Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,441
30,642



Verizon Wireless today wrote a response letter to the FCC's concerns over its plan to throttle its grandfathered unlimited data customers during peak usage times, insisting that its upcoming usage restrictions are permitted under current law.

Penned by Verizon's SVP of Federal Regulatory Affairs, Kathleen Grillo, the letter (via The Verge) also points towards the unlimited data restrictions imposed by other carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint, which Verizon says are more draconian than its own throttling plans.

verizon_logo_500.jpg
More importantly, Verizon also hammers on the fact that every other major wireless provider in the United States -- AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile -- has already implemented some form of data throttling or "network optimization" as it's often called. Verizon goes a step further and says its competitors often have "less tailored" policies that can impact customers regardless of network congestion.
Click to expand...
Verizon goes on to emphasize the limited conditions under which its customers will experience LTE throttling, stating slowdowns will occur only at "particular cell sites experiencing unusually high demand" and noting that throttling will end when cell sites become less congested.

According to Verizon's website, throttling will also be limited to the top five percent of customers and only those who have completed their two-year contracts will be affected. As of July, Verizon's top five percent of users consisted of customers who used 4.7GB or more of data during the month.

Verizon's letter is in response to a strongly-worded letter sent last week by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, which stated he was "deeply troubled" by Verizon's throttling plans. In the missive, Wheeler sent Verizon a series of questions asking the company to explain its rationale for treating customers differently based on data plan type and asking whether the policy was justified under the FCC's Open Internet rules.

Verizon plans to begin throttling its high-usage LTE customers accessing congested network cells beginning on October 1, and it is unclear if the FCC will take steps to prevent the throttling.

As noted in Verizon's letter, several other carriers have implemented LTE usage restrictions for customers on grandfathered unlimited plans in an effort to encourage users to switch to pay-by-usage tiered data plans, but the FCC has intervened in Verizon's case due to Verizon's use of Upper C Block spectrum that is subjected to a open platform rule.

Article Link: Verizon Responds to FCC's Concerns Over Unlimited Data Throttling, Says Plan is Legal
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/08/04/verizon-fcc-throttling-dispute/
P

Pitmaster

macrumors member
Jul 13, 2014
51
0
Cute. I get to park whatever I want because "it's legal". Just because you say it is, doesn't make it so.
 
JosephAW

JosephAW

macrumors 603
May 14, 2012
5,945
7,895
I'm still on 3G sprint on my iphone. They only throttle streaming data on my unlimited plan to 1 megabits. All the rest is faster and I use about 8 gb a month.
 
J

joshuaclinton

macrumors member
Mar 28, 2014
65
102
MacRumors said:
are permitted under current law.
Click to expand...

The operations at Jurassic Park were legal and look how well that worked out. In the words of Dr. Ian Malcolm: "Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
 
A

acarney

macrumors 6502
Jul 3, 2007
322
53
Wasn't the original statement that the throttle would last for the rest of the month for the user? That's the part that bugs me. I'm fine for a company slowing down a grandfathered user on a cell site that's currently overcrowded BUT go ahead and let them get back to full force as soon as they move to the next site or the site becomes open again. Heck, big Red even could make more money off this IF they truly did it in the most fair way possible, they could then offer $5/mo or $10/mo "upgrade" to allow full speed on crowded cells for up to 1gig a month or some crap. As long as they were completely transparent and fair (only throttle top 5% and when overloaded, speeds return as soon as cell opens up or user is on new cell) then I would be fine with a plan like that. Give me my unlimited cake and let me eat it too.

(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)

The problem with verizon and others is that they do this kind of stuff shady or once you throttle you're stuck for the rest of the month. Seriously? At 2am I should still be throttled because I happened to post some photos to Facebook while walking through downtown during a peak time?
 
C

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
joshuaclinton said:
The operations at Jurassic Park were legal and look how well that worked out. In the words of Dr. Ian Malcolm: "Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
Click to expand...
Jurassic Park...seriously?
 
markyr17

markyr17

macrumors 65816
Apr 8, 2010
1,186
92
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 ex- cessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network."

This will be interesting. We will see what happens, I guess.

----------
acarney said:
Wasn't the original statement that the throttle would last for the rest of the month for the user? That's the part that bugs me. I'm fine for a company slowing down a grandfathered user on a cell site that's currently overcrowded BUT go ahead and let them get back to full force as soon as they move to the next site or the site becomes open again. Heck, big Red even could make more money off this IF they truly did it in the most fair way possible, they could then offer $5/mo or $10/mo "upgrade" to allow full speed on crowded cells for up to 1gig a month or some crap. As long as they were completely transparent and fair (only throttle top 5% and when overloaded, speeds return as soon as cell opens up or user is on new cell) then I would be fine with a plan like that. Give me my unlimited cake and let me eat it too.

(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)

The problem with verizon and others is that they do this kind of stuff shady or once you throttle you're stuck for the rest of the month. Seriously? At 2am I should still be throttled because I happened to post some photos to Facebook while walking through downtown during a peak time?
Click to expand...

The original article said you would be throttled until the cell site you are using is no longer under load.

See here for more info.
 
