Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Backtracks Slightly In Plan To Kick Customers Off Network (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Verizon Wireless is giving a reprieve to some rural customers who are scheduled to be booted off their service plans, but only in cases when customers have no other options for cellular service. Verizon recently notified 8,500 customers in 13 states that they will be disconnected on October 17 because they used roaming data on another network. But these customers weren't doing anything wrong -- they are being served by rural networks that were set up for the purpose of extending Verizon's reach into rural areas. Today, Verizon said it is extending the deadline to switch providers to December 1. The company is also letting some customers stay on the network -- although they must switch to a new service plan. "If there is no alternative provider in your area, you can switch to the S (2GB), M (4GB), 5GB single-line, or L (8GB) Verizon plan, but you must do so by December 1," Verizon said in a statement released today. These plans range from $35 to $70 a month, plus $20 "line fees" for each line. The 8,500 customers who received disconnection letters have a total of 19,000 lines. Verizon sells unlimited plans in most of the country but said only those limited options would be available to these customers. Verizon also reiterated its promise that first responders will be able to keep their Verizon service even though some public safety officials received disconnection notices. "We have become aware of a very small number of affected customers who may be using their personal phones in their roles as first responders and another small group who may not have another option for wireless service," Verizon said. "After listening to these folks, we are committed to resolving these issues in the best interest of the customers and their communities. We're committed to ensuring first responders in these areas keep their Verizon service."

52 comments

  1. No other option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon never owned those towers or they wouldn't have the issue of data charges coming from them.

    All those people have other options. Just not for unlimited.

    1. Re:No other option? by clonehappy · · Score: 2

      Not quite all of them, but yes, the vast majority of these customers should never have been allowed to sign up for branded Verizon service in the first place, as they live outside the native Verizon service area. Greed or incompetence allowed them to be erroneously signed up for service when they never should have been. So, the gravy train is over for them, they have to purchase service from the local native carrier.

      There are a minute handful of customers, such as those who live in the Roaming Partners service area in Maine, where there is literally no other provider. That company was set up solely to provide roaming service to Verizon customers and there are no other options in that and couple other very small areas from what I understand. So, those customers get to stay. All in all, it looks like Verizon is doing the right thing here.

      Every carrier has roaming limits, and will kick you off (or cut off your service) if you roam too much. This is nothing new, and is nothing specific to Verizon. It's easy to hate on them for a plethora of reasons, it just so happens that this isn't one of those reasons!

    2. Re:No other option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verizon is a big company, and they offered, so they'd better suck it up and deliver.

      Really, this is small fry; kicking them off for comparatively pocket lint gives a message of general untrustworthiness. Of course, in the USoA, every company is crooked, it's the law. But even so.

    3. Re:No other option? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "It's easy to hate on them for a plethora of reasons, it just so happens that this isn't one of those reasons!"

      Uhh, no. Use your brain. This was false advertising when you break it down. As you state: "the vast majority of these customers should never have been allowed to sign up for branded Verizon service in the first place, as they live outside the native Verizon service area"

      Time to check into hospice, old one.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:No other option? by wonkavader · · Score: 2

      Very nastily put, but correct. They entered those addresses into their computers along with the plan type, and then they said YEP! Contract Approved! No check of location vs. cell tower location/coverage. Address to UTC coordinates is now trivial to compute, and they had UTC coordinates of every tower. To not do the math meant setting up the customers up to be dropped. Customers bought hardware to match their network, dropped other carriers, etc up networking, etc. Verizon did no due diligence where due diligence was easy.

      This is not because someone outside of Verizon was greedy. This is because many people INSIDE Verizon were both greedy and incompetent.

    5. Re: No other option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the locals should just go chop that tower down for being a Ponzi scheme.
      And when the owner comes to see what's up they should lynch that pig.

    6. Re:No other option? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Did the advertising promise them the same rate forever? Somehow I doubt it. Surely Verizon has honored their end of the bargain for the contracted terms, and now wants to simply not renew the contracts. I don't see why they shouldn't have that right.

