AT&T Offers Unlimited Plan Deal For First Responders, But It Can Be Throttled (theverge.com)

AT&T is offering a new promotion for first responders and their families. Firefighters, paramedics, and police officers can opt for 25 percent off either of the unlimited plans AT&T announced back in June. But in the fine print, as The Verge points out, "AT&T admits it may throttle data speeds 'when the network is congested.'" The promotion comes soon after Verizon came under scrutiny for throttling firefighters' data as they fought wildfires in California. From the report: AT&T says that first responders looking for completely unlimited internet without data speed caps can use FirstNet, the network it recently began operating specifically for first responders. AT&T was contracted by the U.S. government to built out FirstNet, which offers features that specifically cater to first responders. The company says that it's actively promoting FirstNet, but at the same time, its promotion page doesn't make a mention of the superior plan at all. In an email, AT&T clarified that the promotional plans subject to throttling are for first responders' personal use and family plans. "We're offering first responders and their family members a discount on the consumer plans available today for their personal use," a spokesperson said. "These lines and devices are separate than the FirstNet lines purchased and issued by the first responder agencies, which do not have a data limit."

The deal allows first responders to choose between the AT&T Unlimited & More plan or the Unlimited & More Premium plan, which has more entertainment add-ons to choose from, including HBO, Showtime, and Amazon Music. With the ongoing promotion, a single line alone on Unlimited & More will cost $52.50 a month, while four lines on a plan would cost $30 a month per person. Unlimited & More Premium costs $60 a month for a single line, and $35.62 a month per person for four lines.

Comments

I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't *first responders* use, like, radio?

Re:I don't get it

[Dutchmaan]

You're under the assumption that this is just short range voice communications... nor is this story pertaining to actual firefighters on duty but rather their and their families personal use.

Re:I don't get it

[schnell]

Can't *first responders* use, like, radio?

Sure, for group half duplex voice communications only. It doesn't do any good for your laptop, tablet, handheld fingerprint scanner, wireless firefighting temperature sensors, etc. Oh, and good luck talking to anyone on the radio who doesn't have a compatible radio - like the doctors at the hospital, the mayor... so on and so forth.

Re:I don't get it

[kenh]

It doesn't do any good for your laptop, tablet, handheld fingerprint scanner, wireless firefighting temperature sensors, etc. Oh, and good luck talking to anyone on the radio who doesn't have a compatible radio - like the doctors at the hospital, the mayor... so on and so forth.

This has nothing to do with actually fighting fires - couldn't you even be bothered to read the first sentence of the fine summary:

AT&T is offering a new promotion for first responders and their families.

Re:I don't get it

[msmash (Ultra Mod)]

Correct, Ajit Pal should be in prison alongside treacherous American President Donald J TRUMP

Emergency services should get a gov't service

[Anonymous Coward]

No data caps, no throttling, low price. It should be separate from the firehouse Netflix account to avoid data hogs.

Re:Emergency services should get a gov't service

[uncqual]

Maybe something like FirstNet which is clearly pointed out? (Except for, perhaps, the "low price" feature.)

Although, since these plans include "Preemption - priority access to the domestic AT&T 4G LTE network", they may not be able to offer them in California if it passes the pending "net neutrality" legislation (or any other state that legislates "net neutrality").

I don't see any reason for such plans to necessarily be "low price". Private enterprises should not be expected to provide governments with "bargains" that they wouldn't offer to other similar volume users. Should Ford sell SUVs to police departments cheaper than they would to a similar volume non-first responder, non-governmental organization? Why?

Re: Emergency services should get a gov't service

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a sickenly strong promoter of net neutrality but yet I see no problem if emergency services get priority. We do it for roads so why not?

Re: Emergency services should get a gov't service

[kenh]

O M G - This has nothing to do with actual firefighting, it's a discount on home broadband service for firefighters and their families.

AT&T is offering a new promotion for first responders and their families.

Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[bob4u2c]

When did "Unlimited" start meaning we throttle speed or charge you more if you actually attempt to use what is promised?

If you sell me a 15Mbit connection I should be able to saturate the line at 15Mbit 24/7 for the entire month with no slow down and no extra charges.

Would you accept it if your "Unlimited" rental cars top speed was cut in half if you went more than 200 miles in a day? Or if after 300 miles you had to pay an extra millage charge.

