5 ms·

Rather than complain that customers don't read the fine print, how about removing throttling from the fine print and have companies advertise what they are sell

Rather than complain that customers don't read the fine print, how about removing throttling from the fine print and have companies advertise what they are selling? If they are selling an "unlimited" plan, then it should be unlimited (i.e. without throttling of any kind) If they are selling a "20GB then throttled to 128kbs speeds" plan, then call it a "20GB plus" plan so everyone knows what they are buying.

kodablah 8y ago
> Rather than complain that customers don't read the fine print, how about removing throttling from the fine print and have companies advertise what they are selling? That's the larger problem I alluded to. My point was about these important public services not doing some of the diligence many of us can. It's not about fine print or not, clearly what Verizon does is wrong, I'm just saying that these places need to put in a bit more research. I think everyone here agrees that these companies shouldn't mislead, so just repeating that seems like obvious and meaningless discussion. I put "despite the overarching issues", "we can all [...] bemoan that [...] Verizon [...] have red tape", "I empathize", "fix the [...] wording as we'd like it to", "that needs fixing", "in the meantime", and "bigger problem [...] that's a different deal" all because it's clear what the larger problem is. My point is nuanced about public services and due diligence in these current annoying times, but clearly my attempts to avoid the obvious point didn't work.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  I sorta disagree; if Verizon is dishonest and that catches someone off guard, it's not the fault of that party, it's Verizon's fault. Anything else is just victim blaming.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    Sure. Admittedly, I don't really know how to "ask for victim vigilance in hostile environment" without appearing to blame them. The hostile environment is to blame, clearly.
  - whatpad 8y ago
    Your argument would hold water if "victim vs perpetrator" were entirely black and white. Is Verizon not a partial victim for having an unreasonable customer that thinks $39/mo is sufficient for their mission critical communications bottleneck? Isn't Verizon partially a victim of politicians drumming up anger when the government itself contributed to the error by failing to read a contract? You can't just assign the victim label and be done with your argument. There is nuance and shared responsibility. Not everything is an exercise in identifying the victim, therefore the other is the perpetrator, therefore the 'victim' is absolved.
    - Johnny555 8y ago
      Is Verizon not a partial victim for having an unreasonable customer that thinks $39/mo is sufficient for their mission critical communications bottleneck? I think this goes back to the "don't sell an unlimited plan if you're going to insist on limits". Verizon didn't have to call it an unlimited plan, they chose to.
      - kodablah 8y ago
        > Verizon didn't have to call it an unlimited plan, they chose to They could have just chosen not to compete in a market with unregulated definitions. You are improperly hating the player and not the game as though it's reasonable for them to not use definitions their competitors use when competing.
        vilmosi 8y ago
        > They could have just chosen not to compete in a market with unregulated definitions. I don't think it's about regulating words. If you promise to sell a blue dog but sell a green dog, I don't expect a regulation saying blue has to be blue. It's just false advertisement.
        jessaustin 8y ago
        Since VZN and ATT hire and fire all the people who write those regulations, hating them is hating the game.
gpm 8y ago
This is what freedom mobile does in Canada. All their plans say in big letters "250MB" or "2GB" or whatever, and then buried in the fineprint somewhere is "if you go over nothing happens except that we reserve the right to throttle your plan to 256 kbps for the rest of the month, and if you continue using tons of data we reserve the right to further throttle to 32 kbps for the rest of the month". I'm happily living on a 250MB plan.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Huh. I was gonna say it's weird that they'll throttle you a second time, because I don't imagine you could download much at 256kbps even in a whole month of continuous traffic, but I did the math and it turns out you could get about 85GB in 30 days. So I guess that makes sense.
  - userbinator 8y ago
    I still remember the times when a 256K internet connection was not cheap, and ironically also "unlimited" in the sense that you could saturate it 24/7 for the whole month and no one could care less. Many weeks spent waiting for downloads to complete... some from P2P too.
- yreg 8y ago
  Same in Central Europe.
sorokod 8y ago
The power of conditioning! What exactly is the justification for having fine print at all? I mean, if it is important enough to not be omitted...
rayiner 8y ago
When you go to the page, you see three options: https://www.verizonwireless.com/plans/unlimited https://www.verizonwireless.com/plans/unlimited "Unlimited 4G LTE Data" for $40 "Unlimited 4G LTE Data (22 GB)" for $50 "Unlimited 4G LTE Data (75 GB)" for $60 There is a little (i) symbol next to each one, with a mouse over box that explains the throttling. The throttling is also explained if you click the link "important plan info." The first option could be clearer with a parenthetical, but with the three right next to each other alongside the prices it's pretty clear what you're buying.
- jonafato 8y ago
  I disagree that it's clear. Words have meanings, and > By "unlimited", we really meant "limited". shouldn't be a valid defense for misleading consumers. The plan would be more accurately described as "15GB 4G LTE Data". If the limits were stated more prominently, the fire departments could have avoided confusion and worked with Verizon or a competitor to get on a plan that wouldn't stop working at the worst possible times. Verizon could have also avoided some bad press by just waiving the fees and sorting things out later instead of demanding extra money during an emergency.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Your definition isn't accurate. That suggests that you don't get 4G speeds after 15GB, which isn't the case.
- whatpad 8y ago
  That page offers services for personal use. Verizon isn't making an offer to provide services to businesses/government via that page. The appropriate offer is here where you must contact a rep who is probably trained to inquire about the business's requirements: https://www.verizonwireless.com/biz/plans/business-unlimited/ https://www.verizonwireless.com/biz/plans/business-unlimited...
Spooky23 8y ago
Commercial/.Gov wireless is different. Verizon and AT&T both offer true unlimited or pooled plans and will even kick off other users to prioritize public safety. I’ve even seen cases where they will roll out temporary towers for emergencies — something is hinky about this story. Although Ars Technica is beating the net neutrality drum, this has more to do with a fire department administrator going cheap on operational costs, or not using the California state contracts. They are using an aircard in a command vehicle, probably with PC, multiple mobile devices and video as well. Just pay the $75 vs $40/mo, and you don’t have this problem.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  They were using the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) $37.99 unlimited plan for data devices, its a perfectly normal plan. Here in Seattle we use it for our busses WiFi Hotspots, on AT&T it is truly unlimited.
  - Spooky23 8y ago
    WSCA allows throttling if you’re a top 5% user locally. Not a problem in the middle of Seattle, but definitely something to plan for a command vehicle responding to wildfires and you have a high density of responders... particularly since the problem is so cheap to fix. Also, another jurisdiction like police, state emergency management, Feds, etc may have a plan that allows them to deprioritize you at any time. If they were in FirstNet, a machine to machine plan, or a Verizon public safety plan, there would be no issue.

