Verizon Responds to FCC's Concerns Over Unlimited Data Throttling, Says Plan is Legal

[kenroberts83]

Btw 4.7GB is a heavy user?!

I checked my bill, and most months I used less than 0.5 GB. My peak was about 1.9 GB while traveling. So I would say that yes, 4.7 GB is a heavy user. You're obviously downloading quite a few videos and/or apps over your cellular connection, which you should only be doing on wifi.

I know everyone wants a perfect world with free fast wireless internet, but this is still 2014. I still remember having to pay by the minute for landline internet access at 56k. Be patient people, we've come a long way in a short time period. It takes time for technology to develop. The first iPhone was only released 7 years and 9 days ago. Now nearly everyone has touchscreen smartphones with 4G LTE, consuming gigabytes per month. That's amazing.

 

[C DM]

I'm confused. If they do this on a high activity towers then stop the throttling once that tower is not being used so highly they why the hell do they plan to throttle you for the rest of your billing cycle?! Btw 4.7GB is a heavy user?! It's 2014 and you're touting this fast LTE that with an X in the name coming soon will be even faster so 4.7GB with happen quick. Wouldn't it be easier to just say we don't want you *******s on unlimited anymore and just yank it? Would respect you more than these BS explanations.

Probably because it doesn't say that and you won't be throttled everywhere at all times after that for the rest of the billing cycle.

 

[kenroberts83]

Perhaps it would seem more fair if the max speed for every user on the tower was lowered during peak usage, and then raised again afterwards.

Is it fair to give everyone the same level of service, even though some users are paying far more? Obviously not. The customers paying for their data in full should receive priority. Let the unlimited guys switch to a normal plan, or eat whatever crow they're given. They're lucky they've been grandfathered along for this long anyway.

----------

Why can't Verizon, AT&T and the rest just cut off the unlimited plans and force the users onto the regular plans that everyone else has?

Verizon may resort to that if the FCC forces them to, but I think they're attempting to keep most of their unlimited customers with the company. If they cancel their plans, they may switch to a competitor. Better to just lose the top 5%.

 

[4jasontv]

Well, if we take the airline example, they will get those oversold people there but on a different flight or in a different way which will often mean getting here later...sounds like limited throttling doesn't it.

With the load in different cells at times it's essentially either everyone suffers slow speeds or some get throttled so that the rest of the average majority isn't as badly affected. There's no way to get away from at least some people being affected in some places sometimes, the best that can be done is finding ways to optimize so that less people are affected in lesser ways...which is what they are doing. Of course that's short of the magical utopia where there's unlimited infrastructure already present everywhere.

In any case, with everything said, if there is something against some actual regulation that can be enforced then something like the FCC is what would get to do it. Ultimately nothing we say here matters only what they or a similar agency end up doing if anything at all. So what it comes down to is that we will see what happens.

Well, if we take the airline example, they will get those oversold people there but on a different flight or in a different way which will often mean getting here later...sounds like limited throttling doesn't it.

In any case, with everything said, if there is something against some actual regulation that can be enforced then something like the FCC is what would get to do it. Ultimately nothing we say here matters only what they or a similar agency end up doing if anything at all. So what it comes down to is that we will see what happens.

People expect compensation when they are bumped. They also don't expect to be bumped from every flight they take going forward.

The lack of utopia does not make their behavior alright. The FCC stated, quite simply I feel, that they need to find another solution.

Yes though, you're right about us. Sadly nothing will happen. Remember when the FCC fined Verizon one and a quarter million for charging customers $20 to tether? It was part of the 700 MHz auction. What happened? Verizon paid the fine but stayed pretty hush hush about it. You know, unless you were on an unlimited plan. They still charged those customers.

 

[kenroberts83]

No there isn’t and your math must be terrible?
Right, say they limit my speed to 10Mbps. After one hour I’m sure you can work out that they have in effect just introduced a cap but have used semantics to gloss over it.
What happens if that cap is 2Mbps?

You sound like the kind of customer they would love.
When they put out Terms and conditions, (and I’m talking any industry here), they jump all over you if you breach them, yet they are allowed to put crap in them that doesn’t make sense.
Seems some people will just yak it up.

When those plans were implemented, 4G didn't exist yet. Those are grandfathered plans, and you're getting far more for your buck than you originally signed up for.

