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

[mudskip]

To play devil's advocate a little bit here...
If you have a pipe that is set up to deliver a set amount of bandwidth, and you have a situation where the users will exceed that limit, what can you do, other than limit bandwidth to users?

Perhaps it would seem more fair if the max speed for every user on the tower was lowered during peak usage, and then raised again afterwards.

 

[4jasontv]

To play devil's advocate a little bit here...
If you have a pipe that is set up to deliver a set amount of bandwidth, and you have a situation where the users will exceed that limit, what can you do, other than limit bandwidth to users?

Perhaps it would seem more fair if the max speed for every user on the tower was lowered during peak usage, and then raised again afterwards.

No.

Every user should get the bandwidth they paid for at the times they choose to use the product. Lowering the speed for anyone rewards the ISP at the expense of the end user.

We are not negotiating terms relative to other consumers. My agreement is with my ISP, not my neighbor.

 

[PocketSand11]

No.

Every user should get the bandwidth they paid for at the times they choose to use the product. Lowering the speed for anyone rewards the ISP at the expense of the end user.

We are not negotiating terms relative to other consumers. My agreement is with my ISP, not my neighbor.

Where in any cell provider contract are you guaranteed a certain bandwidth? Only from home ISPs do you see guarantees such as enough bandwidth for, say, 20mbps download.

 

[C DM]

Come on. This guy gets points for pulling out a Jurassic Park quote. Very original imo.

Original? Sure. Fun? That too. Meaningful? Perhaps in a cookie fortune way.

 

[RCAFBrat]

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...

This!

I was thinking the same thing - if you are on an unlimited plan and in the top 5% me thinks you will be subjected to unusually slow downloads more often than they are suggesting in their press release.

 

[macintologist]

Why can't Verizon, AT&T and the rest just cut off the unlimited plans and force the users onto the regular plans that everyone else has?

 

[H2SO4]

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!)

Ri. Dic. U. Lous.
Haven’t got a problem with them throttling but then they need to remove the word unlimited from the contract. If physics slows things that’s fine but to place an arbitrary limit means they’ve just altered the definition of the word ‘Unlimited’.
My plan gives me 5000 text messages which feels unlimited to me, even though I never have I know once I breach that I’ll need to pay more - What’s next, they have it called unlimited and secretly make messages drop when I reach 5000?
My data plan is 'All you can eat' and the text from the T’s & C’s follows, (it has changed to this slightly for newer customers I think);
All you can eat data provides for worry free Internet use. Even if you used your phone for every minute of every
day you could only use, subject to TrafficSenseTM, around 1000GB each month. A usage cap has been set at a 1000GB in order for example to identify commercial use of the service, which is not permitted under the Terms for Three Services.

I’ve downloaded massive amounts of data and never felt throttled.


----------

No.

Every user should get the bandwidth they paid for at the times they choose to use the product. Lowering the speed for anyone rewards the ISP at the expense of the end user.

We are not negotiating terms relative to other consumers. My agreement is with my ISP, not my neighbor.

Absolutely spot on. They should have written the contract the right way from day one. Doing it this way, (no doubt purposely), means they reap the benefits from a claim they could not and will not meet which is unfair to users and other businesses in that competition space.

 

[C DM]

Ri. Dic. U. Lous.
Haven’t got a problem with them throttling but then they need to remove the word unlimited from the contract. If physics slows things that’s fine but to place an arbitrary limit means they’ve just altered the definition of the word ‘Unlimited’.
My plan gives me 5000 text messages which feels unlimited to me, even though I never have I know once I breach that I’ll need to pay more - What’s next, they have it called unlimited and secretly make messages drop when I reach 5000?
My data plan is 'All you can eat' and the text from the T’s & C’s follows, (it has changed to this slightly for newer customers I think);
All you can eat data provides for worry free Internet use. Even if you used your phone for every minute of every
day you could only use, subject to TrafficSenseTM, around 1000GB each month. A usage cap has been set at a 1000GB in order for example to identify commercial use of the service, which is not permitted under the Terms for Three Services.

I’ve downloaded massive amounts of data and never felt throttled.


----------



Absolutely spot on. They should have written the contract the right way from day one. Doing it this way, (no doubt purposely), means they reap the benefits from a claim they could not and will not meet which is unfair to users and other businesses in that competition space.

Unlimited refers to being able to use data without having to worry about overage charges. That's really how it was sold. There is no reference to unlimited speeds or anything else about guaranteed speeds or bandwidth.

 

[H2SO4]

Unlimited refers to being able to use data without having to worry about overage charges. That's really how it was sold. There is no reference to unlimited speeds or anything else about guaranteed speeds or bandwidth.

