Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Verizon Communications Network United States

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fire Department Rejects Verizon's 'Customer Support Mistake' Excuse For Throttling

Comments Filter:
  • by nsuccorso ( 41169 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @05:06PM (#57176834)
    I'm a net neutrality proponent and ... this doesn't seem to have anything to do with net neutrality.
    • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @06:01PM (#57177180)

      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.

      • 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

      • 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.

    • 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.

      • and an overzealous H1B employee

        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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  • Education (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Alypius ( 3606369 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @05:24PM (#57176936)
    Proving once again that people have no clue what net neutrality really means.
    • It actually is related to net neutrality. It's just that what most people think is net neutrality is actually a single example case of the behavior that net neutrality is trying to stop.

      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
  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @05:29PM (#57176976)

    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...

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • 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.

        • 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

          • by lgw ( 121541 )

            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.

    • 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

    • Actually, the contract allows throttling when there is not a fire emergency. It's part of the deal the Fire Department and Verizon negotiated.

  • by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @05:33PM (#57177010)
    I run an IT Department for a City on the West Coast. Verizon has throttled "unlimited" plans for over a year now. It's a common pain. The biggest problem we're running into is dispatch. Old text based dispatch systems have been replaced with GIS based systems consuming significantly more bandwidth. Add citizens wanting dashcams and body cams and you're easily way over the 25Gb limit.
    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.
    • by jdavidb ( 449077 )
      Soon it will be just like the Republicans and Democrats: one screws you over while the other promises you the moon to get you to switch, then screws you over.
    • 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.

  • It's never happened to me personally, and it takes two hands to count the number of times they've made an error in their favor (speaking about AT&T). How odd...
    • There was this one time I told sprint I was quitting my job at Radio Shack and to change my plan to a stanard, non employee one (the Unlimited everything and $50 store download credit a month for $25 back in 2006) and they kept the plan rolling for a year before I swapped providers due to crappy coverage.

      But that doesnt counter all the shit I've had to deal with other carriers.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • From what I saw, the plan rates they had to change to went from $38/mo to $90/mo. So not $2.
    • No, not really. Verizon changed their plan without changing the name of the plan or telling customers they were chaining. That's what happened to us and all Cities around us.
    • Iit has to do with the fire department not paying the 2USD per month

      .... and the fact that Verizon declined to help by removing the throttling during an emergency situation. They are now claiming that was a mistake, but do you believe them?

  • by Jzanu ( 668651 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @06:31PM (#57177328)

    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.

  • Why aren't vital services like this getting free unlimited, unthrottled service by law?
  • by Friendly ( 160067 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @06:45PM (#57177390)

    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.

    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday August 23, 2018 @03:41AM (#57178932)

      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.

      • 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

        • 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

      • by jdavidb ( 449077 )

        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)

    by Archfeld ( 6757 ) <treboreel@live.com> on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @06:50PM (#57177414) Journal

    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 ?

  • 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

    • 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.

  • 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.)

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Fire department tried to save a few bucks and now wants to blame Verizon for their poor planning. If your going to build a safety network, know what you're building it upon. OT: Call this ignorant, but when the f&^% did you need high bandwidth to fight a fire? If their tools are built upon the requirement of high cellular bandwidth in a low cellular bandwidth world, someone isn't thinking straight and should be fired. As far as Verizon not switching off the restriction, these things happen when huma
  • ...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

    • 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.

  • While I'm personally not a fan of Verizon and the whole practice of throttling on "unlimited plans", 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. I can easily imagine what happened now, some contracting officer thinking, "You know what, I don't need a government plan, I'll just get this consumer plan here that's a couple bucks cheaper a month. They're not going to need all that data; they'd p
    • 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?

  • 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

  • Net Neutrality is slowing down certain things and/or demanding money from the cause of the bandwidth usage. This is slowing down everything as a blanket solution to them crowding the tower for everyone else.

Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...