      If I contract to sell you my service for $X/month for the next two years, and after two years I realize I'm losing money on the deal badly, why should I have to extend your contract?

      Besides, Verizon is a private company and can do whatever they want, as long as they don't violate the law or break a contract. If you want more interference in their operations, now you're talking about governmental regulation. We shouldn't have any of that here. These people are rural dwellers, which means they're all GOP voters, and a big part of the GOP party platform is to reduce or eliminate regulation wherever possible, and to let companies like Verizon do what they want for maximum profitability. Let these people be hoist by their own petard.

    7. Re: No other option? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sure, go ahead and chop down that tower. It won't hurt Verizon; it's not their tower. It belongs to some other (more local) company, that Verizon was working with to allow roaming.

      I think they *should* chop down the tower, because that means they won't have *any* cellular service now, not even from their overpriced local company, and they may even drive that company out of business so they'll never get any service. Sounds good to me. Fuck 'em. They brought this on themselves.

    8. Re:No other option? by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt Verizon cares who a customer voted for in the last Presidential election. Every carrier, every single one, besides Verizon has enforced roaming limits up until this point. Verizon has decided to start doing what every other cellular carrier does. The customers are unprofitable, as you said, and any company will fire unprofitable customers. It's a fact of life, no politics involved.

    9. Re: No other option? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This attitude is absolutely asinine. Regardless of why they once allowed you on they can change their mind and in the case of youâ(TM)re not in a contract, you have no recourse. As if I opened a pizza store and served you, and then opened a chain, and one location was in a small rural area, and I tried delivery in that area but ultimately found there wasnâ(TM)t enough business to keep a driver in staff. Youâ(TM)d be the ass that would complain that I agreed to do it and canâ(TM)t back out now.

  2. Government should do the same to Verizon by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Verizon is skimming the cream, they're cherry picking, they're looting and pillaging.

    Time the government does the same to Verizon by taking away Verizon's bandwidth or increasing the price by 10x. I'm sure Verizon's competitors would love to have this... As a consumer who's watched Verizon pillage for years I would love to see this happen to Verizon.

    1. Re:Government should do the same to Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But..Verizon is the government. Least part of it. Welcome to the oligarchy. We accept credit.

    2. Re:Government should do the same to Verizon by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      Should T-Mobile, AT&T, and Sprint also have their spectrum taken away because they kick people off for roaming too much?

    3. Re:Government should do the same to Verizon by pubwvj · · Score: 2

      Sure!

      Or break them up. Perhaps you're too young to remember the song about AT&T's breakup...

    4. Re:Government should do the same to Verizon by msauve · · Score: 0, Troll

      These customers aren't using Verizon's spectrum, they're roaming, which means they could have a direct plan with the local provider. Instead, they're taking abusive advantage of a VZW plan to get cheaper service when their primary use isn't within VZW's coverage.

      It's the users who are "looting and pillaging."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re: Government should do the same to Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charging data per gigabyte should be outlawed anyways. It just lets these companies not expand their network and coast on it. It's a toxic concept.

    6. Re: Government should do the same to Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are on Verizon LRA partners. It's Verizon's spectrum.

    7. Re: Government should do the same to Verizon by msauve · · Score: 1

      "They are on Verizon LRA partners. It's Verizon's spectrum."

      Can you provide a citation? Not that it matters a whole lot, because in essence VZW has sold/rented/leased that spectrum to the LRAs, just as the feds have "sold" spectrum which naturally belongs to the public to VZW.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    8. Re:Government should do the same to Verizon by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How are the users looting and pillaging when Verizon access was advertised and is now being pulled away?

      Try using some common fucking sense. Verizon never owned those towers yet they advertised coverage.

