Verizon Throttled Fire Department's 'Unlimited' Data During Calif. Wildfire (arstechnica.com) 299
Verizon Wireless's throttling of a fire department that uses its data services has been submitted as evidence in a lawsuit that seeks to reinstate federal net neutrality rules. From a report: "County Fire has experienced throttling by its ISP, Verizon," Santa Clara County Fire Chief Anthony Bowden wrote in a declaration. "This throttling has had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services. Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services." Bowden's declaration was submitted in an addendum to a brief filed by 22 state attorneys general, the District of Columbia, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, and the California Public Utilities Commission. The government agencies are seeking to overturn the recent repeal of net neutrality rules in a lawsuit they filed against the Federal Communications Commission in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
"The Internet has become an essential tool in providing fire and emergency response, particularly for events like large fires which require the rapid deployment and organization of thousands of personnel and hundreds of fire engines, aircraft, and bulldozers," Bowden wrote. Santa Clara Fire paid Verizon for "unlimited" data but suffered from heavy throttling until the department paid Verizon more, according to Bowden's declaration and emails between the fire department and Verizon that were submitted as evidence.
"The Internet has become an essential tool in providing fire and emergency response, particularly for events like large fires which require the rapid deployment and organization of thousands of personnel and hundreds of fire engines, aircraft, and bulldozers," Bowden wrote. Santa Clara Fire paid Verizon for "unlimited" data but suffered from heavy throttling until the department paid Verizon more, according to Bowden's declaration and emails between the fire department and Verizon that were submitted as evidence.
Business or consumer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did they have a business plan with a guarantee of service or a consumer plan?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Exactly just because live's are at risk doesn't mean that gouging the maximum possible profit is wrong.
*froth froth * Venezuela *froth froth * gay wedding cakes *froth froth* death panels*.
--
cayenne8
Re:Business or consumer? (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly just because live's are at risk doesn't mean that gouging the maximum possible profit is wrong.
*froth froth * Venezuela *froth froth * gay wedding cakes *froth froth* death panels*.
--
cayenne8
Thank you! This making excuses for Leftist Progressive agendas is getting tiresome. The fact is that a business has the right to make a profit by any means possible - that is the Capitalist system.
If the Fire Department didn't pay for the service they require then they don't deserve any better. And as the Terms and Conditions state, Verizon can change the Terms and Conditions any time they want to. So, if the fire department needs more bandwidth during an emergency - even if they paid for it, then Verizon has the perfect right to throttle or demand more money.
That's Capitalism!
I'm tired of all the Progressives and Leftists making excuses and forcing their agenda on businesses who are struggling to to keep people employed overseas, boost their bottom line and give their CEO's a decent eight to nine figure compensation package!
If the Progressives and Leftists would stop their whining about protecting human health and well being, we'd all be better off!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>If the Fire Department didn't pay for the service they require then they don't deserve any better.
But they did - they paid for an unlimited data connection at the speeds needed. The ISP then failed to deliver, meaning they engaged in false advertising, and that's *their* fault, not the fire department's. If they want to sell throttled plans then they need to sell them *as* throttled plans - fraudulent marketing is NOT compatible with a healthy capitalist system.
Re: (Score:3)
That's Capitalism!
Like others, Verizon is advertising a limited internet connection as "unlimited". That's Fraud! Or at least, it should be. Consumers know what unlimited means: as fast as possible. Technical limits are one thing, artificial limits are another. And throttling down a service used by responders during an ongoing emergency is a third thing.
The intelligent way for Verizon to handle this would have been to only offer emergency services a higher tier of service which doesn't get throttled, and instead of throttlin
Re: (Score:3)
The intelligent way for Verizon to handle this would have been to only offer emergency services a higher tier of service which doesn't get throttled, and instead of throttling emergency services which somehow got onto a lesser plan, escalate them to the higher tier of service and bill them accordingly after the fact.
I suspect it'd also be wise for the companies to keep a paper trail for when 'somehow' means 'penny-pinching idiot deliberately opted for the cheaper plan.' It's useful to know, particularly if that person's the one screaming loudest, since the money 'saved' must have gone somewhere...especially if the amount budgeted was for the right plan.
Re:Business or consumer? (Score:5, Informative)
If they are anything like the power company I used to work for, they are flagged as a public service, emergency service customer. Priority given to service restoration and special consideration in the event of billing problems rather than just a disconnection.
Re:Business or consumer? (Score:5, Informative)
According to TFA, they did get special consideration: "public safety customers have access to plans that do not have data throughput limitations".
The department just chose not to buy such a plan...
