Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who's talking about "texts and phone calls"? Do you honestly believe that firefighting consists of just rolling up and randomly spraying water in the general direction of the fire? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, firefighters in 2018 use modern data sharing tools to map where the fires are, where and when the wind is forecast to blow, what aircraft are in the air and what they're seeing? How about evacuation efforts? Do you think it's possible that having a reliable data stream could help with that? But yeah, please tell us more about that fire one hundred and fifty years ago.

Fair points, although a little condescending and snide in the delivery, but it seems pretty stupid and short sided that your whole fire fight strategy rests on a Verizon "Unlimited Plan". No one thought about running into this issue? If you have 50, 100, 200, 500, whatever fire fighters on a data plan, surely someone would have thought about data throttling as an issue?
[doublepost=1535111736][/doublepost]
What's absurd is being given actual data, willfully ignoring the data and assuming it supports your position, interpreting the title of the data through a filter to make it favorable to your position, and then pronouncing judgement. This is why we are seeing the downfall of informed conversation and debate. The linked article had absolutely NOTHING to do with data or throttling.

Go read the article - it's not what you think, and presents a thorny problem - before trying to use it to support your position.
[doublepost=1534970469][/doublepost]This. Verizon has been essentially playing it off as "oh, sorry, one of our low level customer support reps behaved poorly." Verizon has fault here for not having policies in place to immediately escalate emergency requests from emergency services. Have a policy to take it however far up the chain is needed in order to turn the data bandwidth back up to full, at least for a few days, so the proper contract changes (or whatever) can be made.

The Fire Department should have selected a different plan. They should have made it clear they were getting a plan for emergency equipment, that needed to not slow to a trickle after hitting a limit. The government agency (city, county, state, whoever) should have negotiated deals specifically for use on emergency equipment, that would give them bandwidth and the assurances of uninterrupted service that such equipment needs.

But, in addition to this, Verizon ought to know that occasionally some plan that is vital for emergency services will end up falling through the cracks of such negotiations (the wording in the article sounds a bit like someone at a lower level semi-independently signed up the equipment for a plan, but perhaps that's not the case). And Verizon ought to have a playbook, on their end, for dealing with these situations, and it should be drilled into every customer service rep - "if you get a call that sounds like it could be this, flag it as urgent and pass it up the chain immediately". Getting the problem patched over immediately and the equipment working again, might cost Verizon $50 or thereabouts, and will give them substantial good PR, instead of a bunch of bad PR. Plus, it may save an occasional life.

I agree with everyone pointing out that this has little to nothing to do with Net Neutrality. It's beyond unfortunate that that was brought up as an argument. Net Neutrality is important. Tying the two together when they are not related just gives ammunition to those looking to shoot down Net Neutrality.


You were great on Meet The Press last week. Kudos.
 
You do not seem to know much about modern firefighting. WiFi is used at many fires. The old plan was to just pour water on it and sooner or later it would go out.

Fire departments now plan fire response. They scout businesses and areas to know what they will face, if there is a fire. They track weather. Which way is this wild fire likely to go? What are the dangers of the fire going that way? Is there a better path? There’s also coordination between departments.

WiFi has saved countless lives in firefighting.

i know more than you about modern firefighting, lets stop there.

my response is very exact, not generalizing about how internet/wifi can help with the whole scheme of a incident. this issue with verizon comes form an OES engine on the Mendo fire. A brush engine that has wifi coming from the MDC serves no purpose on a wildfire except as a hotspot. If they use it in their IA, they will see the calls, response, comms, etc...

it seems as if the OES BE went over their data from using it as a hotspot during structure protection, ie. bored firefighters.
 
Seemed pretty usable to me. They just did not like the speed they were getting, but that is what they signed up for.

Nope. Verizon said it was the best streaming service, and as soon as they throttle speed that is no longer true. They imply the have unlimited best streaming even though they know that isn’t true.
[doublepost=1535284838][/doublepost]
You can use 40GB at over your 22GB and Verizon will never stop you. Hell, you could use a 1000GB after the 22GB - seems unlimited to me.

At 600 kbit/s, which is the fastest throttled speed you can expect to get, you would never be able to use that much data. If you got your LTEX max speed of 12 mbit/s that would run out in under 8 hours. Assuming they throttled you on the first day of the bill cycle you would at best get 7.5 GB.

