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

[I7guy]

Well, the car isn't always throttled in that example, only in some limited occasions when you would be on a congested road, and only if driven the car for thousands of miles already, and even then only if you are not under a contract with the rental agency at that point. They are basically saying that even though we have granted you the right of being able to use our unlimited plan that we haven't offered for years now, there are some restrictions that it comes with now in exchange for the right to use that no longer existing plan that you can use simply because we've allowed you to. Or you can definitely change to what is currently being offered and go with that without those restrictions.

But if driving the car is not really useable at 20mph or less, why offer the plan. Plans always come and go and with being with VZW for 15 years, I've seen my fair share.

VZW should make good and offer up a comparable plan at an equal price. Not make me switch for less and pay more. They could abolish the plan unilaterally, but I think they would get a raised eyebrow or two from dome regulatory agencies.

Anyway that is my opinion, and I disagree with your stance. Regardless of how I feel they are going ahead with it. We'll see how it plays out.

 

[C DM]

But if driving the car is not really useable at 20mph or less, why offer the plan. Plans always come and go and with being with VZW for 15 years, I've seen my fair share.

VZW should make good and offer up a comparable plan at an equal price. Not make me switch for less and pay more. They could abolish the plan unilaterally, but I think they would get a raised eyebrow or two from dome regulatory agencies.

Anyway that is my opinion, and I disagree with your stance. Regardless of how I feel they are going ahead with it. We'll see how it plays out.

Because a car is still useable at 20 MPH in just some occasions where it is being limited to that since in those occasions when the road congested and most wouldn't be able to go above 40 or 50 MPH anyway.

 

[I7guy]

Because a car is still useable at 20 MPH in just some occasions where it is being limited to that since in those occasions when the road congested and most wouldn't be able to go above 40 or 50 MPH anyway.

But when traffic is moving at speed and you are chugging along at 20 the car is not really useable. If everybody is crawling at 10, no issue. But when there is a big disparity in moving traffic vs you, it becomes apparent.

 

[C DM]

But when traffic is moving at speed and you are chugging along at 20 the car is not really useable. If everybody is crawling at 10, no issue. But when there is a big disparity in moving traffic vs you, it becomes apparent.

That is the trade off for being able to use one of the no longer offered special deals. Either that or using a current deal.

 

[I7guy]

That is the trade off for being able to use one of the no longer offered special deals. Either that or using a current deal.

And that is exactly why the FCC is questioning verizon.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

The question is not one of legality. It is one of ethics. And of course that means nothing to corporate America.

The only "freedom" in the market is the freedom corporations have to screw consumers. The market is supposed to serve society, not the reverse.

You sound like a socialist... ;-)

Corporations exist to provide a return to their investors. That 'return' is CASH baby! There are very few corporations left that give a poop about what they do and how it effects the totality of their environment. If corporations were actual people, they would be jailed and committed to a psych ward of a mental hospital, or be sitting on death row.

----------

That is the trade off for being able to use one of the no longer offered special deals. Either that or using a current deal.

Once again, like in healthcare, government, and so much more, we Americans pay more and get less. Ahh the smell of Capitalism...

It I had stock in the company, perhaps it wouldn't hurt so bad?

 

[C DM]

You sound like a socialist... ;-)

Corporations exist to provide a return to their investors. That 'return' is CASH baby! There are very few corporations left that give a poop about what they do and how it effects the totality of their environment. If corporations were actual people, they would be jailed and committed to a psych ward of a mental hospital, or be sitting on death row.

----------



Once again, like in healthcare, government, and so much more, we Americans pay more and get less. Ahh the smell of Capitalism...

It I had stock in the company, perhaps it wouldn't hurt so bad?

Well, not paying more, still paying less than what people are paying now and have been paying for some time, just with a condition that on occasion possibly getting things at a slightly slower rate than before.

 

[markyr17]

Well, not paying more, still paying less than what people are paying now and have been paying for some time, just with a condition that on occasion possibly getting things at a slightly slower rate than before.

Don't forget that Unlimited Data users don't get subsidies of $450, so as far as data goes, on average, I think they pay more than those without unlimited.

 

[C DM]

Don't forget that Unlimited Data users don't get subsidies of $450, so as far as data goes, on average, I think they pay more than those without unlimited.

It's the user's choice to do that or not. The price of the plan didn't change, nor are there any extra charges for overages, Verizon simply allowed the users to keep the plan based on various rules (which they certainly can keep on modifying if they want, down to just shutting down the plan), it's up to the users to stay on it (while it is still offered to them under the conditions that it is offered, or not.

 

[markyr17]

It's the user's choice to do that or not. The price of the plan didn't change, nor are there any extra charges for overages, Verizon simply allowed the users to keep the plan based on various rules (which they certainly can keep on modifying if they want, down to just shutting down the plan), it's up to the users to stay on it (while it is still offered to them under the conditions that it is offered, or not.

Semantics unlimited users still pay more

 

[C DM]

Semantics unlimited users still pay more

And get more as far as data for it.

 

[michaelsviews]

Verizon & AT&T both horrible IMHO

These companies make million's and probably spend million's in there network. And the advertisements and how much one is better than the other but in the end they get away with "throttling" because there networks Can't handle the demand's of the user's

It's amazing to see these over paid exec's stealing from the companies they work for when you can get rid of 75% of them put that money back into your product or products and probably have a higher profit, with out screwing the customer over.

 

[biglipps66]

Im actually pretty upset by this as well. Ive been with Vzw for a very long time and Ive spent tons of money with them on many lines.

It looks like Im currently averaging about 5.4gigs a month for the past 6 months or so now, this is Pandora and Waze app usage with some Clash of Clans. This is seriously crazy to think Ill be throttled in LA here. PISSED. Its seriously complete BS. The few hundred they get a month from me isnt enough for me to stream some music and share traffic reports apparently.

 

[JAT]

Don't forget that Unlimited Data users don't get subsidies of $450, so as far as data goes, on average, I think they pay more than those without unlimited.

My unlimited data cost me $23/month. That's actually far less than I would have paid under any plan since, certainly compared to the current absolute rip-off plan they have. When I bought my current phone, I added up the extra cost that a new plan (at a mere 2GB) would have been added to get the subsidy. It came out about even for 2 years, and would have cost more after that. I bought the phone at full price and retained unlimited. My normal usage is 1-1.5GB, but in June I used over 9GB, certainly glad I had that option.

Moot, now, since I just switched to Tmob.

 

[WorkerDrone]

I'm on a grandfathered unlimited plan (3G) and here's what VZW does to me:
I have a strong 3G signal on my phone at work.
I open Tumblr, FB, email, whatever, and it drops to a 1X signal.
I close the app and it goes back to 3G.

So it appears I always have a 3G signal, until I try to use the data.
My usage is about 1GB/month

This is repeatable any time of day or night at my work location, where I can look at the cell tower. It's a lightly populated suburban area.

At other locations I have better luck, but I get knocked down to 1X eventually everywhere.

 

[tbrinkma]

No speed guarantees were made as part of the plan, just no data overages, which still applies.

As for who to throttle, those who are on current plans and on contracts or those who are on outdated plans that the provider is basically doing a favor for by allowing them to remain on them and without a contract, seems like rational thought would point to the latter group as the ones to be affected.

If you actually have to throttle based on network congestion, then you throttle to make sure *everyone* gets an equal slice of the available network capacity.

Any ambiguity in a contract's terms is, by law, resolved in favor of the non-drafting party. So, absent contract terms that say the 'unlimited' users will be throttled first/more, then the 'unlimited' users should not be throttled any differently than the 'non-unlimited'.

Not terribly hard to understand.

 

[C DM]

If you actually have to throttle based on network congestion, then you throttle to make sure *everyone* gets an equal slice of the available network capacity.

Any ambiguity in a contract's terms is, by law, resolved in favor of the non-drafting party. So, absent contract terms that say the 'unlimited' users will be throttled first/more, then the 'unlimited' users should not be throttled any differently than the 'non-unlimited'.

Not terribly hard to understand.

Where does anything come up with everyone getting an equal slice? Are we talking about some socialist political utopia here? The whole ambiguity thing is not as blanket in application as it might seem. That said, we'll see what the FCC does since they haven't done anything of significance so far, and if they already had something clear to go on they would have acted.

 

[tbrinkma]

Where does anything come up with everyone getting an equal slice? Are we talking about some socialist political utopia here? The whole ambiguity thing is not as blanket in application as it might seem. That said, we'll see what the FCC does since they haven't done anything of significance so far, and if they already had something clear to go on they would have acted.

You must be being deliberately obtuse. When I spoke of 'getting an equal slice', I was referring to the instantaneously available bandwidth.

N users are currently downloading files.
The available bandwith isn't quite enough to support all of them getting a full-speed stream from their respective servers.
Each user should get 1/N of the bandwidth available at that moment.
Unless, of course, their respective contracts say that they may be treated worse than other users (which these contracts don't say).

And, yes, the ambiguity 'thing' *is* exactly as 'blanket in application' as several of us have pointed out to you. That's why companies go to *great* lengths to be *very* specific about duties, obligations, etc. for all parties involved in contracts before they finalize and sign them. Because the non-drafting party wins in cases of ambiguity. That's black letter of law.

 

[C DM]

You must be being deliberately obtuse. When I spoke of 'getting an equal slice', I was referring to the instantaneously available bandwidth.

N users are currently downloading files.
The available bandwith isn't quite enough to support all of them getting a full-speed stream from their respective servers.
Each user should get 1/N of the bandwidth available at that moment.
Unless, of course, their respective contracts say that they may be treated worse than other users (which these contracts don't say).

And, yes, the ambiguity 'thing' *is* exactly as 'blanket in application' as several of us have pointed out to you. That's why companies go to *great* lengths to be *very* specific about duties, obligations, etc. for all parties involved in contracts before they finalize and sign them. Because the non-drafting party wins in cases of ambiguity. That's black letter of law.

What the contract does say is that the carrier can make changes and notify the users about them and the users can then either accept them (by keeping their service) or not (by ending their service). Ultimately, that's what it comes down to anyway.

 

[tbrinkma]

What the contract does say is that the carrier can make changes and notify the users about them and the users can then either accept them (by keeping their service) or not (by ending their service). Ultimately, that's what it comes down to anyway.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the carrier actually *has* done the necessary "and notify the users" part? If not, then you've just undermined your own point.

 

[C DM]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the carrier actually *has* done the necessary "and notify the users" part? If not, then you've just undermined your own point.

The news release is such an announcement, and 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.