FCC Questions Verizon Plan to Throttle Some Unlimited Data Customers

[C DM]

NetFlix pays their carrier for bandwidth to push the content.

The EndUser pays their ISP for bandwidth to stream content.

How does the ISP get to charge NetFlix a second time to allow the data in? As an EndUser of an ISP paying for Bandwidth, it shouldn't matter who it's coming from. But without net-neutrality, it does somehow. I know this is a gross over-simplification of the entire picture, but it hits the main points at a high level. Both parties are already paying, and Verizon is standing in the middle going we want to be paid to carry your special traffic, because we CAN!

When Netflix wants more bandwidth available so that their users can stream higher definition content that is even more data intensive seems like they can contribute something toward the infrastructure improvements to provide more of that bandwidth that they would be benefiting from. Not exactly a foreign concept in capitalism at all.

In any case, none of this is about Netflix or anything like that, so not much point going further off topic on this part of it.

 

[kenroberts83]

Do you really think that that tiny number of users is what is slowing the speeds?

Someone using 10 times as much data as the average user could certainly be expected to cause 10 times the congestion. Obviously there are questions of when the data is actually being used, but I doubt many of these people are all that considerate.

----------

Today should be that day. Data usage is cheap and they know it.

If data were cheap, you would be able to get excellent data service from small carriers. You cannot. Wireless networks are incredibly expensive.

 

[EvilQueen]

But they are talking doing this only on congested cells and only at a time when they are congested. The people who would be affected would be those you described but not just unilaterally when they use more than some amount of data and that's it, only at times of congestion and only on those particular congested cells when they are experiencing that congestion.

If it is only on certain cells at certain times of congestion, then why would it matter if I used 20 gig 2 weeks ago on a less congested cell? At the time of the congestion, all data use is equal. 1 meg is 1 meg. Why not throttle ALL the users to reduce the load rather than saying "well....you had enough last week."?

 

[kenroberts83]

Yep. I went over my data limit while on vacation last month and never notied a slowdown. They will happily take my money for my overage.

Right, because you're actually paying for it.

 

[C DM]

If it is only on certain cells at certain times of congestion, then why would it matter if I used 20 gig 2 weeks ago on a less congested cell? At the time of the congestion, all data use is equal. 1 meg is 1 meg. Why not throttle ALL the users to reduce the load rather than saying "well....you had enough last week."?

I actually replied to that type of thinking in a post a little earlier in the thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/19425058/

 

[kenroberts83]

No, I'm pretty much sticking it to them. Im using as much as i can and apparently putting a strain on the network being the top 5%. They're saying it, not me.

You're the reason why throttling is necessary, and unlimited plans are coming to an end.

 

[Armen]

Aren't at least some of the other carriers already doing something similar on at least some of the (older/unlimited) plans they have?

If I'm sharing bandwidth with a data hog who streams music 8 hours/day because he "can" because of an unlimited data plan then I'm completely for throttling.

It is also unfair to consumers like myself who pay $90/month for a 6GB data plan whereas these grandfathered users are enjoying an all you can eat data plan with the price plan from 5 years ago.

 

[kenroberts83]

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 fact that no one used a lot of data back then made unlimited plans economical. Now that people can easily use gobs of data, it is no longer economical. Honestly they should just end all of these unlimited plans, to stop the complaining.

 

[thehustleman]

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

it would be if T-Mobile had good coverage.

4.7GB is considered high usage..?

It's more than average.

It's normal for me when I'm not around wifi, but when I worked for Verizon, it was VERY RARE to see someone use over 2.5 GB.

I don't understand why the FCC is concerned now that Verizon is trying to throttle, yet didn't when the other carriers started doing it?!?

Well with the lower c block 700mhz spectrum part of the rules were that all devices that operated on it had to be unlocked and no throttling was allowed.

That's why it's an issue now and why all their phones on it are unlocked

 

[kenroberts83]

"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.

Ever hear of a return on investment?

 

[Pilgrim1099]

You're the reason why throttling is necessary, and unlimited plans are coming to an end.

Unfortunately unlimited plans will continue to exist specifically for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. These programs do exist. I should know because I pay about $65 a month for that plan ( it's really $45 plus insurance and data which goes to about $70).

So next time you get a knee jerk reaction, realize that unlimited is useful for certain people but it's not for everyone because those plans block out all incoming voice calls as a drawback.

 

[BuffaloTF]

NetFlix pays their carrier for bandwidth to push the content.

The EndUser pays their ISP for bandwidth to stream content.