Even if you got the max 12 mbit/s speed for the whole month the best you would ever see is 150 GB in the bill cycle.

In reality Verizon doesn’t throttle to 600 kbit/s, as most users report speed under 75kbit/s. That puts their max data usage under 950 MB for the bill cycle after throttlingis enabled - and assumes they had 30 days to use the throttled speed. One could easily use that much data downloading iOS apps before they even began streaming content.
 
Last edited:
Fair points, although a little condescending and snide in the delivery, but it seems pretty stupid and short sided that your whole fire fight strategy rests on a Verizon "Unlimited Plan". No one thought about running into this issue? If you have 50, 100, 200, 500, whatever fire fighters on a data plan, surely someone would have thought about data throttling as an issue?

Yeah, obviously mistakes were made, and it seems like rather poor planning and management that a state agency would be using an off-the-shelf retail plan -- but as others have stated there just should never be a scenario in which a cell provider essentially denies service in a situation where loss of life and significant property damage is imminent. Of course they should be made whole for the fair cost of their services, but priorities are priorities.
 
Nope, the plan is unlimited but the speed is not guaranteed after a certain point. There is absolutely nothing false about it, it is your responsibility as a consumer to choose the plan that is appropriate for you AND pay the price for it.

You are getting unlimited data, just might not be at LTE speeds. Even before the cap, you might not get LTE speeds. It is just deliberately after the data cap (which is spelled out), you get lower speeds. They never advertised "unlimited LTE". I do not know a single carrier that does. If you have one, please provide it. It is called marketing. If you want to know what you are getting, read what you sign up for and understand it. No lawyer should touch this.

No, it means unlimited. As in start a data connection and send data at 12:00am on 1/1 and you will still have a data connection at 11:59pm on 1/31. They make no guarantees on speed but you can consume all the data you can consume without charges throughout your billing period.

Whining about speeds and whatnot won't change anything as you are not paying for guaranteed speeds.

Now what Verizon did to the Fire Department was extremely wrong and they should face as much wrath as possible.

You are technically right, and that's the problem. Consumer protections should not hinge on esoteric hairsplitting technicalities buried deep in some legal fine print. You have bought into the phone companies justifications they decided to use AFTER THE FACT they chose to use the word "unlimited", and that is exactly the problem. Companies should not be allowed to blatantly market something, then use weasel words in the fine print to say "ha ha! the thing we sold you that you think means X really means Y! joke's on you!". That is FALSE ADVERTISING and FRAUD, regardless of whatever is buried in the legal fine print. When a company advertises "LTE! Super fast speeds! Unlimited!", the consumer expects to receive all of those things together, and that's the exact reason they use that type of phrasing -- because they want people to believe that's what they're getting, which is intentionally deceptive.
 
You are technically right, and that's the problem. Consumer protections should not hinge on esoteric hairsplitting technicalities buried deep in some legal fine print. You have bought into the phone companies justifications they decided to use AFTER THE FACT they chose to use the word "unlimited", and that is exactly the problem. Companies should not be allowed to blatantly market something, then use weasel words in the fine print to say "ha ha! the thing we sold you that you think means X really means Y! joke's on you!". That is FALSE ADVERTISING and FRAUD, regardless of whatever is buried in the legal fine print. When a company advertises "LTE! Super fast speeds! Unlimited!", the consumer expects to receive all of those things together, and that's the exact reason they use that type of phrasing -- because they want people to believe that's what they're getting, which is intentionally deceptive.

Sigh. You really don't get it, do you.

From VerizonWireless.com:
upload_2018-8-28_9-2-7.png


Can you tell me where there are any claims about network speed. Or even LTE?

Just because YOU fail to understand does not mean anyone is being deceptive. It's unlimited data, not a speed guarantee!