Re: (Score:3)
They paid for an "unlimited" plan. Unlimited means without limit to normal people.
If nothing else ISPs should not be allowed to advertise things with limits as unlimited.
Re: (Score:3)
They paid for an "unlimited" plan. Unlimited means without limit to normal people.
If nothing else ISPs should not be allowed to advertise things with limits as unlimited.
They're advertising the data part as unlimited data, not unlimited speed (in fact, they tend to not specify a speed in the advertising for unlimited plans), and most people seem to be pretty capable of understanding that...though, admittedly, all of my sample has IQs above room temp and this may be a minor source of error.
I suggest you would be better off arguing that there should be standard that net/data plans be sold by the speed as well as the amount of data. That'd also let you know how easy it'd be t
Re: (Score:3)
They paid for UNLIMITED data, that's all that matters.
Re: (Score:3)
They paid for UNLIMITED data, that's all that matters.
They can get UNLIMITED, at 9600bps or whatever.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Business or consumer? (Score:5, Informative)
No they didn't and they knew they didn't.
They were on a $37.99/mo plan that had already ran over its cap before and gotten throttled. When they ran over the cap again in June, Verizon told them they could switch to a $39.99/mo plan....but a guy with the title of "Fire Captain" DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SPEND THE EXTRA $2/mo so he had to escalate the matter.
So you have an organization that:
a) fails to understand the tech they buy
b) runs into a problem with said tech and fails to resolve it
c) runs into the same problem again and fails to resolve it again
d) is so bureaucratic that someone with Captain in their title can't spend another $2/mo
I have a hard time blaming Verizon. They apparently told them exactly what they needed to do, both times, and the department either chose not to or simply wasted time in making the decision.
Re:Business or consumer? (Score:5, Funny)
It would have been extremely amusing if some major Verizon owned facilities had then been lost to the fires before the fire department could pay Verizon more to be unthrottled...
Re: (Score:2)
extremely amusing
My thesaurus says the word you're looking for is "ironic".
Re:Business or consumer? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Business or consumer? (Score:5, Insightful)
During a crisis, you respond with whatever is necessary to fight the crisis. Then you present the bill. If you expect repeat business, and run an honest and honorable ship, you make sure the bill represents an accurate and reasonable charge for the services provided. Note that reasonable in this case may be above normal charges due to exigent circumstances, but the charges should not be excessive.
If you instead do what Verizon is reported to have done, and directly impede crisis response, you should expect a lawsuit for the value of the destroyed land and property. What's the legal theory about damages due to inaction called, negligence? In any case, here, that amount of money is going to hurt.
This should be a fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services.
The moment Verizon staff deliberately stepped over that line: it should have resulted in all their spectrum licenses and their FCC Telecoms license being placed in jeapordy. At the very least there should be a billion$ lawsuit for obstructing first responders.
Re:This should be a fine (Score:5, Insightful)
And there would have been, if the FCC had not already been infiltrated by saboteurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck prosecuting that with the current FCC administration. When they killed the net neutrality laws, stuff like this was an expected result.
Re: (Score:2)
If we did reinstate net neutrality, would Facebook have to let Republicans post on it again? If so, this would mean a sea change in the support lineup for that policy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This should be a fine (Score:5, Informative)
The relevant clause was buried halfway into the article:
"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."
So basically, not net neutrality, but the ability to complain about Verizon screwing with customers which was removed along with "net neutrality".
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services.
The moment Verizon staff deliberately stepped over that line
What makes you think a single Verizon employee did a darn thing never mind "deliberately"? This is all coded into their system with zero human decision making. It just never even entered into the design requirements that if customer is emergency services provider, allow un-throttled bandwidth.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the issue. Verizon coded the system (or had it coded to their specifications). Their system, their responsibility. Then, having been informed that it had made a bad decision, they did nothing to override it, in other words they reaffirmed it's action.
Re:This should be a fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services.
The moment Verizon staff deliberately stepped over that line
What makes you think a single Verizon employee did a darn thing never mind "deliberately"? This is all coded into their system with zero human decision making. It just never even entered into the design requirements that if customer is emergency services provider, allow un-throttled bandwidth.
You know damned well a customer threatening to leave might have the salesma, er, retention specialist flip a few virtual switches on his account and give discounts, free upgrades to no throttling, and so on.
So please. Corporations like that have enormous investment in easy control over their networks and products on a per customer basis.
Re:This should be a fine (Score:4, Informative)
The moment Verizon staff deliberately stepped over that line: it should have resulted in all their spectrum licenses and their FCC Telecoms license being placed in jeopardy.
I'm sure Ajit Pai [wikipedia.org] will get right on that.
