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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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!
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.
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?
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.
Not buying Verizon's position on this. This is seller's regret: they now regret that they sold unlimited data plans and have grandfathered them.
The problem with throttling is that it makes the task you're trying to accomplish impossible. If they throttle you while you're streaming music, the music hiccups or stops playing. It's not just that if you send an email, it takes four seconds instead of two seconds, which would be acceptable.
If Verizon gets away with this you know that AT&T will do the same thing. And I am never willingly giving up my unlimited data plan - it's not that I actually use all that much data each month - it's that I don't want to worry or have to monitor how much I am using to avoid overage charges.
And if either company stops grandfathering people and forces them to switch to another plan, it opens the door for consumers to switch companies when their contracts expire. I stick with AT&T primarily to keep the unlimited data plan.
I believe the FCCs issue with Verizon here is that it is singling out Unlimited plan users, thus punishing those users alone to try to get them to change their habits or their plans.
I think if Verizon were to say that they were going to throttle all of the top 5% of data users in a congested area the FCC would be fine with that. That is not what Verizon is doing though, they are only going to throttle the top 5% of data users if they have unlimited plans.
I agree with the FCC here. Verizon is the one that offered the unliited plans. If they didn't plan ahead for people using a lot of data that is their own fault for poor planning. They should not be able to punish the customer for their poor planning. If they don't want unlimited data customers anymore they should just cancel those plans, which they can do. They just don't want to do it because there would be a huge backlash. Instead they try a bunch of underhanded sneaky things to try to make it difficult/frustrating to keep those plans and try to get people to switch away from them on their own, thinking that it will keep the backlash to a minimum.
If they got a new phone they won't be able to break free from the contract without penalty.
My slippery slope is silly. Until it isn't. Once you are locked into a contract you can't leave for the competition. If you allow Verizon to breach contract without consequence now they will only continue to nickel and dime consumers. You need to cut that off now.
It's my understanding that all these unlimited plans are grandfathered plans that are well outside of the period where a new phone is being paid off. I don't believe Verizon offer an Unlimited plan any more.
And since no one is locked in, the slippery slope falls over. Verizon can't force their customers to tolerate a breach of contract, the customer can at the very least change their contract, or leave Verizon if they want.
Yep, people sure are prevented from driving more than others¡
In some ways they are, if you consider what you mean by "more".
You can't drive a vehicle that is wide enough to occupy more than one lane without some very special circumstances.
You need a different kind of license and insurance if you are driving an especially large and/or heavy vehicle.
The price of petrol/gas means that the more you drive the more you pay, and there are usually additional taxes on petrol increasing that variable cost.
Insurance rates may penalise you for mileage if you drive a lot.
So you don't get "unlimited" driving at the same cost of regular driving.
I'm grandfathered with AT&T with unlimited data for $30 a month since the year after the iPhones came out. I chose that plan, paying $5 extra a month, so I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY about occasionally going over plan & being charged extra. My average has been about 1.7 to 1.9 gigs of usage, which was consistently below the the $25 2gig plan. Only once in the last 6 yrs, did I get a message giving me a heads up indicating I had used 4 gigs of data, yet no threat of throttling. That was just after they allowed FaceTime on phone data & ran it out of novelty.
Users using 20-40gigs a month on their 'unlimited' plan, during peak times, adversely affecting others on the network, should be throttled. Let them watch their Netflicks movies during non-peak hours.
It's very generous for some of you to advocate the elimination of my unlimited plan, my options, my choices.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Verizon presents a perspective, but is that the best one?
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.
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?
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.
The problem with throttling is that it makes the task you're trying to accomplish impossible. If they throttle you while you're streaming music, the music hiccups or stops playing. It's not just that if you send an email, it takes four seconds instead of two seconds, which would be acceptable.
If Verizon gets away with this you know that AT&T will do the same thing. And I am never willingly giving up my unlimited data plan - it's not that I actually use all that much data each month - it's that I don't want to worry or have to monitor how much I am using to avoid overage charges.
And if either company stops grandfathering people and forces them to switch to another plan, it opens the door for consumers to switch companies when their contracts expire. I stick with AT&T primarily to keep the unlimited data plan.
I believe the FCCs issue with Verizon here is that it is singling out Unlimited plan users, thus punishing those users alone to try to get them to change their habits or their plans.
I think if Verizon were to say that they were going to throttle all of the top 5% of data users in a congested area the FCC would be fine with that. That is not what Verizon is doing though, they are only going to throttle the top 5% of data users if they have unlimited plans.
I agree with the FCC here. Verizon is the one that offered the unliited plans. If they didn't plan ahead for people using a lot of data that is their own fault for poor planning. They should not be able to punish the customer for their poor planning. If they don't want unlimited data customers anymore they should just cancel those plans, which they can do. They just don't want to do it because there would be a huge backlash. Instead they try a bunch of underhanded sneaky things to try to make it difficult/frustrating to keep those plans and try to get people to switch away from them on their own, thinking that it will keep the backlash to a minimum.
I definitely abuse that. I drive 2, and sometimes 3 cars at once.
If they got a new phone they won't be able to break free from the contract without penalty.
My slippery slope is silly. Until it isn't. Once you are locked into a contract you can't leave for the competition. If you allow Verizon to breach contract without consequence now they will only continue to nickel and dime consumers. You need to cut that off now.
It's my understanding that all these unlimited plans are grandfathered plans that are well outside of the period where a new phone is being paid off. I don't believe Verizon offer an Unlimited plan any more.
And since no one is locked in, the slippery slope falls over. Verizon can't force their customers to tolerate a breach of contract, the customer can at the very least change their contract, or leave Verizon if they want.
Yep, people sure are prevented from driving more than others¡
In some ways they are, if you consider what you mean by "more".
You can't drive a vehicle that is wide enough to occupy more than one lane without some very special circumstances.
You need a different kind of license and insurance if you are driving an especially large and/or heavy vehicle.
The price of petrol/gas means that the more you drive the more you pay, and there are usually additional taxes on petrol increasing that variable cost.
Insurance rates may penalise you for mileage if you drive a lot.
So you don't get "unlimited" driving at the same cost of regular driving.
You can’t drive a vehicle that is wide enough to occupy more than one lane…
See, this is why car analogies never work.
Just because it contradicts your view doesn't mean the analogy doesn't work.
But broadly, I agree; car analogies rarely work. Analogies in general aren't great for any close inspection.
It contradicts the discussion entirely. Number of vehicles is the only meaningful analogy, not the wideness of them! My stars.
Users using 20-40gigs a month on their 'unlimited' plan, during peak times, adversely affecting others on the network, should be throttled. Let them watch their Netflicks movies during non-peak hours.
It's very generous for some of you to advocate the elimination of my unlimited plan, my options, my choices.