Verizon throttled California fire department's data as it fought wildfires
A net neutrality complaint claims the Santa Clara County Fire Department had its data throttled by Verizon as it acted to put out California's raging Mendocino wildfire, an action the company later said was a mistake.
Despite paying for unlimited data, the Santa Clara County Fire Department's data was throttled by Verizon Wireless, even as the department fought the Mendocino Complex fire earlier this month.
According to Ars Technica, the department has alleged the throttling as part of a multistate lawsuit seeking to block the FCC's reversal of net neutrality rules.
"County Fire has experienced throttling by its ISP, Verizon," Santa Clara County Fire Chief Anthony Bowden wrote in a declaration."This throttling has had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services. Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services."
It goes on to allege that the department needed to pay more to Verizon in order to stop the throttling, even as it fought the fires. A similar situation had taken place during the fighting of two previous fires last year.
Verizon admitted, in a statement, to Ars, that it mishandled the situation.
"In this situation, we should have lifted the speed restriction when our customer reached out to us," Verizon said. "This was a customer support mistake. We are reviewing the situation and will fix any issues going forward Like all customers, fire departments choose service plans that are best for them. This customer purchased a government contract plan for a high-speed wireless data allotment at a set monthly cost."
The throttling incident all happened following the official end of net neutrality in June.
Despite paying for unlimited data, the Santa Clara County Fire Department's data was throttled by Verizon Wireless, even as the department fought the Mendocino Complex fire earlier this month.
According to Ars Technica, the department has alleged the throttling as part of a multistate lawsuit seeking to block the FCC's reversal of net neutrality rules.
"County Fire has experienced throttling by its ISP, Verizon," Santa Clara County Fire Chief Anthony Bowden wrote in a declaration."This throttling has had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services. Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services."
It goes on to allege that the department needed to pay more to Verizon in order to stop the throttling, even as it fought the fires. A similar situation had taken place during the fighting of two previous fires last year.
Verizon admitted, in a statement, to Ars, that it mishandled the situation.
"In this situation, we should have lifted the speed restriction when our customer reached out to us," Verizon said. "This was a customer support mistake. We are reviewing the situation and will fix any issues going forward Like all customers, fire departments choose service plans that are best for them. This customer purchased a government contract plan for a high-speed wireless data allotment at a set monthly cost."
The throttling incident all happened following the official end of net neutrality in June.
Comments
“Verizon also noted that the fire department purchased a data service plan that is slowed down after a data usage threshold is reached.”
So to cover up its mistake, County Fire has sent out the distraction squirrel of net neutrality. The political operatives in charge must think the average Californian is an idiot.
Edit; I say this as natural disaster reponse is my job: it is shockingly poor risk management to rely on the phone company changing settings for data access in the middle of a crisis. Too much could go wrong at many steps in the process. It is something that should never be a consideration, because the likelihood of a glitch happening somewhere along the decision/action chain is too high for the potential consequences. If it is claimed money is the issue, let the head honchos do without corporate lunches at the monthly meetings.
blaming Verizon for a stuff up is like asking why a dog sniffs another dog’s backside. Trying to launch the net neutrality distraction squirrel is contemptible. Bottom line the fire department failed in its risk assessment process.
I blame both Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) and Verizon. SCCFD should have looked for the worst-case-scenario for their data usage and Verizon should have cleared the SCCFD data limits as both a public service and good will service.
On some rare occasions, contracts aren't set in stone. Yeah, the lawyers might think otherwise.
You buy an unlimited plan with an advertised speed (usually in huge type) and then hidden in the small print is a clause that actually says “I know you think you’ve got an unlimited plan at the speed we’ve emblazoned in bold nice and big, but actually you don’t because if you use more than a certain amount of data we’re going to slow you down”.
This is not unlimited then is it! It is a speed capped service depending on data usage. This is the problem in my opinion and the sooner companies were forced to be honest and clear the better. Having to read the “small print” to find this BS is not the answer.
you can’t rely completely on the internet in emergency situations, you have to have backup plans in place always.
So more blame to Verizon. Verizon shouldn’t sell plans as unlimited that really aren’t unlimited.
When the Fire Department called, Verizon should have lifted the throttling first, and explain the limitations of its plan later.
Maybe the CEO of Verizon didn’t know the fire department called, but I’m sure the customer service person knew it was talking to the fire department. It was Verizon that put in place the system that didn’t allow the customer service person to lift the restriction based on the matter.
Further, this has little to do with net neautralilty unless Verizon was prioritizing some data over other data than it does. The FCC chairman and ISPs didn’t have any problem lying to have net neutrality rules revoked, so I don’t find it problematic net neutrality supporters use this story to its advantage.
They also found recordings of Enron making fun of “old ladies” at home and in hospitals who would force the city to accept Enron’s exorbitant fees to bring it back.
Sick corporate cultures.