8,500 Verizon Customers Disconnected Because of 'Substantial' Data Use (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Verizon is disconnecting another 8,500 rural customers from its wireless network, saying that roaming charges have made certain customer accounts unprofitable for the carrier. The 8,500 customers have 19,000 lines and live in 13 states (Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin), a Verizon Wireless spokesperson told Ars today. They received notices of disconnection this month and will lose access to Verizon service on October 17. Verizon said in June that it was only disconnecting "a small group of customers" who were "using vast amounts of data -- some as much as a terabyte or more a month -- outside of our network footprint." But one customer, who contacted Ars this week about being disconnected, said her family never used more than 50GB of data across four lines despite having an "unlimited" data plan. We asked Verizon whether 50GB a month is a normal cut-off point in its disconnections of rural customers, but the company did not provide a specific answer. "These customers live outside of areas where Verizon operates our own network," Verizon said. "Many of the affected consumer lines use a substantial amount of data while roaming on other providers' networks and the roaming costs generated by these lines exceed what these consumers pay us each month. We sent these notices in advance so customers have plenty of time to choose another wireless provider."

Comments

This is Trumps fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

He could have stopped this and didn't. It's time to impeach him, NOW!!!

Re:This is Trumps fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

My comment will be deleted but yours won't.

Re: This is Trumps fault.

[dougdonovan]

so, what does unlimited mean ?

Re:This is Trumps fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pence is worse.

Re: This is Trumps fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

It means you've traded lousy service and throttled data throughput for the guarantee that Verizon will not charge you more a month for your phone plan, right up until they drop you because they're not making enough money off you.

Fraudulent billing by the rural providers?

[Kaenneth]

A small rural provider could easily pump fake data to bill big phone companies for fake usage...

Re:Fraudulent billing by the rural providers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Minimum packet size of 4k should pad the bill nicely.

Re:Fraudulent billing by the rural providers?

[Anonymous Coward]

A small rural provider could easily pump fake data to bill big phone companies for fake usage...

It's possible. But, quite honestly, I'd accept "cheap and lying bastards run cell companies and arbitrarily decide they didn't really mean 'unlimited' even though they said so" on face value without the need for someone to be actively doing something like you suggest.

There doesn't need to be some conspiracy to defraud Verizon when Verizon being cheap bastards who rely on you not using data is a 100% plausible thing.

I never feel a need to try to spin reality so that cell companies aren't greedy assholes. It seems like a waste of time and an excess of goodwill to companies that don't deserve it.

Re:Fraudulent billing by the rural providers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Highly doubtful at least among the majority of them. Maybe a small number are doing this.

No Verizon had ZERO business operating in those areas if they don't own their network or they should be upfront about the limitations of service by not being on their network. As someone who grew up at least more rural than most of those people, those cell lines were probably the only connection they have.

Verizon should be very careful about doing this, they could face a class action lawsuit that could heavily damage the rest of their company. They make more enough money from the customers in their service area to keep these people on their plans.

Re:Fraudulent billing by the rural providers?

[Penguinisto]

They wouldn't have to.

Anecdotal I know, but it will make sense: Out here in the sticks, a lot of folks use their phones as a de-facto Internet connection (video, FB, whatever), since an actual hardline ISP connection is either out of their budget (Satellite) and otherwise technically unavailable in their neighborhood (DSL, Cable, fiber, etc... even Sat is impossible to get on some properties due to trees, hills, etc). Other folks figure there's no need to bother with a full-on laptop/desktop if their phones do pretty much the same thing.

Re: Fraudulent billing by the rural providers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's whoever owns the cell towers out there. Roaming charges shouldn't be so high. All these people had cell service so they can still go to the local provider. Maybe ask them why they don't have unlimited data... we're talking about a couple thousand people and the towers are already there and have been serving up unlimited data just fine. They just charged Verizon too much.

Re:Fraudulent billing by the rural providers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even understand how 3gpp works? Do you know how clearinghouse roaming inter-connections work? Do you know what a CDR record is and the method of attachment between a roaming cell customer and it's GGSN via an SGSN? Comments like yours tend to lead me to believe you do not.

Re:Fraudulent billing by the rural providers?

[msauve]

"No Verizon had ZERO business operating in those areas"

VZW, like most other carriers, is trying to provide good service for their customers. Hence, they have roaming agreements with other carriers so their customers have coverage outside the VZW network. Vacationing outside VZW coverage? They've got you covered. But these customers are abusing that by getting a cheap VZW plan and using roaming data as their primary Internet service. They're only spoiling it for other VZW customers, and have ZERO business abusing the service in this manner.

contract breach?

[Anonymous Coward]

So does Verizon have pay out for breaching the contracts?