Ajit Pai ... serves as the Chairman of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Before his appointment to the FCC, Pai held positions with ... Verizon Communications (as Associate General Counsel).
Re:This should be a fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Before his appointment to the FCC, Pai held positions with ... Verizon Communications (as Associate General Counsel).
In other words, Pai will have to recuse himself from the proceeding and let the other commissioners handle the matter due to conflict of interest concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
Pai will have to recuse himself
He's a lawyer -- like he's going to let that happen.
Can't fine the firefighters (Score:5, Insightful)
The firefighters are to blame, if the facts reported in TFA are, indeed, facts:
The firefighters f-ed up. They knew — at least, on June 29th, what will automatically happen to their connection. That they didn't change their subscription by July 27, when the Mendocino fire started, is nobody else's fault but their own. Spending tens of thousands on all of that firefighting equipment, they can't spend extra $60 for the truly unlimited data-plan?
Maybe, they expected the company to give them freebies, the way smaller business may be bullied into giving. Didn't work...
What does any of this have to do with "net neutrality" remains a mystery...
Re: (Score:2)
What does any of this have to do with "net neutrality" remains a mystery...
You know, there is data involved! Its either NN or Russians. We can't explain it, it just is. And msmash put it in the summary, so it must be relevant. With all that throttling, we're lucky the whole country didn't burn down.
Re: (Score:2)
Which plan was that?
Re: (Score:3)
One only available to public safety customers:
Yeah, this may be a cheaper one for the department, based on their actual usage — which only spikes when there is a massive fire.
Either way, they knew their options long ago but stuck with a $38/month plan.
And, again, none of this has anything to do with Net Neutrality:
Re:Can't fine the firefighters (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe, they expected the company to give them freebies, the way smaller business may be bullied into giving. Didn't work...
I'd argue that both sides screwed up. The fire department should have done due diligence so they knew and tested that everything works as expected in simulated conditions before a real emergency. There is no excuse for lack of due diligence on their part.
Verizon should have, as soon as they knew their service was the problem, they should have bumped them to something truly unlimited for at least the duration of the emergency for no additional charge, then give them a couple weeks to make a correct package choice or come to a new deal. Personally I don't think Verizon should sell critical emergency workers any plan that isn't unlimited truly, and if they can't get them to buy such a plan after making the price reasonable, they should get the public workers off their service, if at all possible.
You can't really expect them to donate extra service forever, though it also wouldn't be the end of the world if they did in this particular case. Finally Verizon should sell what they advertise. Just drop unlimited data. Charge a base rate, plus actual costs of data and be done with it. No deception necessary, and you don't even need to block tethering....
Re: (Score:2)
The air waves are owned by We the People. We the People grant the carriers the privilege of managing this public resource. That privilege can be suspended or outright revoked at any time.
Re: (Score:3)
Usually companies and people are pretty good at helping in emergencies. The exceptions are lackies too scared to make a command decision (go look up the Standard Operating Procedure theory of history) so do the wrong thing by doing what they are supposed to (e.g. the Starbucks or whatever that charged money for bottled water to the fire department who needed it for eyewash on 9/11.)
I would definitely want to know who refused to put them back on unlimited speed after multiple notifications.
"They shouldn't e
Re:This should be a fine (Score:5, Insightful)
The FD screwed up, yes, by buying the wrong plan. (Furthermore, no doubt Verizon can tag accounts "no throttle" if they want.) But once the emergency in progress is discovered (a bug in the system) it is reasonable to expect people to help to...actually help.
"I'm sorry. Apollo 13 must whiz by the moon into deep space because we don't have authorized overtime at Nasa."
Righteously you stand there, as people die, and your company incurs millions in lost money from a public relations black eye.
Re: This should be a fine (Score:3, Informative)
They tried to help. They offered to upgrade the plan for an extra $2 per month. Apparently the fire guy calling them couldn't authorize that upgrade for some fucked up reason.
That is just f**ked up, Verizon. (Score:2)
What the hell?!?!
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. (Score:2, Insightful)
Throttling after using a certain amount of data happened while net neutrality was in effect. This is a false correlation meant to get those who don't think to come running with torches and pitchforks.
Still waiting for the net neutrality part (Score:3)
Looks to me like after they hit the 25GB cap, every single bit was delivered at the same (degraded) speed.
this is what fixed 5G will be like get a dish or c (Score:2)
this is what fixed 5G will be like get a dish or cable if you want TV!
confused.. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The REP went into sales mode as well pay more + (Score:2)
The REP went into sales mode as well pay more + likely get locked into a long term deal as well. To get your speed back.
