[McSlappy]

With the rules the FCC imposed regarding LTE bidding on 700Mhz spectrum can they force you off of unlimited data?

[Ry]

Let's just get one thing clear - no one is being "forced" off of unlimited data.

You can choose to keep your plan or you can upgrade to a new plan. As long as they don't change on-contract terms, I think they'll be fine.

Reading both and , it makes it seem like Verizon won't cancel plans that have gone off-contract with unlimited data.

[bignaz]

I use about 200gigs a month so if they kick anyone off I'll be one of the first lol. And you will hear me raise hell. This month I'm gonna see if I can hit 1Tb go go gadget Netflix.

[Mordecaidrake]

I use about 200gigs a month so if they kick anyone off I'll be one of the first lol. And you will hear me raise hell. This month I'm gonna see if I can hit 1Tb go go gadget Netflix.

How the hell do you use 200gb a month?! I thought my 10-15gb was a lot jesus dude haha

[mhans311]

I didn't know it was possible to use 200gb in a month. It's a heavy month for me if I go over 2.

Bionic'd from my tapatalk.

[1fastmr2]

I agree 200G a month.....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Android Central Forums

[hehubado]

pics or it never Happend....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Android Central Forums

[TabGuy]

pics or it never Happend....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Android Central Forums

I guess we need pics of your birth also.

[mhans311]

I guess we need pics of your birth also.

?

Bionic'd from my tapatalk.

[dmmarck]

It's 100% legal if it's a new contract. If they change your current contract, then depending on modification clauses, materiality of the term, and other factors it may or may not be "legal."

Keep in mind, using the terms "legal" and "illegal" results in something of a misnomer; if VZW changes a material term and it "violates" the contract, that is not illegal. The result of that action is VZW breaching the contract, which gives you a variety of legal options--suing for the expectation, suing for reliance, etc. etc.

[Cigar-Junkie]

I use about 200gigs a month so if they kick anyone off I'll be one of the first lol. And you will hear me raise hell. This month I'm gonna see if I can hit 1Tb go go gadget Netflix.

Not trying to get ugly but you are the target of the new rate plan. I would think that it is in Verizon's best interest to encourage you to move to a different carrier, pay for what you are using, or modify your usage habits.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

[creccaj1]

It's 100% legal if it's a new contract. If they change your current contract, then depending on modification clauses, materiality of the term, and other factors it may or may not be "legal."

Keep in mind, using the terms "legal" and "illegal" results in something of a misnomer; if VZW changes a material term and it "violates" the contract, that is not illegal. The result of that action is VZW breaching the contract, which gives you a variety of legal options--suing for the expectation, suing for reliance, etc. etc.

Hahah I love how when I saw this my mind raced to the same things. Dmmarck posts very good points and Verizon isn't stupid. Technically a material change would be something like they would no long let you use data service unless you do x y and z. However they can put a limit on how much you use and that wouldn't be a material modification because you still have access to the same service and technically you have unlimited with a tiered plan but you get a discounted rate from only using 2gb or whatever amount you pay for.

[McSlappy]

It's 100% legal if it's a new contract. If they change your current contract, then depending on modification clauses, materiality of the term, and other factors it may or may not be "legal."

Keep in mind, using the terms "legal" and "illegal" results in something of a misnomer; if VZW changes a material term and it "violates" the contract, that is not illegal. The result of that action is VZW breaching the contract, which gives you a variety of legal options--suing for the expectation, suing for reliance, etc. etc.

I was more looking at the referred to stipulations that were imposed by the FCC referred to in the linked article. If in bidding for the new 700Mhz space that they built they're LTE network in is there possibly a clause in there that would prevent them from their new limiting plans? I don't know all the legal mumbo jumbo or the FCC particulars. Was hoping someone that does understand all this stuff may have some insight on it.

For example they didn't want you to be able to move your data sim between devices and had to back down about it because of the agreement they made for the 700Mhz spectrum.

[dmmarck]

I was more looking at the referred to stipulations that were imposed by the FCC referred to in the linked article. If in bidding for the new 700Mhz space that they built they're LTE network in is there possibly a clause in there that would prevent them from their new limiting plans? I don't know all the legal mumbo jumbo or the FCC particulars. Was hoping someone that does understand all this stuff may have some insight on it.

For example they didn't want you to be able to move your data sim between devices and had to back down about it because of the agreement they made for the 700Mhz spectrum.

While FCC work is above my pay grade (i've only done comment letters at an internship), I doubt it unless the FCC themselves wanted to impose a high level cap to reduce strain in case it needs to be used for emergency--X amount of users at any given Y time. Past that, I'm not away of anything from the FCC stating that Verizon can't "divvy" up their allocable portion as they see fit.

IIRC, the 700mhz space is the D block; if so, congress has failed to auction it off (I believe twice at this point) and its main use was supposed to be emergency uses, so as to avoid another 9/11 network jam.

That being said, these contracts are so complex that I highly doubt this issue would not be covered. The update in your article sort of alludes to this b/c you're "technically" buy the sim card, and thus you're paying for the plan and space regardless of device. There's also an issue about grandfathering, which in actual, legal terms means that you have prior contractual rights that are still enforceable.

Further, I can't see the FCC giving an honest damn unless they thought they could squeeze more money out of VZW for it--which is probably what's happening, if anything. If it's the "failed to sell" D Block, they're reeling a bit b/c they thought it would sell immediately. Instead major carriers/markets basically gave them a giant bird and waited them out.