And FYI, I'm not a Verizon fan at all and use AT&T and T-Mobile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cwanja
You are technically right, and that's the problem. Consumer protections should not hinge on esoteric hairsplitting technicalities buried deep in some legal fine print. You have bought into the phone companies justifications they decided to use AFTER THE FACT they chose to use the word "unlimited", and that is exactly the problem. Companies should not be allowed to blatantly market something, then use weasel words in the fine print to say "ha ha! the thing we sold you that you think means X really means Y! joke's on you!". That is FALSE ADVERTISING and FRAUD, regardless of whatever is buried in the legal fine print. When a company advertises "LTE! Super fast speeds! Unlimited!", the consumer expects to receive all of those things together, and that's the exact reason they use that type of phrasing -- because they want people to believe that's what they're getting, which is intentionally deceptive.
See this post https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...esponse-updated.2133474/page-10#post-26392016

But I want to respond to your "consumer protections" for a moment. Why should we rely on government to protect us? You are free willed to take a company to court and sue if you think they wronged you. Most push for arbitation now since it is cheaper, but you can try the jury route if you have the pockets for it. But, just like in this scenario, you likely signed or agreed to terms that protects the company and you have NO idea because you failed to read. Additionally, you have the power to "vote" with your feet and money and take your business else where. If you feel like you got screwed, take your money else and vote with your money. Then spread the good word, no one is stopping your ability to speak and validate your point. But if someone disagrees with it, do not slander them. Tolerance. Trust me, every company is looking at their bottom line. That number stops increasing, they will pay attention to what is going wrong.

I used a lot of "you" in there and please do not take that as me specifically stating you, @orev. Just a general pronoun.
 
Sigh. You really don't get it, do you.

From VerizonWireless.com:

Can you tell me where there are any claims about network speed. Or even LTE?

Just because YOU fail to understand does not mean anyone is being deceptive. It's unlimited data, not a speed guarantee!

And FYI, I'm not a Verizon fan at all and use AT&T and T-Mobile.

No, you're really the one who doesn't get it. As an IT guy you think everything is defined by strict rules and code, and if the logical execution of that code gives a certain result, then anyone who doesn't understand it must be an idiot. You're wrong, and you're outlook on life is wrong.

The word UNLIMITED has a very specific meaning - limitless or without bounds; unrestricted. That screenshot provides all you need to know about this issue. IF SOMETHING IS UNLIMITED THEN YOU CAN'T HAVE 3 SEPARATE OPTIONS WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF "UNLIMITED"! End of story. You don't think they have very carefully crafted their wording to avoid the tiny technicality you are citing? You don't think that the very reason they use the word "unlimited" in the first place is because they KNOW that customers will assume that unlimited actually means unlimited? Of course they are doing it on purpose, to make people think they get one thing while actually selling them something else.

If they were so concerned about ensuring customers know what they are getting, why wouldn't they use a different word? They don't use a different word EXACTLY BECAUSE they KNOW it creates the confusion, and are doing it intentionally. Why not call it "Fast 25, Then Throttle"? Could be multiple plans like: F5-TT, F10-TT, F25-TT. Because then it would be clear what they are doing and not as enticing as "unlimited". The very reason why they want to call it "unlimited" is the same reason why they shouldn't be able to.

Their entire advertising campaign centers around "fast" and "best network", etc... You think that just because this one page and one screenshot doesn't say that, it gives them a free pass? Advertising campaigns need to be seen as a whole, not taken out of context just because one part of it makes your point.

And this applies to all carriers who advertise fake unlimited plans, not just Verizon.
[doublepost=1535483640][/doublepost]
See this post https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...esponse-updated.2133474/page-10#post-26392016

But I want to respond to your "consumer protections" for a moment. Why should we rely on government to protect us? You are free willed to take a company to court and sue if you think they wronged you. Most push for arbitration now since it is cheaper, but you can try the jury route if you have the pockets for it. But, just like in this scenario, you likely signed or agreed to terms that protects the company and you have NO idea because you failed to read. Additionally, you have the power to "vote" with your feet and money and take your business else where. If you feel like you got screwed, take your money else and vote with your money. Then spread the good word, no one is stopping your ability to speak and validate your point. But if someone disagrees with it, do not slander them. Tolerance. Trust me, every company is looking at their bottom line. That number stops increasing, they will pay attention to what is going wrong.

I used a lot of "you" in there and please do not take that as me specifically stating you, @orev. Just a general pronoun.

Wrong. You cannot take any company to court if they have an arbitration clause in the contract. The Supreme Court has ruled on that, and unless you're literally a billionaire, there's no way you can challenge that, and thinking that is a valid approach is delusional. That's in fact the opposite of the very idea of consumer protection, because consumers by their very nature are not in a position to make this type of challenge.

