Forbes is reporting that Verizon plans to limit download speeds for some of its 4G LTE users:
Verizon Wireless launched a "network optimization" policy three years ago to limit the data speeds of its heaviest 3G data users subscribers with unlimited data plans whose data usage is in the top 5% of all users. A majority of Verizon's users have switched over to a data plan that is capped at a tiered amount, but there is still a large number of subscribers that were grandfathered into unlimited data plans after it was no longer an option. On October 1st, Verizon will apply the network optimization policy to the top 5% of data users on its 4G network also.
The data speed of the top 5% of users will be slowed down when they are connected to cell sites that are experiencing heavy demand "so that all data users will enjoy a quality wireless data experience." If those users move to a different cell site or eases down on usage, then the speed returns to normal. These users may experience video buffering, a lag while gaming online and slower Internet browsing. The network optimization policy will apply to the top 5% users that have passed their minimum contract term and consume around 4.7GB of data per month or more.[...]
Verizon said that its network optimization policy is not considered "throttling" because it uses network intelligence. Throttling means that your wireless data speed is reduced for the entire lifecycle, 100% of the time no matter where you are. Verizon's Network Optimization suggests that your connection should be as good as possible as long as it doesn't cause congestion. Once you are no longer connected to the site that experiences high demand, the speed could return to normal in seconds or hours based on the location and time of day.
So, what do you think? Is this throttling by a different name or a reasonable way to manage the current limited network capacity or, indeed, both?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29 2014, @04:29AM
The thing is, there will always be a top 5%. The cutoff for what Verizon considers unacceptable behavior is therefore arbitrary and unpredictable.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29 2014, @05:34AM
> there will always be a top 5%.
Yep. This just makes it easier to justify not paying to upgrade infrastructure.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nobuddy on Tuesday July 29 2014, @05:32AM
As opposed to dipping to a tiny fraction of those massive massive profit margins and actually keeping the networks up to the demand.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29 2014, @09:33AM
Something I'm wondering about myself. Will they also throttle the bills they sent to those customers?
I mean, if you pay for a service, and they only provide 80% of that service, it's logical to only pay 80% of the bill.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by DMS on Tuesday July 29 2014, @01:55PM
Yes, "a reasonable way to manage the current limited network capacity" would be to issue credit for failing to provide what's been sold, build up the capacity until they can meet their obligations, then build up until they exceed those obligations and then determine if what they've done is maintain a no longer broken status quo or accomplished some kind of sustainable enhancement.
Most of us here in the US have no choice at all about terrestrial service, and the large wireless providers are in an arms race to have the highest profit margins and most screwed over customer base. Sprint almost collapsed when it was established that they didn't employ anyone to pretend to care about customer service, but they had the brilliant idea to run the network and outsource maintaining a customer base. To small, desperate players who couldn't wait a few years and see how not giving a shit panned out. Or upgrade the network.
Any claims about network speed, network coverage, call quality, any of it, I (and probably a lot of other people) take a "fool me once" stance. I switched to Verizon once because they battered my critical thinking abilities with the non-stop claim that lack of coverage was something that only happened to people on other carriers. Oops. Lesson learned. They want money, they tell lies.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TK on Tuesday July 29 2014, @05:28PM
My understanding is that Verizon has one big advantage over the competition: rights to parts of the 700 MHz spectrum in urban areas. This means I can get coverage in a concrete box underground. Which I did, back when I was with them circa 2013 and earlier. Currently on T-mobile and I don't get coverage in the northern half of my office.
Not that I would consider going back to Verizon. Fuck those guys. When I'm indoors I'm usually near a computer, so I don't need access to the data plan on my phone.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday July 29 2014, @05:35AM
There, FTFY.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Tork on Tuesday July 29 2014, @07:05AM
I had two major issues with AT&T's throttling plan a couple of years ago. First is that they implemented the limit 6 months into my two year contract, thus defeating the purpose of having a contract. Second is that I heard that the speeds were being throttled so much thay just downloading the list of emails in your box was painful. I attempted to contact AT&T to find out whay speed they would actually throttle it down to and they said that was proprietary information about their network and that they would not share it with me.
I don't care about the difference between say 6 megabits and 50, if they need to do that to maintain quality I don't have a huge issue with it in the context of an unlimited plan. The problem is when it becomes the difference between LTE speeds and 56k, then I will start researching voodoo dolls.
Oh, on a side note, if AT&T hadn't pulled this shit I would have had an iPad data plan for over two years. They may never be fully aware of how much the abuse of the contract will have cost them.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday July 29 2014, @01:53PM
I've got mixed feelings on this one...
I mean it seems like it makes sense at first. If you've got an overloaded tower, of course you want to throttle the guy who's regularly running bittorrent on his phone before you throttle the guy just trying to check his email. That's all perfectly fine.
But then...if the guy running bittorrent on his phone is courteous about it and only runs it at night, why degrade his connection when he's just trying to check his email the next day? Would make more sense to focus on whoever is using the most data at that moment, or whoever uses the most data at peak times.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RaffArundel on Tuesday July 29 2014, @04:08PM
That is an interesting question - I assume in your hypothetical case, there is a user who only torrents during non-peak times, but does qualify himself as a bandwidth hog during that time. Once tagged, he is subject to bandwidth limitation on congested towers - even though he isn't consuming a lot of bandwidth at the time. The other choice is to QoS the current traffic, regardless of user usage history, but I have no idea how feasible that is on a cell tower or given provider network. I assume it is to some degree, or else the proposal doesn't really fix anything. I am of course ignoring the obvious "build out more capacity" since I am more interested in what is "fair" in this case and what effect it has.
It seems to me that Verizon is shaping customer behavior as much as traffic - basically, they are willing to run off the 5% by providing subpar service whenever. Eventually, they would be left with low-bandwidth users and happily cash their checks using their existing infrastructure. I can just picture the suits saying "yeah, ATT can have all those bandwidth hogs" and laughing. This is a clearly the "Step 3. ???" in that meme - run off unprofitable customers to the competition.
However, even at my ~200 emails a day, they are around 5-8k each, so I probably wouldn't notice a slowdown. Maybe if I did web browsing - but 4G is a poor data experience (in the US at least) compared to my other options - so would your example courteous torrenter even notice or care? Conversely, someone who doesn't normally crunch a ton of data through their phone decides to netflix something on the bus. Since they aren't a heavy user, would they even know if they are getting good (Verizon full bandwidth, FWIW in this case) or poor service?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday July 29 2014, @08:20PM
FWIW, I notice slow downloads when I occasionally need to download a Linux DVD. I usually end up estimating that it will take a week, because it's likely to need to be restarted in the middle because the version being downloaded has been updated. I only do this once or twice a year, but it's an extreme annoyance. If my wife would let me, I'd've changed carriers a year or so ago. I'm quite sure my connection is throttled when I'm doing a download, though I've no proof. I don't need proof, as it wouldn't help me a bit. What I've got is a slow connection...unless I'm not using it, and then it's only rather slow. I'm certain that either AT&T, Comcast or Verison would be better. Don't know how much better. (Actually, Verison isn't an option for land-line connection locally...but even so.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.