 and 100/10 Mbps with EuroDOCSIS 3.0 with no bandwidth caps or throttling.
I was just amazed with how in the US right now Comcast, AT&T and all these companies are going backwards instead of forward, and seeing the Verizon thing I immediately thought about FiOS with a 2 GB data cap and sh¡t my pants
Good to see that the cap is on the wireless network and not their FiOS
And in a couple months I'll be going back to America... but to the Southern part of the continent. Lets hope internet connections in northern Brazil aren't too bad \
So since I'm grandfathered into the discontinued 3GB plan, if I actually try to use what I'm paying for I will be punished for it??? What about the peeps that have the 5GB plan?
I can understand some of the complicated things these carriers are dealing with. However making their own customer base the villains for actually taking them to task that they will receive what they pay for is not a very healthy business model.
Throttling is so yesterday's news. Now it's the at&t/T-Mobile merger that has the whiners up in arms. I was watching Lewis C.K. on the comedy channel last night and his description of our society as a bunch of self-important, douche bag whiners with delusions of entitlement was spot on.
And gluttony, of food or data, is one of the deadliest of the seven sins.
Who's whining? We just understand that less competition is harmful to the marketplace for the consumer. Higher prices, less features, less service...all come with less competition. Those that truly believe in a free market society should also believe there should be ample competition in the marketplace, and avoid oligopolies and monopolies.
So, I have a mi-fi device, recently upgraded for the 4G network (and it is faster) with a 5Gb plan. Interesting too, upgrading the device caused them to reduce my monthly charge to $50.
According to this article I shouldn't expect to be throttled because I have a tiered plan and not unlimited. I'm paying for it by contract. I get that.
For those on "unlimited" plans, it's VRZ definition of unlimited. Which we have seen they can redefine with 6 month's notice. That sucks.
So since I'm grandfathered into the discontinued 3GB plan, if I actually try to use what I'm paying for I will be punished for it??? What about the peeps that have the 5GB plan?
I can understand some of the complicated things these carriers are dealing with. However making their own customer base the villains for actually taking them to task that they will receive what they pay for is not a very healthy business model.
I think we're alright. It states that if you are on a tiered plan you don't get throttled.
...the REQUIREMENT of having a smartphone data plan that comes from your voice/text provider. To have to pay $30 a month for each line even if you are using wifi 90% of the time. I have 3 smartphones on my plan and have to pay $90.00 a month for 200mb - that's all we use. What I would like is for the requirement to be lifted and the option of using a 3rd party dongle for 4G (like a Clear 4G device) that could be put in my pocket. I would use the Verizon dongle if they were competitive - but right now - since there is no competition for cellphone data without chucking the entire phone - there is no incentive to offer better service or pricing. I live in California and am actually looking into the proposition process to see if something like this could be put on the ballot....
Why aren't there any law suits against these telecommunication companies? When people sign a contract for unlimited data and can't get unlimited data then that is a breech of contract. Why aren't people going to their states attorney generals offices and filing complaints?
Throttling people to a slower speed is not allowing unlimited data. It is choking their ability to get unlimited data, because at the slower speed they won't be able to get the same amount of data they otherwise could receive.
At home I use sixty-five to eighty gigabytes of data each month. I use Skype, Netflix, and several different music streaming sources. I'll be moving into an RV next year. Even if I cut my usage in half as a mobile user it wouldn't come close to that 2 GB maximum.
The whole problem with the USA mobile networks is the government is in the pockets of the telecommunications companies. The government won't enforce contracts or require more upgrades to the networks.
In the 80s the telephone and cable TV companies promised to upgrade their networks to fiber optics in exchange for allowing monopolies within geographical areas. They didn't ever fulfill their commitment. The government just let them get away with it.
Wireless services are raping the public and it makes me wonder just how long the citizens will put up with it. There just isn't enough competition.
Why aren't there any law suits against these telecommunication companies? When people sign a contract for unlimited data and can't get unlimited data then that is a breech of contract. Why aren't people going to their states attorney generals offices and filing complaints?
Throttling people to a slower speed is not allowing unlimited data. It is choking their ability to get unlimited data, because at the slower speed they won't be able to get the same amount of data they otherwise could receive.
That is nonsense. The person is still allowed as much data as they can use, albeit at a slower speed.
If you want to use your interpretation, then I could sue because they won't allow me to download 50 petabytes of information in one month.
Or, I could sue an 'all you can eat' buffet for not allowing me to come there every night for the rest of my life after paying for one meal.
I think it is common knowlwedge that if your service provider changes something material on your contract, you can break it without having to pay the ETF. Is there any way this could qualify?