Re:contract breach?

[hey!]

Only if they had an incompetent lawyer draw up the contracts.

When you negotiate a contract, your lawyer tries to give you as many outs as possible while preventing the other side from being able to weasel out. When you are setting up a contract with consumers who don't have benefit of counsel, basically the only thing that restrains you is your public reputation, and in some cases the state attorney general.

I'll just leave this

[rsilvergun]

right here

Re:I'll just leave this

[Penguinisto]

There's a big difference in pricing scarce resources for local economic conditions, and straight-up lying to customers as to the definition of "unlimited" when you're trying to sucker them into signing a contract.

Nationwide coverage

[hackwrench]

Why do I get the impression Verizon misrepresented its coverage.

Re:Nationwide coverage

[burtosis]

But I was told they had the best unlimited!

Re:Nationwide coverage

[CaptainDork]

Not from headline:

8,500 Verizon Customers Disconnected Because of 'Substantial' Data Use

Re: Nationwide coverage

[hackwrench]

Yeah because I read the body of the summary where it said roaming.

Re:Nationwide coverage

[SeaFox]

Better question: Why would you sign up with a cell phone carrier that doesn't operate where you live, especially one whose only good point is the supposed strength of their network. Verizon's certainly not known for great value, and as this article shows, customer service-wise they suck, too.

I mean, if these people were on roaming using all this data, obviously there is somebody with towers up where they live.

Re: Nationwide coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

So you can have an iphone, and then jerk off all over yourself as VZW disconnects you.

Re: Nationwide coverage

[CaptainDork]

And you didn't read the headline where it said:

8,500 Verizon Customers Disconnected Because of 'Substantial' Data Use

Re:Nationwide coverage

[sexconker]

Better question: Why would you sign up with a cell phone carrier that doesn't operate where you live, especially one whose only good point is the supposed strength of their network. Verizon's certainly not known for great value, and as this article shows, customer service-wise they suck, too.

I mean, if these people were on roaming using all this data, obviously there is somebody with towers up where they live.

Best question: Why would you sell service in an area you don't service and to people you don't want to service?

Re:Nationwide coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

Better question: Why would you sign up with a cell phone carrier that doesn't operate where you live, especially one whose only good point is the supposed strength of their network. Verizon's certainly not known for great value, and as this article shows, customer service-wise they suck, too.

I mean, if these people were on roaming using all this data, obviously there is somebody with towers up where they live.

Because Verizon says that their network provides service in your area. Walk into the store, and ask them. They will tell you that they have the best network coverage, and sell you a phone and a contract for service. You then go home and use it... and it works.

That is all the average consumer knows or cares about: The commercial said it is the best coverage, the guy in the store said it would work, and it works.

Re:Nationwide coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon claims to operate everywhere. They've been advertising that they have the largest coverage area for many years now and it seems to me that claim is fraudulent if they're cutting people off of their unlimited plans due to using too much data on somebody else's network.

Re:Nationwide coverage

[amiga3D]

In my last home it didn't work. The only thing that worked there was AT&T. That's why I have AT&T now. Verizon has great coverage but contrary to popular opinion it's not everywhere. At my job the majority of my coworkers were on Verizon. It worked there but no 4G data. They were surprised when I could stream HD video effortlessly. But then I knew there were places I had no coverage or slow data as well. There is no perfect network, especially outside of major populated areas.

Re:Nationwide coverage

[coastwalker]

Because you live in a country where it is permissible to defraud your customers but not possible for customers to defraud giant corporations. Enjoy your crap version of unregulated corrupt capitalism you cucks.

Re:Nationwide coverage

[thegarbz]

Why do I get the impression Verizon misrepresented its coverage.

It didn't. The industry is absolutely full of behind the scenes deals sharing towers and coverage as you go. It happens all over the world, just because you're with Vodafone and your phone doesn't say it's roaming doesn't mean you're connected to a Vodafone tower. e.g. We were doing a proof of concept with Vodafone a while back and found a setting in the infrastructure that was blocking it from working properly. 2 towers were fixed within a day, the 3rd tower in our coverage zone took a week to fix because it was owned and operated by someone else. This was in a city, not in a rural area.

I also remember a furore in Australia many years ago when the cheap providers came on the scene leasing bandwidth on the major telecom companies. They would advertise who their wireless landlord was, presumably as a way of saying, "Look you've never heard of us but we have the same coverage as Optus because we use their towers!". Then people found that they only leased the towers in the city and while their city coverage was great, as soon as they stepped outside they had no signal.

What happens behind the scenes is irrelevant, the coverage is there. But the real dick move is Verizon cutting people off arbitrarily based on how much it costs them rather than specifying performance in a contract that people get to adhere to.

