Verizon unlimited customers getting the boot.

[danlodish345]

http://bgr.com/2017/06/29/verizon-unlimited-plan-data-caps-vs-t-mobile/ hmm it looks like Verizon is booting data hogs bravo I only use about 10 gigs a month:) because I have plenty fast Wi-Fi.

 

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

No shocker there.  LTEiRA now, everywhere later.

[WiWavelength]

I am unsure if VZW is doing this wilfully -- or contractually at the behest of its LTEiRA partners.

 

Too many users -- such as ggore in Oklahoma -- who do not live inside truly native VZW footprint sign up with VZW because it has better plans, neato phones, larger brand name, etc.  They then proceed to perma quasi roam on an LTEiRA partner nearly 100 percent of the time.

 

That becomes an unfair, awful arrangement for the LTEiRA partner, which gets to serve up "unlimited" data to subs who are paying VZW, not the partner.

 

AJ

[danlodish345]

No shocker there. LTEiRA now, everywhere later.

Yeah it's about time. Now that they are doing proper Network management. The network experience should get better and the strain on their resources should be less. I only use about 10 GB a month. In my area where I live Verizon is strained because of data Hogs. But I'm glad Verizon's actively managing such jerks.

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[danlodish345]

I am unsure if VZW is doing this wilfully -- or contractually at the behest of its LTEiRA partners.

 

Too many users -- such as ggore in Oklahoma -- who do not live inside truly native VZW footprint sign up with VZW because it has better plans, neato phones, larger brand name, etc. They then proceed to perma quasi roam on an LTEiRA partner nearly 100 percent of the time.

 

That becomes an unfair, awful arrangement for the LTEiRA partner, which gets to serve up "unlimited" data to subs who are paying VZW, not the partner.

 

AJ

It might be both because if I was a small carrier I wouldn't want to host some other carriers data hogs. I would have the carrier give them the boot like Verizon does or take their unlimited data away and put them on a tiered plan. That's how I would do it. But Verizon is doing what needs to do.

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[red_dog007]

VZW doesn't distinguish between native and roaming networks on their coverage map. Only if you do prepaid.

 

They are also signing up with an address in these LTEiRA areas, so don't offer this plan to those users?

 

These LTEiRA companies are using 700C from VZW and even AWS. These rural companies have plenty of bandwidth.

[danlodish345]

VZW doesn't distinguish between native and roaming networks on their coverage map. Only if you do prepaid.

 

They are also signing up with an address in these LTEiRA areas, so don't offer this plan to those users?

 

These LTEiRA companies are using 700C from VZW and even AWS. These rural companies have plenty of bandwidth.

But to it out there data hogs use up valuable network resources and I shouldn't have to foot the bill for data Hogs. I only use 10 gigabytes of data a month on my unlimited plan with Verizon. Plus I home I have super fast WiFi which edges out at 245 Megs a second. I'm glad Verizon's giving the boot to data abusers. I'd like to have a good Network experience without someone doing BitTorrent and slowing down my connection. Just like everybody else I have the right to have equal experience is everybody else. Doesn't matter if they have plenty of bandwidth. The carrier is well within their rights to boot people who used too much data. I see that's welcome because it actually makes it a better experience for those who don't abuse the unlimited data plan.

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[red_dog007]

But to it out there data hogs use up valuable network resources and I shouldn't have to foot the bill for data Hogs. I only use 10 gigabytes of data a month on my unlimited plan with Verizon. Plus I home I have super fast WiFi which edges out at 245 Megs a second. I'm glad Verizon's giving the boot to data abusers. I'd like to have a good Network experience without someone doing BitTorrent and slowing down my connection. Just like everybody else I have the right to have equal experience is everybody else. Doesn't matter if they have plenty of bandwidth. The carrier is well within their rights to boot people who used too much data. I see that's welcome because it actually makes it a better experience for those who don't abuse the unlimited data plan.

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

What bill for data hogs?  If these users aren't being deprioritized then that means there is plenty of bandwidth to spare on the towers they are on. 

 

Good for you having WiFi and all that.  Can easily use over 22GB not at home.  Could easily not have fast landline option or any landline option for internet. 

 

Plus on a tower that is already congested, booting a deprioritized user for "excessive" data usage isn't going to fix a congested tower.  There are bigger issues at hand that need to be fixed (if possible).

[WiWavelength]

I doubt that this is an issue of strained capacity on the LTEiRA partners.  Rather, it likely is an issue of contractual obligations to and/or roaming charges paid to the LTEiRA partners.

 

AJ

[danlodish345]

What bill for data hogs? If these users aren't being deprioritized then that means there is plenty of bandwidth to spare on the towers they are on.

 

Good for you having WiFi and all that. Can easily use over 22GB not at home. Could easily not have fast landline option or any landline option for internet.

 

Plus on a tower that is already congested, booting a deprioritized user for "excessive" data usage isn't going to fix a congested tower. There are bigger issues at hand that need to be fixed (if possible).