Also, anyone who keeps citing the "just take your business elsewhere" in this day and age of this debate is also delusional. There is no competition, and no reasonable alternatives, end of story. Out of the 4 wireless companies we have, only 2 are viable, and they both have colluded in the market with the same terms and same deceptive practices.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chucker23n1
Why should we rely on government to protect us?

Because they're a much better institution to do so than a corporation?

You are free willed to take a company to court and sue if you think they wronged you.

And a branch of what is the court? And who makes the laws the court uses as a basis?

Most push for arbitation now since it is cheaper,

Arbitration is almost never in the consumer's interest.

But, just like in this scenario, you likely signed or agreed to terms that protects the company and you have NO idea because you failed to read.

Which is why we need the government to make consumer protection laws so such consumer-hostile practices aren't legal.

Unless, of course, you're arguing not only that you've read every single bit of fine print in your life, but also that you can reasonably expect every single fellow citizen to do so.
 
Because they're a much better institution to do so than a corporation?
If you really think government has your best interest in mind, you really should pick up a history book. Let’s take a few examples. Congressmen and Senators used (changed mid 2000s) to trade off insider information AND ‘write’ the very laws that effect those industries. So they could buy, sell, short, long an industry or company that they are about to positively or negatively effect with legislature. Think that is fair? Apparently when others do it, ‘OH BOY. THEY SCREWED OVER THE LITTLE GUYS. HURT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.’ Weren’t you elected to protect American’s?! And you were doing the same thing?! Hypocrites. Then they want to drag through the mud anyone else who does it. Example two, why are Senators and Congressmen exempt from the ACA terms? Should they not be required to follow the same laws they enforce on their consitutents? You would think so. But they exempted themselves. They are DEFINTELY not looking out for you.


Arbitration is almost never in the consumer's interest.
Neither is trying your luck in court, as outlined in the post before you. But you have that option. It is not like you have NO option, so beg the government to save you. Exercise your option. I am not saying abolish the courts. You should have the ability to seek a redress of your grievance if you feel you were wronged. But prove it.


Unless, of course, you're arguing not only that you've read every single bit of fine print in your life, but also that you can reasonably expect every single fellow citizen to do so.
Never stated I read everything I sign. But if you are going to complain about it, better know what you signed up for before you complain. More than likely, what you are complaining about was covered in those terms. Fine print exists for a reason. I will admit I do extensive research before making a decision and feel fully informed. You should expect others to do the same, but I know for a fact that will never happen.
 
No, you're really the one who doesn't get it. As an IT guy you think everything is defined by strict rules and code, and if the logical execution of that code gives a certain result, then anyone who doesn't understand it must be an idiot. You're wrong, and you're outlook on life is wrong.

I get it very well thanks. I'm not someone who thinks the world should bow to my wishes and desires. I also read things and tend to understand what I'm getting. If it's not written down you are not promised it. That's how life works and has always worked. It's called being a prudent consumer.

It's not hard to read things and understand what you are getting. Unless you want life handed to you on a platter and on your terms. But thankfully that's not how life works.

The word UNLIMITED has a very specific meaning - limitless or without bounds; unrestricted. That screenshot provides all you need to know about this issue. IF SOMETHING IS UNLIMITED THEN YOU CAN'T HAVE 3 SEPARATE OPTIONS WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF "UNLIMITED"! End of story.

What are you not getting or are you purposefully appearing this dense?

The data is unlimited on all plans. Sign up for the cheapest plan and you can start a data session on January 1 and use that session until January 31 without limits. No extra charges, no stopping data no nothing. The DATA is unlimited. There are no limits on the amount of data that can be consumed. Period, end of story. By your definition of unlimited, it is indeed unlimited DATA.

What they are "selling" is data speeds and various streaming options. But the data is unlimited. I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend? The nonsense about Best, Fastest,or whatever network is called puffery and it's what they use to get you to sign up. Plenty of places on all carriers that have very slow speeds.

Just because you want unlimited high speed and think that is the only definition doesn't make it right.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: aristobrat
I get it very well thanks. I'm not someone who thinks the world should bow to my wishes and desires. I also read things and tend to understand what I'm getting. If it's not written down you are not promised it. That's how life works and has always worked. It's called being a prudent consumer.

