Verizon Throttled California Fire Department's Data Speeds During Wildfire Response [Updated]

[k2director]

The real charactor of the American corporation exposed. No one should be surprised by the way Verison acted. Money is all they focus on. That is what they were created to do.

Jeez. It’s starments like this that explain why Socialist losers like Bernie and Ocasio have found traction, and have to be stopped.

 

[marty11]

And of course Verizon in their statement blames some lowly customer service workers. Not buying that at all. This decision surely went up a few rungs in the ladder.

Would be interesting if any Verizon assets caught fire in the coming months.

 

[tentales]

The penny pinchers at the fire department got exactly what they paid for. And as houses are burning down and fire fighters are put at risk, the fire department refuses to pony up another $99/mo to get the service they need.
Not looking good.

Ahh those greedy fire departments, that more expensive plan cutting into their quarterly profits.

You really have no concept of how public emergency services are funded.
Check your health insurance premiums in case you have an emergency sometime and the hospital tells you they can only give you "exactly what you pay for".

 

[Scottsoapbox]

Maybe don't opt for the cheapest data plan for a mission critical life saving device.

 

[Naaaaak]

Read the email chain. Here's what I noticed:

• 1 month of discussion with higher ups and those involved without resolution to the problem.
• The Major Accounts Manager at Verizon can not be bothered to respond with any expediency. He prefers to "schedule" calls at later dates instead of handling the problem now. He also won't work overtime to handle an issue that the major accounts customer has emphasized is urgent.
• Verizon puts up needless roadblocks and re-directs. At one point he says "reach out to … your account advisor, to see what was done" when he could have done that himself and included that info in his exchange. He also does not include her contact info. Another time he says "call our customer service team" and lists the generic number.
• Verizon's initial resolution is to "upgrade" the plan to something that costs $2 / month more. Some bickering over this ensues from both sides, but it doesn't matter as the upgrade won't solve their problem (needing no throttling).
• One device kept being throttled despite the billing period ticking over (which would have reset the bandwidth counter). This shows the artificial nature of the problem and the lack of control the customer has.

I conclude that Verizon is crap to you no matter if you are one guy or a "major account". Verizon is possibly not profitable with SCCFD as a customer but cannot deny them service, so they've made changes to make it profitable. The issue is the change of service / rules that took place without informing the customer and their lack of responsiveness and resolution.

Net neutrality rules also allowed for Internet users to file complaints for unjust or unreasonable prices and practices, but the complaint option has been eliminated, giving Santa Clara no options for contacting the FCC over Verizon's practices.

What changes did complaints bring about during the brief period of "Obama-era Internet Rules"? Any examples?
How were complaints handled pre-"Obama-era Internet Rules" and why aren't they an option now?

 

[tentales]

Just a heads up, post updated with VZW's statement:

"This situation has nothing to do with net neutrality or the current proceeding in court. We made a mistake in how we communicated with our customer about the terms of its plan. Like all customers, fire departments choose service plans that are best for them. The customer purchased a government contract plan for a high-speed wireless data allotment at a set monthly cost. Under this plan, users get an unlimited amount of data, but speeds are reduced when they exceed their allotment until the next billing cycle.

Regardless of the plan emergency responders choose, we have a practice to remove data speed restrictions when contacted in emergency situations. We have done that many times, including for emergency personnel responding to these tragic fires. In this situation, we should have lifted the speed restriction when our customer reached out to us. This was a customer support mistake. We are reviewing the situation and will fix any issues going forward."

VZW's statement makes it even worse. Did this pass the new CEO's desk ?
First blaming the fire dept for choosing the wrong plan and then their call centre rep for not responding correctly.

If you read the expanded story over on ArsTechnica (a lot more detail) you'll see how this was an on-going process over many months. Verizon dropped the ball not just on one occasion. It's more systemic. It's their corporate culture.

 

[Will do good]

If and when Verizon is on fire, firefighter should slow down their services too.

 

[IG88]

But that rule doesn’t conceptually relate to net neutrality. It’s really just tangentially related in that 1) it coincides, 2) it also relates to network corporations, and 3) it also protects consumers.

I don’t think lumping all network/Internet/cellular consumer protection stories under the umbrella term of net neutrality serves citizens well.

You don't think it's relevant that the repeal of net neutrality rules also eliminated the FCC complaint mechanism?

Even if Verizon's throttling didn't technically violate the no-throttling rule, Santa Clara could have complained to the FCC under the now-removed net neutrality system, which allowed Internet users to file complaints about any unjust or unreasonable prices and practices. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's decision to deregulate the broadband industry eliminated that complaint option and also limited consumers' rights to sue Internet providers over unjust or unreasonable behavior.

