Fire Department Rejects Verizon's 'Customer Support Mistake' Excuse For Throttling (arstechnica.com) 251
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A fire department whose data was throttled by Verizon Wireless while it was fighting California's largest-ever wildfire has rejected Verizon's claim that the throttling was just a customer service error and "has nothing to do with net neutrality." The throttling "has everything to do with net neutrality," a Santa Clara County official said. Verizon yesterday acknowledged that it shouldn't have continued throttling Santa Clara County Fire Department's "unlimited" data service while the department was battling the Mendocino Complex Fire. Verizon said the department had chosen an unlimited data plan that gets throttled to speeds of 200kbps or 600kbps after using 25GB a month but that Verizon failed to follow its policy of "remov[ing] data speed restrictions when contacted in emergency situations." "This was a customer support mistake" and not a net neutrality issue, Verizon said. "Verizon's throttling has everything to do with net neutrality -- it shows that the ISPs will act in their economic interests, even at the expense of public safety," County Counsel James Williams said on behalf of the county and fire department. "That is exactly what the Trump Administration's repeal of net neutrality allows and encourages."
Muddying the Waters Doesn't Help (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Muddying the Waters Doesn't Help (Score:5, Insightful)
This incident has nothing to do with net neutrality, and even the spokesman for the fire department essentially acknowledged that; from my reading of his statement.
Proponents of net neutrality however, are using this incident as a "character witness" on Verizon; to highlight that ISPs like Verizon absolutely cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the public, even in an emergency. And therefore regulatory oversight, and rules like net neutrality are essential to ensuring the public interest is met.
Re: (Score:3)
This does not directly tie to net neutrality but it shows how fast they'll fuck us when they swear up and down they'll be well behaved without regulation
Re: (Score:2)
This incident has everything to do with how net neutrality was implemented. Net neutrality was implemented by making Verizon's Internet service a Title II service, which required net neutrality. It also forbade throttling of "unlimited" plans, because Title II isn't just about net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
My take is it's both. As weird as it may sound.
I agree that speed throttling isn't necessarily linked with net neutrality. As a matter of fact, net neutrality is, by definition, about lane prioritization, which in this case didn't apply.
It could have been both an economic decision and an overzealous H1B employee marking the wrong checkmarks based on an old or traditionally-word-of-mouth-passed-on documentation.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you use an H1B employee for a call center job? Just move the call center to India.
I don't think you really understand the H1B program.
People do not understand net neutrality (Score:3)
Net neutrality says that you cannot prioritize traffic to site A over that for site B for economic reasons alone.
Net neutrality would have done nothing about this.
The regulations proposed for net neutrality, some of which were written by the cable industry, would not have helped.
The only thing that will help is having more competition in the ISP world and that, ironically, is limited by regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
The implementation of net neutrality was to make Verizon's Internet service a Title II service.
Title II covers more than net neutrality. It also would have forbade throttling of "unlimited" service.
So while it's not specifically net neutrality, it is affected by how we did net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I think Net Neutrality is a good idea and didn't want it repealed, but this has nothing to do with selective throttling or charges. It's the nature of the plan. Sounds like another CA municipality exploiting an unrelated issue just to get on the anti-Trump bandwagon.
"This is Trump's America " is the new, "It's Bush's fault" and "Thanks Obama", though the latter was more often said jokingly.
Simple question then (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure it does, or rather, the lack of net neutrality
Ok then - What exactly in the rules that were repealed, would have prevented what happened? Since obviously you have read them and are familiar with what was repealed, I mean it would be crazy to be upset about the loss of something you had never read and didn't even understand, right?
I'll respond to any post that actually provides a real answer. If I am silent, well, perhaps you should try to answer the question - what in the rules repealed would have prevented a cell provider from throttling cellular data services?
Re:Simple question then (Score:5, Informative)
There was a great post [slashdot.org] in the last story by silentbozo (542534) referencing this [arstechnica.com] article on arstechnica. It references the US Code Title II section 207 here [cornell.edu].
That section reads "Any person claiming to be damaged by any common carrier subject to the provisions of this chapter may either make complaint to the Commission as hereinafter provided for, or may bring suit for the recovery of the damages for which such common carrier may be liable under the provisions of this chapter, in any district court of the United States of competent jurisdiction; but such person shall not have the right to pursue both such remedies."