So stop calling it "Unlimited" and call it what it really is, "Extra charges will apply". The argument I usually hear is that the network can't handle that kind of traffic and they "have" to slow your network speed. If that is the case then sell what you can support; stop over selling or stop under providing!

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[uncqual]

Obviously it is impossible, for a price that anyone other than a Saudi prince can afford, to provide mobile data at high speeds that is truly unlimited AND delivers full speed at all times. That's just the nature of the beast. In fact, it's effectively impossible to deliver the maximum mobile data rate everywhere due to signal strength issues even if bob4u2c is the ONLY user within 1000 miles.

What they mean by "unlimited" is you don't pay more for more data. As long as they only throttle when needed to avoid congestion and perhaps first to high usage users, this seems quite reasonable.

Nowhere in mobile plans do they guarantee bandwidth (as an OC-255 might for example) for the first byte or any other byte.

At this point, every person with at least two brain cells knows that 'unlimited' in mobile plans rarely means "full maximum bandwidth guaranteed 7x24 even if users actually use that bandwidth 7x24". People with only one or zero brain cells can just read the footnote that explains this.

I would acknowledge though that they should provide more details on the throttling and provide statistical information (perhaps in the form of maps as to what percentage of time at various times of day each area has been throttled over the prior month or so).

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[tgeek]

When did "Unlimited" start meaning we throttle speed or charge you more if you actually attempt to use what is promised?

I'm honestly not sure. It could be: When the first chunks of spectrum were auctioned in the high 9-digit $ range. Possibly when people discovered an unlimited tethered LTE connection was a great substitute for home internet service. Or maybe it was always written into the first unlimited plans and not widely enforced until congestion started becoming an issue. I really don't remember, but I'm sure one or more of those are related.

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[bob4u2c]

Obviously it is impossible, for a price that anyone other than a Saudi prince can afford, to provide mobile data at high speeds that is truly unlimited AND delivers full speed at all times.

Then stop advertising things you can't promise! Instead they should say this is our 22GB data plan, not our "unlimited" plan.

What they mean by "unlimited" is you don't pay more for more data. As long as they only throttle when needed to avoid congestion and perhaps first to high usage users, this seems quite reasonable.

But isn't that the point, once he reached a datacap he was slowed down. When he then called to complain they offered to upgrade the datacap for a fee? So was this really a case of congestion, or just a money grab?

At this point, every person with at least two brain cells knows that 'unlimited' in mobile plans rarely means "full maximum bandwidth guaranteed 7x24 even if users actually use that bandwidth 7x24". People with only one or zero brain cells can just read the footnote that explains this.

Exactly, everyone now expects their phone plan to be a bold face lie. When did the meaning of "unlimited" change? If I can't use that bandwidth, then you shouldn't be able to advertise it or at the very least you should set a minimum limit. Footnotes are fine for listing exceptions, however then you can't call it "unlimited" because you just imposed a limit.

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[uncqual]

They are offering you unlimited data in the sense that you don't pay a different amount for data based on usage.

What they don't guarantee you is bandwidth -- just as they don't guarantee bandwidth on any plan including a 1GB/month plan.

Do you take unlimited to mean "Infinite" since that's what it means in the extreme? Even bandwidth of 100PB/sec 7/24 for a whole month doesn't give you that because 2.7e20 bytes << infinity bytes.

I'm not a big fan of the term 'unlimited' either, but now that everyone understands what it probably means, it really doesn't matter much. Would you prefer "Unmetered Data"? Perhaps "Fixed Price Data".

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[Ol Olsoc]

When did "Unlimited" start meaning we throttle speed or charge you more if you actually attempt to use what is promised?

Ajit Pai called, he said to shut up.

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a big fan of the term 'unlimited' either, but now that everyone understands what it probably means, it really doesn't matter much.

Except people often don't know what it means precisely because each company writes something different in the fine print for each plan. It's like if every fast food joint was selling "Hamburger*" "* May contain 100% bull testicles", "Hamburger Deluxe**" "**Up to 100% pig vaginas", etc. Just arguing that there's fine print or "everyone understand" is clearly bullshit.

Would you prefer "Unmetered Data"? Perhaps "Fixed Price Data".

Or "throttled after 50GB to 10Kbps", "throttled when we presume there's network congestion even if there's not necessary any", "throttled for your data plan class in your area for a total maximum for the group of 1.5Mbps", etc. It's not hard. Just spell out precisely what's being offered at what price. They can include details about "Unmetered" because that applies. Unlimited is just false in just about any capacity when there's forced throttling that's particular to your plan or your usage above and beyond the instantaneous throttling for a specific network congestion. That last part is not something that you can buy a different plan to magically fix.