C

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
acarney said:
Wasn't the original statement that the throttle would last for the rest of the month for the user? That's the part that bugs me. I'm fine for a company slowing down a grandfathered user on a cell site that's currently overcrowded BUT go ahead and let them get back to full force as soon as they move to the next site or the site becomes open again. Heck, big Red even could make more money off this IF they truly did it in the most fair way possible, they could then offer $5/mo or $10/mo "upgrade" to allow full speed on crowded cells for up to 1gig a month or some crap. As long as they were completely transparent and fair (only throttle top 5% and when overloaded, speeds return as soon as cell opens up or user is on new cell) then I would be fine with a plan like that. Give me my unlimited cake and let me eat it too.

(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)

The problem with verizon and others is that they do this kind of stuff shady or once you throttle you're stuck for the rest of the month. Seriously? At 2am I should still be throttled because I happened to post some photos to Facebook while walking through downtown during a peak time?
Click to expand...
It wasn't: http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/article/2014/07/network-optimization.html

----------
markyr17 said:
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 ex- cessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network."

This will be interesting. We will see what happens, I guess.

----------



The original article said you would be throttled until the cell site you are using is no longer under load.
Click to expand...
What that specific part says is listed as being relevant "For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section", so it might not necessarily apply to what's happening with this. So, as you said, we'll see what happens.
 
PocketSand11

PocketSand11

macrumors 6502a
Jun 12, 2014
688
1
~/
joshuaclinton said:
The operations at Jurassic Park were legal and look how well that worked out. In the words of Dr. Ian Malcolm: "Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
Click to expand...

It's more applicable to those people using their LTE to download 100GB per month just because they can.

----------
C DM said:
What that specific part says is listed as being relevant "For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section", so it might not necessarily apply to what's happening with this. So, as you said, we'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

Here's (b)(1) and the relevant (a):
(a) Applicability. This section shall apply only to the authorizations for Block C in the 746–757 and 776–787 MHz bands assigned and only if the results of the first auction in which licenses for such authorizations are offered sat- isfied the applicable reserve price.
(b) Use of devices and applications. Li- censees offering service on spectrum subject to this section shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and appli- cations of their choice on the licensee’s C Block network, except:
(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the li- censee’s network
Click to expand...
Verizon uses 700MHz, but that seems like such a weird loophole that it's probably covered elsewhere. Anyway, the exception about "management or protection" of the network could be enough. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.)
 
markyr17

markyr17

macrumors 65816
Apr 8, 2010
1,186
92
C DM said:
It wasn't: http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/article/2014/07/network-optimization.html

----------

What that specific part says is listed as being relevant "For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section", so it might not necessarily apply to what's happening with this. So, as you said, we'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

Well, from the Government's website, I don't see exactly what you're referring to:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol2/pdf/CFR-2011-title47-vol2-sec27-16.pdf
 
C

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
markyr17 said:
Well, from the Government's website, I don't see exactly what you're referring to:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title47-vol2/pdf/CFR-2011-title47-vol2-sec27-16.pdf
Click to expand...
Same thing. It's in reference to what is discussed in the earlier paragraph which deals with the use of other devices of their choice on the network. Meaning it can be narrowly applicable as many legal things can be interpreted, and might not be applicable or relevant to some limited throttling of users on outdated unlimited plans that use up more than an average amount of data.
 
dysamoria

dysamoria

macrumors 68020
Dec 8, 2011
2,243
1,866
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.
 
W

winston1236

macrumors 68000
Dec 13, 2010
1,902
319
So they write a letter and ask a corporation if they think what they are doing is legal. Is anyone surprised Verizon responds yes?
 
A

acarney

macrumors 6502
Jul 3, 2007
322
53
"The policy remains in effect for a subscriber for the entirety of a billing period. If you’re still in the top 5 percentile of users at the end of that month, then the throttling policy continues for another billing period. But if you’re not, then all restrictions are lifted – at least until your next bill."

That must have been the part I was remembering that confused me. You guys are right, you only slow down when the pipe is actually full. Which I don't actually understand why that's such a huge fuss. Big Red is right, that IS better then what I would get with ATT. My Charter 100mbits cable connection only runs at like 50 to 60mbits midday, but after 10p that thing is blazing at 80+ mbit. How is that different? That it happens to everyone compared to just heavy users?

I hate my my unlimited being watered down, trust me. But I would be slowed down anyway by physics. If the site is overloaded, it's slow, period. All verizon is doing is making sure I'm the lowest spot on the totem pole. I actually can't even tell if they're capping the speed or just making my packets the least important. That could mean I get bursts of decent speed if I'm doing Facebook loading or something (if I get lucky and it's teetering at like 99% capacity) instead of just 100kbps hard limit no matter what.

Also, I totally still feel lucky that I never look at my data usage because "who cares?" I'm unlimited. I secretly smile when a friend (or family member, I'm horrible) gets a new iPhone with 1gig data or something and the first thing they do is turn off data usage or start asking where any public wifi is. GOOD! You limited guys run off to the wifi and be scared of huge overages. You limited people DON'T stream music because you don't really understand how much you can use before $$$. Keep that train of thought going so you shift as much usage OFF the network to stay safe within your cap so I can cruise by with my unlimited with good speeds!

