Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Throttled Fire Department's 'Unlimited' Data During Calif. Wildfire (arstechnica.com)
Verizon Wireless's throttling of a fire department that uses its data services has been submitted as evidence in a lawsuit that seeks to reinstate federal net neutrality rules. From a report: "County Fire has experienced throttling by its ISP, Verizon," Santa Clara County Fire Chief Anthony Bowden wrote in a declaration. "This throttling has had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services. Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services." Bowden's declaration was submitted in an addendum to a brief filed by 22 state attorneys general, the District of Columbia, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, and the California Public Utilities Commission. The government agencies are seeking to overturn the recent repeal of net neutrality rules in a lawsuit they filed against the Federal Communications Commission in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
"The Internet has become an essential tool in providing fire and emergency response, particularly for events like large fires which require the rapid deployment and organization of thousands of personnel and hundreds of fire engines, aircraft, and bulldozers," Bowden wrote. Santa Clara Fire paid Verizon for "unlimited" data but suffered from heavy throttling until the department paid Verizon more, according to Bowden's declaration and emails between the fire department and Verizon that were submitted as evidence.
"The Internet has become an essential tool in providing fire and emergency response, particularly for events like large fires which require the rapid deployment and organization of thousands of personnel and hundreds of fire engines, aircraft, and bulldozers," Bowden wrote. Santa Clara Fire paid Verizon for "unlimited" data but suffered from heavy throttling until the department paid Verizon more, according to Bowden's declaration and emails between the fire department and Verizon that were submitted as evidence.
If they are anything like the power company I used to work for, they are flagged as a public service, emergency service customer. Priority given to service restoration and special consideration in the event of billing problems rather than just a disconnection.
Have gnu, will travel.
The moment Verizon staff deliberately stepped over that line: it should have resulted in all their spectrum licenses and their FCC Telecoms license being placed in jeopardy.
I'm sure Ajit Pai will get right on that.
Ajit Pai ... serves as the Chairman of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Before his appointment to the FCC, Pai held positions with ... Verizon Communications (as Associate General Counsel).
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
How about some truth in advertising?
Any service that is subject to data caps, throttling, etc. should not be called "unlimited".
Unlimited: not limited; unrestricted; unconfined. https://www.dictionary.com/bro...
My home internet is a paltry 20Mb DSL, but it is full speed 24x7. That's what I call "unlimited".
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
>"Verizon Wireless's throttling of a fire department that uses its data services has been submitted as evidence in a lawsuit that seeks to reinstate federal net neutrality rules."
Um, this has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. It does have to do with the definition of "unlimited data", but they were not throttling based on where the data was going....
No they didn't and they knew they didn't.
They were on a $37.99/mo plan that had already ran over its cap before and gotten throttled. When they ran over the cap again in June, Verizon told them they could switch to a $39.99/mo plan....but a guy with the title of "Fire Captain" DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SPEND THE EXTRA $2/mo so he had to escalate the matter.
So you have an organization that:
a) fails to understand the tech they buy
b) runs into a problem with said tech and fails to resolve it
c) runs into the same problem again and fails to resolve it again
d) is so bureaucratic that someone with Captain in their title can't spend another $2/mo
I have a hard time blaming Verizon. They apparently told them exactly what they needed to do, both times, and the department either chose not to or simply wasted time in making the decision.
According to TFA, they did get special consideration: "public safety customers have access to plans that do not have data throughput limitations".
The department just chose not to buy such a plan...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The relevant clause was buried halfway into the article:
"Even if Verizon's throttling didn't technically violate the no-throttling rule, Santa Clara could have complained to the FCC under the now-removed net neutrality system, which allowed Internet users to file complaints about any unjust or unreasonable prices and practices. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's decision to deregulate the broadband industry eliminated that complaint option and also limited consumers' rights to sue Internet providers over unjust or unreasonable behavior."
So basically, not net neutrality, but the ability to complain about Verizon screwing with customers which was removed along with "net neutrality".
They tried to help. They offered to upgrade the plan for an extra $2 per month. Apparently the fire guy calling them couldn't authorize that upgrade for some fucked up reason.