FCC Questions Verizon Plan to Throttle Some Unlimited Data Customers

[skratch77]

I'm on an unlimted data plan and on xlte witch is there newest band and I get consistent 50-70mb/s there network can handle the 5% of unlimited users with ease.

This is just Verizon being greedy and wanting to push us off its unlimited plan.

Instead of throttling us down to dial up speeds they could easily limit our band with down to say 10mb/sec and all congestion would be settled.

They just want to get us off the plan and charge us 10 bucks a month extra for each GB we go over.this has nothing to do with network saturation as we ate such a small amount of users and have almost zero effect on total network band with.

Here is a test on peak time and in a very heavy congested area(Boston) and I have no slowdowns and the network is always fast as **** and I've hit 98mb/sec

----------

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/a/817362678

I can see why verizon wants us off there united data though.I guess they spent 90 billion on there 4g network and need to recomp that money somehow.

Not my fault your giving me 70mb/s and I'd be happy with 10 as long as I could use as much as I need without being throttled down to dial up.

 

[iF34R]

Throttling users will cause more congestion.

What would take me 1hr to download, it going to take me 3 hours to download; meaning I'll be on that site even longer.

This bs is one of the dumbest things Verizon has tried to push as being something beneficial to consumers.

 

[C DM]

Throttling users will cause more congestion.

What would take me 1hr to download, it going to take me 3 hours to download; meaning I'll be on that site even longer.

This bs is one of the dumbest things Verizon has tried to push as being something beneficial to consumers.

But you'll be taking up less bandwidth at the time that more of the other users will get to use with majority for much smaller things that they otherwise might have a much worse experience during that 1 hour of higher usage.

 

[firewood]

So let me get this straight... If I and 100 friends on the same cell site pay for our data you won't throttle us, but if we all had unlimited plans you would. What's the difference? Data is data.

You just want money. Just admit it!

Exactly. Where do you think the money to upgrade cell sites come from? Tooth fairy?

Also, the difference is that people who pay more actually use less data than your 100 unlimited friends who go over. So why scare them off from paying more? They have the stats. You don't.

 

[Renzatic]

What would take me 1hr to download, it going to take me 3 hours to download; meaning I'll be on that site even longer.

Not quite. While you'll be in the pipe longer, you won't be taking up as much space in it.

Say the whole internet backbone can only supply 500 bits of bandwidth, and the average download speed for internet subscribers is 30 bits a second. The pipe can only support 16 people downloading at full speed. Anyone else that goes into the pipe will either time out when trying to go to a web page, or experience greatly reduced download speeds. But if the telcos were to throttle subscriber speeds to 15 bits a second, they could fit roughly double the amount of subscribers into the pipe.

This is the reason why throttling works. Though the way they've got it set up now isn't exactly ideal.

 

[firewood]

Throttling users will cause more congestion. ...

Exactly the opposite. Throttled users require less packet buffering, and cause less dropped packets. Less congestion.

Same as with freeway on-ramp metering. Slow them down on the on-ramp and they actually get to work faster than otherwise, on average. Experimental data doesn't lie.

 

[unplugme71]

Exactly. Where do you think the money to upgrade cell sites come from? Tooth fairy?

Also, the difference is that people who pay more actually use less data than your 100 unlimited friends who go over. So why scare them off from paying more? They have the stats. You don't.

From subscribers... My unlimited plan and your 3GB plan cost the same.

----------

The difference is that someone needs to be throttled at times to ease congestion so between throttling everyone or just some group of people it seems that doing it to a group of people on outdated plans that tend to use more data than most is better than just doing it to everyone.

Then everyone should be throttled. If you offer unlimted service, then honor it. Just like you honor a 3GB service with 1GB bumps as you go over. Don't punish the user because of their plan.

My point is if between 5 and 6pm has heavy traffic on that tower, everyone gets throttled. Once that peak time ends, no one should be throttled. That's fair practice.

I understand congestion, but when a plan is labeled that way, it's just poor business.

