I don't see where Verizon dishonored its user agreement. There is nothing in the terms of use that states, that Verizon cannot conduct network testing or that it has to tell subscribers ahead of time about said testing.But this is a big deal and a lie of omission is still dishonest. Verizon stated when you sign up for the plan, your video would not be throttled, you would only be throttled once you'd hit a bandwidth limit AND were on a congested tower, and that's not what happened. Yes, it's testing, and I'm fine with them doing testing. But not telling customers they are doing this is both dishonest AND a violation of the terms they specified.
What Juli Clover did with her article, is paint a negative picture of Verizon by including information that had nothing to do with the actual subject at hand. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been anything to really write about past Version did some in house testing. Other networks do the same kind of thing from time to time. In legal terms, Julie was leading the witness (the reader) to paint the kind of story that would influence the jury the way she wanted. Given the replies thus far, I would say that Julie has been very successful.
Bad journalism, in my opinion. The alphabet networks do the same kind of thing all the time and they aren't called on it when they should be.