Verizon 'significantly altering' unlimited data?

[badkitties]

You're 100% right. They should be explicitly clear on what the limit is and give people time to get within compliance. 90 days would be sufficient to allow people to adjust.

they should have spell out what the limit for unlimited was. oh wait.... sounds like contradiction in terms, no?

 

[Almeuit]

they should have spell out what the limit for unlimited was. oh wait.... sounds like contradiction in terms, no?

He means now not back then. Now there is a limit on "unlimited" -- hence the quotes on unlimited. They basically want the high users off.

 

[HawaiiD]

You're 100% right. They should be explicitly clear on what the limit is and give people time to get within compliance. 90 days would be sufficient to allow people to adjust.

Verizon wants to phase out unlimited data plans, we all know that. If Verizon gave out the exact # of data consumed that would put you over the threshold? It would be like Verizon showing their poker hand. I'm sure the power users would aim to keep their usage below that said # to keep their beloved UDP for much cheaper than paying $450 for 100GB plan.
However, we do know the # is about 100GB+.

 

[redwood66]

It seems based on a thread on another forum that an average of 100GB per line per month in a 3 month period if you have more than one line. EG: 2 UDP lines = 200GB aggregate. On that line of reasoning since I have 3 lines the aggregate would be 300GB and therefore I should be fine because the 3rd UDP line has hardly any usage on it. The other lines have about 100 and 150 last month. Averages for 3 months on the others were as above in the chat email.

 

[General Tso]

This^^

As impractical as it might be, what would stop someone from using an unlimited plan to power a jetpack that everyone in their neighborhood connects to, either directly or via extenders or even via proxy? How many people should be able to use one LTE connection at once? a 3 TB user is averaging 4GB per data per hour, 24 hours a day, for an entire month. Assuming they're actually only awake 18 hours per day, it's actually more like averaging 5.5GB per hour, every waking hour, all day long, all month long. So what are you doing that requires 100 GB per day of data? Do you consider that to be "normal" usage? Remember, you're using more in a day than the average consumer uses in 3 years. Still normal? Still think that should cost the same as the person who uses your daily amount of data over the course of 3 years? Verizon does make plans for people who have extremely abnormal data. I don't think 100 GB of data per month is unreasonable, I have friends that do more than that and it is what it is. But using a TB or more per month means you're doing something other than just using your phone like a normal user. You're paying $30 per month for service that Verizon would normally charge over $40,000 per month on. That seems normal?

Verizon charges $450 per month for the 100 GB plan. They're basically saying here, "hey, you have unlimited, it's $30 - that extra $420 we're not getting per month is cost of doing business; you have a great deal. Anything you want, up to that $450, have at it and well done". But it seems like they don't want to give away $40000 of data per month under the same principle. And I can't say I blame them much, because they're essentially gifting $5000 per year to the vast majority of unlimited users, who can use anything they want from 0 to 100 GB and it's all the same price. But giving away half a million a year? $480,000 worth of free data? I'd say that's a totally different conversation that needs to happen. Yes they said unlimited, good on you - you took advantage. But there's is no way in hell that it is possible to use $480,000 worth of data by just trolling around on your smartphone during your breaks at work and while relaxing. That just doesn't happen.

Actually it's $50 plus $30 for the hotspot. So for $80+ tax, 100 GB is nothing.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[Aquila]

Actually it's $50 plus $30 for the hotspot. So for $80+ tax, 100 GB is nothing.

Posted via the Android Central App

Weird, mine is $30 + tax.

 

[Ry]

Weird, mine is $30 + tax.

I'm guessing the assumption is you'd need to be tethering to hit those numbers, thus $29.99 for unlimited data + $20 for out of contract, plus $30 for tethering.

Posted via the Android Central App on the Moto X Pure Edition

 

[Aquila]

I'm guessing the assumption is you'd need to be tethering to hit those numbers, thus $29.99 for unlimited data + $20 for out of contract, plus $30 for tethering.

Posted via the Android Central App on the Moto X Pure Edition

You're right; my fault. I'm on contract and don't use the tethering plan. Once I found out how to do this: http://forums.windowscentral.com/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription, laptop = much better hotspot.

 

[raino]

Yes, it is.

Are you sure? This is from the " Network access requirements for Block C in the 746-757 and 776-787 MHz bands:"

Standards shall include technical requirements reasonably necessary for third parties to access a licensee's network via devices or applications without causing objectionable interference to other spectrum users or jeopardizing network security. The potential for excessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/27.16

 

[Aquila]

Are you sure? This is from the " Network access requirements for Block C in the 746-757 and 776-787 MHz bands:"



https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/27.16

Yes, because they are not denying access to the network, they're denying access to continue the plan under the current terms. Until they actually kill the account, each user will be able to continue to access the network.