There are competitors in the wireless industry. You are free to switch if you don't like Verizon's service.

----------

Not for people to randomly interpret

Why not, that's what they do with our constitution these days.

 

[4jasontv]

Is it fair to give everyone the same level of service, even though some users are paying far more? Obviously not. The customers paying for their data in full should receive priority. Let the unlimited guys switch to a normal plan, or eat whatever crow they're given.

Unlimited guys are paying for their data too.

They're lucky they've been grandfathered along for this long anyway.

Grandfathering used to be a way to reward loyalty. Stay through the contract and you can keep the plan once it's over.

----------

Verizon may resort to that if the FCC forces them to, but I think they're attempting to keep most of their unlimited customers with the company. If they cancel their plans, they may switch to a competitor. Better to just lose the top 5%.

True. They might also be worried that the top 5% may have an unbalanced influence on the decisions of the bottom 95%. Many people have a computer person they solicit advice from before they buy a new laptop. Same goes for cell phones.

 

[kenroberts83]

The question worth asking is if grandfathering consumers plans when upgrading to an LTE device extended the offer to unlimited LTE data. I think Verizon would be hard pressed to demonstrate that they clearly distinguished that consumers would be billed for 3G and LTE in different manners. Especially since consumers saw no separation of charges on their bill.

You do realize that if this legal argument is pushed too far, the net result is only going to be Verizon ending ALL unlimited plans? Is that what you what? If you think that they're going to continue to allow some users to use 100+GB of data per month, while paying the same rate as someone contracted to only 2GB, I have a bridge to sell you.

Those customers are not under ANY contract and can be cancelled at any time. Is that what you want?

 

[alexgowers]

If Verizon offered the deal of unlimited internet in older contracts they should have to honour that no matter what.

Don't offer something you are never going to deliver on.

I don't get fair usage when unlimited is used. It's unlimited if you are slowing down a user it's not unlimited so why advertise it.

If you don't want people on older plans don't release plans that you can't keep simple. Retroactively changing the deal is called breaking a contract.

It's just a shame no one cares enough to help change the mobile industry and regulate it bit better. Data is so important and everyone is getting screwed.

 

[kenroberts83]

Unlimited guys are paying for their data too.

Not enough to avoid throttling over 4.7 GB of data, obviously.

Grandfathering used to be a way to reward loyalty. Stay through the contract and you can keep the plan once it's over.

Times change. Ford won't still sell you a Model T for $1000, no matter have loyal you've been. The technical and economic environment has changed significantly for verizon since the days of unlimited data, when most of us had 3G iPhones that couldn't even play online video (flash).

 

[4jasontv]

You do realize that if this legal argument is pushed too far, the net result is only going to be Verizon ending ALL unlimited plans? Is that what you what? If you think that they're going to continue to allow some users to use 100+GB of data per month, while paying the same rate as someone contracted to only 2GB, I have a bridge to sell you.

Those customers are not under ANY contract and can be cancelled at any time. Is that what you want?

I will respond to your straw man argument with a resounding "maybe". Having unlimited data is meaningless if they can define unlimited in any way they want. So if they can massage the plan everyone already lost it.

It would be best to have the costs and services clearly understood by all parties.

So making noise on this issue might lead to a clearer understating of what occurs when ones contract has expired. That's what caused the issue, right?

 

[kenroberts83]

If you don't want people on older plans don't release plans that you can't keep simple. Retroactively changing the deal is called breaking a contract.

There are no contracts here. Those contracts were completed years ago. There's also no advertising. They want all customers to use non-unlimited plans. I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on here.

Also, I don't want the government involved if I can avoid it. I can switch to a competing cellphone company easily, if I don't like their policies. It's not so easy to switch governments.

----------

I will respond to your straw man argument with a resounding "maybe". Having unlimited data is meaningless if they can define unlimited in any way they want. So if they can massage the plan everyone already lost it.

It would be best to have the costs and services clearly understood by all parties.

So making noise on this issue might lead to a clearer understating of what occurs when ones contract has expired. That's what caused the issue, right?

I don't think you have any idea what a "strawman" is. That's really quite funny.