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a big fan of the term 'unlimited' either, but now that everyone understands what it probably means, it really doesn't matter much.

Just because you've broken and acknowledged that there are five lights doesn't mean everyone has. Some, hopefully many, of us know how to count. If the a-holes can't deliver unlimited -- not limited; unrestricted; unconfined; boundless; infinite; vast; without any qualification or exception; unconditional -- they shouldn't advertise unlimited.

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[mark-t]

I'd actually be willing to cut them some slack on this one... they only appear to say they will throttle when the network is congested. As long as that's the only time they throttle, it doesn't matter how much or how fast you personally might use the system, the only thing that determines whether they will throttle is overall demand.

Which is, by the way, not too dissimilar from what you'd get with no throttling at all, because the physical infrastructure can still only handle so much bandwidth at once. At that point, however, the quality of service is going to totally blow for the lower demand connections while the high demand connections dominate the network, so they might be actively throttling before network usage reaches that point only so that their average QoS remains steady for the largest number of subscribers.

The difference is whether or not the throttling against you is because of *YOUR* usage as opposed to what they have determined gives their network the best level of service. This would imply, also, that if they are throttling you, then they are also throttling everyone else on the same node to the same cap. That seems fair, in my view... because I believe that they are entitled to try and maximize their overall service level for the largest number of people.

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a follow reply to myself (and to the GP) since I don't even have a wireless plan, I've only vaguely heard/read about the plans, so I decided to take a look at them. Every company seems to offer "Unlimited [Basic]" with the Limit of 480p streaming video, throttled mobile hotspotting (some with a xGB before it kicks in) and constantly data throttled to network congestion. Then there's "Unlimited ]Plus]", with the Limit of 720p or 1080p (most are 1080p) stream video, some more generous mobile hotspotting (but still throttled at some point), and data throttling to network congestion after x GB.

Now, I should stop at this point and state the obvious: if everyone bought the basic plan, then everyone would be throttled fairly. But when you buy x GB and then "network congestion", what does that even mean? Do you get full 4G speed? Do you get 90% of 4G speed? Do all you who still have x GB left share the 4G speed? What about everyone else? Do they get 10% of 4G speed shared among them? Do they get 0% of 4G speed?

See, it's clearly false advertising. If enough people are on the same cell tower and they're all using the max plan, then they're just as network congestion throttled if all the people use the base plan. Hence, it's not "x GB then network congestion". The only way this can't be true is if those in the base plan are not merely "network congestion" throttled (as claimed) but are limited above and beyond simply sharing the network by being able to use some percentage of the network less than 100%. In short, both claims can't be true at the same time.

Of course, one could argue they're talking about the streaming limitation, but that breaks down for the same reason: at some point, even if the plan offers 1080p it will be unusable to actually stream at 1080p in the above because there won't be enough bandwidth per user to actually stream at 1080p, so users will be forced to use 480p (or even lower) to actual have something resembling a streaming service. Even not taken to that extreme, once you use up your x GB for the month (which there's no indication you can selective ferret out as you wish to have "high speed" connection when you want), you're back to network congestion and trying to use 1080p which effectively punishes everyone without the x GB boost speed and odds are good you'll still be using 480p or lower when you begin to realize how badly 1080p likely functions at that point.

So, finally we get to the "Unlimited [Plus Plus]" plan that some services provide. It's just a higher GB limit on data and mobile hotspot before throttling. So, there's no plan you can get unlimited unthrottled access because "unthrottled" means "throttling someone else, probably". There's no clear figures on top, expected, or minimal bandwidth for any plan at any time (just vaguely 4G/3G, LTE, or such) (except Verizon's Basic mobile hotspot limit). And if there was such a plan, it'd be equivalent to everyone on the basic plan but without the forced resolution streaming limit (and it'd be probably terrible because people would still try to force higher resolutions all the time).

Or put more nicely, it's clear mobile companies have shit bandwidth on cell towers and instead of being able to deal with it somehow they've put in excessive throttling rules with some "not throttle as much for a while, probably" plans while trying to cripple high bandwidth streaming. For an actual fix, in some areas it might not be possible. In other (rural areas), it'd probably be cost prohibitive to offer bandwidth sufficient to streaming 1080p to most customers simultaneously but it would be technologically doable.

