Why do people assume that "unlimited" means "as much as the user wants".
Because we know that words have definitions. That’s how language works.
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.
Talk about completely idiotic.
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.
Because that’s what the contract says. Try reading it sometime.
Note also that the telecom is on my side with this. They’re not going to waste money maintaining multiple nationwide networks. They’re going to drop support for the old crap as quickly as possible.
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.
Or, you know, ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY BUILDING OUT MORE INFRASTRUCTURE.
I'm not opposed to throttling. in essence. I get that companies sometimes need to shut down abusers and in this day and age killing someone's service is akin to killing their water. So they slow them down not cut them off. Fine.
It's how these companies do it that I don't like.
Only throttling unlimited plans not everyone for example. If I go over 20GB of cellular data in a month I've gone over, why does how I pay have to matter. Clearly they are doing it to try to get folks off those plans although they lied about their intent. If they don't want unlimited plans then they can legally kill them. So do it.
The limits they often use are way low. I remember when ATT tried to start throttling unlimited plans a few years ago. They set it at like 2GB a month but for the same money has the unlimited plan you could get a 3GB plan that wasn't ever throttled. Of course folks screamed foul. Even that amount to me is too low. It should be more like whatever the top plan is. So say like the top ATT personal use plan is 10GB a month, there is your throttling marker. After all, ATT clearly sees that as a reasonable amount to use or they wouldn't have a plan for it. So anything less than that is also reasonable. Over it however, not so much.
I feel similar about cable companies. I don't think they should be allowed to 'pre throttle'. By that I mean that if the lines can handle up to 100Mbps or whatever then that is what you sell. With clear information that that will be affected by traffic in the area because of how the lines work. If you want to set a throttling amount based on someone clearly hogging the line that's a different game. But make it reasonable. Throttling someone down 50% cause they went over 25GB a month in data use, not reasonable. But knocking say 10% off cause someone went over 100GB, maybe, knocking someone down 20% cause they went over 250GB, sure. Knocking someone down 30% for going over 500GB yeah. Knocking someone down 50% for going over 1TB (on a residential line) especially if its not the first time. heck yeah that is reasonable. Mind you I'm only talking about the remainder of the month and personal accounts not business. Plus I feel like we are well beyond the time for those franchise deals to be killed so there can be more than one cable/dsl/whatever in an area. Competition is good for consumers.
And the government perhaps needs to get very very very firmly behind the push to fiber. No, not perhaps. They do. Full Stop. Fiber, public wifi hotspots that aren't tied to a cable internet company and are networked so you don't have validate every time you move. Treat it like a utility with the same regulations about pricing etc. With the growth of wifi and wifi assisted voice calling this will be a huge help with a lot of issues. Even things like locating a 911 caller could be assisted by being able to triangulate wifi points alongside cell towers. Perhaps the city governments could work out some kind of tax deal with the internet services and carriers that they get a break if they help develop the systems in an area. etc
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.
And I agree that that is BS. Okay fine if they want to make you send them something that has a doctors signature that yes you are deaf or your hearing is under X level (to weed out scammers) but if you literally can NOT make a voice call and you are clearly using the data for a relay service then a discount is in order. Maybe not unlimited but some kind of money off. And you shouldn't be paying for voice you can't use.
frankly I think I would consider a class action suit against them for that nonsense.
Precisely - who deflects attention towards the regulatory body? Horrible. Haven't the consumers noticed that companies are getting too big and the mergers continually make things worse and worse for them? The Regulatory bodies should be protecting consumers, but they don't. In Canada, we have 3 big players and the government is seemingly powerless to stop them. The fix is in it seems, for the big corporations to keep squeezing consumers for more money - while stating that they have to throttle for whatever garbage excuse they put in. The fact is that other countries have amazing LTE coverage with no traffic issues because those companies had already seen the writing on the wall and invested in their networks. Verizon etc, don't want to spend money doin that - they want to keep making adjustments to their network / billing to squeeze as much as they can without any investment. the USA and Canada are Far behind in data transfer speeds. Just google it up and see for yourself. North Americans in general should be outraged.