 

[DJEmergency]

At first glance, it'd make sense to throttle everyone between 8 and 11 PM, when internet traffic is at its most congested. In theory, cutting higher tier subscription bandwidth in half during that would allow for much smoother service from everyone overall, and wouldn't punish heavy downloaders needlessly throughout the month. Limiting everyone by a certain amount at certain times is much better than cutting off some people all the time. Some guy who downloads a bunch of gig of data at 1PM or 3AM might not be using the internet at all during peak hours. Throttling his connection won't do anything to fix the problem. Doing it to everyone for 3 hours makes a lot more sense.

...but there are a few issues with even that. First off, the higher tier people are paying more money for their connection, and are likely to be the ones using it the most. They won't be getting their moneys worth, especially if they do tend to use the internet more often than not during peak times.

Secondly, it causes some services to suffer needlessly. Something like Netflix, which I think accounts for 25% of all internet traffic during peak hours, wouldn't perform nearly as well as it otherwise would. People getting home from work wanting to watch a movie won't get the quality they otherwise would from their connection.

There really isn't an easy answer to it all.

Why are you on a notion that they need to throttle? They don't need to at all. It's all BS. Throttling was never a problem in the past. It was placed to stop piracy later on. Now they use it to save them money or make them more money. My friend used to work for a internet provider for years and has explain to me that all this throttling and limiting speeds is all BS. They have the technology, but they want to make as much money as they can. Like say you're paying $50 for 15down and 5up. The provider is only paying a a dollar for your internet speeds. Which leads to all profit for them.

 

[barkmonster]

Why are you on a notion that they need to throttle? They don't need to at all. It's all BS. Throttling was never a problem in the past. It was placed to stop piracy later on. Now they use it to save them money or make them more money. My friend used to work for a internet provider for years and has explain to me that all this throttling and limiting speeds is all BS. They have the technology, but they want to make as much money as they can. Like say you're paying $50 for 15down and 5up. The provider is only paying a a dollar for your internet speeds. Which leads to all profit for them.

My lousy phone network, O2, have that policy. They offer unlimited texts/minutes but the data rates vary from 512Mb to 2Gb per month depending on if you're willing to pay more for it because they start at £16pm (+ the cost of the phone if you're in a contract), then charge £5 more per doubling of data and once you run out of your data limit, they throttle the speed.

 

[C DM]

From subscribers... My unlimited plan and your 3GB plan cost the same.

----------



Then everyone should be throttled. If you offer unlimted service, then honor it. Just like you honor a 3GB service with 1GB bumps as you go over. Don't punish the user because of their plan.

My point is if between 5 and 6pm has heavy traffic on that tower, everyone gets throttled. Once that peak time ends, no one should be throttled. That's fair practice.

I understand congestion, but when a plan is labeled that way, it's just poor business.

You still get unlimited data as in no overages which is what that plan was sold as, not as unlimited speed.

Sure throttling everyone would work, but if throttling some while not the rest is helpful enough then why affect everyone?

----------

Why are you on a notion that they need to throttle? They don't need to at all. It's all BS. Throttling was never a problem in the past. It was placed to stop piracy later on. Now they use it to save them money or make them more money. My friend used to work for a internet provider for years and has explain to me that all this throttling and limiting speeds is all BS. They have the technology, but they want to make as much money as they can. Like say you're paying $50 for 15down and 5up. The provider is only paying a a dollar for your internet speeds. Which leads to all profit for them.

Why are you under the notion that it's all BS based on just how you understand it or what a single friend told you? It's not necessarily BS or not all BS at least.

 

[iF34R]

But you'll be taking up less bandwidth at the time that more of the other users will get to use with majority for much smaller things that they otherwise might have a much worse experience during that 1 hour of higher usage.

Exactly the opposite. Throttled users require less packet buffering, and cause less dropped packets. Less congestion.

Same as with freeway on-ramp metering. Slow them down on the on-ramp and they actually get to work faster than otherwise, on average. Experimental data doesn't lie.

Yep. Exactly. Just wanted others to reply on it so that is supports my idea of Verizon just wanting to move everyone off unlimited, and not because it's a congestion problem.