Re:Nationwide coverage

[thegarbz]

Better question: Why would you sign up with a cell phone carrier that doesn't operate where you live

But they do, their background details should not at all be relevant to the customer.

Re:Nationwide coverage

[I75BJC]

A better question might be: "Why does Verizon sell to people who live in areas that they (Verizon) don't serve?" I bought a Verizon Hot-Spot to use at a work site. The Verizon store personnel used a Verizon computer connected to the Verizon Internet to show a Verizon webpage that Verizon had Verizon coverage at the site. Verizon personnel happily took my money for their Verizon Hot-Spot and Verizon cellular service. When I took the Hot-Spot to that site, there was no coverage. Why did Verizon give their own personnel incorrect information to use while making sales>

Warnings

[Anonymous Coward]

While I understand that roaming agreements are expensive, Verizon is wrong here. They should give the customers some warning, telling them to reduce their usage right away or be terminated. Also, they need to be transparent about their standards for disconnection, and this is anything but transparent. Although Verizon probably has the legal right to do this, it's absolutely the wrong way to do it. This is a situation where the FCC should intervene and require transparency from Verizon.

Re:Warnings

[Anonymous Coward]

While I understand that roaming agreements are expensive, Verizon is wrong here. They should give the customers some warning, telling them to reduce their usage right away or be terminated. Also, they need to be transparent about their standards for disconnection, and this is anything but transparent. Although Verizon probably has the legal right to do this, it's absolutely the wrong way to do it. This is a situation where the FCC should intervene and require transparency from Verizon.

Given the lack of quality in reporting that appears to permeate most of journalism in the last decade, how do you know that warnings were not sent to the customers that were dropped?

Re: Warnings

[Anonymous Coward]

I had it happen and there was absolutely no warning.

According to Pai they have all they need...

[Anonymous Coward]

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/08/maybe-americans-dont-need-fast-home-internet-service-fcc-suggests/

I think we'll see more of this as time goes on.

Re: According to Pai they have all they need...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Verizon is throttling videos to 10 Mbps and the FCC's high speed Internet threshold is 25 Mbps, Verizon is, by definition, not providing high speed internet.

Not the solution for roaming issues

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're losing money on average in certain areas due to roaming users, then they should install a tower there.
IMO, so long as we are granting them a nation wide monopoly on the frequencies they use, they should be required to provide service to users nationwide, with roaming to fill in their holes at their expense.

Re:Not the solution for roaming issues

[clonehappy]

It's a lot more complicated than that but yes, I agree with your sentiment. The catch is that the customers they are booting off are actually using Verizon's spectrum. Verizon essentially sublet their own spectrum to some rural carriers in order to build LTE networks in places they didn't want to spend the money to do so. Until just recently, however, they advertised this LTEiRA (LTE in Rural America partnership) coverage as NATIVE Verizon service.

This was marketed as a win-win for Verizon and the other carriers, as Verizon now has coverage in all these rural areas they didn't want to spend money on, and the rural carrier gets access to spectrum that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to utilize. Where things get murky is here: people who live or spend the majority of their time in those coverage areas should technically have service directly from the rural carrier, not Verizon. However, either through falsifying their billing address or just plain ineptitude and/or unscrupulous salesmanship from Verizon, many of these customers had Verizon's own branded service but were permanently roaming on the rural carriers.

The rural carriers were almost assuredly fine with this, as they were probably (definitely?) making more money off of the roaming bills to Verizon for those subscribers than they would have if they actually serviced them directly. I only say probably, as the terms of those agreements are obviously closely held corporate secrets, which the average person will never be privy to, but it's common knowledge in the industry that roaming is charged out the proverbial ass by the rural carriers to the big guys. The customers were obviously fine with this, as they got access to better deals on Verizon than they would from regional and local rural carriers that always have to charge more money for service simply due to economies of scale, they just don't have the subscriber base to offer the same price points as the Big 4.

Again, not excusing Verizon's behavior, but they were the ones losing out in this situation. I say this because up until this point, Verizon has NEVER enforced ANY kind of roaming limits. Not on their CDMA 1X/EVDO roaming, and not on LTE. People have had native Verizon service and permanently roamed on carriers like Bluegrass, Appalachian, US Cellular, and others for literally years and never heard a peep out of Verizon. I'm sure the vast, vast majority of these subscribers never knew there was any problem with what they were doing, and seeing as Verizon signed up many of these customers outside of their service area, they shouldn't be absolved of responsibility here seeing that they were advertising this as part of their standard LTE coverage area.