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.
Who is entitled? I paid for an unlimited plan so I should continue to get it. It's not my fault the telecoms were short sighted.
Comcast here in the Bay Area just started a tiered plan where you can pay extra to have the internet work like it should.
I'm in San Jose and all I heard from Comcast was last week a request to restart my modem for increased speed. It went from 32mbps to 60mbps. Other than that, still no thottling or metered plans -- although there is always a threat of overages at some point in the future.
Unless I'm confused about something, these policies are about limiting a few to the benefit of many. Sounds customer friendly to me. Why should my phone be running slow because mr unlimited is torrenting game of thrones season 3 on their smartphone?
I actually look upon those days with fondness. I remember the days of family complaining that they would hear a busy signal when they'd try and call
I understand how you feel.
However, nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
You've forgotten waiting three minutes for a single image to download.
And God help you if that web page had MULTIPLE images. That was a coffee break there and then.
And web page design designed to address those technical limitations, like Geo(ugh!)cities.
And getting knocked offline every time that family member did try to get through.
Still, it beat having a floppy disk.
Personally, I try not to look back. More like look forward holding a mirror occasionally, although I'm not looking forward to the annihilation of privacy and the evil robot army that takes over the world. That's going to suck a bit.
You’ve forgotten waiting three minutes for a single image to download. And God help you if that web page had MULTIPLE images. That was a coffee break there and then.
Wheeler's just angry because Verizon called the FCC out on their bulls**t.
That is irrelevant. There is no reason to believe that the other companies will not face scrutiny. Ever notice how Apple garners a lot of attention from regulators? They are one of the largest in their industry, just like Verizon. When you grow to that size, shenanigans won't unless you have shill regulators. Regulators may not always have the resources to go after everyone simultaneously, but it's ridiculous for Verizon to deflect like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Note also that the telecom is on my side with this. They’re not going to waste money maintaining multiple nationwide networks. They’re going to drop support for the old crap as quickly as possible.
Or, you know, ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY BUILDING OUT MORE INFRASTRUCTURE.
This is something I hate about the telecoms. It happens with things like cable as well. Municipalities typically lease exclusive rights to a given company based on infrastructure proposals. The company implementing the infrastructure later decides it's too costly to implement certain things, and a single municipality may not have the resources to fight them on it in addition to other tasks. The FCC may not have unlimited resources, but they are at least much more formidable.
And the government perhaps needs to get very very very firmly behind the push to fiber. No, not perhaps. They do. Full Stop. Fiber, public wifi hotspots that aren't tied to a cable internet company and are networked so you don't have validate every time you move. Treat it like a utility with the same regulations about pricing etc. With the growth of wifi and wifi assisted voice calling this will be a huge help with a lot of issues. Even things like locating a 911 caller could be assisted by being able to triangulate wifi points alongside cell towers. Perhaps the city governments could work out some kind of tax deal with the internet services and carriers that they get a break if they help develop the systems in an area. etc
You probably already know this and I just misread, but fiber connections are throttled. In my area they are at least. You have to pay for a specific speed and it's tiered. Which is one of the reasons I agree with one of the posters above. When the plans were offered "Unlimited" they were not offering unlimited speed. Even the "throttled" speed they are talking about is still multiple times faster than when the original contract was written. As far as I see it, those contracts received a substantial upgrade even if/when throttled.
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.
You can request to have voice minute instead of voice plan. Be firm with them. You will save a lot $$$ with voice minute in the long run because you hardly ever use voice calls. They try to push us around with voice plan in order for them to extract extra profit that we never use the voice call on voice plan at all.
Except for some customers. Meaning any customer they choose, at any time, for any reason. So not at all.
Equality or nothing.
Their reasoning is thoughtful to me. We all share a finite capacity of bandwidth on a tower, which means congestion can happen. If I need important traffic updates, or need to look something up, I would rather be able to achieve that goal with the understanding that someone who streaming an entire Netflix movie may not be able to do that at that moment in a certain area. I don't feel like we're at the point yet where Verizon is abusing its throttling toolset, nor any telecom for that matter.