      Jesus Christ. It's like the vanguard of /. is losing their fucking brains or have been paid off by companies to be apologetic shills.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:Government should do the same to Verizon by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Fuck that. I say let Verizon kick these idiots off and maintain their profits. If these people want service, they can buy it from the local carrier and pay high per-GB charges for it.

      What you're talking about is government regulation, and that's absolutely the wrong thing here. The people who are affected by this are rural: they all vote for the GOP, the party which is steadfastly against regulation. These same people, I'm sure, have used a bunch of that bandwidth to write idiotic conservative messages on message boards and Facebook talking about how bad regulation is, how we need "small government", etc. Well, let's give them small government!! If they want service, they can get it from the local monopoly and pay through the nose for it, and enjoy the benefits of "small government".

      So no, I'm sorry. I have no trouble with what Verizon is doing here.

    10. Re:Government should do the same to Verizon by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Companies can't be held to something they advertised decades ago; there's limits. If Verizon has honored their contracts, then they're free to refuse service to these people. They're under no obligation to keep providing them service forever.

    11. Re:Government should do the same to Verizon by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      I'm old enough to remember that while expensive and stagnant, AT&T's wireline network was rock-solid. There were positive and negative aspects of the Modification of Final Judgement, which we could argue all night, but this is a little different. There are still 3 competitors for cellular service nationwide, and these rural users also have a local carrier to choose from in most cases.

      I don't think breaking up the cell carriers does anyone any favors. Do you want to return to the days of driving to the next county over and being charged $1.49/min (or I guess these days, per MB) roaming airtime? I, for one, don't.

    12. Re:Government should do the same to Verizon by msauve · · Score: 1

      What's your point? The VZW contract, reasonably, lets either party cancel. Use some fucking common sense and realize that either party can back out if they're not getting a good deal.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    13. Re:Government should do the same to Verizon by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      No, you completely missed the point.

    14. Re: Government should do the same to Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. Great. They advertised service. And for awhile, people got service. Now theyâ(TM)re pulling out of that market. Or actually not even. Theyâ(TM)re just not offering certain plans in those areas. Bye! I mean, the arrogance that you think they canâ(TM)t ever change their mind. For all the faults of wireless carriers, this isnâ(TM)t one.

  3. VERIZON = GREEDY CORPORATE SCUMBAGS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the matter? Wanting to get your CEO another jet or something? Perhaps a golden toilet for his private bathroom in his office?

    Here we have a big corporation taking advantage of people with no other options so they can make more money. Just remember. It's being able to buy shit from companies like this that keep you dumb cows placated so that we are not out in the streets slashing each other's throats for dinner. Everybody of course wants to whinge and cry when their throat gets cut.

    1. Re:VERIZON = GREEDY CORPORATE SCUMBAGS by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Here we have a big corporation taking advantage of people with no other options so they can make more money.

      Didn't you read the summary? They have other options: there's local companies they can buy service from, the companies that actually own the towers they're using. Don't give me this "no other options" bullshit. They just don't want to use the small local companies because they cost a lot more and don't have unlimited data.

  4. First Responders? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you a parent?

    Then your a "First Responder".

  5. Damage control by Leninix · · Score: 1

    It's not backtracking, it's damage control.

  6. I'm Rural by Puls4r · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm rural and I'm in the same boat many people are in. I can't get cable - it ends about 1 mile away from me. I can't get DSL - it ends 3 miles away from me. I can't get Satellite, because hills and trees block the southern horizon. Sprint barely works - we get sub megabit speeds. AT&T works intermittently, with constant voice drop outs. Verizon works - and we get 30 megabits over LTE. But we are limited to our 'unlimited' 15 GB before our speeds are cut to 600kb. The one 'broadband' company near us has an F rating at the better business bureau and is getting sued by the government for misappropriating and stealing grants meant to improve service.

    Verizon is our only internet option. I pay over $200 a month for 3 'unlimited' lines. Every month we have to rotate through phones until we use them up.