How does the ISP get to charge NetFlix a second time to allow the data in? As an EndUser of an ISP paying for Bandwidth, it shouldn't matter who it's coming from. But without net-neutrality, it does somehow. I know this is a gross over-simplification of the entire picture, but it hits the main points at a high level. Both parties are already paying, and Verizon is standing in the middle going we want to be paid to carry your special traffic, because we CAN!

Netflix actually pays whoever best suits them to carry the data. In some instances, they are paying the hidden Tier 1 network for interconnection - those that do not sell through directly to consumers. Such as Cogent, Level 3, XO, etc. In others, it's financially more viable to pay the Tier 2 and Tier 3 end for the traffic, and have them use those funds to buy bigger pipes thru Tier 1...

Netflix crying foul because they have to pay for the traffic is nonsense -- they have to pay for it one way or another. They're just trying to piggyback on the mindset that the consumer "already paid" for the bandwidth, when they have not, to avoid paying for it entirely.

 

[kenroberts83]

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.

Even dinosaurs have a time and a place. The network will never improve if it is not profitable to do so. Considering that our domestic networks upgraded to 4G at a much faster pace than most foreign competitors, and that we live in a vast country of low population density, I'd say they're doing alright.

----------

Unfortunately unlimited plans will continue to exist specifically for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. These programs do exist. I should know because I pay about $65 a month for that plan ( it's really $45 plus insurance and data which goes to about $70).

So next time you get a knee jerk reaction, realize that unlimited is useful for certain people but it's not for everyone because those plans block out all incoming voice calls as a drawback.

A person needing a plan because he's deaf is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, where a person is purposely using excess data in order to "stick it to the man".

Most of those video services for deaf people have been subsidized by the government for some time. Verizon isn't compelled to engage in charity work. My grandparents are deaf and I'm fluent in sign language, so go take a hike.

 

[alent1234]

Netflix actually pays whoever best suits them to carry the data. In some instances, they are paying the hidden Tier 1 network for interconnection - those that do not sell through directly to consumers. Such as Cogent, Level 3, XO, etc. In others, it's financially more viable to pay the Tier 2 and Tier 3 end for the traffic, and have them use those funds to buy bigger pipes thru Tier 1...

Netflix crying foul because they have to pay for the traffic is nonsense -- they have to pay for it one way or another. They're just trying to piggyback on the mindset that the consumer "already paid" for the bandwidth, when they have not, to avoid paying for it entirely.

yep, and all their problems started last year in the fall when they let their CDN contract expire and at the same time they pushed super hd to everyone

i can name at least a dozen streaming companies who haven't had problems last year and compete with ISP's TV business, and yet only netflix is having these issues

and the issue is that netflix paid Level 3 or Cogent and they sent the data via free links they have with ISP's. those links have a special agreement attached for a traffic ratio to be maintained with 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 being the top ends.

L3 and cogent don't want to pay for new links and buy bandwidth from the ISP's because they quoted too low prices to netflix. of course when other network operators break that traffic ratio, L3 and Cogent have been known to depeer them and cut the links saying the internet only works when everyone follows their agreements.

 

[seamer]

How did you get anything done after the 5GB throttle cap? If I go over 5GB in a month I instantly get throtted down to 0.5mbps for the rest of the month, which is slow as **** and nothing loads. Getting 15 gigs at that speed is quite a feat.

The soft caps only appeared when the system was put in place. They lasted a month or two. So for several years, unfettered access.

 

[EvilQueen]

Right, because you're actually paying for it.

Then it has nothing to do with network load?

 

[Pilgrim1099]

Even dinosaurs have a time and a place. The network will never improve if it is not profitable to do so. Considering that our domestic networks upgraded to 4G at a much faster pace than most foreign competitors, and that we live in a vast country of low population density, I'd say they're doing alright.



----------







A person needing a plan because he's deaf is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, where a person is purposely using excess data in order to "stick it to the man".



Most of those video services for deaf people have been subsidized by the government for some time. Verizon isn't compelled to engage in charity work. My grandparents are deaf and I'm fluent in sign language, so go take a hike.

You're the one who needs to take a hike. Video services are for those who use sign language which I'm aware of. I use FaceTime or Skype instead of the VRS tech. Because the VRS requires Internet access and a modem to be left on 24/7, it's time consuming.

Whereas unlimited data on mobile is far more useful especially for texting and video chats. This way is far more direct and faster.

So for what it's worth, I grew up in an audist environment and know some ASL. Don't insult my intelligence. And I got bad news for you, one of the VRS services named Sorenson is going out the window.