It sucks, but most of these customers, even ones that weren't using "substantial" amounts of data (some using 1GB a month or less are being kicked off) will just have to bite the bullet and pay the cost of their service to the native local rural carrier and be done with it. But further complicating matters, there are roaming-only networks like Wireless Partners in Maine that don't even sell their own service, they only exist to service Verizon roaming customers, and from what I understand there aren't many other options at least in that specific area. These networks will either have to find a way to sell service natively or take a serious hit to their bottom line.

But all that being said, if Verizon has been granted a license to use spectrum in a given area, they should absolutely be held accountable for providing service there, regardless of whether or not they do it through a third-party or not. The whole situation is complicated, unfortunate for the customers affected, and still smells of simple greed from Verizon but at the end of the day, it's only cell phone service. People will figure it out and life will go on.

Re:Not the solution for roaming issues

[tidepool]

"The whole situation is complicated, unfortunate for the customers affected, and still smells of simple greed from Verizon but at the end of the day, it's only cell phone service. People will figure it out and life will go on."

Applause. So happy to hear the priorities straight.

Re:Not the solution for roaming issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the commitments that should have come from allocation of public spectrum, VZ gets all kinds of subsidies for rural coverage. They have an established pattern of making commitments in exchange for monopolies then lawyering up and shirking them. This is probably another case where they're ripping off the taxpayer, but the government of these rural states doesn't have the motivation or competence to go up against Verizon's army of house lawyers.

One sided

[techdolphin]

If Verizon can arbitrarily dump consumers that are under contract, but have not violated the terms of service, then consumers should be able to dump Verizon early without penalty.

Re:One sided

[nedlohs]

Those consumers are free to negotiate such a service contract or find a provider with such a service contract. I don't give them much chance outside of the month-to-month agreements that seem common enough.

Re:One sided

[OverlordQ]

Probably sure this is listed somewhere in the volumes of the ToS you sign.

Re:One sided

[toejam13]

Wrong. Using your mobile device on an extended partner network for a large period of time is considered a ToS violation.

Re:One sided

[WolfgangVL]

Everybody has violated the terms of service. That's the point. They are ALL one sided.

This one would start something like-

"By attempting to use our service from outside of our service area, you agree to......"
and
"By using your handset to send or receive digital communications and/or data connections, you agree to......."
and don't forget
"You agree to private arbitration of any dispute, for any reason, under a arbiter of our choosing"

I've often considered writing up my own personal terms of service, and using it against these faceless corps that roll right over everybody with their own. Some would balk, but most of them pay their representatives so little that they are not mentally there anyway and are not going to look over anything I present.

If my $PHYSICALACTION counts as agreeing to an agreement, then their $PHYSICALACTION should count in the same light.

"By tracking my activities and the services I use online, you agree to........"
and
"By accepting legal tender from me in return for your service, you agree to...."
and
"This agreement supersedes all other agreements made in my name, including agreements specifically stating they they also supersede agreements"

Re:One sided

[Anonymous Coward]

This was probably in the fine print of the contract.
I know AT&T several years ago (about the time the first iPhone was launched), had a clause in a customer's contract about this. It stated that if over half of your usage was on other companies towers (the old 'roaming' deal), they could cut you off.
Usually it happened in places were coverage followed the highways to each town. If you lived outside of town you could still get a phone, and sometimes it might even work at your house, but a lot of your usage, especially if you traveled even just a little bit, would end up on roaming. They weren't charging customers for it anymore, but were certainly tracking it, and really would disconnect customers if enough of their usage was off network.

Re:One sided

[Anonymous Coward]

"By tracking my activities and the services I use online, you agree to........"
and
"By accepting legal tender from me in return for your service, you agree to...."
and
"This agreement supersedes all other agreements made in my name, including agreements specifically stating they they also supersede agreements"

Don't forget: "You agree to follow any policies listed anywhere on such-and-such a website, and are aware that these policies are subject to change at any time without notice."

Re:One sided

[WolfgangVL]

Those consumers are free to negotiate such a service contract

You don't really buy that line do you?

Negotiate == Pay wireless carriers asking price or go without.

Re:One sided

[nedlohs]

Is reading two sentences too much effort for you?

But, sure offer verizon enough money and I'm sure they'll make a special service contract just for you. Enough is likely at ludicrous levels of course.

Re:One sided

[Black Diamond]

Considering that most of them likely aren't under contract now that Verizon has done away with contracts, they certainly can dump Verizon without any early penalty.

They probably have to pay off the rest of their phone which is likely a few hundred dollars or turn it back in for no credit. But they wouldn't be penalized in any way.

Re:One sided

[sjames]

In other words, there will be no such negotiation and there's not enough competition to make such a thing happen within their lifetimes.

Re:One sided

[Solandri]

That's exactly what customers can do whenever a carrier changes their terms of service - you can quit their 2-year or 3-year contract without paying an early termination fee.

