FCC Questions Verizon Plan to Throttle Some Unlimited Data Customers

[lordofthereef]

in a lot of words, yes. they put their foot in their mouths many years ago offering uimited and now they are pissed because of all the money they are missing. even though every phone company is worth BILLIONS. what pisses me off is them getting rid if subsidized phones. I liked signing a 2 year contract and getting a 200$ phone. I was debating if I could afford a 5.5 128Gb model iPhone. if I have to pay full price, I know I can't. it'll be like 1200$. I was already upset with 499!!!!! but, was going to do it. of course.

The highest retail on an iPhone right now is $850. If they keep the pricing structure the same and simply add another tier (keeping a 16gb entry level phone $650) that number will become $950. Still a lot of money, but not $1200. I simply don't see a phone going for that kind of number and selling well. Or maybe it will. We had a housing bubble due to people buying houses they can't afford. Maybe we see the same with phones lol.

 

[C DM]

This. There is no reason carriers must offer unlimited data to anyone. And there is no reason they couldn't charge a premium for unlimited data, to make it worth their while.

Although it's really odd to me that carriers ever offered unlimited data in the past, and honestly as data becomes cheaper and more prevalent, it should be *easier* for the carriers to provide unlimited data than it was, say, 5 years ago, when several of them actually offered unthrottled unlimited data but arguably no one needed it due to lack of apps / widespread usage of mobile devices.

The number of smartphones and people using smartphones was so small in those days in comparison and the type of data they would use was so much smaller in comparison as well (mostly basic email and some basic almost text only browsing at best with really no apps in existence that would use up much data). Offering unlimited didn't really matter much as most wouldn't be able to use all that much even if they actually tried (and there wasn't that much to try even).

 

[bushido]

There's free Wi-Fi hotspots everywhere now. Hell, even US Movie Theaters have free Wi-Fi now - a place where you shouldn't even be using your phone!

oh i wish. over here its mostly tmobile hotspots and they charge u redic sums for an hour if it isnt part of your mobile plan. hotels arent even free OR working in most places ive been to. not even airports or mc donalds. last time i went to starbucks i had a few seevices to sign into their wifi with. none were part of my mobile plan

 

[Truefan31]

I still have my UNLIMITED data on verizon.
I was month to month.
I upgraded AND kept my unlimited data until 10-2015.
I use it for spotify, iTunes match, FB, IG,EVERYTHING requires data.
Most wifi hot spots slow to a crawl because EVERYONE is on wi-fi.
Verizon LTE is faster.
They're telling me they won't throttle me in 9-2015 even if i reach 100GB
because I'm in contract but will on 10-2015 out of contract? makes no sense.
Until then, i will use as much as I can. I paid for UNLIMITED, period.
Makes me an a---hole? so be it. You guys were so quick to drop unlimited to get a phone at $200 never imagining paying MORE for data instead of the phone.

I'm with you on this. They expected u to pay your bill every month you should expect them to sustain your plan as long as u don't use an upgrade. Most people that hate on u hate because they don't have one honestly. I don't like wifi either in public places. Privacy and issues with speeds. Do people really think it's because of unlimited plans they have tiered plans now? Verizon/att were going to it regardless, stuff like this is always in the works long before it's announced. . It's a money grab for them, and it entices people to still get home internet with fios/u verse.

I've got an att iPad unlimited data plan. Never throttled. I use anywhere between 20-40 gigs a month but I've gone over 100 gigs before. I could do 100 tb it won't affect the network. Lol Verizon has commercials about streaming football games with it's xlte but they'll throttle after 4.7 gb

 

[jhulgan]

"Man, our infrastructure can't handle unlimited customers using this much data at our current $4.2 billions in profit. But it can totally handle the exact same amount of data from usage-based customers at $5-6 billion in profits"
Makes sense.

 

[gluckett]

I'm frustrated myself. I sold my att unlimited due to being throttled (we are actually saving money on our new plan but it's the principle of the matter).

If I had to guess iwhy it's vzw and nobody else itnwouldnbe because ofnthe spectrum they were sold and the conditions it was sold under. It's one of the reasons all of their LTE phones must sell unlocked out of the box. Just a guess as to why the FCC is involved regarding the throttling.

I finally caved and gave up the att unlimited as well myself not real long ago. I only hit the throttle point once I believe, but once I did, OUCH those speeds hurt. I end up paying less money every month and I can now use tethering, so it's not all bad at least.

 

[BigCanoe]

Isnt it true that the only customers left with unlimited data are grandfathered and not getting any device subsidies? Poor Verizon, tiny violin for them.

 

[maflynn]

I don't get it, ATT is able to do it, why is the FCC questioning VZW?