[GNex Girl]

Technically a material change would be something like they would no long let you use data service unless you do x y and z. However they can put a limit on how much you use and that wouldn't be a material modification because you still have access to the same service and technically you have unlimited with a tiered plan but you get a discounted rate from only using 2gb or whatever amount you pay for.

A material change is whatever you can convince a judge a material change is. Do you have any cases to back up your contention or are you just making this up as you go?

[Android_Lee]

Verizon, or any wireless carrier, can make any changes to your contract at any time they wish. However, if they fail to notify you of the change BEFORE said change happens, then you should have the option to terminate your contract without ETF. However, if they do give you notice that they are making changes, then you really can't do anything without paying the ETF.

[dmmarck]

A material change is whatever you can convince a judge a material change is. Do you have any cases to back up your contention or are you just making this up as you go?

While there is some pragmatic truth to this statement, there are treatises, casebooks, and all sorts of information that define what a material change is, particularly within a jurisdiction that has transposed the Second Restatement.

If you would like them, I suggest starting with E. Allan Farnsworth - Contracts. It is the best practical treatise in existence.

[7stringer]

I kind of see it this way, plainly: You sign a 2-year agreement, which doesn't/shouldn't change in those two years. However, once you decide to re-sign a contract, be it to get a new phone or whatever, you're now forgoing your previous contract (or it has expired) in place of the new one. You're agreeing to the newest conditions of a new contract, so nothing is really "illegal" or "not legal" on Verizon's part.

Verizon isn't forcing you to give up a contract or plan that you only signed for 2 years. They're committed to that length of time only. If you want a new phone, and the only way to maintain your unlimited plan is to buy the phone outright, that's up to you. If you want a subsidized price and choose to go on contract for 2 "new" years, you're at the company's will and whatever new system is in place.

[dmmarck]

I kind of see it this way, plainly: You sign a 2-year agreement, which doesn't/shouldn't change in those two years. However, once you decide to re-sign a contract, be it to get a new phone or whatever, you're now forgoing your previous contract (or it has expired) in place of the new one. You're agreeing to the newest conditions of a new contract, so nothing is really "illegal" or "not legal" on Verizon's part.

Verizon isn't forcing you to give up a contract or plan that you only signed for 2 years. They're committed to that length of time only. If you want a new phone, and the only way to maintain your unlimited plan is to buy the phone outright, that's up to you. If you want a subsidized price and choose to go on contract for 2 years, you're at the company's will and whatever new system is in place.

Bingo was his name-o .

[GNex Girl]

While there is some pragmatic truth to this statement, there are treatises, casebooks, and all sorts of information that define what a material change is, particularly within a jurisdiction that has transposed the Second Restatement.

If you would like them, I suggest starting with E. Allan Farnsworth - Contracts. It is the best practical treatise in existence.

Thanks but I am well versed in this area. Materiality is just as subjective of a standard as reasonable doubt is. Or obscenity for that matter. As with all of these standards, it is highly fact dependent.

The poster whom I was responding to was making it out to be cut and dry what is a material contract change and what is not . It is far from cut and dry.

And in none of what you have cited is there a case on point. If you think I am wrong, then cite to it.

[McSlappy]

Verizon, or any wireless carrier, can make any changes to your contract at any time they wish. However, if they fail to notify you of the change BEFORE said change happens, then you should have the option to terminate your contract without ETF. However, if they do give you notice that they are making changes, then you really can't do anything without paying the ETF.

I'm exaggerating just to make a point. But if you buy a data plan and get locked in at $30 a month for 2 years, I don't think they could after a couple months in give you notice in advance, and say that same service is now going to cost you $600 a month and sorry your are locked in to your previous contract date for the next 18 months.

[dmmarck]

Thanks but I am well versed in this area. Materiality is just as subjective of a standard as reasonable doubt is. Or obscenity for that matter. As with all of these standards, it is highly fact dependent.

The poster whom I was responding to was making it out to be cut and dry what is a material contract change and what is not . It is far from cut and dry.

And in none of what you have cited is there a case on point. If you think I am wrong, then cite to it.

In everything I cited there is a case in point. Go look at them first before saying there isn't; these are materials used in practice, not just some random "let me Google this and win an internet argument" type thing. Hell, if he tells me the state I can go and find cases myself on Lexis and Westlaw that will give him the applicable standard.

Everything is fact dependent; that does not remove or change the standards used. Also, reasonableness is an objective standard in the legal world. Not a subjective one. You may believe it to be subjective, and there are arguments to support that, particularly nowadays, but at its root is the need for an objective standard by which to judge human conduct.

[yosteve]

I use about 200gigs a month so if they kick anyone off I'll be one of the first lol. And you will hear me raise hell. This month I'm gonna see if I can hit 1Tb go go gadget Netflix.

You're the reason were all getting booted!

[GNex Girl]

I was more looking at the referred to stipulations that were imposed by the FCC referred to in the linked article. If in bidding for the new 700Mhz space that they built they're LTE network in is there possibly a clause in there that would prevent them from their new limiting plans? I don't know all the legal mumbo jumbo or the FCC particulars. Was hoping someone that does understand all this stuff may have some insight on it.

For example they didn't want you to be able to move your data sim between devices and had to back down about it because of the agreement they made for the 700Mhz spectrum.

Your point is flying over the heads of those posting here.

[GNex Girl]

In everything I cited there is a case in point.

Huh? I said case ON point. That phrase has a specific meaning in the law. And nothing you have written cites to a case ON point.