Quick connection: When Net Neutrality was US law, if this exact situation occured, then the fire deparment could either make formal complaint with severe fallout for Verizon's continued operations, or alternatly would have 100% grounds to sue Verizon since it would have been 100% liable.
Re:Simple question then (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, thanks for the response - however that is still a VERY iffy connection to what happened to the fire department, and it's not at all clear to me that losing title II classification mans the fire department could not complain to the FCC (they still can), or that they could sue Verizion (which they certainly can).
So what has changed really? I still do not see anything clearly there that has really changed, apart from MAYBE the actions the FD can take - but I really do not see how it would have affected what Verizon actually did. It's not like behaviors at telcos change quickly, so I cannot see Verizon acting any differently under the previous rules vs the current ones with such a recent change.
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot that they're the fucking fire department, and under title II would have meant Verizon's obligations to their service quality would have been very different
The swearing was rather pointless, and while my mom's basement is very nice Verizon has no relation to it, nor to the house that I live in.
Can we please stick to finding out what is real?
How is what you say the case? I don't see anything about title II vs title I (which is what they become) that would make the case of the fire department much
Re:Simple question then (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a common carrier does NOT mean you need to provide an unthrottled service. It means all items (packets) delivered to you need to be treated equal without inspection, interception, or alteration.
Just becuase someone can file a complaint or sue doesn't mean they will win. It's an incredibly weak arguement for why this is a net neutrality issue with an even weaker affect on Verizon.
Re: Simple question then (Score:2, Interesting)
People aren't fighting for the previous rules. They are fighting for actual net neutrality.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
His point isn't agree/disagree with net neutrality, he's saying that the throttling has nothing to do with net neutrality. I haven't actually seen you say anything to refute that.
Re: (Score:2)
If Verizon was back under Title II (how "net neutrality" was implemented), it would be under a different set of regulations. The claim is those regulations would not have allowed throttling at all.
Re:Muddying the Waters Doesn't Help (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Muddying the Waters Doesn't Help (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it has nothing to do with net neutrality. They weren't throttling SOME content, they were throttling ALL content. Based on the CONTRACTED plan that the fire authority signed with the company. Whether that plan is marketed as "an Unlimited Plan" or the "Happy Fun Time Plan" is irrelevant, as the terms of the plan are laid out in the contract.
Does any top tier ISP provide really, truly, honest "Unlimited" service? Anyone? At $40/month? No.
Verizon screwed up internally by not removing the throttle. The folks at the fire authority got trapped in generic customer service hell that pushed their buttons, read their menus, and said "so sorry, too bad".
The circumstances suck, for sure. But net neutrality? No. Net neutrality is not about being able to violate your contracted rates and terms on a whim, its about being able to use your contracted bandwidth however you want.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
T-Mobile comes a lot closer. Their cap is 50gigs and after that you are only throttled in congested areas which hopefully aren't wild fire zones. After 50gigs they lower your priority which means nothing if the tower has capacity. They don't throttle in the way ATT or Verizon does.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Santa Clara Fire Department doesn't have the $40/month plan. They are a big, well-equipped department with at least a dozen firehouses and hundreds and hundreds of firefighters, plus volunteers.
Re: Muddying the Waters Doesn't Help (Score:4, Funny)
Amazingly enough you are correct for once, if only by accident. They actually had the $37 plan which, as you rightly point out, is not $40.
Re:Muddying the Waters Doesn't Help (Score:4, Informative)
The Santa Clara Fire Department doesn't have the $40/month plan.
You're right, it's actually $37.99 plan. From yesterday's FA:
"A Verizon government accounts manager named Silas Buss responded, saying that the fire department would have to move from a $37.99 plan to a $39.99 plan "to get the data speeds restored on this device." Later, Buss suggested that the department switch to a plan that cost at least $99.99 a month."
So what you should be saying is they are well equipped enough that they *shouldn't* have that plan. But all evidence points to the fact that they do.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you read TFA you'd discover the fire department negotiated - with Verizon - that data wouldn't be throttled in the event of an emergency. The fire, which definitely constitutes and emergency, resulted in a data overage and Verizon throttled the data. Verizon then had the balls to turn around and demand $62 more per month *during the fire*.
The plan was fine. Verizon failed to live up to the contract.
Re: (Score:2)
The Santa Clara Fire Department doesn't have the $40/month plan. They are a big, well-equipped department with at least a dozen firehouses and hundreds and hundreds of firefighters, plus volunteers.
