Jump to content

Verizon unlimited customers getting the boot.


danlodish345

Recommended Posts

They might not ever even hit the throttling thresholds.  They might use over 22GB in a billing period, but if the tower has plenty of spare capacity, their speeds won't decrease. 

 

Because these areas are actually roaming areas, and not clarified at all by VZW, VZW just rather kick these users then pay the roaming rates.  They might also have agreements in place where these kind of users, VZW isn't meant to "steal" them.

 

But then why is this an issue now?  Im sure those on the grandfathered UDP still exist in these markets.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised AT&T and Verizon haven't increased the deprioritization threshold yet. T-Mobile is offering around 10gb more, and charging the same or less.

 

Regardless of what one thinks about this decision by Verizon, I'm surprised T-Mobile isn't (or John Legere isn't) finding a way to publicly criticize Verizon for this decision and suggesting that Verizon could have done something else to deal with this issue better, while mentioning the differences between the deprioritization limits.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised AT&T and Verizon haven't increased the deprioritization threshold yet. T-Mobile is offering around 10gb more, and charging the same or less.

 

Regardless of what one thinks about this decision by Verizon, I'm surprised T-Mobile isn't (or John Legere isn't) finding a way to publicly criticize Verizon for this decision and suggesting that Verizon could have done something else to deal with this issue better, while mentioning the differences between the deprioritization limits.

I actually agree with you.i m glad Verizon is booting off excess users like that. It disrupts the entirety of the experience. And it totally ruins the network. I'm glad Verizon is doing what it's doing.

 

Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually agree with you.i m glad Verizon is booting off excess users like that. It disrupts the entirety of the experience. And it totally ruins the network. I'm glad Verizon is doing what it's doing.

 

Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk

It is important for Verizon to protect its network, but there are different opinions regarding differing ways of how to do this while still offering service. I don't believe T-Mobile would have done the same to these customers if they were being served by T-Mobile. That is partly why I'm surprised T-Mobile and/or John Legere hasn't spoken out against this in some way.

 

Personally, I believe if customers get angry about a decision resulting in something they don't like/complain about, there is something wrong with what they signed up for, which is the bigger problem than the reaction This is why I understand when people claim unlimited data is Unlimited. After all, the biggest problem with Unlimited is that its using a limited resource.

 

Take away unlimited, replace it with terms that detail the necessary restrictions that come from having networks which have technical limits, that makes it so no one can complain about limits on a limited plan operating on a limited network, as it all is there in the details not acting like something that it is not. Surely, people ought to be more responsible for their usage, but they'd be better at it if they knew more about how this data abuse negatively affects networks.

 

Instead of Verizon barring people from their service as they did, perhaps Verizon could have sent a letter informing them of how the abuse affects their network, and that for the time being, they'd have three available choices, between having a 30gb data cap at normal speed, or Unlimited data at 9mbps speed cap. The other option would be to leave Verizon penalty-free.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is important for Verizon to protect its network, but there are different opinions regarding differing ways of how to do this while still offering service. I don't believe T-Mobile would have done the same to these customers if they were being served by T-Mobile. That is partly why I'm surprised T-Mobile and/or John Legere hasn't spoken out against this in some way.

 

Personally, I believe if customers get angry about a decision resulting in something they don't like/complain about, there is something wrong with what they signed up for, which is the bigger problem than the reaction This is why I understand when people claim unlimited data is Unlimited. After all, the biggest problem with Unlimited is that its using a limited resource.

 

Take away unlimited, replace it with terms that detail the necessary restrictions that come from having networks which have technical limits, that makes it so no one can complain about limits on a limited plan operating on a limited network, as it all is there in the details not acting like something that it is not. Surely, people ought to be more responsible for their usage, but they'd be better at it if they knew more about how this data abuse negatively affects networks.

 

Instead of Verizon barring people from their service as they did, perhaps Verizon could have sent a letter informing them of how the abuse affects their network, and that for the time being, they'd have three available choices, between having a 30gb data cap at normal speed, or Unlimited data at 9mbps speed cap. The other option would be to leave Verizon penalty-free.

Well they should really slow down their data speeds instead. But I don't disagree with Verizon removing data abusers like that. They are in their right to do that to the customers that abused the network.

 

Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well they should really slow down their data speeds instead. But I don't disagree with Verizon removing data abusers like that. They are in their right to do that to the customers that abused the network.