Network Neutrality says no one gets priority (Score:5, Insightful)
A truly neutral network would not give firefighter traffic ANY priority over other traffic. To ask for such priority is to be a hypocrite. This request by the fire fighters, at best, is an COUNTER example of what "Network Neutrality" means.
Oh, and the issue of exceeding a data cap on your network plan is not the same as network neutrality.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice muddying of the issue, but no.
Neutrality is about not throttling based on the destination, not QoS. It's fine to give VOIP traffic higher priority than bulk downloads. It's not fine to give Verizon VOIP traffic higher priority than skype.
And what kind of fucking corporate arsewipe thinks it's somehow acceptable by any moral or civil standards to gouge the fire department in the middle of a serious crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
And what kind of fucking corporate arsewipe thinks it's somehow acceptable by any moral or civil standards to gouge the fire department in the middle of a serious crisis.
Other fire departments, for one. Though they're not corporate.
Re: (Score:3)
Did the fire fighters ask for priority, or did they ask for their unlimited data plan to be de-throttled?
Incorrect (Score:3)
Re:Network Neutrality says no one gets priority (Score:4, Insightful)
Rubbish comment, this is no way a counter example. The Fire Dept traffic were not asking for priority, just for equal access; they were being throttled. What's more the Fire Dept were not exceeding any cap, they paid for unlimited data.
$99.99 for the first 20GB and $8 per gigabyte ther (Score:2)
$99.99 for the first 20GB and $8 per gigabyte thereafter. WOW that just sucks
This has nothing to do with net neutrality (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, they hit a cap and their service was degraded. This has literally nothing to do with net neutrality, and this is a big part of the reason that those of us who want NN have a bigger hill to climb. Other proponents of NN don't have a clue as to what they're actually fighting for.
I'm not arguing one way or another for what actually happened here, just pointing out that it's unrelated to NN.
Re: This has nothing to do with net neutrality (Score:4)
Did you read the article? It only started happening after the FCC repealed the NN rules.
It doesn't matter when it happened - it has nothing to do with net neutrality. Some kids were born that day, also. The sun rose and set that day. I worked. None of this has jack shit to do with net neutrality.
"Unlimited" (Score:5, Informative)
How about some truth in advertising?
Any service that is subject to data caps, throttling, etc. should not be called "unlimited".
Unlimited: not limited; unrestricted; unconfined. https://www.dictionary.com/bro... [dictionary.com]
My home internet is a paltry 20Mb DSL, but it is full speed 24x7. That's what I call "unlimited".
Re: (Score:2)
The unlimited that they are referring to is the amount of data you can transfer, not the speed at which you can transfer it.
I'm not saying that they don't try to suggest that the speed is unlimited, but that's not the unlimited part.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make the offer any less deceptive.
Re: (Score:2)
If the limited speed is too low for a useful service, then the plan it's not unlimited.
Nothing to do with net neutrality (Score:4, Informative)
>"Verizon Wireless's throttling of a fire department that uses its data services has been submitted as evidence in a lawsuit that seeks to reinstate federal net neutrality rules."
Um, this has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. It does have to do with the definition of "unlimited data", but they were not throttling based on where the data was going....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're throttled across the board it is still neutral.
But if the throttling for a particular customer is removed subject to additional payments, it isn't.
From TFA:
Santa Clara Fire paid Verizon for "unlimited" data but suffered from heavy throttling until the department paid Verizon more
Re: (Score:3)
>"But if the throttling for a particular customer is removed subject to additional payments, it isn't. "
That is not what net neutrality is about. If they are throttle ALL their data the same way, regardless of where it is going or coming from, that is, by definition, "neutral". If they started throttling only video, or only to Google, or only to a certain country, that would NOT be neutral.
Throttling is just a way of being able to say "unlimited data". Without throttling, they could have to really giv
Re: (Score:2)
My ISP offers full speed unlimited data (only on wired network, though)
Re: (Score:2)
>"My ISP offers full speed unlimited data (only on wired network, though)"
I was talking about wireless carriers, not home/business wired. But even home/wired almost always has some type of cap, even if it is very high and they don't say what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're throttled across the board it is still neutral.
But if the throttling for a particular customer is removed subject to additional payments, it isn't.
From TFA:
Santa Clara Fire paid Verizon for "unlimited" data but suffered from heavy throttling until the department paid Verizon more
So... is my home ISP "limited" or "unlimited" because I don't pay for the highest speed, but have no data caps?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does - because fuck Verizon.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Yes it does - because fuck Verizon."
LOL! Ok, well, there is always that.
