Verizon reportedly throttled California fire department during massive Mendocino Complex...

[Polycount]

Most cell phone users understand that unlimited data plans aren't truly unlimited. Sure, you can technically use up as much data as you want, but past a certain point, you'll usually encounter speed throttling.

Though this is far from an ideal situation, many at least understand why this is the case - if everybody were allowed to stream Netflix in 4K across multiple devices at any time, that data usage would quickly add up for an ISP.

However, even if these rules are generally accepted (if not liked) by consumers, you'd probably expect emergency services to have some sort of immunity to them. In the middle of, say, a devastating California wildfire, the last thing you as an affected citizen would want is your fire department to have its data throttled.

Unfortunately, that's precisely what has happened during the ongoing California Mendocino Complex Fire, the state's largest wildfire to date. A Santa Clara fire department vehicle, the "OES 5262," recently had its data speeds throttled by Verizon after it cruised past its 25GB usage soft cap.

According to Santa Clara Fire Chief Anthony Bowden, this vehicle is responsible for facilitating communications between emergency responders and coordinating "government resources" in connection with the Mendocino wildfire.

Bowden's staff contacted Verizon to rectify the situation, and while the company did confirm that the throttling occurred, it reportedly refused to restore them to an "essential" data speed unless they switched to a new plan.

If that situation sounds slightly ridiculous to you, you certainly aren't alone. The fire department was frustrated by Verizon's response, to say the least, and sent Verizon account manager Silas Buss a series of hectic emails in a desperate attempt to get the restrictions lifted.

Buss eventually suggested a $99 plan that would charge the fire department $8 per gigabyte after 20GB had been used. Ars Technica says the fire department decided to opt for this plan, but it isn't accepting Verizon's policies without a fight.

California officials have been attempting to reverse the FCC's controversial decision to roll back Title II net neutrality protections for some time now, and state agencies are now using this debacle as further evidence for their case.

Image courtesy Ars Technica, San Francisco Chronicle

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/76077-verizon-reportedly-throttled-california-fire-department-during-massive.html

 

[seeprime]

The biggest problem is that Verizon ignored the risk to public safety by their actions. The least they should have done was to open the data spigot for the Fire Department during the disaster, then bill them later. Instead, they played hardball and created an increasingly dangerous situation by their callous inaction, and greedy sociopathic response, when their help was seriously needed.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Burn Verizon burn!

 

[Uncle Al]

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to see a coast to coast to black list all Verizon facilities followed by a fresh delivery by a number of fuel trucks and lighter salesmen ......

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Ajit toasts marshmallows while California burns.

 

[wiyosaya]

This does not sound like it is within the bounds of something that would have been covered by NN, and I would have to say that the FD should have known that there are limits on cell phone plans - as this sounds exactly like what they were depending on.

That said, I have to ask why the FD does not have its own communications radios. There are some pretty sophisticated public service communications radios out there that make cell phones look like the toys that they are. Take, for instance, the radios manufactured by this company - https://www.harris.com/

But still, Verizon is nothing but scum in this case.

 

[eafshar]

Great example of why internet connection is essential to how the world functions today and must be treated as a utility.

 

[Polycount]

This does not sound like it is within the bounds of something that would have been covered by NN, and I would have to say that the FD should have known that there are limits on cell phone plans - as this sounds exactly like what they were depending on.

That said, I have to ask why the FD does not have its own communications radios. There are some pretty sophisticated public service communications radios out there that make cell phones look like the toys that they are. Take, for instance, the radios manufactured by this company - https://www.harris.com/

But still, Verizon is nothing but scum in this case.

I actually agree, but I still mentioned NN because supporters used this instance as an example in their own legal battle - not a decision I necessarily agree with.

Throttling for unlimited data plans has always been around, net neutrality or not, and this does not relate to ISPs throttling a connection based on its content, or blocking websites, or anything of the sort. So, weak argument for a pro net neutrality standpoint, but certainly an example of less-than-ideal behavior from agencies that now have more power than before (post Title II rollback).

 

[eafshar]

I actually agree, but I still mentioned NN because supporters used this instance as an example in their own legal battle - not a decision I necessarily agree with.

Throttling for unlimited data plans has always been around, net neutrality or not, and this does not relate to ISPs throttling a connection based on its content, or blocking websites, or anything of the sort. So, weak argument for a pro net neutrality standpoint, but certainly an example of less-than-ideal behavior from agencies that now have more power than before (post Title II rollback).

The advertising practice of calling every plan unlimited is extremely deceptive. FCC currently has no backbone to actually address the real consumer issues and instead went after title 2 classification. I read on another site that Verizon issued an apology stating that they should have removed the throttling in this case as it somethings they often do in emergency situations. They also admitted to having not had clearly communicated the terms of the contract with the fire department which speaks volume about their intentionally misleading practices.

 

[Polycount]

The advertising practice of calling every plan unlimited is extremely deceptive. FCC currently has no backbone to actually address the real consumer issues and instead went after title 2 classification. I read on another site that Verizon issued an apology stating that they should have removed the throttling in this case as it somethings they often do in emergency situations. They also admitted to having not had clearly communicated the terms of the contract with the fire department which speaks volume about their intentionally misleading practices.