 

[EvilQueen]

I actually replied to that type of thinking in a post a little earlier in the thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/19425058/

If there is network congestion on a cell site to relieve its impact during that time bandwidth needs to be freed up, who would it make sense to throttle then, those who use a bit of data for those things you mention or those who are using a lot at that time? Clearly doing one makes sense and would make a difference and affect less people, while doing another won't make as much of a difference and would affect way more people. Seems like thinking about it more leads to a more rational answer.

I disagree. They aren't saying they will throttle a big user if they are using big data during a period of network congestion. If that were true, then they would be throttling EVERYONE that is streaming Netflix during a peak time, regardless of their data plan. They are saying they throttle that user no matter what type of use is going on, no matter what time of day it is after they have hit some magic number of data usage that may have been used on a different cell site that has no congestion or at a time that was not peak.

 

[techwhiz]

If I'm sharing bandwidth with a data hog who streams music 8 hours/day because he "can" because of an unlimited data plan then I'm completely for throttling.

It is also unfair to consumers like myself who pay $90/month for a 6GB data plan whereas these grandfathered users are enjoying an all you can eat data plan with the price plan from 5 years ago.

I might like listening to music 8 hours a day.
I pay for "unlimited" so it's not unfair. It's just sour grapes because you have a different/tiered plan.
"Don't hate the player. Hate the game."
It's not my issue that you have a tiered plan. I don't get a subsidized phone so I pay an additional $20-25 a month to keep unlimited because I pay retail for phones.

The issue is not about congestion. It's about Verizon wanting to move people off unlimited. They can't just come in and cancel plans. They would like to, but they can't. If they did this, they would have to move every subscriber from a "grandfathered" plan to a new plan. This includes old voice plans, etc.

This is a major undertaking and would bring contempt and ire from plenty of other subscribers. So what they want is for heavy users to move off unlimited on their own accord with some incentive, positive or negative, they don't really care.

They will offer the carrot or the stick, whatever is effective.

I'm not giving up my unlimited until they take it away.
Why pay more for less???

 

[C DM]

I disagree. They aren't saying they will throttle a big user if they are using big data during a period of network congestion. If that were true, then they would be throttling EVERYONE that is streaming Netflix during a peak time, regardless of their data plan. They are saying they throttle that user no matter what type of use is going on, no matter what time of day it is after they have hit some magic number of data usage that may have been used on a different cell site that has no congestion or at a time that was not peak.

Except that's not what the official press release and supporting details documentation about this directly from Verizon says.

There's what people just assume and roll with as soon as they hear even a hint of the word "throttle" and then there's the actual changes that Verizon will be making and what Verizon has already had in place for some time, which are different than the simplistic assumptions.

----------

You're the one who needs to take a hike. Video services are for those who use sign language which I'm aware of. I use FaceTime or Skype instead of the VRS tech. Because the VRS requires Internet access and a modem to be left on 24/7, it's time consuming.

Whereas unlimited data on mobile is far more useful especially for texting and video chats. This way is far more direct and faster.

So for what it's worth, I grew up in an audist environment and know some ASL. Don't insult my intelligence. And I got bad news for you, one of the VRS services named Sorenson is going out the window.

Is this change related to or affects those particular users?

 

[Pilgrim1099]

Except that's not what the official press release and supporting details documentation about this directly from Verizon says.



There's what people just assume and roll with as soon as they hear even a hint of the word "throttle" and then there's the actual changes that Verizon will be making and what Verizon has already had in place for some time, which are different than the simplistic assumptions.

----------

Is this change related to or affects those particular users?

It can affect those who are deaf or hard of hearing that fall under the unlimited data plan. If that were to happen, it could cause a lot of problems because Verizon's throttling isn't targeted to one group but a blanketed throttle of all without regard. They have to be very careful who they're throttling.

I'm not with verizon and am under sprint which isn't bad ( not the greatest but they're okay ).

 

[C DM]

It can affect those who are deaf or hard of hearing that fall under the unlimited data plan. If that were to happen, it could cause a lot of problems because Verizon's throttling isn't targeted to one group but a blanketed throttle of all without regard. They have to be very careful who they're throttling.

I'm not with verizon and am under sprint which isn't bad ( not the greatest but they're okay ).

What I'm saying is those people often have a separate particular data plan from the carrier, which is different from the typical ones, so the question is whether any of this affects those particular plans like it does the typical ones.

 

[kenroberts83]

You're the one who needs to take a hike. Video services are for those who use sign language which I'm aware of. I use FaceTime or Skype instead of the VRS tech. Because the VRS requires Internet access and a modem to be left on 24/7, it's time consuming.