Also why doesn't VZW just stop the unlimited plan and move people to a tiered plan if they hate the unlimited plan so much?

 

[uhaas]

Some people have no choice

There are two use cases where people use more data that's not abuse IMHO.

1. You use this for work. Somoe people need to tether laptops and they can churn some data just doing email attachments.
2. Many rural customers may not have other options and this is the only Internet they can get. Mobile carriers were tapped to help provide this service and LTE was supposed for be the answer. For 10 years that was me until recently I was able to get a point to point connection via radio to a tower with a small ISP.

These people have no choice because people like Verizon insist they want to serve them this way, instead of offering wired service. They shouldn't be further pushed into the digital divide because of caps imposed by carriers because they refuse to offer other options.

 

[Waxhead138]

This was Strategy, Not Accidental

in a lot of words, yes. they put their foot in their mouths many years ago offering uimited and now they are pissed because of all the money they are missing. even though every phone company is worth BILLIONS. what pisses me off is them getting rid if subsidized phones. I liked signing a 2 year contract and getting a 200$ phone. I was debating if I could afford a 5.5 128Gb model iPhone. if I have to pay full price, I know I can't. it'll be like 1200$. I was already upset with 499!!!!! but, was going to do it. of course.

I worked for VZW (not a reseller, the actual company) from 12/01 to 6/08. The big picture of this was mostly planned, and this isn't tin foil hat stuff either. No accidents occurred, this was a strategic bet years ago that is playing out today exactly how they would have hoped. Waaaaay before the Iphone, (2004 or 2005, maybe even 03) when it was just terrible MS Mobile smartphones....unlimited tethered access used to run 44.99 / month. Predating even that was 44.99 unlim monthly mobile office kit plans...if anyone remembers those. Not many typical consumers bit at those prices, mainly just business people. So, magically the price gets lowered along the way, with a pretty good amount of emphasis / pressure / money given to us sales people to get people educated and sold on these plans.

They saw the profits in voice calling going out the window due to people becoming more disciplined, same thing happened with text. People get more disciplined, overage fees stop becoming a huge revenue source, and the next big thing becomes pay per entrée instead of buffet.

Watch....in the next 5-7 years, when the data revenue per GB train starts to slow, things will change. There will be a next big thing...I haven't a clue what that thing would be.....unless the scale of what is considered high data use just continues to go up. But watch.....some sort of bargain price on a new idea will crop up in the industry in the next few years, people will slowly begin to use it, and when the popularity soars, magically prices will go up with some ridiculous reason provided to justify. That's the pattern.

It's the drug dealer approach. Get 'em liking it, and once they're hooked / almost can't go back, jack the price and rake it in. It's no accident.


Edit: I agree about the loss of subsidized phones, a little pissed about that myself. It's coming. Again, monthly revenue = more important than customer satisfaction......although some would argue the new way is the better way. To each their own on the pay per month phone strategy.

 

[murdoc158]

All a good reason to go SIM-free, and go with T-Mobile.

Coverage would be the main reason to stick with Verizon.

 

[dmunz]

They said they wouldn't

I don't get it, ATT is able to do it, why is the FCC questioning VZW?

Also why doesn't VZW just stop the unlimited plan and move people to a tiered plan if they hate the unlimited plan so much?

Way back when they said they wouldn't. I don't remember the exact details but at one time they publicly said that if you maintained your plan they would not take it away from you. They would not subsidize any more phones, but you can keep the plan.

FWIW
DLM

 

[BigCanoe]

Coverage would be the only (main) reason to stick with Verizon.

Edited, you spoke my mind, almost.

 

[dstankus]

Where was the FCC back when AT&T throttled the crap out of our original iPhone unlimited data plans?

Verizon's lobbying checks bounced I guess...

 

[bunnicula]

I believe it can be at peak times if you are a user of a high amount of data (around 5 GB of more). So pretty similar to AT&T. That said...



It seems that where the difference might be is in the agreement that Verizon has with FCC in relation to spectrum it purchased for LTE.

Ahhh. That makes more sense. I personally believe that throttling should not be allowed. If they want to sell a service, they need to sell it. Don't have the infrastructure to support it? Spend some profits to build it, or stop offering it.

 

[kdarling]

"Man, our infrastructure can't handle unlimited customers using this much data at our current $4.2 billions in profit. But it can totally handle the exact same amount of data from usage-based customers at $5-6 billion in profits." Makes sense.

Well, no, that's not what they're saying, because obviously either too many unlimited users, or too many usage-based customers, would also result in slowdowns.

Remember, this only applies to users who are doing some heavy network usage at the moment things are congested. Web surfing, file downloading, etc are not really that intense.