Does that about some up what people understand about "Unlimited" plans?

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[kenh]

"Unlimited" means "without limit," which in this case means as many bytes of data, not the speed of the data bytes.

So stop calling it "Unlimited" and call it what it really is, "Extra charges will apply".

Throttling does not cause a consumer to incur any "extra charges" - you are simply making things up to justify your baseless anger. Is there a fee an "unlimited" subscriber can pay to remove the throttling? Not that I'm aware of.

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[kenh]

"Unlimited" means there is no arbitrary limit on the amount of data one can download, it says nothing about the speed of that data.

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[kriston]

That's just where the market went. "Unlimited" means you don't get charged more for using too much data. You can use as much data as you want, but speed will suffer past a threshold. On many plans that threshold is between 18 and 22 GB. I recently visited a resort that included a free WiFi Hotspot device (on AT&T) and it had dozens of text messages on it that said, "You have used [redacted] data for this account, so your data may be throttled in congested areas." It wasn't useless, but it was somewhat slower in some areas.

The "unlimited" plans really mean that you won't get $15-per-gigabyte overage charges on your data plan. With my family plan, this was a serious source of stress and annoyance by the 20th day of a billing cycle. With this new "unlimited" plan, I don't have to bother with any data plan overages anymore. My family members who used too much data got throttled in busy areas. Seemed fair to me.

When I'm on a congested cell and have used more than my 22-gigabyte allocation per my plan, of course my data should be de-prioritized, or "throttled" when necessary. That's just common sense and good business logic.

The real problem is that when you are a first responder, your data should never be throttled for any reason even when you are over your 22 (or whatever) gigabyte allocation. That's where Verizon screwed up, and I don't see how the AT&T competitive plan is that much better.

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[religionofpeas]

Would you prefer "Unmetered Data"? Perhaps "Fixed Price Data".

No, just call it by the amount of unthrottled data you get.

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[chill]

Throttling for congestion is simply QoS in terms the average person will understand. Not only is there nothing wrong with it, it is necessary for the smooth operation of the network. This is traffic management, pure and simply.

The commercial network world buys bandwidth based off of Committed Information Rate (CIR), 95th Percentile, Burst Capacity, and Line Rate. Doing it any other way leads to a horrible under-utilization of the network and a waste of resources.

You're average home user doesn't understand any of that, nor do they want to, hence the simplistic terminology.

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[uncqual]

Okay, so then they just shut you off (i.e., throttle to 0mbs) after that threshold is reached since that's all they advertised.

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unlimited" means there is no arbitrary limit on the amount of data one can download, it says nothing about the speed of that data.

So you're a "five lights" person. Got it.

(Hint: throttling means applying a limit to the speed. When you're paying for unlimited service, you're paying for a service with no limits: quantity, speed or otherwise. Truly unlimited is not practical, of course, yet that's exactly what's being advertised. The service providers then proceed to redefine "unlimited" in the small print. That is not right.)

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[Anonymous Coward]

They can virtually do that now--throttle you down to 0.5KB/s--in their "Unlimited" plans because "network congestion" is justification for all throttling without clarifying what "network congestion" means to them.

PS - Yes, I know 0.5KB/s is greater than 0 but by modern standards it's absolutely horrible. It'd be enough to download something like monthly updates and patch a few other programs, maybe, if you d/l 24/7 the whole month--the max for a month would be ~1.2GB.

Re:Stop calling plans "Unlimited"

[Kernel Kurtz]

Throttling for congestion is simply QoS in terms the average person will understand. Not only is there nothing wrong with it, it is necessary for the smooth operation of the network. This is traffic management, pure and simply.

The average person assumes QOS happens in near real time and is not based on historical usage.

How about the...

[budsetr]

How about the Fuck You We Own the Government Plan? The first 3GB per year are only $1200. Each gig after that is throttled down to 19.2k (2400 baud) and $50 per GB. BTW, fuck Ajit Pai

Re: How about the...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, that's the plan I have now!

Serious, 3gb, $85 mo * 12= $900

Thanks Verizon. Not

Re: How about the...

[kenh]

So your 3 GB, $85/mo, $1,020/yr plan from Verizon is advertised as "unlimited"? No? Then be quiet. your "limited" plan has no bearingon a discussion of "unlimited" plans.