Of course the carriers don't exactly advertise this, but that's the way it's always been. Legally, if either side violates or voids contract terms, and the other side is not obligated to continue to honor the contract.

plenty of time to choose another wireless provider

[turkeydance]

nope. in some areas where i travel Verizon is "it" and the only provider. AT&T, Sprint, etc. don't work at all. no bars. no nothing.

Re:plenty of time to choose another wireless provi

[nedlohs]

Given the customers in question are roaming on other networks and that is the reason for them being unprofitable (let's take verizon at their word for a minute...) then clearly there is another provider - the one they are roaming on.

Families in rural areas screwing themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

"The 8,500 customers have 19,000 lines "

Some mostly families with kids who probably live in a rural area where they have no true broadband ISP and their smartphone is their main and possibly hotspot usage.

iow, Verizon probably won't run broadband lines to these areas. But when you use Verizon mobile for as replacement equivalent access, they'll cut you off anyways. So you don't have choice, and if you did, you'd lose it for using it anyways.

otoh, I can't really feel bad about rural markets getting screwed over by policies they voted to be implemented upon themselves anyways.

Re:Families in rural areas screwing themselves

[Penguinisto]

iow, Verizon probably won't run broadband lines to these areas.

I wouldn't be so sure... not even a month after Frontier ran fiber (and more importantly, dropped DSL access points) along the highway in front of my (damned rural) property, other telcos announced plans to do the same, and my former Sat Internet provider suddenly decided they wanted to offer me near-drastically lower prices to keep me as a customer.

Re:Families in rural areas screwing themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

otoh, I can't really feel bad about rural markets getting screwed over by policies they voted to be implemented upon themselves anyways.v

I'll bite. Not all "rural" communities are the same and no, they did not "vote" for this upon themselves.

I live in a large acre lot neighborhood. Most homes run $500k+, however, we are 20 minutes from nearest town and probably 45-60 minutes from nearest city - by choice. Below is a timeline of events based on an anecdotal personal experience.

2008 - Move into my current residence in a "rural" market. Alltell 3G unlimited plan. Good solid 150KB/s and ~250ms ping times when no real alternative existed.
2009 - Verizon acquires Alltel. No changes to existing plans.
2010 - Verizon introduces LTE. Unlimited data plans are allowed for a brief period of time.
2011 - iPhones hit Verizon's network and tear it to absolute shreds.
2012 - Verizon network continues to be crap on 3G. All investment is in LTE / plans where they can charge consumers per GB. 3G starts dropping into 2G/1xRTT - frequently. 2500ms pings and 16KB/s bandwidth is horrible to deal with.
2012 - Large telco runs fiber to government/municipal buildings and has a large station 2 miles from entrance of neighborhood. DSL is also available at large station. They refuse to run fiber or DSL to our neighborhood.
2013 - Switch to ViaSat Satellite. At 25GB/month datacap and 750ms pings, it beats the hell out of the 2G nonsense. From midnight until (6am?) its unlimited downloads - you get creative with managing your bandwidth as a result.
*Note - Verizon at this point has NO LTE home broadband solution. The only option available is 10GB max per month data plans, which is nowhere near sufficient for home internet usage. No other mobile carrier has signal where we are located.

2014 - A citizens group in my county regularly meets and petitions our county commissioners to fix the inaccurate broadband maps which note we have access to DSL when we do not.
2015 - A small telco comes to talk to us about running fiber to neighborhoods - realizing we are an underserved community (with broadband maps updated!). They need 1 signup every 1000 ft. to justify the cost of running the line. Signups were immediate. Coincidentally, we also had a county commissioner in an adjacent neighborhood who was willing to help the small telco cut through the red tape to get the fiber run.
2015 - Large telco starts sending out flyers for DSL signups. We give them the middle finger.
2016 - Small telco has fiber complete and running to neighborhoods.

From a "rural" perspective, yes, I was engaged in local politics to vote and GET THIS FIXED. I would encourage others to do the same.

Re: Families in rural areas screwing themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

So it took yOu 8 years and you still don't have decent internet? They ran the fiber but is it dark?

Also the big ISPs have agreements with local government and are defacto monopolies in certain areas. Actually cities have been sued for trying to make their own broadband for their communities.

Re:plenty of time to choose another wireless provi

[Anonymous Coward]

Do like sprint does then - cut the data off at 200MB of roaming.

Re:plenty of time to choose another wireless provi

[Penguinisto]

This is the case where I live. Only Verizon will cough up any signal at all (depending on phone brand, model, etc) - though if you have T-Mobile or Sprint out here, you might get lucky and have enough signal to make a phone call.