    High speed internet has become a necessity for modern life. Schools in my area *expect* the kids to have high speed access. Their books are on line, as are all their instructional videos for experiments and other homework. Sheduling for after-school activies is ALL done through email, remind, and mass-text.

    Our government has failed us. More specifically, the FCC. The continue to ignore local monopolies and stand by while companies like Verizon shut down local internet shops and municipal broad band through lawsuits. I'm tired of it, but there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. Oh, I've called my congressmen and senators. I've commented during the FTC review period - which they ignore in its entirety.

    Ajit Pai is the biggest stinking pile of shit to ever work in our government.

    1. Re:I'm Rural by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      Ajit Pai is truly a stinking pile of shit, but if you think he's the biggest stinking pile of shit to work in our government, then you clearly haven't been paying attention.

    2. Re: I'm Rural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FCC's fault?
      Who appoints the FCC chairman?
      The FCC doesn't enjoy being run by a shill.

    3. Re:I'm Rural by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      And who do you vote for in the elections? I don't know about you specifically, but all your neighbors vote overwhemingly for the GOP, and one of the biggest parts of the GOP platform is "small government", which means as little regulation as possible, and they've been big-business friendly as long as I've been alive. So maybe you're an exception, but collectively, you rural dwellers are getting exactly what you voted for.

      Our government has failed us. More specifically, the FCC. ... Ajit Pai is the biggest stinking pile of shit to ever work in our government.

      Ajit Pai was appointed by Trump. If you voted for Trump, you have no cause to complain. If you didn't, you should be sure to point this out to your dumb neighbors if they complain. I'm sure the vast majority of them voted for him. I'm sorry, I just don't have much sympathy for a group of people who constantly vote against their own best interests.

    4. Re: I'm Rural by Puls4r · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree - but there's no point in going there because people have already made their decisions on the president. Actual debate educates and illuminates, but there is no debate to be had about the President that can be meaningful. Too many people have personally invested themselves in the argument rather than making objective informed decisions.

    5. Re:I'm Rural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a Pajeet AI, not even a person.

    6. Re:I'm Rural by Puls4r · · Score: 1

      Roll that back a bit. We didn't just suddenly 'arrive' at this point. And we've had republicans and democrats in various positions of power. Look at my post (above yours a bit) that explains exactly why I'm not gong to engage you. Especially with that rather special attitude that suggests Trump represents all republicans.

      P.S.- I didn't vote for Trump. Not that it matters, or is any of your business. But this blind political hatred that so many Americans are currently mired in is not helping the country.

    7. Re:I'm Rural by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      You're rural and you can't get broadband you say? Next you'll tell me that there's no Chinese Restaurants within walking distance, and you have to drive 30 minutes just to go to a movie theater.

      Maybe the problem is that people are being encouraged to live in the middle of nowhere, where it's prohibitively expensive to provide service at the same level as could be offered in a city. I wonder how many people who live rurally actually need to live there, for their job; and how many of those people actually need high data broadband.

      The biggest f---up the US has done in the last 70-80 years is the run down of the cities, forcing people out of them. It's pushed the cost of living through the roof, and made it very, very, expensive to provide high quality infrastructure to most of the population. Perhaps if cities had been allowed to grow organically, there'd be fewer people in your position. The FCC didn't fail you, they're between a rock and a hard place: demand high quality broadband everywhere, and it'd soon become unaffordable for much of the population. Rather, Americans were failed by poor city planners, promoted into high policy-making positions in State and Federal governments.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:I'm Rural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're rural and you can't get broadband you say? Next you'll tell me that there's no Chinese Restaurants within walking distance, and you have to drive 30 minutes just to go to a movie theater

      I don't recall being forced to pay taxes to guarantee there will be Chinese restaurants within walking distance or movie theaters within driving distance to every last American.

      I certainly do see over the last couple decades the taxes we are all forced to pay that are claimed to guarantee phone and broadband services to every last American.