Exactly. They have a big enough account thy should have had a no throttle clause for their phones. Per there website, they have 330 employees across all departments, barely a blip on the total population of Santa Clara County. I would doubt that their use would impact the network so greatly that it would be a problem for VZW; and that avoids VZW trying to determine when an emergency is occurring. The fires are obvious but there are still plenty of other smaller situations that could chew through data as w
Re: (Score:3)
Does any top tier ISP provide really, truly, honest "Unlimited" service? Anyone?
AT&T and most of the Baby Bells do - you can order a T1/T2/T3 or frame relay with a committed information rate. Of course, it's going to cost you, but it's going to be unlimited at max throughput, with no throttling.
At $40/month? No.
Hell, I get that with bridged DSL from my ISP. 1536/384 may be slow as hell, but it is never throttled, with no port blocks nor restrictions on what I can use it for.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, ISPs have recently been caught out throttling DSL to get customers off that technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Does any top tier ISP provide really, truly, honest "Unlimited" service? Anyone? At $40/month? No.
Maybe not in your country. Here, I get 50 GB unthrottled mobile data, plus unlimited gigabit fiber, plus a 3G stick, plus 60+ TV channels, all for 25 bucks a month. As a normal customer with no special treatment. Weird how a third world country can allow for that to happen, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
A new, smallish 1-bedroom apartment starts from $50-60K here in Bucharest. Larger ones (2-bedroom, living room, office) can go over 150K.
The real reason for low prices is ISP competition. True competition, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an US-centric website, I try to define everything in expected currency, for example. It's called "being polite".
As for my English, given I mainly do business with people from the US of A, work American shifts and speak English more than Romanian... comes with the territory, man. And I do live here in Romania.
Re: (Score:2)
Does any top tier ISP provide really, truly, honest "Unlimited" service? Anyone?
Why would they? If there is no enforced legal obligation to be truthful, and all of their competitors are also liars, then honesty will put them at a competitive disadvantage. They aren't a charity.
Re: (Score:2)
Does any top tier ISP provide really, truly, honest "Unlimited" service? Anyone? At $40/month? No.
But do they advertise it? Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
It still runs afoul of net neutrality. It still filters packets according to arbitrary criteria (in this case, coming from or going to the Fire Department).
Net Neutrality means: Each packet is created equal, and has to be handled equally. And that includes independency of source and target of the packet.
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality means: Each packet is created equal, and has to be handled equally. And that includes independency of source and target of the packet.
Net Neutrality isn't supposed to include source/destination, it's supposed to be source/destination. The specific problem that Net Neutrality is meant to solve is that ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc.) could reduce competition in other markets by intentionally interfering with data from services such as Netflix or YouTube in order to drive people towards services owned by the ISP.
Things like throttling high-usage customers and false advertising suck, but those aren't the problems that Net Neutralit
Re: (Score:2)
It might be part of YOUR net neutrality rules but it wasn't part of the rules that the FCC implemented with the Title II designation. The rules the FCC implemented included a blanket exception for wireless traffic.
Re:Muddying the Waters Doesn't Help (Score:4, Interesting)
>
In the same sense that the Queen of England appoints the bishops of the Church of England. Nominally, she appoints them, but their names must be on a list provided by the Prime Minister. That list can have a single name on it. In this case, Obama was required to appoint someone who would be acceptable to the Republican party leadership.
Bonus question: why have there been precisely zero Catholic Prime Ministers of the UK? It couldn't possibly be due to the possibility of a Catholic person choosing the bishops for the Church of England, could it?
Re: (Score:2)
Summed up so brilliantly by Yes Prime Minister.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Re: Muddying the Waters Doesn't Help (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama appointed Pai.
Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnel, not Obama.
Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnel and appointed by Obama.
This shit right here is the "jourlaism" tactic that is called fake news. Reply to a fact with a different fact dressed as a refutation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I just don't get your flavor of Trump Derangement at all.
It's like you're steeped in homophobia, but for some reason you go cuckoo for coca puffs about Donald Trump.
Re:Muddying the Waters Doesn't Help (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Muddying the Waters Doesn't Help (Score:2)
So, if they provide these same level of service to both firefighters and to regular citizens, that's not neutral?
I think you're very confused.
Education (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason net neutrality is a thing is because it prevents ISPs from robbing Peter to pay Paul. Internet fast lanes don't increase average bandwidth. All they do is increase one person's bandwidth at the expense of everyone else. The net result of this is zero - the average bandwidth remains the same. So it costs th
Timing isn't the issue. (Score:5, Interesting)
Verizon yesterday acknowledged that it shouldn't have continued throttling Santa Clara County Fire Department's "unlimited" data service while the department was battling the Mendocino Complex Fire.