Re:plenty of time to choose another wireless provi

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read the Article? Verizon does not Own the Equipment in those areas. Someone else does. SO there is at least one choice.

Dumb move

[Anonymous Coward]

VZ is able to charge a premium because of their footprint.

So now they are publishing that you can't use the footprint for it's intended purpose.

Can't wait to see the competitor's commercials.

Which industry runs the biggest scams?

[fustakrakich]

1) Financial

2) Insurance

3) Cellular/Internet/Telephony

4) Al of the above

Re:Which industry runs the biggest scams?

[Anonymous Coward]

Higher education?

Re: Which industry runs the biggest scams?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it costs far more per capita to deliver ALL services to sparsely settled areas. Roads, electricity, communications, natural gas, ambulance, fire department, you name it, actual per capita costs are much lower in the cities.

Because more than 75% of the population lives in the cities and near 'burbs, it's usually simpler just to make the cities subsidize the rural areas.

I'm sure the buried in the terms of service, Verizon has methods to justify kicking off their most heavily subsidized customers, just as insurance companies used to do before Obamacare started regulating the insurance business.

While it's painful for rural dwellers to admit this, the true solution to their telecom problems is a good solid dose of government regulations. That's what it will take to restore their subsidies, just as it got them paved roads and electricity. Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

Liers

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the affected consumer lines use a substantial amount of data while roaming on other providers' networks and the roaming costs generated by these lines exceed what these consumers pay us each month

Then don't oversell you twats.

Verizon is not a charity

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is a for profit organization, it does what it has to improve profits.

All the people who derided "government service is always inefficient, and private companies are always efficient" should take a moment to understand what the private companies mean by efficiency. For them efficiency is delivering least possible goods and services for most revenue, maximize profits.

So next time some talking head starts a diatribe on government remember this.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[amiga3D]

Ever stand in line at the social security office? The VA? Sure, private companies are greedy but generally they are efficient. The problems with Cell Service goes back to how the government set all this up in the beginning. The system has all kinds of problems in it. I had a great cell service years ago, then Verizon bought them. Instant suckage.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in sane country we pay for wireless dataplans ranging from a few to 200 GBs per month. After that, they throttle your speed but don't disconnect you.
In insane country, keep apologizing for both your oppressors.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[thegarbz]

You don't need a government service, just some consumer protection laws that prevent the very one sided contracts that are currently in place. Arbitrary cut-off without specifying the performance of a contract is illegal in most common-law countries.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a for profit organization, it does what it has to improve profits.

Then can you explain why they attempted to sell something they didn't have to offer in the first place? Oh whats that? overselling greedy fucktards?... indeed. You are absolutely brainwashed to have any sympathy for this ridiculous company.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[dywolf]

government and private enterprise actually share similar efficiency rates.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[dywolf]

prime example of why government intervention becomes neccesary.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[green1]

They don't have to be a charity, they just have to stop the false advertising. If your service has limits, stop calling it unlimited! I'd that simple.

We have a carrier around here that used to offer unlimited data while connected to their towers, but a specified amount when roaming on other towers. Had Verizon done this it would have been no problem. But instead they resorted to false advertising in a successful attempt to scam customers in to signing up for a service that was not as described.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[sjames]

So how much standing in line do you suppose you'll have to do to get decent service out of Verizon?

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever tried calling Comcast customer service?

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[amiga3D]

I don't have any problem getting decent service out of AT&T. It actually surprised me since I hated their asses in the 70s. Considering what I pay them they f*cking need to give service.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[amiga3D]

I had a brief problem with Cox but working my way up their management tree solved it.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Who is going enforce the contract? Government? The one you have actively undermined in every election? Starve the beast! Starve the beast!! Now the beast is going to come and rescue you?

We have denigrated and insulted the civil service so much, meritorious people do not want to become civil servants. OK, OK continue to live in your theoretical world.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I have no sympathy for Verizon. And I have less sympathy for people who venerate privatization as the panacea for all ills.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

We have weakened the government to such an extent, it will not be able to help real citizens. All the hard won freedom and liberties are being given to corporations too. Religious belief, freedom of speech, ... to corporations! Any foreign entity can start a corporation in America and instantly get all the liberties and freedom of American citizens, but they don't have the liabilities or responsibilities! It is insane what we are doing to the country by weakening our own government.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Government has been weakened so much, it can not enforce any of the consumer protection laws in the books. That is the problem.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my nightmares consists of Comcast buying Cox. I have had few problems with Cox and have been a customer for years. Sometimes its just knowing how to address a problem. For example if my cable goes out and I call TV Cable customer service they'll get a tech out within a couple of days. If I call Internet customer service (hey if the cable is out my internet doesn't work either) I'll usually get someone out the next day.
Meanwhile every couple of years they increase my download rates and data caps without charging me more.
When I call customer service I usually get someone who speaks English well and is no less knowledgeable than I would expect the first tier tech to be. i.e. they can read the flowchart well. Sometimes they can even fix my problem. When I've been pushed to real tech support they doggedly work until the problem is fixed.
So yeah, my nightmare is they'll sell out to Comcast.

