Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the flick-of-a-switch dept.

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."

17 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Fraudulent billing by the rural providers? by Kaenneth · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Fraudulent billing by the rural providers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Fraudulent billing by the rural providers? by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  2. Nationwide coverage by hackwrench · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why do I get the impression Verizon misrepresented its coverage.

    1. Re:Nationwide coverage by burtosis · · Score: 2

      But I was told they had the best unlimited!

    2. Re: Nationwide coverage by hackwrench · · Score: 2

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

  3. Warnings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  4. Not the solution for roaming issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not the solution for roaming issues by clonehappy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. One sided by techdolphin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:One sided by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      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.

  6. Re:plenty of time to choose another wireless provi by nedlohs · · Score: 2

    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.

  7. Verizon is not a charity by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  8. Re:Families in rural areas screwing themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  9. Why do we have corporations again? by Cyberpunk+Reality · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
  10. Re: This is Trumps fault. by dougdonovan · · Score: 2

    so, what does unlimited mean ?

  11. Exede is cheaper than VZW by tepples · · Score: 2

    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").