I don't disagree, I'm just saying I don't think this particular issue is a net neutrality issue. Not that I'm against net neutrality (on the contrary), but simply different situations.

I wasn't aware of Verizon's apology - do you happen to have a link to the site handy? I'd like to update the article if they commented.

 

[EClyde]

Bad on Verizon and the person they talked with is a dolt

 

[eafshar]

The advertising practice of calling every plan unlimited is extremely deceptive. FCC currently has no backbone to actually address the real consumer issues and instead went after title 2 classification. I read on another site that Verizon issued an apology stating that they should have removed the throttling in this case as it somethings they often do in emergency situations. They also admitted to having not had clearly communicated the terms of the contract with the fire department which speaks volume about their intentionally misleading practices.

I don't disagree, I'm just saying I don't think this particular issue is a net neutrality issue. Not that I'm against net neutrality (on the contrary), but simply different situations.

I wasn't aware of Verizon's apology - do you happen to have a link to the site handy? I'd like to update the article if they commented.

Ya it was on arstechnica.

"UPDATE: In a statement to Ars three hours after this article was published, Verizon acknowledged that it shouldn't have continued throttling the fire department's data service after the department asked Verizon to lift the throttling restrictions."

"Regardless of the plan emergency responders choose, we have a practice to remove data speed restrictions when contacted in emergency situations," Verizon's statement said. "We have done that many times, including for emergency personnel responding to these tragic fires. In this situation, we should have lifted the speed restriction when our customer reached out to us. This was a customer support mistake. We are reviewing the situation and will fix any issues going forward."

Also same article
"Verizon also noted that the fire department purchased a data service plan that is slowed down after a data usage threshold is reached. But Verizon said it "made a mistake" in communicating with the department about the terms of the plan."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...rtments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/

 

[Danny101]

Verizon continues to prove how pathetic they are.

 

[Bubbajim]

The advertising practice of calling every plan unlimited is extremely deceptive. FCC currently has no backbone to actually address the real consumer issues and instead went after title 2 classification. I read on another site that Verizon issued an apology stating that they should have removed the throttling in this case as it somethings they often do in emergency situations. They also admitted to having not had clearly communicated the terms of the contract with the fire department which speaks volume about their intentionally misleading practices.

I don't disagree, I'm just saying I don't think this particular issue is a net neutrality issue. Not that I'm against net neutrality (on the contrary), but simply different situations.

I wasn't aware of Verizon's apology - do you happen to have a link to the site handy? I'd like to update the article if they commented.

Ya it was on arstechnica.

"UPDATE: (what you said)

Careful reading will show that actually, they didn't apologise at all. They admitted to doing something wrong, but conspicuously avoid any actually apologetic language.

#Jingle#
Verizon: Helping The World Burn.

 

[Hexic]

This does not sound like it is within the bounds of something that would have been covered by NN, and I would have to say that the FD should have known that there are limits on cell phone plans - as this sounds exactly like what they were depending on.

That said, I have to ask why the FD does not have its own communications radios. There are some pretty sophisticated public service communications radios out there that make cell phones look like the toys that they are. Take, for instance, the radios manufactured by this company - https://www.harris.com/

But still, Verizon is nothing but scum in this case.

Harris' SINGCARS VHFs are excellent for this situation. There's a reason why they're everywhere on deployments.

 

[TheBigT42]

I used to work IT for a local municipal government. It is TRUE that the IT must purchase a special unlimited plan for public safety to prevent throttling. This looks like the IT depart FAILED to do their job in researching the correct plan for the public safety data cards.

 

[wiyosaya]

This does not sound like it is within the bounds of something that would have been covered by NN, and I would have to say that the FD should have known that there are limits on cell phone plans - as this sounds exactly like what they were depending on.

That said, I have to ask why the FD does not have its own communications radios. There are some pretty sophisticated public service communications radios out there that make cell phones look like the toys that they are. Take, for instance, the radios manufactured by this company - https://www.harris.com/

But still, Verizon is nothing but scum in this case.

I actually agree, but I still mentioned NN because supporters used this instance as an example in their own legal battle - not a decision I necessarily agree with.

Throttling for unlimited data plans has always been around, net neutrality or not, and this does not relate to ISPs throttling a connection based on its content, or blocking websites, or anything of the sort. So, weak argument for a pro net neutrality standpoint, but certainly an example of less-than-ideal behavior from agencies that now have more power than before (post Title II rollback).

I got to thinking about this, and maybe the lawsuit has a valid point. After all, the only difference between cell data and wired data is the fact that there is no wire for cell data. Both are still ISPs.

The way that I look at it is that the mobile data providers like Verizon have conditioned the public to accept that unlimited data plans have a limit and that once a customer reaches a limit they are throttled or charged an outrageous price for additional data on top of that. I did work for a company that made telecom voicemail products and years back, telcos would charge in a tiered fashion for additional voice mail message capability.

The way that I see the current unlimited plans is that it is an extension of this with respect to the fact that the additional data over the limit is an up-sell. To me, there seems to be no reason for these limits other than the mobile ISPs have found that they can charge more for the additional data over their imposed 'unlimited' cap and I agree with @eafshar that so far, the FCC has not had the stones to go after that - but with Pai's FCC, I highly doubt that will happen any time soon.