I didn’t make any reference to guaranteed speed or bandwidth. You just did.
Unlimited has a definition, sounds to me like you’ve just accepted their new improved one.

 

[C DM]

I didn’t make any reference to guaranteed speed or bandwidth. You just did.
Unlimited has a definition, sounds to me like you’ve just accepted their new improved one.

Unlimited as applied to data not speed. When throttling happens your speed is limited you can still use up as much data as you want at whatever speeds you can get. There's a difference between the two.

 

[H2SO4]

Unlimited as applied to data not speed. When throttling happens your speed is limited you can still use up as much data as you want at whatever speeds you can get. There's a difference between the two.

No there isn’t and your math must be terrible?
Right, say they limit my speed to 10Mbps. After one hour I’m sure you can work out that they have in effect just introduced a cap but have used semantics to gloss over it.
What happens if that cap is 2Mbps?

You sound like the kind of customer they would love.
When they put out Terms and conditions, (and I’m talking any industry here), they jump all over you if you breach them, yet they are allowed to put crap in them that doesn’t make sense.
Seems some people will just yak it up.

 

[C DM]

No there isn’t and your math must be terrible?
Right, say they limit my speed to 10Mbps. After one hour I’m sure you can work out that they have in effect just introduced a cap but have used semantics to gloss over it.
What happens if that cap is 2Mbps?

You sound like the kind of customer they would love.
When they put out Terms and conditions, (and I’m talking any industry here), they jump all over you if you breach them, yet they are allowed to put crap in them that doesn’t make sense.
Seems some people will just yak it up.

Well, again, none of that was promised by the plan. Semantics or not but that's what the terms and conditions are for. Not for people to randomly interpret what they want they way they want it. I'm not saying people should like this or that this is good for them, I'm saying that there's not much of an argument about Verizon not being able to do it based on the terms of the plan (again, whether it's good or right or ethical or moral is separate and unrelated to that).

 

[H2SO4]

Well, again, none of that was promised by the plan. Semantics or not but that's what the terms and conditions are for. Not for people to randomly interpret what they want they way they want it. I'm not saying people should like this or that this is good for them, I'm saying that there's not much of an argument about Verizon not being able to do it based on the terms of the plan (again, whether it's good or right or ethical or moral is separate and unrelated to that).

Ok, well it seems you’ve missed the point. -
Not for people to randomly interpret…. This is what Verizon have done with the word unlimited.

 

[sundog925]

All I know is its a shame that everything comes down to MONEY.
Netflix charges more for more content- ok fair enough.
Verizon charges more for less- um what?

I Read the terms. Only if you are unlimited month to month they will "optimize" you. I'm under contract with unlimited til' 2015. If I find I'm being throttled, does that mean VZW lied? According to them, I shouldn't be throttled.

 

[C DM]

Ok, well it seems you’ve missed the point. -
Not for people to randomly interpret…. This is what Verizon have done with the word unlimited.

Things aren't defined by literal definitions of words when they are used in marketing names of plans, they are defined by terms and conditions, that's what they are there for. That's really how business, law, politics, and most things in complex modern society work. And even then unlimited still applies to data as it was called by the plan, not to speed.

----------

All I know is its a shame that everything comes down to MONEY.
Netflix charges more for more content- ok fair enough.
Verizon charges more for less- um what?

I Read the terms. Only if you are unlimited month to month they will "optimize" you. I'm under contract with unlimited til' 2015. If I find I'm being throttled, does that mean VZW lied? According to them, I shouldn't be throttled.

Based on their terms you shouldn't be. If you are then you have a case to take up with them, as you would with any business that does something agains the terms that have been set and agreed to.

 

[4jasontv]

Where in any cell provider contract are you guaranteed a certain bandwidth? Only from home ISPs do you see guarantees such as enough bandwidth for, say, 20mbps download.

Unlimited refers to being able to use data without having to worry about overage charges. That's really how it was sold. There is no reference to unlimited speeds or anything else about guaranteed speeds or bandwidth.

Please stop truncating what they said. Verizon advertised Unlimited 3G data. Unlimited was the volume, 3G represented the bandwidth, and data represented the product. They absolutely referenced the speed you would receive. It was 3G. They touted the speed and extent of the network in detail. And they did it nearly every ad.

There is verbiage in the contract that allows for temporary reductions in performance due to interference, stepping out of the service area, or acts of god. It goes on to explain in greater detail what those things mean. The contract never provided Verizon the right to intentionally degrade performance.

Interestingly, there is a section that states that knowingly attempting to degrade performance is considered criminal and will be prosecuted.

The question worth asking is if grandfathering consumers plans when upgrading to an LTE device extended the offer to unlimited LTE data. I think Verizon would be hard pressed to demonstrate that they clearly distinguished that consumers would be billed for 3G and LTE in different manners. Especially since consumers saw no separation of charges on their bill.