I will agree that companies bank more profits and dividend payouts at the expense of needed network capacity upgrades. But even Verizon has been working on it's XLTE rollout. They are one of the more aggressive companies in the nation when it comes to network investment.
If I need important traffic updates, or need to look something up, I would rather be able to achieve that goal with the understanding that someone who streaming an entire Netflix movie may not be able to do that at that moment in a certain area.
But that’s completely different than data caps and throttling on “unlimited” data.
But that’s completely different than data caps and throttling on “unlimited” data.
I'm mostly reacting to this part of the story:
"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."
Which more or less describes my scenario above. I wasn't aware of data capping on unlimited plans.
Comments
Because we know that words have definitions. That’s how language works.
Talk about completely idiotic.
Because that’s what the contract says. Try reading it sometime.
Note also that the telecom is on my side with this. They’re not going to waste money maintaining multiple nationwide networks. They’re going to drop support for the old crap as quickly as possible.
Or, you know, ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY BUILDING OUT MORE INFRASTRUCTURE.
It's how these companies do it that I don't like.
Only throttling unlimited plans not everyone for example. If I go over 20GB of cellular data in a month I've gone over, why does how I pay have to matter. Clearly they are doing it to try to get folks off those plans although they lied about their intent. If they don't want unlimited plans then they can legally kill them. So do it.
The limits they often use are way low. I remember when ATT tried to start throttling unlimited plans a few years ago. They set it at like 2GB a month but for the same money has the unlimited plan you could get a 3GB plan that wasn't ever throttled. Of course folks screamed foul. Even that amount to me is too low. It should be more like whatever the top plan is. So say like the top ATT personal use plan is 10GB a month, there is your throttling marker. After all, ATT clearly sees that as a reasonable amount to use or they wouldn't have a plan for it. So anything less than that is also reasonable. Over it however, not so much.
I feel similar about cable companies. I don't think they should be allowed to 'pre throttle'. By that I mean that if the lines can handle up to 100Mbps or whatever then that is what you sell. With clear information that that will be affected by traffic in the area because of how the lines work. If you want to set a throttling amount based on someone clearly hogging the line that's a different game. But make it reasonable. Throttling someone down 50% cause they went over 25GB a month in data use, not reasonable. But knocking say 10% off cause someone went over 100GB, maybe, knocking someone down 20% cause they went over 250GB, sure. Knocking someone down 30% for going over 500GB yeah. Knocking someone down 50% for going over 1TB (on a residential line) especially if its not the first time. heck yeah that is reasonable. Mind you I'm only talking about the remainder of the month and personal accounts not business. Plus I feel like we are well beyond the time for those franchise deals to be killed so there can be more than one cable/dsl/whatever in an area. Competition is good for consumers.
And the government perhaps needs to get very very very firmly behind the push to fiber. No, not perhaps. They do. Full Stop. Fiber, public wifi hotspots that aren't tied to a cable internet company and are networked so you don't have validate every time you move. Treat it like a utility with the same regulations about pricing etc. With the growth of wifi and wifi assisted voice calling this will be a huge help with a lot of issues. Even things like locating a 911 caller could be assisted by being able to triangulate wifi points alongside cell towers. Perhaps the city governments could work out some kind of tax deal with the internet services and carriers that they get a break if they help develop the systems in an area. etc
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.
And I agree that that is BS. Okay fine if they want to make you send them something that has a doctors signature that yes you are deaf or your hearing is under X level (to weed out scammers) but if you literally can NOT make a voice call and you are clearly using the data for a relay service then a discount is in order. Maybe not unlimited but some kind of money off. And you shouldn't be paying for voice you can't use.
frankly I think I would consider a class action suit against them for that nonsense.
Who is entitled? I paid for an unlimited plan so I should continue to get it. It's not my fault the telecoms were short sighted.