Doesn't matter fair usage for all ...and excessive usage degrades the experience...I m all for getting rid of data abusers ...and I stand by my previous post

 

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

[danlodish345]

I doubt that this is an issue of strained capacity on the LTEiRA partners. Rather, it likely is an issue of contractual obligations to and/or roaming charges paid to the LTEiRA partners.

 

AJ

Very true... Verizon probably does pay them...and lots of data usage runs up a bill...so I agree that they would have to be cut off or booted ...

 

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

[red_dog007]

Doesn't matter fair usage for all ...and excessive usage degrades the experience...I m all for getting rid of data abusers ...and I stand by my previous post

 

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

How so?  If Im on a tower that gets 30Mbps 24/7/365 how would I degrade anyone's experience if I use 10GB or 10TB a month? 

 

If I have used say 40GB, am on a tower, getting deprioritized and crappy speeds, how am I degrading the experience of others? Tower just has too many users and not enough bandwidth.  Me getting kicked off with < 1Mbps speeds isn't going to help anyone.

 

What degrades experience for everyone is when a tower doesn't have the bandwidth for the volume of customers on there.  All the carriers are adding spectrum and new technologies not because a few thousand customers are using an ungodly amount of bandwidth (because they are getting deprioritized), but because they continue to add more customers, users with smartphones and users in general are consuming more data and are projected to continue with increased data usage.     

[danlodish345]

How so? If Im on a tower that gets 30Mbps 24/7/365 how would I degrade anyone's experience if I use 10GB or 10TB a month?

 

If I have used say 40GB, am on a tower, getting deprioritized and crappy speeds, how am I degrading the experience of others? Tower just has too many users and not enough bandwidth. Me getting kicked off with < 1Mbps speeds isn't going to help anyone.

 

What degrades experience for everyone is when a tower doesn't have the bandwidth for the volume of customers on there. All the carriers are adding spectrum and new technologies not because a few thousand customers are using an ungodly amount of bandwidth (because they are getting deprioritized), but because they continue to add more customers, users with smartphones and users in general are consuming more data and are projected to continue with increased data usage.

I still stand by my post. If you using one terabyte a month you're also using the backhaul to the cell site. And when you're using one terabyte a month you are still putting strain on network resources like the Spectrum for example. We all understand obviously it's not Infinate. When you use something like that for let's say home internet instead of a cable-based internet you are still putting strain on the network. Obviously there will be times a congestion. But I still see it as data abuse for using one terabyte a month. The carriers don't have the resources to keep up with that if you have a few thousand people that do that and one area then that work is going to sputter and stall. I really don't have a problem with them booting people off for using too much data. Obviously capacity is a real problem and I see that the smaller carriers even though they have access to all the network gear and phones and Spectrum they can't keep up with people using one terabyte a month it's just not financially feasible because you still have to keep installing cell sites macro cells Pico cells and other equipment identified to keep up with the usage that's an ungodly amount of money that I can't even begin to imagine the carriers would have. I am glad they are booting people with excessive data usage I actually agree with their Network management policies. And Verizon booting people off for excessive day usage on Partner carriers is perfectly reasonable. Obviously Verizon has to pay these carriers for the usage and for the deployment of network assets. It's obviously a lot of money. So where they can minimize expenses by getting rid of data abusers on Partner carriers that Verizon roams on is an obvious way to save money and possibly a contractual thing to do as well. These smaller partner carriers don't have the resources let alone monetary resources to keep up with such data usage. That's what cable internet is for is to use absurdly high amounts of data. Even though my ludicrously fast WiFi I only use probably about 200 gigs a month because I stream and do a lot of multiplayer gaming. So to end my post I wholeheartedly agree with Verizon and what they're doing.

 

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

[Qu3st]

Unlimited - not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent.

 

Sent from my K88 using Tapatalk

[danlodish345]

Unlimited - not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent.

 

Sent from my K88 using Tapatalk

But of usage for unlimited data does apply because of the effects the network in every category

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

I've always tried to be understanding of both sides to the "Unlimited" debate. I know network resources aren't infinite, but also shouldn't be named "Unlimited", if it can't provide the service.

 

I'd rather carriers go back to per gb caps to 30gb monthly individual plans and end "sharing". Just tell a customer they have the right to access that 30gb within an individual month at full-speed of the network based on equal level of capacity at that time - no deprioritization. After that, either offer additional data, or a speed-capped extension plan.

[danlodish345]

I've always tried to be understanding of both sides to the "Unlimited" debate. I know network resources aren't infinite, but also shouldn't be named "Unlimited", if it can't provide the service.

 

I'd rather carriers go back to per gb caps to 30gb monthly individual plans and end "sharing". Just tell a customer they have the right to access that 30gb within an individual month at full-speed of the network based on equal level of capacity at that time - no deprioritization. After that, either offer additional data, or a speed-capped extension plan.

Yeah that makes plenty of sense that I totally agree with that. That way you don't take up too much network resources and it saves a lot to on building more sites which obviously cost ungodly amounts of money.