 

[C DM]

Please stop truncating what they said. Verizon advertised Unlimited 3G data. Unlimited was the volume, 3G represented the bandwidth, and data represented the product. They absolutely referenced the speed you would receive. It was 3G. They touted the speed and extent of the network in detail. And they did it nearly every ad.

There is verbiage in the contract that allows for temporary reductions in performance due to interference, stepping out of the service area, or acts of god. It goes on to explain in greater detail what those things mean. The contract never provided Verizon the right to intentionally degrade performance.

Interestingly, there is a section that states that knowingly attempting to degrade performance is considered criminal and will be prosecuted.

The question worth asking is if grandfathering consumers plans when upgrading to an LTE device extended the offer to unlimited LTE data. I think Verizon would be hard pressed to demonstrate that they clearly distinguished that consumers would be billed for 3G and LTE in different manners. Especially since consumers saw no change separation of charges on their bill.

3G and LTE are technologies not particular speed. Sure those technologies have various speed ranges than get associated with them, but the way 3G or LTE is used in plan names is basically to say what technology would be used (when available, since you sure can't get it when it's not even available somewhere anyway) not particular speeds that you are being promised as past of that, at best up to what speeds you might be capable of under the best conditions. Those same technologies can and do work in slow speeds too and they are still 3G or LTE even of they aren't performing at the peak of their potential throughput.

WiFi is a technology that many associate high speeds with, but you sure can be on slow WiFi because that's the internet speed that is being provided and it would still be called WiFi (and just because people would expect it to be super fast doesn't mean they would have an argument saying that simply because it's WiFi it has to be fast or otherwise it's not WiFi).

 

[4jasontv]

3G and LTE are technologies not particular speed. Sure those technologies have various speed ranges than get associated with them, but the way 3G or LTE is used in plan names is basically to say what technology would be used (when available, since you sure can't get it when it's not even available somewhere anyway) not particular speeds that you are being promised as past of that, at best up to what speeds you might be capable of under the best conditions.

That is a poor interpretation. Those technologies were sold under context of an average speed. Sure, interruptions may occur, but they are due to factors beyond the control of the carrier. No one is claiming that they have to provide LTE somewhere where LTE isn't available. But an expectation of a particular speeds was the basis of having consumers pay to replace their devices.

Verizon is trying to argue that their own poor planning is beyond their control, and that is what the FCC took issue with. A tree can influence performance, if it blocks sight with a tower, and is beyond the control of the carrier. Not wanting to invest in additional infrastructure to handle the traffic you sold is not the same. Verizon wishes them to be.

 

[C DM]

That is a poor interpretation. Those technologies were sold under context of an average speed. Sure, interruptions may occur, but they are due to factors beyond the control of the carrier. No one is claiming that they have to provide LTE somewhere where LTE isn't available. But an expectation of a particular speeds was the basis of having consumers pay to replace their devices.

The potential of those speeds certainly played in marketing and all that. But again the promise or guarantees of any particular speeds or anything like that wasn't there in the actual terms or simply in the name of the technology. Again, the idea was certainly there especially in marketing, but it doesn't change that the actual particular speed aspects weren't in the actual terms as realistically nothing like that can really be guaranteed or even realistically implied with high enough probability to apply most of the time in most places when it comes to something as volatile as mobile bandwidth that depends on so many different variables.

----------

That is a poor interpretation. Those technologies were sold under context of an average speed. Sure, interruptions may occur, but they are due to factors beyond the control of the carrier. No one is claiming that they have to provide LTE somewhere where LTE isn't available. But an expectation of a particular speeds was the basis of having consumers pay to replace their devices.

Verizon is trying to argue that their own poor planning is beyond their control, and that is what the FCC took issue with. A tree can influence performance, if it blocks sight with a tower, and is beyond the control of the carrier. Not wanting to invest in additional infrastructure to handle the traffic you sold is not the same. Verizon wishes them to be.

Dont think anything is talking about poor planing or not wanting to invest in more. It's talking about how to alleviate some present issues without negatively affecting everyone across the board as infrastructure is being improved and built out. Sure in a perfect world all the necessary infrastructure would be there way before any use of it would be needed because companies would build things out way ahead of demand and keep going that way. Just as in that perfect world everyone would get along and thee would be no wars or conflict. Reality doesn't quite work that way, no matter how much we would want it to or how good it would be for everyone if it did.