 

[raino]

Yes, because they are not denying access to the network, they're denying access to continue the plan under the current terms.

Isn't that "limiting or restricting access to the network?" And if they don't plan to kill accounts--which will most definitely be "denying, limiting [and] restricting access to the network,"--what are they threatening people for?

 

[Aquila]

Isn't that "limiting or restricting access to the network?" And if they don't plan to kill accounts--which will most definitely be "denying, limiting [and] restricting access to the network,"--what are they threatening people for?

It's limiting access once the customer no longer has that plan, to which this agreement isn't applicable. If they throttle or cut them off while they still have the plan then it would be a violation. That's why they're ending the plan for those users.

 

[Almeuit]

Isn't that "limiting or restricting access to the network?" And if they don't plan to kill accounts--which will most definitely be "denying, limiting [and] restricting access to the network,"--what are they threatening people for?

The limited access isn't there -- hence why they didn't throttle. They're simply saying "We don't owe this to you anymore so swap or move on". Nothing new from any other company who doesn't offer a benefit anymore. If there is no contract anymore saying they owe it .. they technically don't have to. If they DO offer it for awhile it was out of the companies own will / decision.

 

[dpham00]

The limited access isn't there -- hence why they didn't throttle. They're simply saying "We don't owe this to you anymore so swap or move on". Nothing new from any other company who doesn't offer a benefit anymore. If there is no contract anymore saying they owe it .. they technically don't have to. If they DO offer it for awhile it was out of the companies own will / decision.

Verizon would get rid of it in a heartbeat, they just don't want the bad press.

 

[UDPGuy]

It seems based on a thread on another forum that an average of 100GB per line per month in a 3 month period if you have more than one line. EG: 2 UDP lines = 200GB aggregate. On that line of reasoning since I have 3 lines the aggregate would be 300GB and therefore I should be fine because the 3rd UDP line has hardly any usage on it. The other lines have about 100 and 150 last month. Averages for 3 months on the others were as above in the chat email.

It's definitely per line, not let account. As only the high usage phone would get shut off, not all 3. It's "significantly more than 100gb" per line, not per account added together.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[despiseveriz]

"... not in the best interests of the customer..."? Where have you been for the last 10 or 15 years? No disrespect intended!!

Verizon is only one of companies numbering in the thousands who long ago quit worrying about the customer.

A company with publicly traded stock lives or dies by ratings from talking head analysts.

At end of quarter every company with substantial shares in the market gets a "buy", " hold" or the dreaded " SELL" rating and the pension funds, mutual funds, etc. who hold hundreds of thousands or millions of shares for their customers will do exactly what analysts recommend. If not they run risk of losing their customers.

In my work career it wasnt like this early on, then the annual rating came along, then more greed and quarterly ratings became the norm. Many people make millions in this process so who cares about you or me?

It's all about the money and if you think otherwise do a little research.

I helped participate for over 10 years in all manner of financial gyrations to post numbers each quarter to avoid the "Sell" and once uttered those same words about customers, ' Screw 'em'.

Then I became to old (54) and made to much money, so out the door I went.

In the door came a young buck who cheerfully worked 60+ hours a week to make up ( or try mightily) for lack of experience and doing all this for about 25% of what I made. Good luck, no hard feelings.

I heard it said many times in justification, "... if we focus on customer satisfaction then we post insufficient earnings and most of us can kiss our $500,000 to $1,000,000++ salaries bye, so screw 'em, get the numbers..."

wake up it's a knife fight for your money and. no rules.

 

[redwood66]

It's definitely per line, not let account. As only the high usage phone would get shut off, not all 3. It's "significantly more than 100gb" per line, not per account added together.

Posted via the Android Central App

Except it is explained elsewhere by someone that it is an aggregate so if your account has 3 lines and you are not at 300GB total then none of your lines are affected. It may be because you can't have two types of plans on one account? Since I have an old Nationwide 700 plan they may not be able to convert just one line to a Verizon plan.

My bill dropped today and no notice in it. No other letter yet either.

 

[yeahizme]

How much did your bill drop by?

 

[redwood66]

How much did your bill drop by?

Not in cost. LOL. I just mean that it came out today.

 

[dpham00]

Except it is explained elsewhere by someone that it is an aggregate so if your account has 3 lines and you are not at 300GB total then none of your lines are affected. It may be because you can't have two types of plans on one account? Since I have an old Nationwide 700 plan they may not be able to convert just one line to a Verizon plan.

My bill dropped today and no notice in it. No other letter yet either.

I have a nationwide family plan with multiple single $45 udp lines on my account... That is allowed. I wouldn't even able to add a TVP plan to my account though.