Slashdot Mirror
Fire Department Rejects Verizon's 'Customer Support Mistake' Excuse For Throttling (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A fire department whose data was throttled by Verizon Wireless while it was fighting California's largest-ever wildfire has rejected Verizon's claim that the throttling was just a customer service error and "has nothing to do with net neutrality." The throttling "has everything to do with net neutrality," a Santa Clara County official said. Verizon yesterday acknowledged that it shouldn't have continued throttling Santa Clara County Fire Department's "unlimited" data service while the department was battling the Mendocino Complex Fire. Verizon said the department had chosen an unlimited data plan that gets throttled to speeds of 200kbps or 600kbps after using 25GB a month but that Verizon failed to follow its policy of "remov[ing] data speed restrictions when contacted in emergency situations." "This was a customer support mistake" and not a net neutrality issue, Verizon said. "Verizon's throttling has everything to do with net neutrality -- it shows that the ISPs will act in their economic interests, even at the expense of public safety," County Counsel James Williams said on behalf of the county and fire department. "That is exactly what the Trump Administration's repeal of net neutrality allows and encourages."
I'm a net neutrality proponent and ... this doesn't seem to have anything to do with net neutrality.
Sure it does, or rather, the lack of net neutrality
Ok then - What exactly in the rules that were repealed, would have prevented what happened? Since obviously you have read them and are familiar with what was repealed, I mean it would be crazy to be upset about the loss of something you had never read and didn't even understand, right?
I'll respond to any post that actually provides a real answer. If I am silent, well, perhaps you should try to answer the question - what in the rules repealed would have prevented a cell provider from throttling cellular data services?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The argument the ISPs made was that they need to be able throttle traffic based on who it was to and what it was for so that they could make sure the most important traffic got priority and would always trump the lower class data. Their promise to emergency services (based on the article on this issue AND supported by statements and previous actions from Verizon) was that your emergency data usage would NEVER be impeded. It seems that Verizon does not have the infrastructure in place to implement their data tiering that they are implementing (again emergency services will never be impeded), which means you are a schmuck to pay a premium for the faster service and service guarantees.
Second, every one needs to stop comparing the plan process the Fire department was paying for that one SIM card to their own data plans. Their monthly bill is probably in the thousands, if not tens of thousands and as such they have access to a whole bunch of tiers and plans that consumers do not have. Verizon came out and said they (Verizon) had misrepresented the terms of the data agreements to the department AND they had failed to make sure that the emergency services tier of data was not impeded.
This isn't Net Neutrality issue, but is a utility vs commercial service issue. Fire, police and other emergency services phone data networks should NOT be on a commercial service but on a municipal utility service dedicated for just that purpose. Such a dedicated service should probably be maintained at a state level and the connected to a different network. Allowing emergency services traffic to be carried by a standard commercial carrier is a short sighted and stupid mistake. Police and fire communication is on a separate radio band and forbidden for general use why would a new medium not be the same ?
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Democrat: A bunch of guys that get together to decide what they are going to do with YOUR money.
That would provide a perverse incentive to kill cops and take their recording hardware, since they possess the only copy. Also, it would make it difficult to impossible to prove if tampering had occurred, and provide time for that tampering to occur.
Not only should the video be uploaded in real time (if that consumes bandwidth, so be it -- that's the cost of operating in modern society), but it should be hashed and saved in multiple places such that if one of them is tampered with, it will clearly not match the other copies.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.