Sure it is still unlimited data - but the spirit of the offer is different.
Comments
I understand your point and even, to a point, agree with it. One small group of users should not cause harm to the entire class. But, the way to fix that is not throttling. Let heavy users pay for the excessive bandwidth.
Or maybe, build enough infrastructure to handle your customer's demands?
Personally, I like the way T-Mobile does it. You get unlimited data at full speed, up to 2 Gigs. After 2 Gigs per billing cycle, you get reduced speeds for the balance of the billing cycle. Easy, predictable and fair. They tell you up front what to expect, and the deal is the deal.
The way Verizon is doing it, you get screwed in month 2 if you need lots of data in month 1. Not only that, you never quite know if or when you will reach the cap. By using percentages instead of hard numbers, they can screw around with impunity.
Or maybe, build enough infrastructure to handle your customer's demands?
Personally, I like the way T-Mobile does it. You get unlimited data at full speed, up to 2 Gigs. After 2 Gigs per billing cycle, you get reduced speeds for the balance of the billing cycle. Easy, predictable and fair. They tell you up front what to expect, and the deal is the deal.
The way Verizon is doing it, you get screwed in month 2 if you need lots of data in month 1. Not only that, you never quite know if or when you will reach the cap. By using percentages instead of hard numbers, they can screw around with impunity.
I see it from the other angle and give more credit to VZW than T-Mobile. VZW is essentially saying that we're not even going to do this unless it becomes a problem at a specific cell site.
If the users who get throttled think paying for their usage, instead of having others pay for their usage, is a better option, they are encouraged to do that. It's what everyone without an unlimited plan does.
VZ's stock price is up over 50% in the last 3 years, and they currently pay a dividend of over 5%. I think that the "others" you refer to need not refer to your fellow customers.
ISTM that those who have paid for unlimited data should get exactly what they pay for, rather than being subject to a changing deal for an unchanging price. The stockholders, who put capital at risk based upon the deals made with customers, should accept the risk and, if necessary, make somewhat less profit.
I see it from the other angle and give more credit to VZW than T-Mobile. VZW is essentially saying that we're not even going to do this unless it becomes a problem at a specific cell site.
If VZ sells more data plans than their existing equipment can handle, then IMO they need additional infrastructure. Maybe instead of throttling 5% of existing customers, they should increase network capacity to handle the traffic that is generated by their ever-increasing customer base? Seemingly, they are increasing the subscriber base faster than they are increasing network capacity able to handle the new customers.
If a customer uses data, and then later VZ sells huge amounts of data plans in his neighborhood without increasing network capacity, the original customer gets screwed.
If VZ sells more data plans than their existing equipment can handle, then IMO they need additional infrastructure.
If a customer uses data, and then later VZ sells huge amounts of data plans in his neighborhood without increasing network capacity, the original customer gets screwed.
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
If you think VZW is doing nothing to increase capacity, then say so and give some evidence to support it.
First they came for the top 5%, but I did not speak out, because I am not in the top 5%...
Then the came for the texters, but I did not speak out because I am not a texter?
Agreed, I bet there will be a tiny [1] after the word 'unlimited' in their advertising from now on that will be a reference to a footer in 3 point text saying "[1] Not really"
Why not simply state the facts clearly what ever they are? I'm sure most people understand the need for a cap of some kind to be fair to all but we should know exactly what it is and how it applies. No need for tricks. This is yet another of so many situations where the US BCP needs more teeth to bite those that play games (BTW I wish they'd apply this to political ads and speeches from all concerned). I quote: Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive; Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and Advertisements cannot be unfair. Wouldn't it be refreshing if these things were enforced!
I thought the US gov't was trying to remove regulation from industry, and if they can't do that, defund regulatory agencies that act as watchdogs of consumer protection. And all this in the name of growth and 'jobs creation.' This is what you get when such an agency has no teeth or the gov't sends an industry insider to the chair of that agency. Otherwise, we'd have free text messaging by now, there never would've been unlimited plans issued in the first place, and the largest mobile providers wouldn't have price collusion (nevermind the fact there are only 2 of them).
Finally, why doesn't Verizon just be the better person and give some arbitrary threshold before throttling. If they say top 5%, all they are doing is discouraging their own customers from using the products they purchased. If they put a cap of 2, 3, 4, or 5 GB before throttling, at least the customer would know what they can use before they'd get throttled and wouldn't have to wringe their hands every time they want to use their phone. Or better yet, build a 4G network that's worth upgrading to a tiered data plan. And for the sake of all things holy, put more than one or two tiers in the plans!!! This whole 2GB for tier 1, 4GB w/ tethering for tier 2, and oh there's no tier 3 plan is a bunch of bananas, excuse my language. :-P Some people (not me) want/need to use more data, let them pay for it. If you charge $70 a month for 10GB, you'll make more money off those users. And then I won't have to hear them complain about how they're getting throttled for using their jailbroken iPhones to illegally tether to a network and now they can't play WoW over 3G anymore.