Or at any other time, really, not just while battling the fire -- unless Verizon is going to monitor the activity of the fire department and throttle their service whenever the department isn't fighting a fire...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the fire department should get free access? All for that. Who will pay the bill?
I never said or implied anything of the sort. They *already* pay for "unlimited" service. The Fire Department is complaining that their service is unreliable because Verizon is throttling their bandwidth. Verizon said "oops" we should haven't done that while you were fighting a fire. Did you even read TFS? My comment was, how is Verizon going to track *that* and that, perhaps, it would be better to not throttle the bandwidth at all.
Re: Timing isn't the issue. (Score:3)
It's "unlimited" but subject to throttling over 25 gigs, as spelled out in the contract. If they wanted no throttling they should have bought a different plan.
The only thing Verizon has stated is that they will generally lift those throttling restrictions when the fire department calls them and says they need data for emergency use. Verizon doesn't "monitor" it, they just try to help out when emergency services specifically request it.
You're right, Verizon SHOULDN'T have to monitor it; the fire department
Re: (Score:2)
This is the whole story in a nutshell. The fire department was cheap on their basic infrastructure choices. Were they deceived by a slick salesman along the way? Maybe. But that's a poor excuse, really.
Re: (Score:2)
not just while battling the fire ... [or] throttle their service whenever the department isn't fighting a fire
I don't know about that, I can get pretty hot at times while looking at pr0n. And the more pic/videos, the better. Virtual Harems!
Also, I thought "Net Neutrality" was not artificially limiting the bandwidth of each data stream -- so for instance/example, Comcast giving NetFlix and Hulu 10 packets per second while packets traversing the "same exact link" get full bandwidth access to Comcast's video offerings. (Think of QoS applied to websites.)
Net Neutrality's got nothing on which plan you pick. If y
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the contract allows throttling when there is not a fire emergency. It's part of the deal the Fire Department and Verizon negotiated.
Verizon Lies and Throttles (Score:5, Interesting)
Historically, Verizon has been deeply embedded in our infrastructure due to our need for coverage, and Verizon had the best. Enter a new game change, AT&T and FirstNet (1N). ( https://www.firstnet.gov/ [firstnet.gov] ) , AT&T has been pouring billions it infrastructure to support 1N. I predict within 18 months, Verizon not only will lose it's stranglehold on municipal communications, but virtually every municipality will jump to AT&T. Stories like this will only accelerate the change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Add citizens wanting dashcams and body cams and you're easily way over the 25Gb limit.
If your plan is limited to 25 gigabits of downstream transfer, you should get a better plan. I hear they have them up to 25 gigabytes now.
Re: Verizon Lies and Throttles (Score:5, Insightful)
That would provide a perverse incentive to kill cops and take their recording hardware, since they possess the only copy. Also, it would make it difficult to impossible to prove if tampering had occurred, and provide time for that tampering to occur.
Not only should the video be uploaded in real time (if that consumes bandwidth, so be it -- that's the cost of operating in modern society), but it should be hashed and saved in multiple places such that if one of them is tampered with, it will clearly not match the other copies.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but how does killing their data connection and making them Sneakernet their cameras in after their shift help with that? Because that's the scenario I was referring to -- where the only copy of the video is on their person. It's like burglars stealing the security camera recorder when they rob a place, except that they have to kill the cop just to get their hands on it. Also if they have the only copy, it opens an opportunity for the footage to be replaced.
When was last time a telco made err in our favor? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that doesnt counter all the shit I've had to deal with other carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's very easy for me to believe that customer service made a mistake. It's what they do. It's all they do.
Fire Service Data - much more than "Google maps" (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone saying things like "what are the firefighters doing with data" needs to read over this paper [taylorfrancis.com]. Also the book Geospatial Information Technology for Emergency Response for those who have access check libraries, others can use a preview [google.com] to get some idea of the content.
Everything soldiers need from data applies here. Real-time collection of data about exactly where the firefighters are, what areas are burning, the status of efforts to extinguish fire, all must be transmitted. After processing on the office end, data sent back to responders in the field must pass through the same channel. This includes data about the direction and behavior of the fire in extreme granularity actionable from the ground, along with orders coordinating disparate units. If they use any sort of secured VOIP system then long range voice communications also use data. The old slashdot would understand all of this by default.
