EliteDataEliteData Premium Member join:2003-07-06 Hampton Bays, NY |
more importantly...the article does not mention if these remaining unlimited users have been affecting the wireless network for other users in their proximity all this time. affecting the network for other users in the proximity of the unlimited userrs should be verizons legitimate reason for these actions being taken on those unlimited users, but i just dont believe that is verizons motivation behind this forced change, because verizon could have essentially done this a long time ago. hint: "Verizon also leads at getting users to pay more" |
|
| |
Most of the people using LTE for wireline replacement are rural, where the towers are underutilized, so they're not impacting anyone. You can pull 50+ MBit/s off most rural VZW sites, even during peak hours.
This was the final middle finger for me, from Verizon, and I switched to T-Mo. I'm not even impacted by this -- yet -- but the writing is on the wall and I'm sick of being treated like shit by a company I've given tens of thousands of dollars to over the years.
Goodbye Big Red. Hello Little Pink.
Oh, bonus points: T-Mo's 6GB plan is essentially unlimited, via Music Freedom, Binge On, and Data Stash. It costs $65/mo vs. $110 for Verizon UDP. Should've abandoned them a long time ago.... |
|
| |
Shut up about the towers Union wireline costs alot and there is big profit in high cost / low cap LTE. |
|
GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA |
to EliteData
No, it's just affecting Verizon's profit margin, which can never be big enough. |
|
|
| |
to Joe12345678
said by Joe12345678:Shut up about the towers Union wireline costs alot and there is big profit in high cost / low cap LTE. I bet Verizon likes that low 86k subs during this quarter  competition is strong! |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI |
to GlennLouEarl
said by GlennLouEarl:No, it's just affecting Verizon's profit margin, which can never be big enough. God forbid a company pursue a profit so they can continue to build and upgrade their infrastructure, pay their employees, and otherwise compete in a very tough marketplace. |
|
Simba7I Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT |
Simba7
Member
2016-Jul-26 6:32 pm
said by Nightfall:God forbid a company pursue a profit so they can continue to build and upgrade their infrastructure, pay their employees, and otherwise compete in a very tough marketplace. Oh, bullsh*t. When you make billions in profit (and I say PROFIT, not revenue), you're making AT&T's monopoly back in the pre-'84 days look freakin' awesome. |
|
GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA |
to Nightfall
God forbid a company keep to its contractual obligations in order to not gouge its customers. |
|
| |
Verizon is drinking too much of their own kool-aid.
This has happened before. There were a few years in the 2000s where they were too arrogant for their own good. They had extremely unfriendly, even hostile policies -- you couldn't change your minute or text package mid-contract for instance -- and the CSR's all had an attitude best summarized as, "What are you gonna do? Leave? Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
After a few years of getting their asses kicked by T-Mobile in the customer satisfaction rankings they cleaned house. I did business with them from 2008 onward and they were easy to do business with. They always remained expensive but most people didn't mind paying for the Verizon network and good customer service. They went out of their way to help me many times from 2008 to 2016.
Alas, they now seem to be regressing. The friendly easy to do business with attitude is increasingly hard to find. It's still there, on the phone at least, but the last few times I've walked into stores the reps were borderline assholes. New pricing packages are rolled out to great fanfare and turn out to be nothing more than a rate increase with some illusion (crippled rollover) of value.
What I can't understand is how they think they're gonna get away with it. In the 2000s they could actually hang their hat on having the best network. Today? It matters a lot less. They face genuine competition now.
Meanwhile, the corporate folks spend billions to buy the rotting carcass of Yahoo, while Verizon's ILEC network rots on the vine, and the wireless division seems completely tone deaf. These are the same geniuses that wanted to charge you a fee to pay your bill. I would be concerned if I was a shareholder... |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI |
to Simba7
said by Simba7:said by Nightfall:God forbid a company pursue a profit so they can continue to build and upgrade their infrastructure, pay their employees, and otherwise compete in a very tough marketplace. Oh, bullsh*t. When you make billions in profit (and I say PROFIT, not revenue), you're making AT&T's monopoly back in the pre-'84 days look freakin' awesome. Who dictates how much is too much? The consumers? Last I checked this is a capitalist society. A company has a right to pursue a profit in the marketplace. As a result, Verizon has one of the best networks in the US. You can get upset about contractual obligations, but Verizon's profit margin isn't even in the conversation. They charge more because they can. There are other options out there. |
|
| |
said by Nightfall:You can get upset about contractual obligations I'm upset about them ignoring 47 CFR 27.16, specifically: "The potential for excessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network."If they wanted to terminate ALL UDP plans I wouldn't have this complaint. It's certainly their prerogative to change their pricing structure. But to selectively terminate them based on usage? How does that square with that regulatory language? Frankly I don't know why they don't just terminate them all and be done with it, except for the fact that this is very clearly a revenue grab, and the lion's share of UDP'ers would save money on current pricing plans. I would have, nine out of ten times; I held onto my UDP simply for the freedom not to watch a meter. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI |
said by Shakrai:said by Nightfall:You can get upset about contractual obligations I'm upset about them ignoring 47 CFR 27.16, specifically: "The potential for excessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network." I agree with what you are saying. My point had nothing to do with this though and I even backed what you are saying in the part you quoted. This should have been handled much differently. |
|
| |
Anon14ed7 to Shakrai
Anon
2016-Jul-26 7:53 pm
to Shakrai
The only problem for the several rural customers I know is that they don't have consistent T-Mobile LTE service where they live like they had Verizon (mind you I live in a state without band 12 deployed yet, so there's also that).