 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[travismheim]

The same thing has happened to Sprint subscribers for excessive roaming. I don't see a problem with this at all. Verizon probably shouldn't have allowed them to sign up in the first place using an address outside of their native coverage.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

This isn't a good thread for the unlimited versus all you can eat even if you are destroying the network experience.  The thing here is Verizon should be more transparent when people are actually roaming.  If roaming is masked and appears native, it should count exactly the same in every way...IMHO.  Because people will use it that way.  But Verizon wants to pretend that they have a super mucho rural LTE network.

 

 

The same thing has happened to Sprint subscribers for excessive roaming. I don't see a problem with this at all. Verizon probably shouldn't have allowed them to sign up in the first place using an address outside of their native coverage.

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

 

Agreed.  And they aren't booting everyone in those areas, just the heavy users, AFAIK.  If there is a secret limit to using LTEiRA data, they should let people know and allow them to track their usage.

 

Robert

[danlodish345]

The same thing has happened to Sprint subscribers for excessive roaming. I don't see a problem with this at all. Verizon probably shouldn't have allowed them to sign up in the first place using an address outside of their native coverage.

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Tapatalk

Verizon is doing the right thing. I won't be surprised if a lot of people left Verizon.

 

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

[danlodish345]

This isn't a good thread for the unlimited versus all you can eat even if you are destroying the network experience. The thing here is Verizon should be more transparent when people are actually roaming. If roaming is masked and appears native, it should count exactly the same in every way...IMHO. Because people will use it that way. But Verizon wants to pretend that they have a super mucho rural LTE network.

 

 

 

Agreed. And they aren't booting everyone in those areas, just the heavy users, AFAIK. If there is a secret limit to using LTEiRA data, they should let people know and allow them to track their usage.

 

Robert

I would actually like Verizon to distinguish roaming from native coverage as you said they should. To me it's deceptive Market practice.

 

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Verizon probably shouldn't have allowed them to sign up in the first place using an address outside of their native coverage.

 

Some people with billing addresses outside of native coverage can have legitimate reasons for signing up, thus should not necessarily be prevented from doing so.  They may live elsewhere but plan to use the majority of said service inside native footprint.

 

In this VZW case, however, some people signed up for illegitimate reasons.  They knowingly tried to game the system in various ways, as evidenced by posts at HowardForums.  Those people, who might include most of the affected VZW users, should get booted with extreme prejudice.

 

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1897881-Verizon-is-kicking-Unlimited-LRA-Users

 

AJ

[gusherb]

This isn't a good thread for the unlimited versus all you can eat even if you are destroying the network experience.  The thing here is Verizon should be more transparent when people are actually roaming.  If roaming is masked and appears native, it should count exactly the same in every way...IMHO.  Because people will use it that way.  But Verizon wants to pretend that they have a super mucho rural LTE network.

 

 

 

 

Agreed.  And they aren't booting everyone in those areas, just the heavy users, AFAIK.  If there is a secret limit to using LTEiRA data, they should let people know and allow them to track their usage.

 

Robert

 

 

So far it appears to be the heaviest users. And so far the only reports are coming from Appalachian wireless territory. Supposedly they can't deprioritize users on LRA partners or differentiate hotspot use from normal use so people are going nuts tethering. I'm sure if they really wanted to they could find a way to deprioritize LRA users and differentiate hotspot usage, but I guess they'd rather just boot them arbitrarily.

 

 

Some people with billing addresses outside of native coverage can have legitimate reasons for signing up, thus should not necessarily be prevented from doing so.  They may live elsewhere but plan to use the majority of said service inside native footprint.

 

In this VZW case, however, some people signed up for illegitimate reasons.  They knowingly tried to game the system in various ways, as evidenced by posts at HowardForums.  Those people, who might include most of the affected VZW users, should get booted with extreme prejudice.

 

http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1897881-Verizon-is-kicking-Unlimited-LRA-Users

 

AJ

I'm not sure they could game the system, Verizon was letting people in these territories sign up with addresses within the LRA area with no issue. Many people don't even have a clue they're signing up for Verizon in a roaming territory. I think the real reason VZ has decided to go to war on these users goes back to the fact that they're unable to throttle hotspot users or deprioritize and these users figured that out and are taking advantage.

[WiWavelength]

I think the real reason VZ has decided to go to war on these users goes back to the fact that they're unable to throttle hotspot users or deprioritize and these users figured that out and are taking advantage.

Uh, that is users gaming the system.  I do not know why you would say otherwise.

 

AJ

[gusherb]

Uh, that is users gaming the system. I do not know why you would say otherwise.

 

AJ

I'm not sure how it could be gaming the system when it's Verizon's own inability to properly deprioritize and throttle. Assuming someone discovered this on accident and decided to go with it. Maybe if one signs up specifically for the intent of getting unlimited full speed tethering one could consider it gaming the system...but it's also Verizon's job to make sure their system doesn't get gamed. Either way their solution of booting users instead of finding a way to throttle and deprioritize is silly and will just leave a bad taste in people's mouths.

 

Also, AT&T didn't boot users off its MSA plans for using too much during the months they weren't able to throttle them for whatever reason. People went nuts with that too. They just fixed the issue and now they get throttled when they're supposed to.