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

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 64
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,697member
    malax wrote: »
    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? :) .... You don't specifically contract for an unlimited amount of water in the first place. We did contract and for unlimited data. Just saying.
  • Reply 22 of 64
    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 <span style="line-height:1.4em;">per minute.  </span>

    <strong style="font-style:normal;line-height:1.4em;">14 hours</strong>
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;"> video calls =</span>
    <strong style="font-style:normal;line-height:1.4em;">1GB</strong>
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">data </span>

    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">3GB = 42 hrs video calls monthly</span>

    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">6GB = 84 hrs video calls monthly</span>

    :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!

    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.
  • Reply 23 of 64
    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.
  • Reply 24 of 64
    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.
  • Reply 25 of 64
    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.

  • Reply 26 of 64
    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.
  • Reply 27 of 64
    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.

  • Reply 28 of 64
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member
    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...

  • Reply 29 of 64
    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.
  • Reply 30 of 64
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member

    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.

  • Reply 31 of 64
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    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.
  • Reply 32 of 64
    zbr69zbr69 Posts: 1member
    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 [B]ALL CELL PROVIDERS NETWORK THROTTLING PRACTICES!!![/B] That means AT&T, Sprint, T-mobile, & All The Regional Carriers Too!!!
  • Reply 33 of 64
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 34 of 64
    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).

  • Reply 35 of 64
    Comcast here in the Bay Area just started a tiered plan where you can pay extra to have the internet work like it should.
  • Reply 36 of 64
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    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 <span style="line-height:1.4em;">per minute.  </span>

    <strong style="font-style:normal;line-height:1.4em;">14 hours</strong>
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;"> video calls =</span>
    <strong style="font-style:normal;line-height:1.4em;">1GB</strong>
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">data </span>

    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">3GB = 42 hrs video calls monthly</span>

    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">6GB = 84 hrs video calls monthly</span>

    :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!

    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?
  • Reply 37 of 64
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    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.
  • Reply 38 of 64
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,697member
    tenly wrote: »
    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 :\

    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.
  • Reply 39 of 64
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,697member
    lotones wrote: »
    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
  • Reply 40 of 64
    jupiteronejupiterone Posts: 1,564member
    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.

    When they figure that one out they should let the airlines know so they can stop bumping passengers off flights they intentionally oversold.
Sign In or Register to comment.