So again, it's not because my data plan is unlimited. It's because they want more money. I can download 4.7GB, then get throttled on a congested tower, compared to a person on a 6GB plan maxing their data out, without being throttled on the same tower.

The money being paid for overage isn't solving any congestion problems. They had a 4 BILLION dollar profit. That money could be going somewhere to help allow more connections, etc.

 

[Trapezoid]

My uncle always mentions his grandfathered status with Verizon, and how I should switch. I know Sprint isn't the best (horrible coverage), but when I needed a cell phone they were the least greedy with the security deposit ($100 with Sprint vs $400 with Verizon for an iPhone 4s ) and continue to be so. Every time I experience an issue (like roaming IN MY OWN HOUSE) they knock another $25 off the bill. Best part is I don't have to worry about data.

Roaming in your own house? Where do you live?

 

[C DM]

Yep. Exactly. Just wanted others to reply on it so that is supports my idea of Verizon just wanting to move everyone off unlimited, and not because it's a congestion problem.

So again, it's not because my data plan is unlimited. It's because they want more money. I can download 4.7GB, then get throttled on a congested tower, compared to a person on a 6GB plan maxing their data out, without being throttled on the same tower.

The money being paid for overage isn't solving any congestion problems. They had a 4 BILLION dollar profit. That money could be going somewhere to help allow more connections, etc.

You are still missing the point. There is congestion at times and a way to relieve at least some of it is to throttle. One way is to do it to everyone and another way is to do it to some people. Doing it to some people is better than doing it to everyone. What group of people would it be then? Should it be those on current plans and/or in contracts or should it be those who are no longer under contract and are on plans that don't even exist anymore? And out of those should it be all of them or just those who show the capacity of using more data than most typical customers? And here you go. It's a fairly rational way of going about it. Yes there's a group that would suffer a bit more but more of the customers would suffer a bit less because of it rather than everyone suffering to some degree.

 

[cmwade77]

But yet they don't question throttling AT&T's Unlimited Users?

 

[firewood]

The provider is only paying a a dollar for your internet speeds.

Very funny. Try starting a data service and only charge a dollar. Invest all your parents life savings. A dollar won't even pay the interest on the loan you'll need to buy cell towers and pay the guys who install and maintain them. Happy bankruptcy to you... unless you're smart enough to NOT put your money where your mouth is.

I can download 4.7GB, then get throttled on a congested tower, compared to a person on a 6GB plan maxing their data out, without being throttled on the same tower.

Yup. Because most of the people on a 6GB plan don't max out their data, so the carrier wants to encourage everybody on that plan to stay on that plan (or go higher!). It's great advertising: "Get a 6GB plan and you won't be throttled (because according to our stats most people on that plan most likely won't use anywhere near that much)." It's all about the law of averages. Not about any particular user.

----------

It's because they want more money.

So what's new or different about that? If your boss offered you a raise, you'd take it.

----------

If you offer unlimted service, then honor it.

Unlimited service does not exist. There is no way to honor such a silly concept. As a customer, believing in it is as silly as believing in the tooth fairy.

 

[C DM]

But yet they don't question throttling AT&T's Unlimited Users?

Again, as mentioned a few times in the thread, probably due to the FCC agreements/regulations relating to Verizon's purchase of some spectrum not long ago.

 

[Renzatic]

So what's new or different about that? If your boss offered you a raise, you'd take it.

I do admit that I think some of the telcos could do a better job of strengthening their infrastructure. There are far too many stories out there about Verizon, AT&T, et al., getting billions in tax breaks to build up their service to certain specifications, and they end up taking the money and running with it, only fulfilling a quarter of their obligations.

Throttling is sometimes necessary, but it's not a fix-all solution. I won't fault them for wanting to make money, but they shouldn't try to maximize profits at the expense of the service we're all paying for.

 

[firewood]

I do admit that I think some of the telcos could do a better job of strengthening their infrastructure.

Now that one can get iPhones for more than just AT&T, if any telco doesn't upgrade in many areas, consumers have an alternative, switching to another provider (when their contract is up if they signed one).