Seems okay

[Saishuuheiki]

Honestly, throttling when the network is overloaded is perfectly fine to me. It's throttling 24/7 once you pass a threshold that is a problem to me.

Whether they should have some sort of access priority (if it's even technically available) when a First Responder etc is a different issue. This would likely be something only important during large-scale emergencies when networks get overloaded, though may not be technically practical, could be looked into.

Re:Seems okay

[tgeek]

What you're talking about is the QCI value. This affects the device's access to resources at the enodeB scheduler. Typically ranging from 1-9 with 1 being the highest priority. Most carriers set the default value to 9 (or 8, if they want to reserve 9 for banishing data hogs to a lower priority). Government sanctioned plans (including FirstNet) for first responders typically are contracted to have a lower QCI (higher priority) for these subscribers.

Best Laugh All Day!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those dog fuckers at Always Trouble & Technicalities are steaming plies of crap, who should be tried for fraud and sentenced to "real" prison, not some cushy country club type affair.

Lying Bastards.

Q Anon: Morons Breitbart: Traitors Fox: Tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal Prison. Trump. Federal. Prison. Trust restored, the plan.

Federal. Prison.

Then State Prison
if
Dead_yet = 0
until
Dead_yet = 1

Paramedics should follow suit

[Anonymous Coward]

Offer the customer an unlimited breathing contract and then throttle it to 500ml of air/second after the first 100 liters.

LEARN TO READ SUSHI

[Anonymous Coward]

You're failing to read. They throttled because they exceeded their billed-for data plan cap, not because it was congested or overloaded or failing. It was a business decision, then they tried to UPSELL THEM in the middle of the fire.

Re:LEARN TO READ SUSHI

[kenh]

One again, this article is about discounts for first responders and their families - NOT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

It's literally the first sentence in the summary.

The editor decided to take two completely different offerings by two different ISPs and try and create a conversation that conflates first-responder family discounts offered by AT&T and a data plan sold to a fire company by Verizon.

What's wrong with SLAs?

[shess]

Rather than selling an "Unlimited, except with usage caps, except for you, except when you use too much YouTube", etc, etc, lawyers ten levels deep, why don't they just have a plan where instead of "Up to X Gbps", you can get "At least X Mbps", where X is determined by what the units need to do their jobs?

Re:What's wrong with SLAs?

[tgeek]

You can't guarantee wireless speeds or bandwidth. Unlike "wired" internet (copper/fiber) there's far too many variables.

Re:What's wrong with SLAs?

[kenh]

why don't they just have a plan where instead of "Up to X Gbps", you can get "At least X Mbps", where X is determined by what the units need to do their jobs?

FFS, read the first sentence of the summary again - it's a discount for first responders and their families - this has absolutely nothing to do with first responders and what they "need to do their job."

Fix your texting groups first

[FatAlb3rt]

The problem we've seen with AT&T is that any members of our text groups that have AT&T lines can't reply to group text messages with more than 10 people. Their phones truncate the group to 10 - so now you have another group and have to figure out who didn't get the reply. Primitive guys - up your game. That's enough to prevent me from bringing your promotion to our fire department.

https://forums.att.com/t5/Data...

Re: Fix your texting groups first

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a better app for this called GroupMe.

Re:Fix your texting groups first

[kenh]

That's enough to prevent me from bringing your promotion to our fire department.

AT&T is offering first-responders and their families a discount - this has nothing to do with service for your local fire department.

Why does nobody get that unlimited isn't possible?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not freaking possible, and to think it is is pure stupidity on your part.

Re: Q Anon: "Trust The Plan"

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump?! Plan?!
Wrong guy. There was never a plan.
You got your strings pulled. Good luck with that!

So during emergencies

[WillAffleckUW]

Let me get this straight.

It's for people who help during emergencies, and they need phone service and texts then.

At precisely the time when the networks are stressed out from overuse (oversubscribed is what we used to call this) and equipment failures.

From disasters. Like fires. And earthquakes. And floods.

So it WILL be throttled DURING THE EMERGENCY.

Making it ...

useless

Re:So during emergencies

[jeff4747]

Alternatively, you could read aaaaalllllll the way to the second paragraph of the summary. Where it explains the throttled plans are a discounted personal plan for the first res ponders and their families, and the plans for the actual agencies are not throttled.

You know, the ones that are actually used in an emergency.

Not throttled.

Making you

Really fucking lazy.