Re:Verizon is not a charity

[Anonymous Coward]

nice strawman, it's ok not to have a good argument...

Fsck Verizon

[darkpixel2k]

Years ago they courted a company I managed IT systems for. They tried to convince us to switch off slow 1 Mbit DSL (only thing available in the area) to their 6 Mbit 'wireless DSL' or whatever the hell they were calling it. They said there were no caps. The first month bill was horrific. We ditched them immediately and went back to the DSL provider. We'd regularly suck data down the pipe at nearly line speed. We'd regularly hit 1.5 TB/mo and the ISP *never* complained about the amount of data transfer. Hell--at home I regularly do between 10 and 15 TB/mo. No one complains. It's just cell companies. Fsck them.

Re:Fsck Verizon

[Anonymous Coward]

Years ago they courted a company I managed IT systems for. They tried to convince us to switch off slow 1 Mbit DSL (only thing available in the area) to their 6 Mbit 'wireless DSL' or whatever the hell they were calling it. They said there were no caps. The first month bill was horrific. We ditched them immediately and went back to the DSL provider. We'd regularly suck data down the pipe at nearly line speed. We'd regularly hit 1.5 TB/mo and the ISP *never* complained about the amount of data transfer. Hell--at home I regularly do between 10 and 15 TB/mo. No one complains. It's just cell companies. Fsck them.

My God! How much pr0n can a single person watch in a month?

Oh wait a minute! It all has to be 2k or 4k pr0n to get you off, right?

Re: plenty of time to choose another wireless prov

[Monster_user]

Which as somebody else suggested, might be a "Verizon Spectrum" service, and the owners of said equipment may only provide Verizon cell phone. So there is a possibility that Verizon is the only carrier option, despite not actually being an option.

Why do we have corporations again?

[Cyberpunk Reality]

Oh, right, because they supposedly serve the public good.

Perhaps the People of the United States should figure out if Verizon, AT&T, and a great many other abusive corporations are profitable for the public, and if they find otherwise, revoke their charters.

Re:Why do we have corporations again?

[amiga3D]

I believe we could improve the situation by eliminating bribing...I mean lobbying of our politicians by these Corps.

Re:Why do we have corporations again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same with property ownership. Be socially useful or have your "charter" revoked. Lots of good public buck & grouse-hunting available on those previously private properties.

Re:Why do we have corporations again?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right except that you're wrong. First, you're wrong because this is not capitalism. America's cell phone providers are a collection of government sponsored monopolies because each they are dependent on the government providing sets of frequencies within which the companies may operate.

Both the federal government and the cell providers want you to believe this is capitalism and everybody pretends that you have choice, but I disagree and believe you're wrong because switching from one government sponsored monopoly to another isn't really having the freedom to choose.

We need the government to stop violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. When the government shells out radio frequencies for providers to use, that is precisely the same as drawing lines on a map and making guarantees that no provider will operate in your "territory". Establishment of operational territories is an act that is PRECISELY and SPECIFICALLY prohibited by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. And yet, it's the government itself that commits these crimes, resulting in the loss of freedom and choice we are supposed to have.

After much foot dragging and resistance back in the day, the DoJ FINALLY filed just one anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft for a crime that they thought was the easiest and most obvious charge to prosecute of the large stable of Microsoft's criminal behavior. To see them fail so miserably and completely is yet more evidence that the government constantly fails do it's job.

So, if you please, would you kindly throttle back on your political vitriol and your condemnations of capitalism? You're wrong, because the cell phone companies as they currently exist are not an example of properly functioning capitalism. You're right, however, because what we get from our cell providers is clearly not acceptable; people have little or no choice, the customer service sucks, and the quality of the cell service sucks. All this can be traced back to the government's complete failure to maintain a fair and level playing field, and to remove barriers of entry for new competitors in our capitalist free marketplace.

Please stop blaming private industry for the failures of government. Ultimately, we get the government we vote for. So please stop blaming others for the fact that you can't vote well.

Re:Why do we have corporations again?

[thegarbz]

Or you could join the 20th century and enact some consumer protection laws that prevent stupidly one sided contracts and forced arbitration.

Re:Why do we have corporations again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm interested to hear how you would allocate spectrum, because unlike signals over cable the EM spectrum is a limited resource. If you don't want the government to allocate it how should it be allocated? You can't just have a company start to use a section of the spectrum and say f---you to anyone else who wants to use it.
I absolutely agree that it sucks that the government is picking winners and losers and propping up monopolies, but how do you control spectrum allocation so that doesn't happen?