kodablah 8y ago

> Rather than complain that customers don't read the fine print, how about removing throttling from the fine print and have companies advertise what they are selling? That's the larger problem I alluded to. My point was about these important public services not doing some of the diligence many of us can. It's not about fine print or not, clearly what Verizon does is wrong, I'm just saying that these places need to put in a bit more research. I think everyone here agrees that these companies shouldn't mislead, so just repeating that seems like obvious and meaningless discussion. I put "despite the overarching issues", "we can all [...] bemoan that [...] Verizon [...] have red tape", "I empathize", "fix the [...] wording as we'd like it to", "that needs fixing", "in the meantime", and "bigger problem [...] that's a different deal" all because it's clear what the larger problem is. My point is nuanced about public services and due diligence in these current annoying times, but clearly my attempts to avoid the obvious point didn't work.

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
I sorta disagree; if Verizon is dishonest and that catches someone off guard, it's not the fault of that party, it's Verizon's fault. Anything else is just victim blaming.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Sure. Admittedly, I don't really know how to "ask for victim vigilance in hostile environment" without appearing to blame them. The hostile environment is to blame, clearly.
- whatpad 8y ago
  Your argument would hold water if "victim vs perpetrator" were entirely black and white. Is Verizon not a partial victim for having an unreasonable customer that thinks $39/mo is sufficient for their mission critical communications bottleneck? Isn't Verizon partially a victim of politicians drumming up anger when the government itself contributed to the error by failing to read a contract? You can't just assign the victim label and be done with your argument. There is nuance and shared responsibility. Not everything is an exercise in identifying the victim, therefore the other is the perpetrator, therefore the 'victim' is absolved.
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    Is Verizon not a partial victim for having an unreasonable customer that thinks $39/mo is sufficient for their mission critical communications bottleneck? I think this goes back to the "don't sell an unlimited plan if you're going to insist on limits". Verizon didn't have to call it an unlimited plan, they chose to.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      > Verizon didn't have to call it an unlimited plan, they chose to They could have just chosen not to compete in a market with unregulated definitions. You are improperly hating the player and not the game as though it's reasonable for them to not use definitions their competitors use when competing.
      - vilmosi 8y ago
        > They could have just chosen not to compete in a market with unregulated definitions. I don't think it's about regulating words. If you promise to sell a blue dog but sell a green dog, I don't expect a regulation saying blue has to be blue. It's just false advertisement.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Since VZN and ATT hire and fire all the people who write those regulations, hating them is hating the game.