      I don't know why you apparently have such problems with expecting "getting the thing you are forced to pay for, while not getting the things you are not paying for", it's a fairly simple concept.

  7. Wireless targets. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

    (Yeah I know this is roaming, not sure how much of below applies. I still suspect more than I think.)

    I'm on the old (the OLD) unlimited employee plan. I pay $75.odd final for a single line and have downloaded 96GB this month, slightly higher than usual. I hear they kill anybody at over100 so I'm leaving the remainder alone until the end of the cycle (days)

    Instead, these people should watch all of go90 (free bandwidth) and use Stream Pass (a Free Sports Package for go90 That Includes Free NBA League Pass)

    Kinda funny how the wireless bandwidth to the tower is free or not DEPENDING ON YOUR ENDING-SITE. If you stay within their (V's) overall network It's All Free! ...but ... once you egress and traverse the general internet Suddenly It's Not! Almost like the wireless part itself doesn't matter.

    For these roaming people, V should honor the contract. If the users pay an early termination fee, V should pay THEM for disconnecting. And support the lines until the end of the contract (1/2 yrs) After that though, the users need to get a new contract or (like me) they're depending on Vs good will to carry them forward.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    1. Re:Wireless targets. by antdude · · Score: 1

      So, how do we know V's overall network and general?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  8. Here's a novel idea - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of kicking customers out, expand your own network. In fact, do that everywhere instead of punishing people for using it.

    1. Re:Here's a novel idea - by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Instead of kicking customers out, expand your own network. In fact, do that everywhere instead of punishing people for using it.

      There's not enough density in these areas to justify the expense. If you want companies to service unprofitable areas at reasonable prices, you need strong government regulation to make that happen, the way they do in Europe where even in the rural areas like northern Finland they have good coverage, while typical cellular bills are much lower than here in the US. But the rural dwellers here in the US are staunchly opposed to government regulation, so I really don't see the problem here. They're getting exactly what they voted for.

    2. Re:Here's a novel idea - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IN many cases its worse than that. Usually these small providers that are charging Verizon a mint for network access, own the local politicians. Local zoning will not approve the building of the towers even if it would be profitable. Because in some cases interstates or whatnot going through would justify the expense. They just can't get approved.

      Can't say I blame verizon here. Its one thing to pay the fees for a person passing through vs a person that lives there.

    3. Re:Here's a novel idea - by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yep, and these local politicians are the responsibility of the idiots living in these places. Why should they get a subsidy from all the other Verizon customers nationwide? It's amazing how red-state voters think they're always entitled to a handout, but somehow never see it as such, but then bitch about other people receiving "welfare".

    4. Re: Here's a novel idea - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing how everything is trumps fault in your little mind.

  9. Why not throttle them instead? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    If cellular bandwidth is so limited in these rural areas, why not just throttle customers after a certain amount of usage, or apply QoS during periods of heavy usage on the tower? You would think Verizon would be able to figure out a solution that doesn't involve kicking off paying customers.

    1. Re: Why not throttle them instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about that. Verizon doesn't own any towers in these areas. They are being poached by the tower owners. They only exist to get Verizon customers connected to their tower so they can bill Verizon per bit.

    2. Re: Why not throttle them instead? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      It's up to Verizon to allow their customers to roam onto other networks, though.

      They could simply disable data roaming for people who are using more than the allowed data quota.

  10. "line fees" for cellular networks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk about imaginative billing. How about a "milk maid feed"? Arguably there is a lot of milking going on in those rural areas by Verizon.

  11. well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    F**k Verizon and the monopoly they rode in on.

  12. I don't understand ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... Verizon's problem here. They sell a plan to a customer who ventures outside their service area. And when outside, this customer must pay some third party provider for service. Verizon isn't making any money off these charges*. But then they aren't providing service either. If that revenue was worth chasing, then they'd build towers.

    *It's not like customers are getting a great deal here. Roaming charges aren't cheap and I'm sure most customers would rather get Verizon native service.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.