Whereas unlimited data on mobile is far more useful especially for texting and video chats. This way is far more direct and faster.

So for what it's worth, I grew up in an audist environment and know some ASL. Don't insult my intelligence. And I got bad news for you, one of the VRS services named Sorenson is going out the window.

What is the point that you're trying to make? That Verizon should provide you with unlimited data because you're deaf? I really don't get the central thrust of your argument here. If you want free data for deaf people, write your congressman. This really isn't the place for it.

----------

They are saying they throttle that user no matter what type of use is going on, no matter what time of day it is after they have hit some magic number of data usage that may have been used on a different cell site that has no congestion or at a time that was not peak.

Honestly, you're free to switch plans or switch carriers. No one is forcing you to take this deal. This is for only people without a contract, so you won't face any penalties. Verizon is not a monopoly, and there are several alternatives in the marketplace.

----------

It can affect those who are deaf or hard of hearing that fall under the unlimited data plan.

If Delta increases its airfares $50, it also affects deaf people. If gasoline increases by $0.10 per gallon, it'll affect deaf people. Businesses can't go around making all kinds of exceptions for certain groups of people. It's the job of charities and the government to make those kinds of contributions, when appropriate.

You're free to lobby Verizon to provide deaf people with this subsidized service, but you certainly shouldn't expect it, and you most certainly shouldn't insult random people on the internet for not expecting it.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

FCC Questions Verizon Plan to Throttle Some Unlimited Data Customers

What is the point that you're trying to make? That Verizon should provide you with unlimited data because you're deaf? I really don't get the central thrust of your argument here. If you want free data for deaf people, write your congressman. This really isn't the place for it.

That's not the point. Unlimited data is paid for by any deaf person who signs up in a special program for it. These plans do exist for them.

I don't use Verizon and am under a different carrier. I know for a fact and know other deaf people who use unlimited plans on their phones to use video chats with. Even FaceTime or Skype, if needed. And they all pay for it.

They even use a video relay system that's subsidized by the government which is different and works almost like the old TTY relay system in the old days. The Fed does not subsidize the phone carriers. It works for those who are fluent in sign language. But for some who don't sign, they use texting or video on their mobile devices.

The point is that Verizon's throttling could affect that group. People complain about people who use data heavily and those who get throttled abuse that when others are trying to use the network.

So it's not clear whether Verizon's throttling is targeting those who are in the general unlimited data plan or for those who are in a special program for the deaf. But I've heard stories of other deaf individuals who got throttled under a similar phone plan like this which is not good.

EDIT: oh and one more thing. There is a go around and that's called wifi which doesn't affect the network and prevents any throttling ( as far as I know ). I use it as much as I can when I'm home or in the cafe. But out there, it's all 3G and no LTE or 4g in the area. That's a drawback.

 

[BuffaloTF]

I might like listening to music 8 hours a day.
I pay for "unlimited" so it's not unfair. It's just sour grapes because you have a different/tiered plan.
"Don't hate the player. Hate the game."
It's not my issue that you have a tiered plan. I don't get a subsidized phone so I pay an additional $20-25 a month to keep unlimited because I pay retail for phones.

The issue is not about congestion. It's about Verizon wanting to move people off unlimited. They can't just come in and cancel plans. They would like to, but they can't. If they did this, they would have to move every subscriber from a "grandfathered" plan to a new plan. This includes old voice plans, etc.

This is a major undertaking and would bring contempt and ire from plenty of other subscribers. So what they want is for heavy users to move off unlimited on their own accord with some incentive, positive or negative, they don't really care.

They will offer the carrot or the stick, whatever is effective.

I'm not giving up my unlimited until they take it away.
Why pay more for less???

Actually, they can cancel your plan at any time, contract or not. It's not exactly a big deal. And if they cancel you on a contract, they can still force you to pay the early-termination fee if they cancel you for several reasons. They could also strip your unlimited data away from you at the same time, it's an add-on. They could also force you onto a new rate plan at any time, and cite that older plans are "no longer compatible" with the device you're using.

Major undertaking? They've done it before. America's Choice plans, original Nationwide plans, outdated texting add-ons... eliminated quickly and painlessly. The fact they haven't done it yet is actually rather kind of them.

"If you cancel a line of Service, or if we cancel it for good cause, during its contract term, you'll have to pay an early termination fee."

"We can, without notice, limit, suspend or end your Service or any agreement with you for any good cause ... We can also temporarily limit your Service for any operational [sic] reason."