 

Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk

I think they ought to be placed on a special plan where they get charged a certain fee per data structure in whichever Verizon determines in the cost of the aded usage to the network these abusers place upon it. Then the abusers can decide whther that is acceptable to them or not. They can leave if they do not wish to pay the added cost to sustain their usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If VZW were to offer a special plan to pass along excessive roaming charges, the upcharge to those subs literally would be hundreds to thousands of dollars per month.  Almost zero subs would accept such a bargain, and that is why VZW does not offer it.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they ought to be placed on a special plan where they get charged a certain fee per data structure in whichever Verizon determines in the cost of the aded usage to the network these abusers place upon it. Then the abusers can decide whther that is acceptable to them or not. They can leave if they do not wish to pay the added cost to sustain their usage.

I totally disagree with what you're saying. If you abuse the network you should be kicked off. And if you use a ridiculous amount of data your plan should be changed without notice. I totally disagree with your statement.

 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01HD using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally disagree with what you're saying. If you abuse the network you should be kicked off. And if you use a ridiculous amount of data your plan should be changed without notice. I totally disagree with your statement.

 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01HD using Tapatalk

Your plan should never be changed without notice or your consent. Just the idea of that is absolutely ridiculous.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your plan should never be changed without notice or your consent. Just the idea of that is absolutely ridiculous.

Well it's the carrier's Network I believe it's well within their rights to do that to someone who's abusing the network.

 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01HD using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's the carrier's Network I believe it's well within their rights to do that to someone who's abusing the network.

 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01HD using Tapatalk

You believe they have the right to alter a contractual agreement with you without your notice or consent? That’s not really how a contract works (or should work).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You believe they have the right to alter a contractual agreement with you without your notice or consent? That’s not really how a contract works (or should work).

Yes I do believe that. If you're abusing the network and ruining the experience for everyone else then yes the abusers deserve to have the contract altered.

 

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You believe they have the right to alter a contractual agreement with you without your notice or consent? That’s not really how a contract works (or should work).

 

Either side may breach a contract, and penalties may ensue.  But who is under VZW service contract at this point?  Not many.

 

AJ

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either side may breach a contract, and penalties may ensue.

 

 

Agreed. Ensuing penalties are the key. Neither side should be able to break the contract without penalty.

 

But who is under VZW service contract at this point? Not many.

 

AJ

Beside the point. This is more a discussion of principle.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally disagree with what you're saying. If you abuse the network you should be kicked off. And if you use a ridiculous amount of data your plan should be changed without notice. I totally disagree with your statement.

 

Sent from my ASUS_Z01HD using Tapatalk

 

Sorry you feel that way. Customers should not arbitrarily be kicked off without warning still. There are costs involved consumers invest into a company that should be honored regardless of behavior. It is wrong to abuse a network, yes. It also is wrong to suddenly remove a person from a network without notice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry you feel that way. Customers should not arbitrarily be kicked off without warning still. There are costs involved consumers invest into a company that should be honored regardless of behavior. It is wrong to abuse a network, yes. It also is wrong to suddenly remove a person from a network without notice.

Either way though they're getting removed and then will make the network experienced a lot better

 

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry you feel that way. Customers should not arbitrarily be kicked off without warning still. There are costs involved consumers invest into a company that should be honored regardless of behavior. It is wrong to abuse a network, yes. It also is wrong to suddenly remove a person from a network without notice.

  

Either way though they're getting removed and then will make the network experienced a lot better

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

You both make good points, and I don't see anyone here openly advocating that data abusers have the right to continue doing what they do without repercussions. Its just a matter of should they be removed as customers without warning, or given notice. I believe they should be given notice, but also have something changed to their plan.

 

Adam mentioned having these data abusers be charged for the cost to the network, which while is a neat idea in principle, just doesn't work. Besides, its not just cost involved, but actual disruption to the network for which cannot be reimbursed to carriers by means of cash, and its really a disruption to other customers. Dan obviously takes a stricter stance, for which I understand too. The activity it takes to disrupt a network is really bad, and some of the data numbers I've seen from abuse is really outrageous.

 

Personally, I'd rather see a return to data capped plans that are sensibly priced, while unlimited plans get speedcapped when the network isn't fully available at high speeds. I think such plans would make a great compromise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have 5 cellular lines. I use three for my home internet as this is our most feasible option and it slakes my cellulartastic thirst. I have built and invested my own time to build a device(s) that receives the best signal from the local sites to our point. This allows high gain, quicker time of delivery, multiband support and load balancing. I have contracts for all three lines I use at home, they are strictly described as broadband or fixed packages. See where the line is blurring and, do you consider me a network abuser?