 

[iF34R]

Very funny. Try starting a data service and only charge a dollar. Invest all your parents life savings. A dollar won't even pay the interest on the loan you'll need to buy cell towers and pay the guys who install and maintain them. Happy bankruptcy to you... unless you're smart enough to NOT put your money where your mouth is.



Yup. Because most of the people on a 6GB plan don't max out their data, so the carrier wants to encourage everybody on that plan to stay on that plan (or go higher!). It's great advertising: "Get a 6GB plan and you won't be throttled (because according to our stats most people on that plan most likely won't use anywhere near that much)." It's all about the law of averages. Not about any particular user.

----------



So what's new or different about that? If your boss offered you a raise, you'd take it.

----------



Unlimited service does not exist. There is no way to honor such a silly concept. As a customer, believing in it is as silly as believing in the tooth fairy.

I just have issues with it being labeled as network optimization when it's really about profit optimization. I have issues with being penalized for using less data than someone else simply because I'm on an unlimited plan.

 

[Truefan31]

I just have issues with it being labeled as network optimization when it's really about profit optimization. I have issues with being penalized for using less data than someone else simply because I'm on an unlimited plan.

You should. These companies have this planned well in advance. Lol at needing to throttle people after 4.7 gb. These companies want money which is fine but please don't act like they need to throttle because their network is being iverloaded

 

[firewood]

I just have issues with it being labeled as network optimization when it's really about profit optimization...

It doesn't have to be about only one thing. It could well be about both. Provide better service to most customers on average (just not you sometimes). And make more money in the process. Best of both worlds.

Just like you getting a raise. Possibly because BOTH you just want more money (always) AND your boss thinks you're doing a better job than when you started (maybe not every hour of every day, but on average).

 

[iF34R]

You should. These companies have this planned well in advance. Lol at needing to throttle people after 4.7 gb. These companies want money which is fine but please don't act like they need to throttle because their network is being iverloaded

I know. It's pretty ridiculous.

It doesn't have to be about only one thing. It could well be about both. Provide better service to most customers on average (just not you sometimes). And make more money in the process. Best of both worlds.

Just like you getting a raise. Possibly because BOTH you just want more money (always) AND your boss thinks you're doing a better job than when you started (maybe not every hour of every day, but on average).

Wages, raises, doesn't have anything in relation to what this is about.

... and it is about one thing; money.

 

[C DM]

I know. It's pretty ridiculous.

Wages, raises, doesn't have anything in relation to what this is about.

... and it is about one thing; money.

It's got to do with it because it's based on the same types of basic principles of economics that apply to many things in life.

----------

I just have issues with it being labeled as network optimization when it's really about profit optimization. I have issues with being penalized for using less data than someone else simply because I'm on an unlimited plan.

Some users that tend to use more data than most get throttled only on congested cells and only during times when there's congestion so that the rest of the users still have at least a decent experience using those cells at those times...seems like network optimization is going on there (whether or not there's money being made as well).

 

[iF34R]

It's got to do with it because it's based on the same types of basic principles of economics that apply to many things in life.

----------

Some users that tend to use more data than most get throttled only on congested cells and only during times when there's congestion so that the rest of the users still have at least a decent experience using those cells at those times...seems like network optimization is going on there (whether or not there's money being made as well).

If it were users that tend to use more data than most, then whatever plan they were on, or whether they were on contract or not, wouldn't be a factor at all. Sorry. It's profit optimization, not "network".

 

[C DM]

If it were users that tend to use more data than most, then whatever plan they were on, or whether they were on contract or not, wouldn't be a factor at all. Sorry. It's profit optimization, not "network".

Again, they can do it to all users or they can do it to some users, and if they are going to do it to some users then they want to pick out some group that would make more sense than another group. A congested cell becomes less congested even if only a group of people is throttled and not everyone, so there's still network optimization that happens, which simply can't be denied (sure, it can be even more optimized but at more inconvenience to more users essentially). All of this was discussed a few times in previous replies.

Certainly people in that group aren't going to like it, and they will just call it whatever they want to call it (greed, etc.), but it doesn't mean that there isn't something more behind it all.