It's not hard to read things and understand what you are getting. Unless you want life handed to you on a platter and on your terms. But thankfully that's not how life works.



What are you not getting or are you purposefully appearing this dense?

The data is unlimited on all plans. Sign up for the cheapest plan and you can start a data session on January 1 and use that session until January 31 without limits. No extra charges, no stopping data no nothing. The DATA is unlimited. There are no limits on the amount of data that can be consumed. Period, end of story. By your definition of unlimited, it is indeed unlimited DATA.

What they are "selling" is data speeds and various streaming options. But the data is unlimited. I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend? The nonsense about Best, Fastest,or whatever network is called puffery and it's what they use to get you to sign up. Plenty of places on all carriers that have very slow speeds.

Just because you want unlimited high speed and think that is the only definition doesn't make it right.

You cannot, as a company, run advertising campaigns about how "great", "fast", "best", "LTE speeds", etc... and then when the customer signs up, they actually get something different, and then turn around and say "ha ha! what we said in our ads was not true and instead you need to read the fine print!" This is called FALSE ADVERTISING.

If they want to advertise "Unlimited 600kbps + Speed boost for 5GB of it", sure, fine. But they won't because THEY KNOW that they are INTENTIONALLY TRICKING people into thinking the unlimited applies to the fast speed data.
 
What makes you think Verizon is state-owned?

Do you mean they're publicly traded? Cause that's quite different from, uh, a local fire department.
Verizon is both a private firm and publicly traded, but is heavily REGULATED by Federal, State and County governments. It is one minor step away from a fire department or a school system. It is on the list of firms for DoD to take over in a conflict. Like AT&T.

BTW we are in a conflict right now. Have you seen the news of phone companies cooperating with NSA?? I have.
 
Verizon is both a private firm and publicly traded, but is heavily REGULATED by Federal, State and County governments. It is one minor step away from a fire department or a school system. It is on the list of firms for DoD to take over in a conflict. Like AT&T.

BTW we are in a conflict right now. Have you seen the news of phone companies cooperating with NSA?? I have.

You're getting way off track. You were comparing Verizon and a fire department by calling them both public.
 
You cannot, as a company, run advertising campaigns about how "great", "fast", "best", "LTE speeds", etc... and then when the customer signs up, they actually get something different, and then turn around and say "ha ha! what we said in our ads was not true and instead you need to read the fine print!" This is called FALSE ADVERTISING.

You're missing the whole point. You are not buying any speed guarantees for your data. You are buying unlimited data at any speed. Totally separate from the "best", "fastest", "most unicorns" claims.

See the screenshot I posted. Where do they discuss speed anywhere? Hint: They don't because that is not what they are selling.

I don't know how to make it any clearer for you - you're not buying speed but a quantity of data.
 
You're missing the whole point. You are not buying any speed guarantees for your data. You are buying unlimited data at any speed. Totally separate from the "best", "fastest", "most unicorns" claims.

See the screenshot I posted. Where do they discuss speed anywhere? Hint: They don't because that is not what they are selling.

I don't know how to make it any clearer for you - you're not buying speed but a quantity of data.

Nobody is missing a point. You're just being disingenuous, just like Verizon's marketing.
 
You're missing the whole point. You are not buying any speed guarantees for your data. You are buying unlimited data at any speed. Totally separate from the "best", "fastest", "most unicorns" claims.

See the screenshot I posted. Where do they discuss speed anywhere? Hint: They don't because that is not what they are selling.

I don't know how to make it any clearer for you - you're not buying speed but a quantity of data.
OK dude, we're done here. You seem to be unable to follow any logical line of discussion, and choose to cherry-pick parts of my comments to make your points, where I clearly refuted your points in the parts you omit. Good luck living in your fake news world.
 
Verizon doing what Verizon does. At least they are consistent no matter who the customer is.
Santa Clara County Fire Department should have read the T&C for their plan. It isn't Verizon's fault Santa Clara County Fire Department agreed to the plan.
Wow, this is just evil. I.e. standard practice for most massive corporations.
What's wrong with enforcing the T&C of a plan? If Santa Clara County Fire Department had a problem with the T&C of the plan they shouldn't have gone with a different plan.
See nothing wrong with this. This is business. If you want to prevent this, have redundant data providers and do not blow through your data. If you do, understand the consequences of those actions. If you know you are going through 22GB of data in a "command center", then make it part of your day 0 or day 1 action plan in a crisis to upgrade the plan. It is a flip of a switch on Verizon's end so all it takes is a phone call.