Oh sorry
/rant
Me too till I woke fully up! I was imagining NetFlix
BTW, you have FiOS in Spain?
Nah, FTTH isn't picking up steam in Spain yet, but cable companies are starting to offer nice speeds: 30/1, 50/5 and 100/10 Mbps with EuroDOCSIS 3.0 with no bandwidth caps or throttling.
I was just amazed with how in the US right now Comcast, AT&T and all these companies are going backwards instead of forward, and seeing the Verizon thing I immediately thought about FiOS with a 2 GB data cap and sh¡t my pants
Good to see that the cap is on the wireless network and not their FiOS
And in a couple months I'll be going back to America... but to the Southern part of the continent. Lets hope internet connections in northern Brazil aren't too bad
I can understand some of the complicated things these carriers are dealing with. However making their own customer base the villains for actually taking them to task that they will receive what they pay for is not a very healthy business model.
Determining data usage for the top 5% is a dynamic and challenging problem.
Well, as soon as you start throttling the top 5%, they drop off and there's now a new top 5%... Use this to throttle everyone ;-)
Throttling is so yesterday's news. Now it's the at&t/T-Mobile merger that has the whiners up in arms. I was watching Lewis C.K. on the comedy channel last night and his description of our society as a bunch of self-important, douche bag whiners with delusions of entitlement was spot on.
And gluttony, of food or data, is one of the deadliest of the seven sins.
Who's whining? We just understand that less competition is harmful to the marketplace for the consumer. Higher prices, less features, less service...all come with less competition. Those that truly believe in a free market society should also believe there should be ample competition in the marketplace, and avoid oligopolies and monopolies.
According to this article I shouldn't expect to be throttled because I have a tiered plan and not unlimited. I'm paying for it by contract. I get that.
For those on "unlimited" plans, it's VRZ definition of unlimited. Which we have seen they can redefine with 6 month's notice. That sucks.
So since I'm grandfathered into the discontinued 3GB plan, if I actually try to use what I'm paying for I will be punished for it??? What about the peeps that have the 5GB plan?
I can understand some of the complicated things these carriers are dealing with. However making their own customer base the villains for actually taking them to task that they will receive what they pay for is not a very healthy business model.
I think we're alright. It states that if you are on a tiered plan you don't get throttled.
keep their prices the same
improve their service so that people can at least make a phone call
update their customer service so that people can actually get customer service
i would love to move my verizon account (over 10 years) to another carrier (maybe sprint) who appreciates and does the right thing.
Would you vote in favor?
Throttling people to a slower speed is not allowing unlimited data. It is choking their ability to get unlimited data, because at the slower speed they won't be able to get the same amount of data they otherwise could receive.
At home I use sixty-five to eighty gigabytes of data each month. I use Skype, Netflix, and several different music streaming sources. I'll be moving into an RV next year. Even if I cut my usage in half as a mobile user it wouldn't come close to that 2 GB maximum.
The whole problem with the USA mobile networks is the government is in the pockets of the telecommunications companies. The government won't enforce contracts or require more upgrades to the networks.
In the 80s the telephone and cable TV companies promised to upgrade their networks to fiber optics in exchange for allowing monopolies within geographical areas. They didn't ever fulfill their commitment. The government just let them get away with it.
Wireless services are raping the public and it makes me wonder just how long the citizens will put up with it. There just isn't enough competition.
Why aren't there any law suits against these telecommunication companies? When people sign a contract for unlimited data and can't get unlimited data then that is a breech of contract. Why aren't people going to their states attorney generals offices and filing complaints?
Throttling people to a slower speed is not allowing unlimited data. It is choking their ability to get unlimited data, because at the slower speed they won't be able to get the same amount of data they otherwise could receive.
That is nonsense. The person is still allowed as much data as they can use, albeit at a slower speed.
If you want to use your interpretation, then I could sue because they won't allow me to download 50 petabytes of information in one month.
Or, I could sue an 'all you can eat' buffet for not allowing me to come there every night for the rest of my life after paying for one meal.
Sure it is still unlimited data - but the spirit of the offer is different.
Any lawyers here?
At home I use sixty-five to eighty gigabytes of data each month.
That's crazy on a mobile plan.