Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Purges Unlimited Data Customers, Targets Those Using 200GB (arstechnica.com)
If you're a Verizon customer on an unlimited data plan who uses more than 200GB a month, you will soon need to switch to a limited plan or be disconnected, according to Verizon. "Because our network is a shared resource and we need to ensure all customers have a great mobile experience with Verizon, we are notifying a small group of customers on unlimited plans who use more than 200GB a month that they must move to a Verizon Plan by February 16, 2017," Verizon spokesperson Kelly Crummey told Ars Technica today. Ars reports: Since Verizon stopped offering unlimited data to new smartphone customers in 2011, this change affects only longtime customers who were allowed to hang on to the old plans. Verizon could simply force all customers who aren't under contract to switch to new plans, but instead it has periodically made moves that reduce the numbers of unlimited data subscribers. This policy will apply to people who average more than 200GB "over several months," Verizon said. Customers who do not move to limited plans "will be disconnected," Verizon confirmed. On limited plans, customers get reduced speeds after they exceed monthly data limits unless they purchase extra 4G LTE data. Verizon previously purged its unlimited data rolls in August 2016. In that case, Verizon set a limit of 500GB a month, the company told Ars today. This is more specific information than we previously reported. Shortly before the August 2016 move, Verizon told us that it was targeting customers who were "using data amounts well in excess of our largest plan size (100GB)," but Verizon did not specify that it was only targeting customers using at least 500GB. With the threshold being dropped from 500GB to 200GB, the latest move will affect customers who weren't using enough data to be caught up in the last round.
So "unlimited data" customers who use more than a 200GB cap are forced into a limited plan? That's a rather odd definition of "unlimited" from Verizon.
I know several people who have gone through any number of calisthenics to maintain their "unlimited" data plans on Verizon's network. This generally involves sticking with an updated phone or paying retail to buy a phone outright. Verizon really does have the largest network with the best overall coverage within the United States and there are plenty of places that there really isn't a better option.
For example, Verizon LTE service is often a better and more attractive internet option than marginally-available DSL or laggy, data-capped satellite internet for rural homeowners.
Granted, I'm not using 200GB/month through my phone either, but I certainly do recognize that this is a real problem for a lot of people, especially who aren't necessarily close to any other sort of fat data pipe.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
If a company signs a contract...they shouldn't be held to that contract?
They've presented zero evidence that the network is suffering reliability...their commercials seem to indicate it's rock solid. The 'best' even.
This isn't costing them a viable economic business....they are still raking in profits hand over fist.
This is nothing but a pure money grab by violating their own terms.
Nobody would argue with throttling on specific towers WHEN congestion arises. It's funny how that isn't their solution...it's ban the heavy users even when there are plenty of times the heavy use doesn't impact anyone.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Really? I don't ever remember a cell phone contract specifying an 'end' date. They sorta want you to keep paying them forever.
As far as assumptions, they are irrelevant. If a company signs a contract, they should have to honor it.
Specifically if they said 'unlimited' date.
I will of course be willing to trade unlimited cell contracts for the revocation of ISP's apparently 'unlimited' life franchise agreements. It's a 2 way street...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
First off Verizon's model is to take long term fixed costs and break them out as per byte costs. If you aren't willing to incur the full costs for the fixed cost model, for example 20 year contracts and being charged for heavy static usage you don't get to complain about the fact they aren't charging you based on other aspects of the fixed cost model like most bytes incur almost 0 cost to Verizon. You don't get to mix models to your advantage.
Nobody would argue with throttling on specific towers WHEN congestion arises. It's funny how that isn't their solution
Because they didn't design their system to support that. The towers don't know about your rate plan when they serve you signal. That's computed after the fact.