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.