Re:So during emergencies

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight.

I'll try my best to help, because you do have it pretty crooked

It's for people who help during emergencies, and they need phone service and texts then.

No it isn't.

This particular offering is for people who do the help WITH emergencies, but not for DURING the emergencies.
This is a personal/consumer level package.

Just like you have your personal phone which is separate from your work phone, this would be like your company offering to pay part of your personal phone bill and the offer is available to people that work at your company.

At precisely the time when the networks are stressed out from overuse (oversubscribed is what we used to call this) and equipment failures.

That shouldn't be that big of a problem. During an emergency, a first responded will likely be working and thus using the separate unrelated FirstNet.
When working they would be too busy to have any time to spend using their personal phone to watch youtube.

To continue the personal/work example from above, problems with the personal service your work place offers shouldn't matter much to you, since you should be at work working and you'll have your work phone on your desk to use.

From disasters. Like fires. And earthquakes. And floods.
So it WILL be throttled DURING THE EMERGENCY.
Making it ...
useless

Useless to the emergency responder personally, but as I said they are far too busy working to notice.

Useless to the families of those emergency responders yes, but A) you'd think any and all cell services and providers would have the same issue during a large scale emergency, and B) the personal family phones aren't required to use this AT&T package.

Only if it is cheaper than their current package would it ever even make sense to switch to it, otherwise it would make sense to stay with their current cheaper package if that's the case.

In both situations the consumer cell network will be under heavy load and work equally shitty so beyond price, everything else is pretty much the same.

Re:So during emergencies

[Ol Olsoc]

Let me get this straight.

It's for people who help during emergencies, and they need phone service and texts then.

At precisely the time when the networks are stressed out from overuse (oversubscribed is what we used to call this) and equipment failures.

From disasters. Like fires. And earthquakes. And floods.

So it WILL be throttled DURING THE EMERGENCY.

Making it ...

useless

The internet is not a reliable emergency communications medium. No matter how hard people want it to be. So yeah - you are right - Useless.

Re:So during emergencies

[kenh]

No. You well-reasoned argument overlooks the simple fact in the first sentence of the summary:

AT&T is offering a new promotion for first responders and their families.

Reading a little further, we find this passage:

AT&T clarified that the promotional plans subject to throttling are for first responders' personal use and family plans. "We're offering first responders and their family members a discount on the consumer plans available today for their personal use," a spokesperson said. "These lines and devices are separate than the FirstNet lines purchased and issued by the first responder agencies, which do not have a data limit."

Triggered!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Firefighters, paramedics, and police officers can opt for 25 percent off either of the unlimited plans

> Firefighters,

Yeah! Love these guys!

> paramedics, and

Yeah! Love these guys!

> police officers

Hang on. WTF?
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/police-killings-hit-people-color-hardest-study-finds-n872086
https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-racism
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/03/29/police-killings-black-men-us-and-what-happened-officers/469467002/
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/21/17149092/stephon-clark-police-shooting-sacramento

How about a 25% discount to their victims too ATT?

can someone educate me on the need for throttling?

[originalGMC]

Subject says it all. Can't figure out why. I can grasp a moral reason for a non-neutral internet service - say for instance in the event of an emergency - firefighters / emergency personnel get prioritized traffic over us plebes. What I cannot grasp is a reason for throttling anyone based on a seemingly arbitrary corporate policy rule. I get that bandwidth might cost a little money, but these costs are 99.999999% of the time passed on to the consumer anyways, so what's the big fucking deal? I very seriously doubt any major ISP has a 'lack of bandwidth' issue.

Re:can someone educate me on the need for throttli

[originalGMC]

It seems like scarcity is invented for the purposes of pushing an agenda.

FirstNet isn't even operational

[kalieaire]

There are also a host of other huge issues with FirstNet

* They have a limited (meant minimum to meet requirements) number of mobile cell trucks to respond to disasters that take out cell service (ie. if an incident/disaster knocks out all the cell towers in the san francisco, they'll have enough to give basic level service [text, some analog calls, and emails], but if disaster strikes anywhere else in the region, they won't have enough trucks to support the greater San Francisco Bay Area).
* Network is nowhere close in terms of coverage than current LTE, 3G UTMS, 2.5G(EDGE), and 2G(GRPS) coverage.
* No bandwidth limitations, but they'll have limited equipment so it'll be poor in service where current cell service is poor
* Verizon didn't put up a proposal during the RFP process because they knew that it would cost too much and that they wouldn't be able offer a level of service deemed acceptable to the letter of the contract.  Verizon is known to not give out an RFP when this is the case for many projects open for bid, whereas AT&T's game is often to provide a service through a 3rd party subsidiary, collect the money, have the subsidiary stand up a garbage product, and then cut the 3rd party loose if there are any charges of wrong doing or contract breach.

