FCC chairman: hold up on that throttling idea, Verizon

[s44]

http://mashable.com/2014/07/30/fcc-...ly-need-to-throttle-unlimited-data-customers/

It's not over until the fat lady sings. And I'm certainly not going to abandon ship until it's over.

This is great stuff:

"Reasonable network management" concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams. It is disturbing to me that Verizon Wireless would base its "network management" on distinctions among its customers' data plans, rather than on network architecture or technology.

 

[Ravynmagi]

I think it's just for show. This same guy was a former lobbyist for the cable companies, so I think he's really already warm and fuzzy with data caps and throttling.

 

[s44]

I think it's just for show. This same guy was a former lobbyist for the cable companies, so I think he's really already warm and fuzzy with data caps and throttling.

You're forgetting, the cablecos and Verizon are not friends...

 

[Ravynmagi]

You're forgetting, the cablecos and Verizon are not friends...

Yeah, but they both hate their customers more.

 

[lothar]

Both of you are also forgetting that he was a former lobbyist for the wirelessly carriers as well from 1992-2004.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_Telecommunications_&_Internet_Association

 

[shabby]

 

[Red Storm]

"Hold on Verizon, before you go ahead and do this we need to feign disappoint."

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I believe they should just abandon unlimited and put everyone on a data cap. However that data cap needs to be reasonable, and today's 2GB or whatever crap is just bull. Budget plans should never go below 1gb, and the average plan should be 5gb at least. I think that's a fair amount. Oh yeah, and index that with average data transfer rates, so it keeps rising as our networks get faster and people view more HD content.

 

[Roland00Address]

I am sorry verizon owners, but there is little you can do. You need to put pressure on verizon and make them reconsider, the problem is this is not going to work.

The problem is Verizon would be happy to get rid of you, they are not purposefully trying to piss you off all the time (not going to always throttle you) but when your usage makes everyone's else life miserable on their network, and they have to think about upgrading their network at a faster pace, then they rather lose you via throttling then spend the extra money to upgrade their network faster.

Remember upgrading your network has diminishing returns, you can only push the scientific advancement in figuring out how to get so much bandwidth from limited spectrum so fast.

-----

I am very sympathetic. Verizon signed a contract with you, a promise, and the terms of the contract were that they will continue even after the 2 year agreement ends the terms are still the same until change your behavior and want out of the original contract. Now verizon is trying to use weasel words to make you change. This is BS. But there is a good reason why Verizon is trying to doing this sure they are using unethical means to try to obtain it, but the reason why they want to get rid of unlimited data makes sense.

The ethical thing would be for verizon to pay you to quit the contract, not renege on the agreement with weasel words and weasel changes of terms of service.

-----

An outside third party such as a judge or arbitration should step in and prevent Verizon from doing the unethical thing, but to be perfectly honest we know this is not going to happen in the real world.

 

[PowerYoga]

Nobody believes anything will come from this angry letter. I will be very surprised if FCC does anything more than wag their fingers at verizon. Either that or they forgot to bribe FCC this quarter and FCC is sending them a "stern letter" as a reminder.

 

[Zaap]

The ethical thing would be for verizon to pay you to quit the contract, not renege on the agreement with weasel words and weasel changes of terms of service.

Good point. However Verizon is to ethical as oil is to water.

 

[s44]

I guess I should have expected a lot of sour grapes non-VZ-unlimited users here.

Nobody believes anything will come from this angry letter.

Quite wrong. This is just how agency activity works. The letter is not in lieu of action, it's the obligatory warning shot. The FCC didn't have to issue anything at all (they're not elected)... that this came out so strong is a sign that VZ didn't get their agency ducks in a row before announcing this policy.

Remember, the FCC has already used C-block rules to force Verizon to: (1) issue all their LTE phones totally free of carrier lock (and, after playing "hide the APN setting" footsie, unrestricted on that front too), and (2) allow everyone to tether (given the software to do so), whether explicitly paying for it or not. These are not things Big Red wanted.

 

[Roland00Address]

Good point. However Verizon is to ethical as oil is to water.

This is the case of a lot of businesses, and a lot of individual human beings. That is why you need a system of laws, and honest outside authorities such as judges and arbitrators to make sure contracts are upheld when there was a true meeting of the minds originally, but now one of the people want to try unethical things to get out of the contract.

 

[Roland00Address]

I guess I should have expected a lot of sour grapes non-VZ-unlimited users here.

Quite wrong. This is just how agency activity works. The letter is not in lieu of action, it's the obligatory warning shot. The FCC didn't have to issue anything at all (they're not elected)... that this came out so strong is a sign that VZ didn't get their agency ducks in a row before announcing this policy.

Remember, the FCC has already used C-block rules to force Verizon to: (1) issue all their LTE phones totally free of carrier lock (and, after playing "hide the APN setting" footsie, unrestricted on that front too), and (2) allow everyone to tether (given the software to do so), whether explicitly paying for it or not. These are not things Big Red wanted.

You are correct that this was A) The letter that they have to do before B) Actual regulatory actions to make verizon stop it.

But while A needs to happen before B that does not mean B will follow A.

I hope A->B because A by itself is useless.