FirstNet (AT&T) Provides Priority Access (Score:2)
Re: FirstNet (AT&T) Provides Priority Access (Score:2)
They probably do but nobody knowledgeable got involved with their IT planning. Even on throttled networks I wonder what consumes so much data that responses are delayed. You can do streaming voice over as little as 8kBps and data over less.
Re: (Score:3)
Even on throttled networks I wonder what consumes so much data that responses are delayed.
Probably maps. Fire/smoke maps take quite a bit of data.
Fine the FireFighters (Score:2)
Verizon probably broke some laws here, but you could not really expect them to have any plans in place for such an outcome.
It is the Fire Departments fault for using a residential level internet service for system critical infrastructure.
Verizon is challenging Comcast? (Score:2)
Is Verizon challenging Comcast for the title of "most hated company"?
Really? (Score:2)
Santa Clara Fire paid Verizon for "unlimited" data but suffered from heavy throttling until the department paid Verizon more
That's a really nice fire you've got there, shame if something were to happen to it.
Wait, WHAT? You want it to go out? Juuust a minute then.
Socialism is capitalism (Score:2)
Time to remind everyone that socialism is capitalism in which senior government officials are monopoly owners.
And they wont provide people with free anything once they gain those positions. Free Media? Traitors, except the state owned press. Healthcare? A useless expense, ration it out. Decent education? Another expense, a waste of money. A presidential palace? Now thatâ(TM)s needed for national pride. And monuments. We definitely need those.
Re:Unlimited does not preclude throttling (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm hoping firefighters throughout the US keep that in mind when a Verizon building catches fire. "WEll, you know, we do have to prioritize our resources. Can't fight every fire..."
Re:Unlimited does not preclude throttling (Score:5, Funny)
s/Verizon building/Verizon executive's home/
No, that 's not mean and vindictive. Nothing prevents them switching to an alternative firefighting provider.
They mostly have (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe there is a quality firefighting service for rich people yet. Perhaps we can partner with the prison system and make this happen.
You joke, but this podcast [art19.com] describes prisoners working as firefighters in California for $1/hr.
Re: Unlimited does not preclude throttling (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fill in the blank: Verizon <BLANKED> the fire departments transfer speed.
Re: (Score:2)
It starts with an "L"
Re: (Score:2)
Fill in the blank: Verizon <BLANKED> the fire departments transfer speed.
"automatically adjusted according to contract"
Re: (Score:2)
You either flunked reading or the alphabet.
Re: (Score:2)
You either flunked reading or the alphabet.
Obviously your sentence was constructed for your predetermined outcome. The issue is that Verizon did nothing after the Fire Department selected the wrong plan for mission critical service. Yes, Verizon should have done more for the public good. But read TFA. The FD was trying to take the cheap route and knew it, and now they're deflecting blame.
Re: Unlimited does not preclude throttling (Score:4)
Regardless of morality or ethics or terms of the contract, they undeniably LIMITED the bandwidth (they even call it that themselves). That is, they LIMITED the unlimited data. The contract may very well have said they could, but their marketing lies it's ass off. A reasonable person would call that plan LIMITED.
That's why professionals, when selecting a vendor plan for a mission critical service, are going to do their research and talk to an enterprise rep, and then pay for the level of service that meets their needs. Also, this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. This kind of cap and throttle plan existed before NN, during it, and exists now.
Re: (Score:2)
I never claimed this was a Net Neutrality issue. I claimed it's massive advertising draud.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We were able to rescue your workers and avoid the flames from reaching any property not belonging to Verizon, unfortunately we were unable to keep the main building from burning to the ground. Our water supply was throttled, it seems, and we had to prioritize resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you are over your monthly Hydrant limit, you will get *Unlimited* water usage for the remainder of the month from this kinked garden hose.
Re: (Score:2)
We can send you a guy on a moped with a couple of jerrycans full of piss. Next Tuesday at the absolute latest.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, one of the fire fighters should have a super soaker
Re: (Score:3)
That or they'll have died in forest fires.
Re: (Score:2)
Those currently in charge of this administration simply do not care about their own rules.
First, they are the rules of the previous administration. Second, they care enough to get rid of them.
You may not agree with the administration, but that is how executive rules/regulations work. One executive makes them and another can change or abolish them. If you don't like that possibility, then you need legislation. But that would require actual work and not just political posturing. It has been so long since Congress passed a meaningful piece of legislation that had a decent amount of bi-partisan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3951... [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Since they haven't pulled out to let it burn, I presume they did go to plan B. But the reason it's plan B is that it's not as good as plan A when it works.
Re: (Score:3)