 

[4jasontv]

The potential of those speeds certainly played in marketing and all that. But again the promise or guarantees of any particular speeds or anything like that wasn't there in the actual terms or simply in the name of the technology. Again, the idea was certainly there especially in marketing, but it doesn't change that the actual particular speed aspects weren't in the actual terms as realistically nothing like that can really be guaranteed or even realistically implied with high enough probability to apply most of the time in most places when it comes to something as volatile as mobile bandwidth that depends on so many different variables.

Let's clear something up, advertising is part of the terms and agreements. Just because it isn't in the fine print doesn't make it irrelevant. It's why bait and switch is illegal. There were promises of improved speeds when moving to a newer technology. Verizon even connects the adverts to the contract when they state that in the terms that the advertised speeds are averages. This means that the average consumer would receive an average speed over the course of their cycle. Throttling disrupts this.

Average means probable most of the time.

Mobile bandwidth is only volatile because they oversold their product. Every business does it, so I don't look down on them because they tried to maximize profit. The issue is that they aren't providing service to the people they sold a product to. Airlines oversell tickets all the time. Some people will miss their flight, and if you can figure out how many will you can sell more than 100% of the seats. When everyone shows up you still have to get them to their destination. Imagine an airline saying "sorry, but you flew to much lately. You are going to have to drive."

----------

Dont think anything is talking about poor planing or not wanting to invest in more. It's talking about how to alleviate some present issues without negatively affecting everyone across the board as infrastructure is being improved and built out. Sure in a perfect world all the necessary infrastructure would be there way before any use of it would be needed because companies would build things out way ahead of demand and keep going that way. Just as in that perfect world everyone would get along and thee would be no wars or conflict. Reality doesn't quite work that way, no matter how much we would want it to or how good it would be for everyone if it did.

And the only one who should pay is the party who took their half without delivering on their promise.

 

[adeedew]

I'm confused. If they do this on a high activity towers then stop the throttling once that tower is not being used so highly they why the hell do they plan to throttle you for the rest of your billing cycle?! Btw 4.7GB is a heavy user?! It's 2014 and you're touting this fast LTE that with an X in the name coming soon will be even faster so 4.7GB with happen quick. Wouldn't it be easier to just say we don't want you *******s on unlimited anymore and just yank it? Would respect you more than these BS explanations.

 

[kenroberts83]

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're welcome to try a different cellphone provider, genius.

 

[adeedew]

I'll just start throttling my payments then.

Or why do we get credits or discounts any damn time we aren't getting LTE speeds that they have to define and promote as LTE?! Write that back FCC boy

 

[C DM]

Let's clear something up, advertising is part of the terms and agreements. Just because it isn't in the fine print doesn't make it irrelevant. It's why bait and switch is illegal. There were promises of improved speeds when moving to a newer technology. Verizon even connects the adverts to the contract when they state that in the terms that the advertised speeds are averages. This means that the average consumer would receive an average speed over the course of their cycle. Throttling disrupts this.

Average means probable most of the time.

Mobile bandwidth is only volatile because they oversold their product. Every business does it, so I don't look down on them because they tried to maximize profit. The issue is that they aren't providing service to the people they sold a product to. Airlines oversell tickets all the time. Some people will miss their flight, and if you can figure out how many will you can sell more than 100% of the seats. When everyone shows up you still have to get them to their destination. Imagine an airline saying "sorry, but you flew to much lately. You are going to have to drive."

----------



And the only one who should pay is the party who took their half without delivering on their promise.

Well, if we take the airline example, they will get those oversold people there but on a different flight or in a different way which will often mean getting here later...sounds like limited throttling doesn't it.

With the load in different cells at times it's essentially either everyone suffers slow speeds or some get throttled so that the rest of the average majority isn't as badly affected. There's no way to get away from at least some people being affected in some places sometimes, the best that can be done is finding ways to optimize so that less people are affected in lesser ways...which is what they are doing. Of course that's short of the magical utopia where there's unlimited infrastructure already present everywhere.

In any case, with everything said, if there is something against some actual regulation that can be enforced then something like the FCC is what would get to do it. Ultimately nothing we say here matters only what they or a similar agency end up doing if anything at all. So what it comes down to is that we will see what happens.

 

[4jasontv]

I'm confused. If they do this on a high activity towers then stop the throttling once that tower is not being used so highly they why the hell do they plan to throttle you for the rest of your billing cycle?! Btw 4.7GB is a heavy user?! It's 2014 and you're touting this fast LTE that with an X in the name coming soon will be even faster so 4.7GB with happen quick. Wouldn't it be easier to just say we don't want you *******s on unlimited anymore and just yank it? Would respect you more than these BS explanations.

When I was little my sister offered to pay me a quarter to do her chores. Sometimes she would offer me two dimes for every quarter I brought her. I did so with a smile, after all, I was getting twice as many coins in the deal. That's the premise here.