FirstNet is garbage.  Check out the meeting minutes at firstnet.gov

Re:FirstNet isn't even operational

[kenh]

This isn't about first net, as noted in the summary:

"We're offering first responders and their family members a discount on the consumer plans available today for their personal use," a spokesperson said. "These lines and devices are separate than the FirstNet lines purchased and issued by the first responder agencies, which do not have a data limit."

Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Subject says it all. Can't figure out why. I can grasp a moral reason for a non-neutral internet service - say for instance in the event of an emergency - firefighters / emergency personnel get prioritized traffic over us plebes. What I cannot grasp is a reason for throttling anyone based on a seemingly arbitrary corporate policy rule. I get that bandwidth might cost a little money, but these costs are 99.999999% of the time passed on to the consumer anyways, so what's the big fucking deal? I very seriously doubt any major ISP has a 'lack of bandwidth' issue.

Every ISP has to decide how much bandwidth to purchase. That means peering agreements and infrastructure upgrades and, basically, expenses. They want to make money, and they set what they are *charging* customers based on what customers will pay rather than based on their profits. (All businesses do, but when there's less competition it's more obvious). If a little shaping of customers (who are not paying by the GB in the US) saves them a few million bucks and all they lose is a few thousand bucks worth of customers who are high-bandwidth users anyway, of course they want to shape.

Shaping has much bigger indirect effects: it makes it harder for traffic-heavy startups to become successful and it means malicious shaping can seriously undermine political agendas and free speech. People respond much more to websites that load quickly; for each second you add to the load time of a donation page for a political candidate or an interest group and you're taking a lot of money and interest away.

Re:can someone educate me on the need for throttli

[AHuxley]

What is mentioned in the linked text is a set of "personal use and family plans" for " first responders and their family members".
Thats very different to "emergency" protected networking all over the USA.
ie "personal use and family plans" and the mentioned "secondary or retired responders" in some states.

Well, FU AT&T

[BrendaEM]

Perhaps some of AT&T's buildings will burn to the ground.

Re: Well, FU AT&T

[kenh]

You literally have no idea what this article is about, do you? Did you even read the very first sentence of the summary? Lord knows you couldn't read all the way down to the second paragraph...

This has nothing to do with anything involving firefighters doing their jobs, it's about a discount for their family's home broadband connection.

Re:can someone educate me on the need for throttli

[kenh]

I very seriously doubt any major ISP has a 'lack of bandwidth' issue.

Right, because every internet link in every ISPs data network has infinite capacity, there are no limits on bandwidth at all - none.

Let me guess, you work in Network Capacity Planning for AT&T? Verizon?

Re:can someone educate me on the need for throttli

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you work in Network Capacity Planning for AT&T? Verizon?

1. Oh, sure, like AT&T or Verizon would hire an FTE for Network Capacity Planning.

2. Nah, he's the guy who counts the photons. Do you know how hard it is to find a big enough magnifying glass to see photons shooting by?

Firstnet

[Anonymous Coward]

So AT&T also runs this service www.firstnet.com which isnâ(TM)t throttled at all - in fact, itâ(TM)s the opposite. All FirstNet lines are prioritized.

The First Responder offer is for personal use. FirstNet is for work-related usage.

Re: Why does nobody get that unlimited isn't possi

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do they advertise it then?

Burn, Asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

You should die in a car fire. Trapped, screaming like the little pig you are.

Dumb Twats

[Anonymous Coward]

"can be throttled when the network is busy"

And when is that likely to be?
Oh yes, right in the middle of an emergency.
AT&T go sit on the dunce's step until you realise the error of your ways.

I am so glad we don't have companies like AT&T operating where I live.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T could offer FREE service in my area--which is in a touristy part of the California Sierra foothills and wildfire-threatened--and it wouldn't mean a thing. No reception.

Newt

[dohzer]

How "neutral" of them.

they're doing it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

T-mobile unlimited wipes at&t and verizon off the map, for less $$$. I get 3 countries for less than their unlimited usa only plans.