Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fire Department Rejects Verizon's 'Customer Support Mistake' Excuse For Throttling (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the firing-back dept.

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."

7 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Muddying the Waters Doesn't Help by nsuccorso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm a net neutrality proponent and ... this doesn't seem to have anything to do with net neutrality.

    1. Re:Muddying the Waters Doesn't Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it has nothing to do with net neutrality. They weren't throttling SOME content, they were throttling ALL content. Based on the CONTRACTED plan that the fire authority signed with the company. Whether that plan is marketed as "an Unlimited Plan" or the "Happy Fun Time Plan" is irrelevant, as the terms of the plan are laid out in the contract.

      Does any top tier ISP provide really, truly, honest "Unlimited" service? Anyone? At $40/month? No.

      Verizon screwed up internally by not removing the throttle. The folks at the fire authority got trapped in generic customer service hell that pushed their buttons, read their menus, and said "so sorry, too bad".

      The circumstances suck, for sure. But net neutrality? No. Net neutrality is not about being able to violate your contracted rates and terms on a whim, its about being able to use your contracted bandwidth however you want.

    2. Re: Muddying the Waters Doesn't Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama appointed Pai.

      Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnel, not Obama.

      Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnel and appointed by Obama.

      This shit right here is the "jourlaism" tactic that is called fake news. Reply to a fact with a different fact dressed as a refutation.

  2. Timing isn't the issue. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    Or at any other time, really, not just while battling the fire -- unless Verizon is going to monitor the activity of the fire department and throttle their service whenever the department isn't fighting a fire...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  3. Verizon Lies and Throttles by sdinfoserv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I run an IT Department for a City on the West Coast. Verizon has throttled "unlimited" plans for over a year now. It's a common pain. The biggest problem we're running into is dispatch. Old text based dispatch systems have been replaced with GIS based systems consuming significantly more bandwidth. Add citizens wanting dashcams and body cams and you're easily way over the 25Gb limit.
    Historically, Verizon has been deeply embedded in our infrastructure due to our need for coverage, and Verizon had the best. Enter a new game change, AT&T and FirstNet (1N). ( https://www.firstnet.gov/ ) , AT&T has been pouring billions it infrastructure to support 1N. I predict within 18 months, Verizon not only will lose it's stranglehold on municipal communications, but virtually every municipality will jump to AT&T. Stories like this will only accelerate the change.

  4. Re:Simple question then by Jzanu · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was a great post in the last story by silentbozo (542534) referencing this article on arstechnica. It references the US Code Title II section 207 here.

    That section reads "Any person claiming to be damaged by any common carrier subject to the provisions of this chapter may either make complaint to the Commission as hereinafter provided for, or may bring suit for the recovery of the damages for which such common carrier may be liable under the provisions of this chapter, in any district court of the United States of competent jurisdiction; but such person shall not have the right to pursue both such remedies."

    Quick connection: When Net Neutrality was US law, if this exact situation occured, then the fire deparment could either make formal complaint with severe fallout for Verizon's continued operations, or alternatly would have 100% grounds to sue Verizon since it would have been 100% liable.

  5. Re:Simple question then by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Being a common carrier does NOT mean you need to provide an unthrottled service. It means all items (packets) delivered to you need to be treated equal without inspection, interception, or alteration.

    Just becuase someone can file a complaint or sue doesn't mean they will win. It's an incredibly weak arguement for why this is a net neutrality issue with an even weaker affect on Verizon.