If all you're trying to do is inform people on unlimited plans of their impending throttling, then that's just fine. From what I've seen on the other threads, however, most of you are clamoring for an FCC intervention.

 

[4jasontv]

I can switch to a competing cellphone company easily, if I don't like their policies. It's not so easy to switch governments.

Where do you live? Here in the States those roles are reversed.

 

[4jasontv]

I don't think you have any idea what a "strawman" is. That's really quite funny.

Clearly not. What do you call it when someone attempts to oversimplify so its easier to dispute? Doesn't matter. It's far more complicated than simply 100GB vs 2GB. There are questions about what grandfathered means. Clearly the FCC has a different opinion than Verizon. How does bandwidth get billed, and what recourse do consumers have for performance issues. Verizon may have paid for the spectrum, but it's property of the US government and must serve the good of the people.

More questions thus arise from all of this, and yeah, it might be good for the FCC to intervene. We aren't asking for free service. Some people want to keep what they were promised. They have a right to voice why they feel they should. Me? I would like clarification from an authority on the rights of the carrier and the consumer. I make better choices when I am educated. Most of us do.

 

[roland.g]

So Verizon has introduced XLTE, only to throttle the usage of your now faster data.

That's like saying we upgraded your bandwidth to Formula One Racing, ok now bring out the Pace Car.

 

[adeedew]

I checked my bill, and most months I used less than 0.5 GB. My peak was about 1.9 GB while traveling. So I would say that yes, 4.7 GB is a heavy user. You're obviously downloading quite a few videos and/or apps over your cellular connection, which you should only be doing on wifi

Well hello what I assume to be a Verizon rep. Why should you be telling me what I use on a wifi connection when I pay for unlimited data? If I was paying for a 2gb plan like yourself I would put those stipulations on myself. That's the point here people who bought into unlimited is to not be bothered by thinking about it these things to being that freedom and not to just a use it and run Netflix all day. There is a difference. And if you're one on the go as you say travel a lot or whatever you do why would you tell us how to use our unlimited plan? You're right it isn't 2007 and we weren't paying $15 per GB on LTE then where we?

 

[C DM]

Well hello what I assume to be a Verizon rep. Why should you be telling me what I use on a wifi connection when I pay for unlimited data? If I was paying for a 2gb plan like yourself I would put those stipulations on myself. That's the point here people who bought into unlimited is to not be bothered by thinking about it these things to being that freedom and not to just a use it and run Netflix all day. There is a difference. And if you're one on the go as you say travel a lot or whatever you do why would you tell us how to use our unlimited plan? You're right it isn't 2007 and we weren't paying $15 per GB on LTE then where we?

Comes at the cost of occasionally being throttled in congested areas at congested times.

----------

So Verizon has introduced XLTE, only to throttle the usage of your now faster data.

That's like saying we upgraded your bandwidth to Formula One Racing, ok now bring out the Pace Car.

Even upgrades bandwidth isn't limitless and can still have congestion. This is a way to optimize that congestion when and where it does happen so that at least the average users can have some average speeds instead of everyone crawling. Few for the good of many vs. just everyone.

----------

If Verizon offered the deal of unlimited internet in older contracts they should have to honour that no matter what.

Don't offer something you are never going to deliver on.

I don't get fair usage when unlimited is used. It's unlimited if you are slowing down a user it's not unlimited so why advertise it.

If you don't want people on older plans don't release plans that you can't keep simple. Retroactively changing the deal is called breaking a contract.

It's just a shame no one cares enough to help change the mobile industry and regulate it bit better. Data is so important and everyone is getting screwed.

For those under contract nothing changes. Those not under contract have no contract to be honored or honor, based on your reasoning, so changes can be made. What was promised has been delivered as what was promised was no data overages, which still don't exist for such users on or off contract.

 

[yeah]

Why can't Verizon, AT&T and the rest just cut off the unlimited plans and force the users onto the regular plans that everyone else has?

We live in a data world. Even calls are starting to go through data (VoLTE). Unlimited data is essential, especially when 5G comes out and we start connecting more things to the internet.

If a carrier kills unlimited data, they are screwing over a ton of customers (especially if they kill grandfathered users of unlimited data).