Basically

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sure, we sold it to them through some third party arrangements, but we never expected they'd actually find a way to use the thing."

I think what we need to do...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we need to enact regulations that say something to the effect of "if you provide internet service at X speed, you are not allowed to throttle, cap, or terminate service just for using service." The throttling and capping has gotten out of hand already, it's even spread to ISPs.

Re:I think what we need to do...

[amiga3D]

I'm fine with metered service. I just want a clear and guaranteed contract. Not 890 pages of double lawyer speak gobbledygook wording.

Re:I think what we need to do...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government LOVES 890 pages of double lawyer speak gobbledygook wording. The smaller the printed typeface the better.

Until the government sponsored monopolies stop and we finally get a properly functioning capitalist free marketplace with fair competition between providers, you will never get what you want.

Exede is cheaper than VZW

[tepples]

a lot of folks use their phones as a de-facto Internet connection (video, FB, whatever), since an actual hardline ISP connection is either out of their budget (Satellite)

I don't see how that's the case. Last I checked, Exede Satellite Internet was cheaper than Verizon's LTE Internet Installed. Verizon has 10 GB/mo for $60/mo or 20 GB/mo for $90/mo, with $10/GB thereafter. Exede has 12 GB/mo for $50/mo or 25 GB/mo for $75/mo, with the meter stopped at 0300-0600 local time ("Free Zone"), and deprioritization instead of overage fees ("Liberty Pass").

Re:Exede is cheaper than VZW

[Penguinisto]

I believe you're comparing a 4G home Internet connection to a 4G phone plan... these folks are only using their phones.

Also, incidentally, I had (and still have) Exede. Their 30GB Liberty Pass plan used to cost me $169/mo after fees, taxes, etc. (nowadays I only pay $50/mo for their 10GB plan since it's just a backup - working from home lets me write it off on taxes). Once you blow through your cap, you can pay $10-20/GB for more data, or suffer through ISDN speeds (they say it's 1-5bps, but I have never experienced that speed after blowing the cap.)

By contrast, for $169/mo I can get 4 Verizon phones with "unlimited" data and have change left over. ;)

Re:Exede is cheaper than VZW

[pnutjam]

By contrast, for $169/mo I could get 4 Verizon phones with "unlimited" data and have change left over. ;)

FTFY, since that option is now past

Translation, Sprint service area

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon is actually known as the worst wireless provider, having the most negotiating leverage by virtue of having the largest customer base, however for businesses, they do not offer business discounts.

All other carriers will offer business discounts and work together to ensure that their customers have seamless coverage. Verizon will not play ball. So this entire "roaming" problem is of Verizon's own making.

Better way to handle this.

[DatbeDank]

Verizon could have simply told them that they are going to be sending these rural customers to the local cell operators and transfer the contract to the rural guys. It would have been easy to retroactively put this into some terms of service agreement.

Another example of corporate ineptitude.

Re:Better way to handle this.

[satsuke]

The agreement is likely between the customer and Verizon, not the roaming partner.

The other thing is some of these rural providers don't actually sell local subscriptions, their business model is putting up the capital for the cell sites and soaking in the roaming revenue from multiple national carriers.

While this example does sell wireless service themselves, there's a company Pioneer Wireless in Kansas and Oklahoma. They are seperate from Verizon, yet to a VZ subscriber, it looks like native LTE coverage.

funny

[lapm]

Wondering how many of these customers had unlimited plan. Witch case they might have case for court claiming service provider knew it might happen when they accepted the plan in first place.

Passive aggressive bastards

[iamacat]

It's your choice to offer unlimited plan. It's your choice to offer unlimited roaming without charging extra. It's your choice to not throttle heavy users. WTF are you doing blaming customers? It's like "free show if you attend a timeshare presentation" folks bitching if nobody ends up buying.

Does your unlimited VZW data include tethering?

[tepples]

By contrast, for $169/mo I can get 4 Verizon phones with "unlimited" data and have change left over. ;)

Does this include tethering to a desktop or laptop computer, or must the "unlimited" data (which in practice is more similar to a 30 GB Liberty Pass) be transferred to and from apps running on one of the four phones? If it doesn't include tethering, would it be practical to attempt to use an Android phone as a computer by installing GNURoot Debian and XSDL and connecting a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse and HDMI monitor?

Verizon Coverage Map

[denbesten]

customers...in 13 states (Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wisconsin) ... were "using vast amounts of data ...outside of our network footprint."

Based on Verizon's coverage map, those customers must be clustered into single-pixel sized locations for about half the states.