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.

Comments

Business or consumer?

[LinuxIsGarbage]

Did they have a business plan with a guarantee of service or a consumer plan?

Re:Business or consumer?

[pz]

During a crisis, you respond with whatever is necessary to fight the crisis. Then you present the bill. If you expect repeat business, and run an honest and honorable ship, you make sure the bill represents an accurate and reasonable charge for the services provided. Note that reasonable in this case may be above normal charges due to exigent circumstances, but the charges should not be excessive.

If you instead do what Verizon is reported to have done, and directly impede crisis response, you should expect a lawsuit for the value of the destroyed land and property. What's the legal theory about damages due to inaction called, negligence? In any case, here, that amount of money is going to hurt.

Re:Business or consumer?

[Immerman]

>If the Fire Department didn't pay for the service they require then they don't deserve any better.

But they did - they paid for an unlimited data connection at the speeds needed. The ISP then failed to deliver, meaning they engaged in false advertising, and that's *their* fault, not the fire department's. If they want to sell throttled plans then they need to sell them *as* throttled plans - fraudulent marketing is NOT compatible with a healthy capitalist system.

This should be a fine

[mysidia]

Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services.

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 jeapordy. At the very least there should be a billion$ lawsuit for obstructing first responders.

Re:This should be a fine

[Narcocide]

And there would have been, if the FCC had not already been infiltrated by saboteurs.

Re:This should be a fine

[LynnwoodRooster]

So define how this is an issue related to net neutrality.

Re:This should be a fine

[mysidia]

Before his appointment to the FCC, Pai held positions with ... Verizon Communications (as Associate General Counsel).

In other words, Pai will have to recuse himself from the proceeding and let the other commissioners handle the matter due to conflict of interest concerns.

Re:This should be a fine

[Anonymous Coward]

It was coded by humans to do this, who were told by their supervisors and bosses to code it that way, who did so because of decisions, authorizations and discussions from those at the top who wanted it done this way.

The girl telling you sorry in the indian phone farm? Yeah she has nothing to do with it, for sure. But the entire C-Level should be placed in front of a firing squad, and the FCC members still working for those C-levels who deregulated the place should be against the wall right there with them.

Re:This should be a fine

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services.

The moment Verizon staff deliberately stepped over that line

What makes you think a single Verizon employee did a darn thing never mind "deliberately"? This is all coded into their system with zero human decision making. It just never even entered into the design requirements that if customer is emergency services provider, allow un-throttled bandwidth.

You know damned well a customer threatening to leave might have the salesma, er, retention specialist flip a few virtual switches on his account and give discounts, free upgrades to no throttling, and so on.

So please. Corporations like that have enormous investment in easy control over their networks and products on a per customer basis.

Re:This should be a fine

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The FD screwed up, yes, by buying the wrong plan. (Furthermore, no doubt Verizon can tag accounts "no throttle" if they want.) But once the emergency in progress is discovered (a bug in the system) it is reasonable to expect people to help to...actually help.

"I'm sorry. Apollo 13 must whiz by the moon into deep space because we don't have authorized overtime at Nasa."

Righteously you stand there, as people die, and your company incurs millions in lost money from a public relations black eye.

Re:Unlimited does not preclude throttling

[MightyMartian]

I'm hoping firefighters throughout the US keep that in mind when a Verizon building catches fire. "WEll, you know, we do have to prioritize our resources. Can't fight every fire..."

This has nothing to do with net neutrality.

[Anonymous Coward]

Throttling after using a certain amount of data happened while net neutrality was in effect. This is a false correlation meant to get those who don't think to come running with torches and pitchforks.

Network Neutrality says no one gets priority

[WoodstockJeff]

A truly neutral network would not give firefighter traffic ANY priority over other traffic. To ask for such priority is to be a hypocrite. This request by the fire fighters, at best, is an COUNTER example of what "Network Neutrality" means.

Oh, and the issue of exceeding a data cap on your network plan is not the same as network neutrality.

Re:Network Neutrality says no one gets priority

[anadem]

Rubbish comment, this is no way a counter example. The Fire Dept traffic were not asking for priority, just for equal access; they were being throttled. What's more the Fire Dept were not exceeding any cap, they paid for unlimited data.

Can't fine the firefighters

[mi]

The firefighters are to blame, if the facts reported in TFA are, indeed, facts:

While fire department personnel thought they were already paying for "truly" unlimited data, Verizon said they weren't.

"The short of it is, public safety customers have access to plans that do not have data throughput limitations," Buss told Prziborowski. "However, the current plan set for all of SCCFD's lines does have data throttling limitations. We will need to talk about making some plan changes to all lines or a selection of lines to address the data throttling limitation of the current plan."

The firefighters f-ed up. They knew — at least, on June 29th, what will automatically happen to their connection. That they didn't change their subscription by July 27, when the Mendocino fire started, is nobody else's fault but their own. Spending tens of thousands on all of that firefighting equipment, they can't spend extra $60 for the truly unlimited data-plan?

Maybe, they expected the company to give them freebies, the way smaller business may be bullied into giving. Didn't work...

What does any of this have to do with "net neutrality" remains a mystery...

Re:Can't fine the firefighters

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, they expected the company to give them freebies, the way smaller business may be bullied into giving. Didn't work...

I'd argue that both sides screwed up. The fire department should have done due diligence so they knew and tested that everything works as expected in simulated conditions before a real emergency. There is no excuse for lack of due diligence on their part.

Verizon should have, as soon as they knew their service was the problem, they should have bumped them to something truly unlimited for at least the duration of the emergency for no additional charge, then give them a couple weeks to make a correct package choice or come to a new deal. Personally I don't think Verizon should sell critical emergency workers any plan that isn't unlimited truly, and if they can't get them to buy such a plan after making the price reasonable, they should get the public workers off their service, if at all possible.

You can't really expect them to donate extra service forever, though it also wouldn't be the end of the world if they did in this particular case. Finally Verizon should sell what they advertise. Just drop unlimited data. Charge a base rate, plus actual costs of data and be done with it. No deception necessary, and you don't even need to block tethering....