It’s Comcast, so all plans are metered. 250 gigs, last I heard.
Unless I'm confused about something, these policies are about limiting a few to the benefit of many. Sounds customer friendly to me. Why should my phone be running slow because mr unlimited is torrenting game of thrones season 3 on their smartphone?
Except for some customers. Meaning any customer they choose, at any time, for any reason. So not at all.
Equality or nothing.
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.
I actually look upon those days with fondness. I remember the days of family complaining that they would hear a busy signal when they'd try and call
I understand how you feel.
However, nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
You've forgotten waiting three minutes for a single image to download.
And God help you if that web page had MULTIPLE images. That was a coffee break there and then.
And web page design designed to address those technical limitations, like Geo(ugh!)cities.
And getting knocked offline every time that family member did try to get through.
Still, it beat having a floppy disk.
Personally, I try not to look back. More like look forward holding a mirror occasionally, although I'm not looking forward to the annihilation of privacy and the evil robot army that takes over the world. That's going to suck a bit.
Ah, the memories.
LOL!
You old softie!
Wheeler's just angry because Verizon called the FCC out on their bulls**t.
That is irrelevant. There is no reason to believe that the other companies will not face scrutiny. Ever notice how Apple garners a lot of attention from regulators? They are one of the largest in their industry, just like Verizon. When you grow to that size, shenanigans won't unless you have shill regulators. Regulators may not always have the resources to go after everyone simultaneously, but it's ridiculous for Verizon to deflect like that.
Note also that the telecom is on my side with this. They’re not going to waste money maintaining multiple nationwide networks. They’re going to drop support for the old crap as quickly as possible.
Or, you know, ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY BUILDING OUT MORE INFRASTRUCTURE.
This is something I hate about the telecoms. It happens with things like cable as well. Municipalities typically lease exclusive rights to a given company based on infrastructure proposals. The company implementing the infrastructure later decides it's too costly to implement certain things, and a single municipality may not have the resources to fight them on it in addition to other tasks. The FCC may not have unlimited resources, but they are at least much more formidable.
You probably already know this and I just misread, but fiber connections are throttled. In my area they are at least. You have to pay for a specific speed and it's tiered. Which is one of the reasons I agree with one of the posters above. When the plans were offered "Unlimited" they were not offering unlimited speed. Even the "throttled" speed they are talking about is still multiple times faster than when the original contract was written. As far as I see it, those contracts received a substantial upgrade even if/when throttled.
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.
You can request to have voice minute instead of voice plan. Be firm with them. You will save a lot $$$ with voice minute in the long run because you hardly ever use voice calls. They try to push us around with voice plan in order for them to extract extra profit that we never use the voice call on voice plan at all.
Except for some customers. Meaning any customer they choose, at any time, for any reason. So not at all.
Equality or nothing.
Their reasoning is thoughtful to me. We all share a finite capacity of bandwidth on a tower, which means congestion can happen. If I need important traffic updates, or need to look something up, I would rather be able to achieve that goal with the understanding that someone who streaming an entire Netflix movie may not be able to do that at that moment in a certain area. I don't feel like we're at the point yet where Verizon is abusing its throttling toolset, nor any telecom for that matter.
I will agree that companies bank more profits and dividend payouts at the expense of needed network capacity upgrades. But even Verizon has been working on it's XLTE rollout. They are one of the more aggressive companies in the nation when it comes to network investment.
But that’s completely different than data caps and throttling on “unlimited” data.
But that’s completely different than data caps and throttling on “unlimited” data.
I'm mostly reacting to this part of the story:
"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."
Which more or less describes my scenario above. I wasn't aware of data capping on unlimited plans.
...plans to slow down data speeds for a select group of high-use subscribers...
Ah, and that’s different still from what you said before. There’s...
Throttling anyone after a set amount of data because they are lying about “unlimited” data
Throttling high-use subscribers because they happen to use the most, regardless of what that amount is, and
Throttling everyone in a certain area when it is being used to capacity.