 

[mcfmullen]

(Before people bitch, it works like this on lots of things, don't want to sit in slow rush hour traffic on the freeway, take the toll bridge which is always flowing at speed fine, etc)

This is such a false allusion and I'm tired of seeing it. It is wrong by several angles:

1) you already paid the toll by paying for you plan: you can pay for a plan without unlimited data, which costs more, or a plan with limited data that costs less.

2) there is no option to pay extra to remove the speed limitation therefore there is no toll bridge option to pay for even if you wanted to. You can't "add speed" or "add data" to an UNLIMITED plan.

3) Toll roads and toll bridges don't necessarily have no traffic. They only have less traffic because less people use it in relation to other roads. That doesn't mean the toll bridge or toll road NEVER has traffic jams on it.

4) in the same vein, the unlimited plan is grandfathered, which means that there are inherently fewer people on that plan just as there are fewer people paying the toll. In this sense, you're suggesting the people already on the toll bridge pay another toll to get off of it.

5) toll bridges and toll roads are separate traffic roads that are not attached to the main flow of traffic. No such thing exists for cellular traffic and isn't legally allowed to exist in traditional internet infrastructure. In your allusion, you'd pay a toll to stay in the same flow of traffic as everyone else who isn't paying a toll simply because of how often you use the road (the size of the car is the same for everyone, you can't carry more data at a time than the maximum speed). Therefore you do not constitute a larger strain on the infrastructure than anyone else. It's like having an infrastructure limit stating no user can own a car larger than a Civic (LTE limitation) but you will charge a toll on 5% of civics because they use the highway too often. What too often means varies and is never the same on a given day or time. Tolls simply do not work this way. You either pay your monthly fee to access your data plan or you pay per use when you're a tourist (roaming).

 

[Gasu E.]

After reading the following, I actually don't think Verizon has any ground to stand on, and I understand why the FCC is questioning this move.

While true that most of Net Neutrality has been struck down in court, this is different. This is coded into law: Code of Federal Regulations. This is what VZW bought into and has to abide by it.

Specifically, 47 CFR 27.16 (c)(1) which can be found in its entirety here. It's not a long read either. Or, if you prefer, here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol2/pdf/CFR-2011-title47-vol2-sec27-16.pdf

The specific part I'm quoting says the following:

"The potential for excessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network."

The key is how you define the word "potential". Specifically, it could be interpreted as meaning "the capability to generate excessive demand", as opposed to "actually" generating excessive demand.

It seems to me unlikely that Federal code would specifically forbid the management of actual congestion.

 

[mcfmullen]

It seems to me unlikely that Federal code would specifically forbid the management of actual congestion.

Actual congestion is caused by poor network infrastructure due to ignorance of any potential congestion. It isn't the users fault.

 

[dmunz]

When those plans were implemented, 4G didn't exist yet. Those are grandfathered plans, and you're getting far more for your buck than you originally signed up for.

There are competitors in the wireless industry. You are free to switch if you don't like Verizon's service.

Not true. I signed up for unlimited LTE when they released the Thunderbolt. As I recall this was the first LTE phone on the network and they offered unlimited data for life.

I've kept my plan, jumping from the T-Bolt to a Rezound to my Note II. My usage is all over the map. Some months I use essentially nothing, some I go over 20GB. But it is not just the data, it is also the pricing. I think I pay $30 a month after discounts for my data plan.

So I'm not just concerned about the unlimited data, I don't want to loose the rate.

FWIW
DLM

 

[C DM]

Actual congestion is caused by poor network infrastructure due to ignorance of any potential congestion. It isn't the users fault.

Its caused by reality and reality usually needs to be dealt with rather than ignored because a hypothetical utopia is being dreamt about.

 

[famoussasjohn]

I'll just start throttling my payments then.

Probably not the greatest idea as it can harm your credit more than hurt them.

 

[kas23]

There are no contracts here. Those contracts were completed years ago. There's also no advertising. They want all customers to use non-unlimited plans. I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on here.

Fact check time: There most certainly are contracts that offer unlimited data. I'm on AT&T and I sign a new contract (an agreement locking me into their service) every 2 years that explicitly state "unlimited data". That said, for those of you paying month-to-month for unlimited data, these are the people at risk.

 

[B4U]

So since everyone is driving 80 on I-75 around Atlanta where the limit is 55…it must be fine.
Sure thing, Verizon.