California wants an exception. Then Canada wants an exception. Then Joe down the streets wants an exception. Good on Verizon for standing their ground.

Also this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality, so why even bring it up? This would not have been "prevented" even if Net Neutrality was still in place.
If Verizon makes an exception for the Santa Clara County Fire Department they must make an exception for me who is also a Verizon customer. Verizon needs to enforce their T&C and if Santa Clara County Fire Department has a problem with it they either need to change their plan or go to another provider like I would have to do as a consumer.
 
All of this just became a moot point. SB 822 passed both the Assembly and the Senate in California, and is headed to Governor Jerry Brown's desk, where he will more than likely be signing it. This will make California the 3rd state to pass its own Net Neutrality laws, following Oregon and Washington.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article217410335.html

Californians’ internet speed protected in bill sent to Jerry Brown
BY TARYN LUNA
August 31, 2018 05:08 PM

Updated 3 hours 1 minute ago

Days after a California fire agency complained that Verizon restricted its internet access during an emergency, California lawmakers on Friday approved perhaps the strongest net neutrality law in the nation.

Senate Bill 822 bans internet service providers from blocking access to legal online content or forcing websites to pay more money for faster speeds. The Legislature sent Gov. Jerry Brown the bill — bucking AT&T, Verizon, and other telecom giants — on the final day of the legislative session. It would restore internet protections that federal regulators rescinded last year.

“This is basic consumer protections, protecting small and midsized business, protecting labor unions and anyone else who relies on the internet,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who introduced the bill.

The concept of net neutrality rests on the idea that internet service providers should be required to provide equal access to all websites and applications without purposely stifling customer speeds or connections to one site over another. The Federal Communications Commission enacted detailed regulations in 2015 during Barack Obama’s presidency that treated high-speed internet providers as public utilities and prohibited the companies from favoring one form of content over another.

But the commission reversed the rules in December, sparking fears of a more restrictive internet experience and inspiring state lawmakers to provide protections for consumers in California.

The Legislature sent Brown the bill a week after news broke that Verizon slowed internet speeds for the Santa Clara County Fire Department while the agency assisted firefighters battling the largest fire in California history. The Fire Department informed Verizon that firefighters were working on a dangerous Mendocino County blaze and were told to buy a more expensive data plan, according to a legal brief Santa Clara officials filed in a lawsuit against the FCC decision last week.

The news enraged state legislators in districts recently struck by massive wildfires. They sent Verizon’s chief executive a letter condemning the company’s actions and launched a series of Capitol hearings to probe the complaints.

The Assembly approved the bill Thursday on a 58-17 vote and the Senate followed Friday, signing off 27-12. SB 822’s overwhelming support belied an explosive battle between lawmakers that temporarily derailed the proposal.


Under mounting pressure from lobbyists, the bill hit a major roadblock in the Assembly Committee on Communications and Conveyance, lead by Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, in June. Wiener said proposed amendments “eviscerated the bill” and he refused to accept the changes.

Santiago, the Los Angeles Democrat who leads the committee, amended the bill anyway. He later said he wanted to keep the proposal moving to continue the conversation, suggesting it would have otherwise died.

“Passing a weak, neutered bill is exactly the wrong direction for our state,” Wiener said at the time.

The move inspired a social media “firestorm” against Santiago, who said advocates of net neutrality threatened him and harassed his wife.

“My personal family pictures have been stolen from my social media platforms and used to create memes,” Santiago said. “Really? Using pictures of my kids? This is a new low.”

The legislators eventually resolved their differences after a brief stalemate and pushed the proposal to the finish line. A handful of other states have passed protections since the FCC’s reversal, but Wiener said the California law more closely parallels the Obama-era policy.

Brown has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the bill.

What happened at the fires fueled what happened with this bill, and now will result in California enacting Net Neutrality, as well as investigations into VZW's actions.

BL.
 
Net Neutrality is not responsible for Verizon throttling the Fire Department’s data. Throttling of unlimited data plans has been going on for years. Before Trump was in office and yes, during the period when we had Net Neutrality.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.