I'm concerned (Score:2)
This is totally a net neutrality issue (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument the ISPs made was that they need to be able throttle traffic based on who it was to and what it was for so that they could make sure the most important traffic got priority and would always trump the lower class data. Their promise to emergency services (based on the article on this issue AND supported by statements and previous actions from Verizon) was that your emergency data usage would NEVER be impeded. It seems that Verizon does not have the infrastructure in place to implement their data tiering that they are implementing (again emergency services will never be impeded), which means you are a schmuck to pay a premium for the faster service and service guarantees.
Second, every one needs to stop comparing the plan process the Fire department was paying for that one SIM card to their own data plans. Their monthly bill is probably in the thousands, if not tens of thousands and as such they have access to a whole bunch of tiers and plans that consumers do not have. Verizon came out and said they (Verizon) had misrepresented the terms of the data agreements to the department AND they had failed to make sure that the emergency services tier of data was not impeded.
Re:This is totally a net neutrality issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, every one needs to stop comparing the plan process the Fire department was paying for that one SIM card to their own data plans. Their monthly bill is probably in the thousands, if not tens of thousands and as such they have access to a whole bunch of tiers and plans that consumers do not have.
You are talking about what should be happening. Not what IS happening. Verizon provides emergency service personnel with relevant plans that have no throttling what so ever. The fire department however is subscribed to a $37.99/month consumer plan. Nothing in the thousands, and the plans available to emergency service operators don't cost thousands either.
Verizon came out and said they (Verizon) had misrepresented the terms of the data agreements
No they didn't. They said that the firedepartment didn't read the terms of the data agreements and were on the wrong plan. They have also said they have a standard practice to life any caps in emergency scenarios anyway but this didn't occur due to their own fault.
They actively came out and admitted they were wrong and what they did which was wrong, but you insist on making up some other bullshit story. Don't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
From the article in the other Slashdot thread on this issue: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttled-fire-departments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/
Update: In a statement to Ars three hours after this article was published, Verizon acknowledged that it shouldn't have continued throttling the fire department's data service after the department asked Verizon to lift the throttling restrictions.
"Regardless of the plan emergency responders choose, we have a practice to remove data s
Re: (Score:2)
Update: In a statement to Ars three hours after this article was published, Verizon acknowledged that it shouldn't have continued throttling the fire department's data service after the department asked Verizon to lift the throttling restrictions.
A verizon policy, and nothing to do with their terms of service for the plan, as I said.
Verizon also noted that the fire department purchased a data service plan that is slowed down after a data usage threshold is reached. But Verizon said it "made a mistake" in communicating with the department about the terms of the plan.
What a customer service person says and what a company choses not to read in its terms of service are two different things. Of note specifically that regardless of what was communicated the fire department didn't make use of the plans specifically for emergency services.
As for the myth that the fire department had a consumer plan: Verizon specifically says: *"This customer purchased a government contract plan for a high-speed wireless data allotment at a set monthly cost."*
There's not myth about it. The immediate next sentence said that plan is subject to throttling and if you keep reading the rest of the article:
"The short
Re: (Score:2)
They actively came out and admitted they were wrong and what they did which was wrong, but you insist on making up some other bullshit story. Don't do that.
Look, don't get in the way of the Two Minutes Hate.
Not net neutrality (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't Net Neutrality issue, but is a utility vs commercial service issue. Fire, police and other emergency services phone data networks should NOT be on a commercial service but on a municipal utility service dedicated for just that purpose. Such a dedicated service should probably be maintained at a state level and the connected to a different network. Allowing emergency services traffic to be carried by a standard commercial carrier is a short sighted and stupid mistake. Police and fire communication is on a separate radio band and forbidden for general use why would a new medium not be the same ?
Stupid county (Score:2)
Why is this being posted yet AGAIN to Slashdot?
>" The throttling "has everything to do with net neutrality," a Santa Clara County official said."
No it does NOT. Never has and never will, no matter how many times "Clara County" wants to say it. No matter how you try to twist it, or phrase it, or try to pin it on Trump, or whine, or cry. This is just data throttling, which nearly EVERY ISP does. It is normal, it does not discriminate in any way WHERE you get the data from or send the data to. It is de
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an example of net neutrality. It's an example of how tightly we need to actually regulate these fucksticks or before long they'll be buying the visible light spectrum from the FCC so they can charge you for lightbulbs and eyeballs.