Their most likely throttling scenario is like this: An unlimited user (or users) in NYC is/are viewing an HD video in realtime. Suddenly a subway arrives and multiple data users come upstairs, all checking their Facebook accounts.

If the video views and the new smaller network requests do not exceed a bandwidth quality threshold, no problem. But let's say it does.

Well, then it's time to share the bandwidth, because it's not fair for the newcomers to get little or no bandwidth at all. They deserve what they paid for, too.

So the realtime network optimization software is going to look where it can modify things so everyone gets a share for what they need. If the HD video user(s) have been doing this a lot, then their fair share is less than the other customers who also deserve some bandwidth... and who are paying as much or more for the data.

Coverage would be the main reason to stick with Verizon.

The main reasons people stuck with Verizon were always coverage and quality (as in almost zero dropped calls). Ironically, it was the separation of data and voice that made the latter so reliable, unlike with GSM networks doing voice + data over 3G.

Now let's think forward folks. What's coming up soon? Yep, Voice over LTE. That means they will definitely need network optimization that prioritizes voice over data.

It's all about providing the best experience for the most people. Bandwidth is limited. Real time choices have to be made.

Ahhh. That makes more sense. I personally believe that throttling should not be allowed. If they want to sell a service, they need to sell it. Don't have the infrastructure to support it? Spend some profits to build it, or stop offering it.

Again, unlimited = no data overage charges. It NEVER meant a certain speed.

I have an unlimited account, and I'm happy that Verizon grandfathered it for 3G and then even EXTENDED it to LTE without having to. I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth

 

[dstankus]

Verizon Wireless:

We have the nation's largest 4G LTE Network, we just don't want you to use it.

....without paying extra....

 

[GoCubsGo]

Way back when they said they wouldn't. I don't remember the exact details but at one time they publicly said that if you maintained your plan they would not take it away from you. They would not subsidize any more phones, but you can keep the plan.

FWIW
DLM

This is pretty true. As long as you continue to pay then you get unlimited data from VZW but you must always pay full price for your upgrades.

 

[xgman]

One day in the not to distant future, we will all be using 100's of GB of data a month and no one will think twice about it. It's inevitable. Data caps are the dinosaurs of the tech world. How can we progress if we purposely limit the very technology that we are producing? Anyone remeber a time when we didn't have unlimited texting for instance? It's just a matter of time.

 

[iF34R]

Or, you know, they have to actually pay for all that equipment you're using.

read below

"Man, our infrastructure can't handle unlimited customers using this much data at our current $4.2 billions in profit. But it can totally handle the exact same amount of data from usage-based customers at $5-6 billion in profits"
Makes sense.

exactly. Great post.

 

[bunnicula]

I finally caved and gave up the att unlimited as well myself not real long ago. I only hit the throttle point once I believe, but once I did, OUCH those speeds hurt. I end up paying less money every month and I can now use tethering, so it's not all bad at least.

I wish I could, but with 5 phones in this house, it's way cheaper to keep unlimited than switch to the new plans for us.

 

[C DM]

Ahhh. That makes more sense. I personally believe that throttling should not be allowed. If they want to sell a service, they need to sell it. Don't have the infrastructure to support it? Spend some profits to build it, or stop offering it.

Well, they did stop offering it long ago, they were and are somewhat fair about allowing those who already had it to continue having it, even though there's nothing requiring them to do it and they could have (and it sounds like probably should have) switched people over to current offerings.

 

[skwash]

... and I thought our politics was broken .

To be fair, pretty much all politics are broken regardless of location.

 

[C DM]

"Man, our infrastructure can't handle unlimited customers using this much data at our current $4.2 billions in profit. But it can totally handle the exact same amount of data from usage-based customers at $5-6 billion in profits"
Makes sense.

The difference is that it wouldn't be the same amount of data as higher prices would lead to some people using less data than they otherwise might. Basics of supply and demand at work. And if somehow magically the same amount of data does get used up then there's more money to invest in upgrading the infrastructure to support more bandwidth without cutting into profits, which no shareholder would really want a company to do. Overlooking those important pieces results in less than realistic conclusions being drawn.

 

[macduke]

Verizon's lobbying checks bounced I guess...

Hahaha this. Yes.

Sometimes I fantasize about how incredible our society would be without lobbyists. Corporations would be held more accountable to consumers, we would breathe cleaner air, we would all get better service as companies could no longer corner the market, there would be more innovation, people in general would be less stressed out because corporate greed would be minimized. Obviously this is a best-case scenario outcome, but it would be wonderful. But I may as well keep dreaming, because our system of government is structured such that lobbyists can never go away. It would require a revolution, and unfortunately Americans are far too lazy for shenanigans like that.