gpm 8y ago

This is what freedom mobile does in Canada. All their plans say in big letters "250MB" or "2GB" or whatever, and then buried in the fineprint somewhere is "if you go over nothing happens except that we reserve the right to throttle your plan to 256 kbps for the rest of the month, and if you continue using tons of data we reserve the right to further throttle to 32 kbps for the rest of the month". I'm happily living on a 250MB plan.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago
Huh. I was gonna say it's weird that they'll throttle you a second time, because I don't imagine you could download much at 256kbps even in a whole month of continuous traffic, but I did the math and it turns out you could get about 85GB in 30 days. So I guess that makes sense.
- userbinator 8y ago
  I still remember the times when a 256K internet connection was not cheap, and ironically also "unlimited" in the sense that you could saturate it 24/7 for the whole month and no one could care less. Many weeks spent waiting for downloads to complete... some from P2P too.
yreg 8y ago
Same in Central Europe.

sorokod 8y ago

The power of conditioning! What exactly is the justification for having fine print at all? I mean, if it is important enough to not be omitted...

rayiner 8y ago

When you go to the page, you see three options: https://www.verizonwireless.com/plans/unlimited https://www.verizonwireless.com/plans/unlimited "Unlimited 4G LTE Data" for $40 "Unlimited 4G LTE Data (22 GB)" for $50 "Unlimited 4G LTE Data (75 GB)" for $60 There is a little (i) symbol next to each one, with a mouse over box that explains the throttling. The throttling is also explained if you click the link "important plan info." The first option could be clearer with a parenthetical, but with the three right next to each other alongside the prices it's pretty clear what you're buying.

jonafato 8y ago
I disagree that it's clear. Words have meanings, and > By "unlimited", we really meant "limited". shouldn't be a valid defense for misleading consumers. The plan would be more accurately described as "15GB 4G LTE Data". If the limits were stated more prominently, the fire departments could have avoided confusion and worked with Verizon or a competitor to get on a plan that wouldn't stop working at the worst possible times. Verizon could have also avoided some bad press by just waiving the fees and sorting things out later instead of demanding extra money during an emergency.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 8y ago
  Your definition isn't accurate. That suggests that you don't get 4G speeds after 15GB, which isn't the case.
whatpad 8y ago
That page offers services for personal use. Verizon isn't making an offer to provide services to businesses/government via that page. The appropriate offer is here where you must contact a rep who is probably trained to inquire about the business's requirements: https://www.verizonwireless.com/biz/plans/business-unlimited/ https://www.verizonwireless.com/biz/plans/business-unlimited...

Spooky23 8y ago

Commercial/.Gov wireless is different. Verizon and AT&T both offer true unlimited or pooled plans and will even kick off other users to prioritize public safety. I’ve even seen cases where they will roll out temporary towers for emergencies — something is hinky about this story. Although Ars Technica is beating the net neutrality drum, this has more to do with a fire department administrator going cheap on operational costs, or not using the California state contracts. They are using an aircard in a command vehicle, probably with PC, multiple mobile devices and video as well. Just pay the $75 vs $40/mo, and you don’t have this problem.

StudentStuff 8y ago
They were using the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) $37.99 unlimited plan for data devices, its a perfectly normal plan. Here in Seattle we use it for our busses WiFi Hotspots, on AT&T it is truly unlimited.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  WSCA allows throttling if you’re a top 5% user locally. Not a problem in the middle of Seattle, but definitely something to plan for a command vehicle responding to wildfires and you have a high density of responders... particularly since the problem is so cheap to fix. Also, another jurisdiction like police, state emergency management, Feds, etc may have a plan that allows them to deprioritize you at any time. If they were in FirstNet, a machine to machine plan, or a Verizon public safety plan, there would be no issue.