I honestly believe that it's not in their immediate plans to throttle youtube and liveleak without a "video package"... I just know they will do it eventually if we let them and this helps idiots not drink corporate kool-aid.
Don't get confused (Score:2)
Repeat after me: throttling YOUR use when you exceed your agreed cap has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Net neutrality is about throttling a video web site to you, outside their agreement with you. (And especially in demanding a cut of what you pay that video site or they'll crappify the video you see.)
Said it before (Score:2)
and will say it again. . . .
Every time a company gets caught doing something stupid, they never accept responsibility for it. They just have a junior programmer, or software " bug " or whatever ready to go as the designated scapegoat.
Low Caps on UNLIMITED Data? (Score:2)
How is any carrier able to claim that their data plan is "unlimited", when it's throttled to dialup speeds after only 25GB? And why did ANY public service agency buy such a plan? Penny-wise and pound-foolish on CalFire's side, and nearly criminal negligence from Verizon. Of course, from Verizon I would not have expected any better. I had a cell plan from them for two very long and frustrating years, and switched long ago. Now I'm in T-Mobile, and love it.
Not Net Neutrality (Score:2)
Perhaps the question they should be asking is... (Score:2)
...why the hell were the Fire Service using an insufficient data plan that would leave them liable to run out of data in an emergency and why did they not have a backup connection available for that circumstance, which they were clearly aware of (given that there was an expected mechanism in place to remove it in an emergency)?
And what's more, how does that even work? Surely, by nature of their work, it's always used in emergencies - them being, you know, the emergency services - so they should never run o
Re: (Score:2)
This was a question that struck me too. Surly Verizon can configure the account to never be throttled. You would think that the Fire Service wouldn't want to have to call someone during a crisis to increase their data plan. So while it does look like Verizon screwed up by failing to remove the cap upon request, the Fire Service shares some blame by allowing the cap to be there in the first place. Lessons learned all around.
Passing the Buck for Bureaucratic Screwup (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this really does feel more like the Fire Department bureaucracy trying to pass blame because their acquisitions office screwed up and bought the wrong product.
Verizon has admitted that they misrepresented the plan to the fire department. Why does their admission of guilt mean nothing to you?
Harvey and AT&T (Score:2)
When Harvey hit Rockport, AT&T cut all caps loose, supplying support and discounts to the hurricane victims of the area. But their cell coverage is still poor, if not worse after the storm hit. The reason behind this is the only cell tower providing service in a 50 square mile area is a 200 footer that went down during the storm and has yet to be replaced. The permits with the FCC have been cleared, but no action has yet to be taken by the owner of the tower, which is not AT&T, Someone needs to dig
um no (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not public spectrum (Score:2)
No, not true. They BID for the spectrum and won. This has been going on for a while and has
generated billions of dollars for the US Government.
Google "spectrum auctions" if you don't believe me.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, firefighters should bill your insurance like the paramedics do.
Now what should we do about our socialized roads?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So? (Score:5, Informative)
There are a LOT of rural fire districts across the US operating on a subscription basis. No pay in advance, no fire put out. It's been this way for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
The unfortunate problem is that Verizon is typically the only service you can get reliably out in the boonies, so its not like there was that much choice.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, Verizon does not offer any unlimited plans that do not throttle.
Why not? It's not like they didn't have the capacity available. They did, once the fire department coughed up the extra fee. Why not just have a plan to kick in an excess usage fee once they go over the cap for that month and keep the bandwidth up?
Re: (Score:2)
Plans here, notice the little information bubble next to Unlimited Data [verizonwireless.com]
Sure looks better than whatever plan the firefighters were on, but still kinda weak compared to other offerings by other companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Definition of a Democrat (Score:2, Insightful)
Democrat: A bunch of guys that get together to decide what they are going to do with YOUR money.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians: A bunch of guys that get together to decide what they are going to do with YOUR money.
FTFY. There's no good party, when it comes to corruption, just specific people who have yet to be corrupted fully.
Re: (Score:2)
The malice is against the customer. The stupidity was failing to disguise it in situations where it could be exposed.
Farmers (Score:2)
Hell the farmer's water has been throttled for years by L.A.
Re: (Score:3)
You can describe the wireless industry as a lot of things, but "unfettered capitalism" isn't one of them. Do you have any idea how many rules, regulations and regulators at various levels of government wireless carriers are involved with?