(So if I'm throttled a little bit, stream all the music 1gig user, use all the data up, tomorrow on your drive home you'll be waiting till you reach wifi)

(Also, I'm on ATT, grandfathered unlimited from original iPhone days and probably use ~2gig a month, but if I travel, that might be 4 or 5gig. I don't abuse, but man not paying attention to it is great!)
 
C

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
dysamoria said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not sure that's how capitalism works. Sure, we'd want it to work that way, but then it wouldn't quite be capitalism.

----------
acarney said:
"The policy remains in effect for a subscriber for the entirety of a billing period. If you’re still in the top 5 percentile of users at the end of that month, then the throttling policy continues for another billing period. But if you’re not, then all restrictions are lifted – at least until your next bill."

That must have been the part I was remembering that confused me. You guys are right, you only slow down when the pipe is actually full. Which I don't actually understand why that's such a huge fuss. Big Red is right, that IS better then what I would get with ATT. My Charter 100mbits cable connection only runs at like 50 to 60mbits midday, but after 10p that thing is blazing at 80+ mbit. How is that different? That it happens to everyone compared to just heavy users?

I hate my my unlimited being watered down, trust me. But I would be slowed down anyway by physics. If the site is overloaded, it's slow, period. All verizon is doing is making sure I'm the lowest spot on the totem pole. I actually can't even tell if they're capping the speed or just making my packets the least important. That could mean I get bursts of decent speed if I'm doing Facebook loading or something (if I get lucky and it's teetering at like 99% capacity) instead of just 100kbps hard limit no matter what.

Also, I totally still feel lucky that I never look at my data usage because "who cares?" I'm unlimited. I secretly smile when a friend (or family member, I'm horrible) gets a new iPhone with 1gig data or something and the first thing they do is turn off data usage or start asking where any public wifi is. GOOD! You limited guys run off to the wifi and be scared of huge overages. You limited people DON'T stream music because you don't really understand how much you can use before $$$. Keep that train of thought going so you shift as much usage OFF the network to stay safe within your cap so I can cruise by with my unlimited with good speeds!

(So if I'm throttled a little bit, stream all the music 1gig user, use all the data up, tomorrow on your drive home you'll be waiting till you reach wifi)

(Also, I'm on ATT, grandfathered unlimited from original iPhone days and probably use ~2gig a month, but if I travel, that might be 4 or 5gig. I don't abuse, but man not paying attention to it is great!)
Click to expand...
That seems like a fairly good way of looking at it.
 
R

rmp71701

macrumors member
Nov 7, 2012
59
0
Not sure if anyone has asked/made this point yet: Is Verizon not just going to throttle all their unlimited users indiscriminately all the time (in order to get them to switch to a tiered plan)? I mean, how does John Q. Public really know what's going on with Verizon's service regarding peak times, heavy cell use areas, etc.?

In other words, Verizon can throttle the unlimited users anytime and all the time, making the claim that they were using at a peak time, in peak area. And the customers would never know if that is accurate or not. I'd like to hear someone else's thoughts on this...
 
C

C DM

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Oct 17, 2011
51,390
19,458
rmp71701 said:
Not sure if anyone has asked/made this point yet: Is Verizon not just going to throttle all their unlimited users indiscriminately all the time (in order to get them to switch to a tiered plan)? I mean, how does John Q. Public really know what's going on with Verizon's service regarding peak times, heavy cell use areas, etc.?

In other words, Verizon can throttle the unlimited users anytime and all the time, making the claim that they were using at a peak time, in peak area. And the customers would never know if that is accurate or not. I'd like to hear someone else's thoughts on this...
Click to expand...
People can notice if something is off all the time or just sometimes.
 
A

AdonisSMU

macrumors 604
Oct 23, 2010
7,297
3,047
People can move to T-Mobile if they live in a big city if Verizon's service and nickel and diming them isn't good enough. What about us users who pay by the Gig? Is VZN planning to limit them too?
 
baypharm

baypharm

macrumors 68000
Nov 15, 2007
1,951
973
rmp71701 said:
Not sure if anyone has asked/made this point yet: Is Verizon not just going to throttle all their unlimited users indiscriminately all the time (in order to get them to switch to a tiered plan)? I mean, how does John Q. Public really know what's going on with Verizon's service regarding peak times, heavy cell use areas, etc.?

In other words, Verizon can throttle the unlimited users anytime and all the time, making the claim that they were using at a peak time, in peak area. And the customers would never know if that is accurate or not. I'd like to hear someone else's thoughts on this...
Click to expand...

Good point. And You can bet Verizon is not going to let the cat out of the bag. Verizon agreed many many years ago to support open access. This was back when people used cell phones to talk with. Verizon and other companies no longer support net neutrality and that means that they can make a ton of dollars by letting you speed through the internet super fast lane IF you are willing to pay for it. By eliminating unlimited data plans they can charge more $$$ because someone somewhere is always willing to pay more to get faster internet. Verizon also could care less about its customers. They are loyal only to their shareholders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom