FCC Questioning All Carriers On Unlimited Throttling Policies

[ardy8888]

think again

Good point, speed is not unlimited nor guaranteed. I guess that's why VZ and the other carriers are operating within legal bounds when they do decide to throttle.

And as for being at the same speed; generally yes, that would be expected (and also the reason why VZ is doing this). However, there are providers (Switzerland comes to mind) that offer different speeds (within the LTE band) based on how much you pay.

-------------------
I see two ways to look at this. Both have the carriers in the wrong.
1 - If you've had an unlimited plan for several years, with no throttling of speed, that shows that the carriers agreed to no limits.
2 - If you limit the speed of data transfer, you in turn also are limiting the volume of data transfer in the specified amount of time (monthly contract).

The carriers are wrong to implement any limits on an UNlimited plan. I will disagree with anyone that states otherwise. It is not the customers fault that the carriers choose to offer the unlimited plan to attempt to entice people to switch to them. Their problem is that they didn't think things through well enough to expect that people would use such large amounts of data each month. The carriers are changing the meaning of the term 'unlimited' and our court system is allowing to continue. Very frustrating to me even though I use less than 1 gig per month, its still not right.

----------

You are somewhat correct. However remember VZW has not offered any unlimited plans for years. They have just allowed folks to keep (grandfather) theirs AFTER their current contract expired. They are under no obligation technically and could require users to change to their current plans once their existing contract is fulfilled.So if you sign up for X plan for 2 yrs then in year 3 they could say OK contract over, we no longer offer that package so pick one of these. They opted to allow folks to keep it though and never guaranteed any speed at which you can use the "unlimited amount" of data. Speed was never guaranteed during the contract term for that matter.

It doesn't matter if speed was guaranteed. The plan is unlimited! Any limits put in place void the contract. If I have an unlimited plan and I want to stream movies 24x7 for an entire month, I can do that. Just for numbers, let's say that on an unlimited and unthrottled plan that I would consume 30TB of data. If the carrier implements a throttle on me, then I am being limited in the amount of data I can consume, even though I have an unlimited plan. The carrier isn't playing by the rules, they are redefining the term 'unlimited'. There's no other way to look at this. ANY limit should be unacceptable on an unlimited plan!

----------

You are somewhat correct. However remember VZW has not offered any unlimited plans for years. They have just allowed folks to keep (grandfather) theirs AFTER their current contract expired. They are under no obligation technically and could require users to change to their current plans once their existing contract is fulfilled.So if you sign up for X plan for 2 yrs then in year 3 they could say OK contract over, we no longer offer that package so pick one of these. They opted to allow folks to keep it though and never guaranteed any speed at which you can use the "unlimited amount" of data. Speed was never guaranteed during the contract term for that matter.

So how would it work if you were in a low signal area and as such the speed was slower. Same argument? I have 3G not LTE so should I complain that my data isnt "unlimited" because by default I cannot download as fast therefore " you have just limited my data quantity." Absurd logic. Show me where in your contract that it guarantees any speed rate. If you can then you have a valid point. The whole " i am limited to how much data because I am as slower speed" is shortsighted my friend.

However this probably wont be an issue for much longer as the carriers will just cancel any unlimited plans (even grandfathered) and force users to purchase their current plans. Then folks can buy what they want or can afford.

Being connected to a 3G tower is not a limit implemented by the carrier to disallow you to use the unlimited plan as you wish. The 3G towers were put up long before the 4G towers were. The throttling that is going into effect on Oct 1 by Verizon is an intentional step taken to limit a customer's unlimited plan.

Why are so many people defending the greedy carriers?? I just don't understand. A throttle is a limit! On a lawn mower, the manufactures place a governor on the carb to limit the amount of fuel that can enter the carb. It limits the throttle. Carriers throttling a data connection is in now way any different.

 

[mac.cali]

For those on Verizon, can you check your august bill? Specifically the fine print. If someone has one, can you post what it says? Want to make sure I'm reading it correctly. The fine print relates to the throttling terms.

 

[C DM]

For those on Verizon, can you check your august bill? Specifically the fine print. If someone has one, can you post what it says? Want to make sure I'm reading it correctly. The fine print relates to the throttling terms.

What does yours say?

 

[TECHNOLOGE]

Being that the FCC is questioning all wireless providers throttling policy, this is a for sure thing that may keep the people that have these existing Unlimited Data Plan happy being throttling may be a thing in past because now the FCC is stepping in.

 

[I7guy]

Being that the FCC is questioning all wireless providers throttling policy, this is a for sure thing that may keep the people that have these existing Unlimited Data Plan happy being throttling may be a thing in past because now the FCC is stepping in.

I do t quite think that us going to happen, the flip side is VZW could cancel all unlimited plans and be within their rights.

 

[tbrinkma]

Yup, they keep offering the same terms where nothing states about any speeds being guaranteed (and that whole thing meaning that they therefore can't throttle because that's not in the contract is stretching the whole "in favor" argument beyond what it would apply to), and it also states they can stop offering the plan or change something about it with simply notice and your rights are then to accept it or not and leave.

Yes, they *could* simply stop offering the plan.
No, they *haven't* done so.

No, I don't just have the choice to "accept it or not". My rights under the contract *also* include making sure that, so long as *I* uphold my end of the contract, that *they* uphold theirs. So long as they keep offering a contract which *doesn't* specify that I can be treated as a second-class user of their network, I will continue to demand that I am *not* treated so.

An unclear/ambiguous contract is generally a nightmare for both sides, but it can be a gold mine for the non-drafting party. That's why companies go through great lengths to draft *clear* contracts, including using vast swaths of 'boilerplate' language which has already been vetted (and survived) court cases. Their failure to anticipate something does not excuse the lack of specificity in the contract language. (Especially since a simple reading of said contracts show that they didn't avoid or ignore the general topic altogether.)

 

[C DM]

Yes, they *could* simply stop offering the plan.
No, they *haven't* done so.

No, I don't just have the choice to "accept it or not". My rights under the contract *also* include making sure that, so long as *I* uphold my end of the contract, that *they* uphold theirs. So long as they keep offering a contract which *doesn't* specify that I can be treated as a second-class user of their network, I will continue to demand that I am *not* treated so.

An unclear/ambiguous contract is generally a nightmare for both sides, but it can be a gold mine for the non-drafting party. That's why companies go through great lengths to draft *clear* contracts, including using vast swaths of 'boilerplate' language which has already been vetted (and survived) court cases. Their failure to anticipate something does not excuse the lack of specificity in the contract language. (Especially since a simple reading of said contracts show that they didn't avoid or ignore the general topic altogether.)

You might want to re-read that contract as it states they can make changes and notify you of them and you either accept them or leave essentially. I'm not saying that it's good or right, I'm just saying that it's there, and we've agreed to it by choosing to get service with those terms.

 

[tbrinkma]

You might want to re-read that contract as it states they can make changes and notify you of them and you either accept them or leave essentially. I'm not saying that it's good or right, I'm just saying that it's there, and we've agreed to it by choosing to get service with those terms.

You'd have a point there *IF* they had made any notification of such a change to the contract to their customers. There's no evidence to suggest that they have.

I believe we're probably in agreement that terms allowing one party to unilaterally change the terms of a contract should be null and void, but that's a side topic.

 

[C DM]

You'd have a point there *IF* they had made any notification of such a change to the contract to their customers. There's no evidence to suggest that they have.

I believe we're probably in agreement that terms allowing one party to unilaterally change the terms of a contract should be null and void, but that's a side topic.

The news release is such an announcement, and there is an announcement about the change included on (at least affected) customers' bills, which is one of the primary ways of announcing things to users.

 

[tbrinkma]

The news release is such an announcement, and there is an announcement about the change included on (at least affected) customers' bills, which is one of the primary ways of announcing things to users.

Actually, no. A news release isn't a contract change, because it is not a communication between the two parties to the contract. There is no guarantee that a news release will *ever* be seen by the other party.

That's why these adjustments are done with inserts in with bills. The fact that the second party received the bill can be verified by the fact that they *paid* said bill.

 

[C DM]

Actually, no. A news release isn't a contract change, because it is not a communication between the two parties to the contract. There is no guarantee that a news release will *ever* be seen by the other party.

That's why these adjustments are done with inserts in with bills. The fact that the second party received the bill can be verified by the fact that they *paid* said bill.

Well, as I mentioned, these were/are in the bills as well. That pretty much addresses that part of it all.