Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon Throttled Fire Department's 'Unlimited' Data During Calif. Wildfire (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the new-low dept.

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.

22 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Business or consumer? by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Business or consumer? by PPH · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    2. Re:Business or consumer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Exactly just because live's are at risk doesn't mean that gouging the maximum possible profit is wrong.

      *froth froth * Venezuela *froth froth * gay wedding cakes *froth froth* death panels*.

      --
      cayenne8

      Thank you! This making excuses for Leftist Progressive agendas is getting tiresome. The fact is that a business has the right to make a profit by any means possible - that is the Capitalist system.

      If the Fire Department didn't pay for the service they require then they don't deserve any better. And as the Terms and Conditions state, Verizon can change the Terms and Conditions any time they want to. So, if the fire department needs more bandwidth during an emergency - even if they paid for it, then Verizon has the perfect right to throttle or demand more money.

      That's Capitalism!

      I'm tired of all the Progressives and Leftists making excuses and forcing their agenda on businesses who are struggling to to keep people employed overseas, boost their bottom line and give their CEO's a decent eight to nine figure compensation package!

      If the Progressives and Leftists would stop their whining about protecting human health and well being, we'd all be better off!

    3. Re:Business or consumer? by pz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    4. Re:Business or consumer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Business or consumer? by mi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Priority given to service restoration and special consideration

      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.
    6. Re:Business or consumer? by Scarletdown · · Score: 5, Funny

      It would have been extremely amusing if some major Verizon owned facilities had then been lost to the fires before the fire department could pay Verizon more to be unthrottled...

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    7. Re:Business or consumer? by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Due to not being able to communicate with the guys delivering more water, we had to severely throttle our water bandwidth right after saving all the sprint and T-Mobile towers. I'm afraid all the Verizon ones burned down."

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  2. This should be a fine by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This should be a fine by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:This should be a fine by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:This should be a fine by silentbozo · · Score: 5, Informative

      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".

    4. Re:This should be a fine by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:This should be a fine by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  3. Re:Unlimited does not preclude throttling by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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..."

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Re:Unlimited does not preclude throttling by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

    s/Verizon building/Verizon executive's home/

    No, that 's not mean and vindictive. Nothing prevents them switching to an alternative firefighting provider.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. Network Neutrality says no one gets priority by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Network Neutrality says no one gets priority by anadem · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  6. This has nothing to do with net neutrality by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I mean, they hit a cap and their service was degraded. This has literally nothing to do with net neutrality, and this is a big part of the reason that those of us who want NN have a bigger hill to climb. Other proponents of NN don't have a clue as to what they're actually fighting for.

    I'm not arguing one way or another for what actually happened here, just pointing out that it's unrelated to NN.

    --
    Do you have ESP?
  7. "Unlimited" by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!!!
  8. Can't fine the firefighters by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Can't fine the firefighters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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....