I ask simply because you have stated abuse, albeit very generally, in nearly every reply in this thread; be it about roaming or on network usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i favor contracts returning listing these policies. Without something in writing kicking someone off isn't fair. Charging them extra like a penalty would be better, but it too would need to be in a contract or agreement of some sortl

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have 5 cellular lines. I use three for my home internet as this is our most feasible option and it slakes my cellulartastic thirst. I have built and invested my own time to build a device(s) that receives the best signal from the local sites to our point. This allows high gain, quicker time of delivery, multiband support and load balancing. I have contracts for all three lines I use at home, they are strictly described as broadband or fixed packages. See where the line is blurring and, do you consider me a network abuser?

 

I ask simply because you have stated abuse, albeit very generally, in nearly every reply in this thread; be it about roaming or on network usage.

Well if it is classified as otherwise and there's a different policy towards it and different network Management in place I don't see a problem as long as it's not totally hogging all the bandwidth.

 

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i favor contracts returning listing these policies. Without something in writing kicking someone off isn't fair. Charging them extra like a penalty would be better, but it too would need to be in a contract or agreement of some sortl

Contracts are okay, but if anything, they'd be better for devices rather than service contracts, as those for service have mostly gone away. Service contracts would need to make a reappearance for this, and that doesn't seem likely. Besides, terms of service can be easily disputed, and I'm not sure that is the best solution to resolving the problem.

 

As I mentioned, I think speedcaps and data caps are a better way of dealing with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Written terms of service already exist -- contract or not.

 

Some of you are making a mountain out of a molehill.  Wireless providers should and do have a right to divorce customers, just as customers divorce wireless providers every day.

 

AJ

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all let's distinguish between bandwidth consumed or consumption rate which is measured in MB/sec and and monthly data consumption. Pretty much every wireless technology has a fairness algorithm that does not allow one user to consume all the bandwidth to the expense of all other users. So even at the peak of bandwidth demand one user does not hog the bandwidth. On the other hand you have total data consumed in a month. Putting a limit on total monthly consumption is ineffective way to battle congestion at peak times. I personally think that the carriers should go back to differentiating between on peak/off peak data consumption because who really cares if you're watching a movie on your iPhone at 3am. Nobody else is on the network.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all let's distinguish between bandwidth consumed or consumption rate which is measured in MB/sec and and monthly data consumption. Pretty much every wireless technology has a fairness algorithm that does not allow one user to consume all the bandwidth to the expense of all other users. So even at the peak of bandwidth demand one user does not hog the bandwidth. On the other hand you have total data consumed in a month. Putting a limit on total monthly consumption is ineffective way to battle congestion at peak times. I personally think that the carriers should go back to differentiating between on peak/off peak data consumption because who really cares if you're watching a movie on your iPhone at 3am. Nobody else is on the network.

Interesting suggestions regarding peak/off peak times. The difficulty though is that sometimes those change, and could end up being a problem in areas, such as cities when there are late night celebrations and such.

 

Also, carriers really ought to do a better job regarding deprioritization. I very often read comments online from people who are very angry to see their speeds drop drastically in an area when they are just shortly over the limit. Whereas others who've gone way past the limit still are getting very fast speeds. I'd rather there be an across the board speed throttle after a certain limit or better speed management that will affect everyone equally during congestion and at times nearing congestion, which would be better than just automatically throttling a few people while everyone else has faster speeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting suggestions regarding peak/off peak times. The difficulty though is that sometimes those change, and could end up being a problem in areas, such as cities when there are late night celebrations and such.

 

Also, carriers really ought to do a better job regarding deprioritization. I very often read comments online from people who are very angry to see their speeds drop drastically in an area when they are just shortly over the limit. Whereas others who've gone way past the limit still are getting very fast speeds. I'd rather there be an across the board speed throttle after a certain limit or better speed management that will affect everyone equally during congestion and at times nearing congestion, which would be better than just automatically throttling a few people while everyone else has faster speeds.

Well I see that prioritisation actually does help with network congestion and keeping the debt abusers from completely screwing up a network. I'm very glad to see stuff like this the network management really helps keep the network experience equal in most cases. But I can also say I sometimes don't agree with it though either.

 

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Posts

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...