 

[tentales]

If and when Verizon is on fire, firefighter should slow down their services too.

Sorry but you're not thinking this through. Tit-4-tat don't apply here. Firefighters are concerned with human lives first, then pets/livestock, then property. Even if only Verizon property were to burn down, it would only effect their insurance company.

 

[cwanja]

Here you go:

You don't think it's relevant that the repeal of net neutrality rules also eliminated the FCC complaint mechanism?

What is the ‘complaint’ going to? FCC investigates, finds out Verizon did what they lay out in their terms of service and then nothing. This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Nothing.

And of course Verizon in their statement blames some lowly customer service workers. Not buying that at all. This decision surely went up a few rungs in the ladder.

Would be interesting if any Verizon assets caught fire in the coming months.

If and when Verizon is on fire, firefighter should slow down their services too.

That is real considerate of both of you. Top notch!

 

[dontwalkhand]

I’m going to justify this by saying the system is automated and most CSRs can’t override this. It sucks but the government is another customer and that’s all.

 

[chucker23n1]

You don't think it's relevant that the repeal of net neutrality rules also eliminated the FCC complaint mechanism?

That’s quite relevant.

 

[MikeSmoke]

Gee, I wonder if they would have a different attitude if a Verizon headquarters was on fire and emergency personnel had their phones bricked.

 

[magicschoolbus]

Bastard company!

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Exactly the reason I would never go back to Verizon.

But on the other hand, why does a City's Fire Department not have the best service available? Why would they pay for a lower-priced service, knowing they could get throttled and their truck be crippled? Even a remote chance of it happening is too much of a chance not to just pay for the higher unthrottled service.
[doublepost=1534897561][/doublepost]

Allowing companies to advertise "unlimited" where they get to redefine that word however they like is FRAUD, plain and simple. It always has been, and this is not a net neutrality issue -- it's a false advertising one.

It's not false advertising. I'm not defending Verizon, but the FD did know that their plan was subject to throttling. Why would a FD sign up for a plan that has the possibility of being throttled to unusable speeds?

 

[Smearbrick]

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.

Totally agree. Sorry, this is on the fire company.

 

[Braderunner]

No matter what Verizon says, this is because of net neutrality. Your data will be slowed down if you don’t pay extra. That is literally what net neutrality is about. Period.

 

[canadianreader]

I Command + F the word 'sorry' didn't find any

 

[busyscott]

Everyone’s mad at Verizon for treating massive corps the same way they treat individual customers?! Get real guys.

This is the free market, you all (including cal fire) can and should leave Verizon for another carrier.

 

[alphaod]

So when is the government going to use asset seizure to take over Verizon's networks in California?



/s

 

[wubsylol]

imagine living in a country where your emergency services can't even get decent internet access while trying to save lives lmao

 

[Tech198]

Sounds like a miss-communication, or someone didn't read the fine print. This is why even unlimited plans have also "fair use"

But in this case, i think the fire department accessing should of been better informed of what would happen after they hit the the "limit"

Even AT&T has the 22Gig limit.. and they also cal it unlimiteo

imagine living in a country where your emergency services can't even get decent internet access while trying to save lives lmao

"oh heavens for fend."

 

[Peace]

Regardless of who did what I'm amazed at people defending a large corporation over a fire department.

 

[Naaaaak]

Net neutrality rules also allowed for Internet users to file complaints for unjust or unreasonable prices and practices, but the complaint option has been eliminated, giving Santa Clara no options for contacting the FCC over Verizon's practices.

You don't think it's relevant that the repeal of net neutrality rules also eliminated the FCC complaint mechanism?

"Can't file a complaint because no Obama-era Internet Legislation" is Fake News. You can file a complaint. The FCC's site doesn't seemed to have changed much from "Obama-era Internet Legislation" to today.

2018: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us
2014: https://web.archive.org/web/20141113191249/https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us

From https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/115000914506-Emergency-Complaints

If your complaint involves interference to a telecommunications service used by public safety entities, first responders, police, fire, law enforcement or a federal agency, then call the FCC's 24/7 Operations Center at 202-418-1122 or use the Public Safety Support Center at https://publicsafetysupportcenter.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/requests/new

Did the SCCFD contact them?

 

[Tech198]

Regardless of who did what I'm amazed at people defending a large corporation over a fire department.

It's more about no one understanding what people sign up for actually. Lots of people gets suckered in to deals then complain after when they were either miss-lead by themselves not reading all of it, or a Verizon stuff up.. (which can also happen)