Glad to hear you could get solid coverage from magenta in your neck of the woods. |
|
| |
to Nightfall
I misread your post. Apologies for that.
The cynic in me wonders if Verizon is trying to provoke the FCC and will then use their reaction as an excuse for ditching all UDPs. |
|
| |
to EliteData
Nonsense. Verizon sold these people these accounts and it is a convenient excuse of "impacting other customers" that Verizon is using to terminate accounts.
100G of data is nothing these days, wireless or wired. This is Verizon wanting to get people to pay more because that is what corporations do. |
|
| |
to EliteData
I have a feature phone, LG EnV in Green. That phone replaced a broken LG Titanium Voyager which was acquired on a 450 Minute plan with "Unlimited" data. I doubt my usage of 90MB per month on my 450 minute plan is degrading the data transfers at any tower that I use. I got the message that I will be subject to the new $20 fee for having "Unlimited" data. The only reason I stay is signal coverage in the more rural areas of Georgia. |
|
| |
to Shakrai
I was with Verizon over 16 years. I had it up to my ears when they wanted to charge me $20 for 100 MEG roaming, and this was just Canada. They have since fixed it to like $3/day (still a rip), but I moved over to AT&T because coverage was a concern. AT&T had lots of issues w/ voice and they specifically crippled VoLTE on prepaid, so I tried out Project Fi which was a disaster because Sprint network sucks but I noticed whenever I was on TMO network (and my DMA has no band 12 yet) everything was great.
So I made the plunge and ported all family phones over to TMO (for only $110 nonethless for 4 lines) and couldn't be happier. I've already traveled to 10+ countries and nary an issue (except dont use voice--$$$), and this summer has been great in Europe because they aren't throttling.
In any case I did have the Verizon UDP for some years and it was over $100 for just my line. Ripoff because I don't stream video and don't need it for fixed wireless as Verizon is solid on my home internet.
Verizon should come up w/ a fixed wireless plan that makes sense for folks that want to use it.. C'mon they know how much the network is being used (or not). |
|
| elefante72 |
to davidhoffman
prepaid bro. Go check out pagepluscellular or redpocket/CDMA which ride on VZW network. No reason to pay full boat for that type of usage. |
|
| |
I glanced at pageplus yesterday and will look at redpocket today sometime. First I am going to get an LG tethering cable and have some fun before the start of the $20 added fee in September 2016. |
|
| |
to Nightfall
said by Nightfall: Who dictates how much is too much? The consumers?
YES. The public should dictate when the line between profit and GREED[b] aka the [b]Gecko Line is crossed. said by Nightfall: Last I checked this is a capitalist society. A company has a right to pursue a profit in the marketplace. As a result, Verizon has one of the best networks in the US.
PROFITEERING is ILLEGAL! And we pretty much are getting into that territory when you can PLUNK $5[b]BILLION in CASH[b] down to purchase some outdated nothing company, and walk away from the real juicy parts of them..like the Alibaba stake,cash, and the JP site where they some how are #1 over google. (boggles the mind). And when you are letting your ILEC side rot away versus investing in it. Replace it all to fiber like you should have been doing and every other ILEC for the last decade. said by Nightfall: You can get upset about contractual obligations, but Verizon's profit margin isn't even in the conversation. They charge more because they can. There are other options out there.
I have lots I love about BAM/BAMNYX/VZW, I've been with them for decades, and the reason is, just like real estate, LOCATION/COVERAGE, LOCATION/COVERAGE, LOCATION/COVERAGE! The others combined have crap coverage and/or issues with call drops or crappy call quality because you are inside the Giant Eagle etc.. So when a company comes along that has VZW: 1) LOCATION/COVERAGE 2) LOCATION/COVERAGE 3) LOCATION/COVERAGE 4) Quality of service ie: no drops, no garbles, no crackles Then I will consider possibly maybe switching... I've got lots I despise about VZW too... I've been around long enough to have had all the gimmicks that some of you think is all new hotness! Guess what roll over minutes, NOT new hotness! BAM had that for years when they started to the point it was not costing me anything for talking, same with SMS roll over... data as it existed in that time period is nothing compared to now...but I had unlimited data then too! A 19.2K connection via a tethered phone.. slurp all you wanted.....it was handy in a pinch...All these were dropped... Same with NE2....BUT again LOCATION/COVERAGE, LOCATION/COVERAGE, LOCATION/COVERAGE trumps most of this.... My stuff works when you tmetro, sproostgin, and craptt people are flaying around like a bunch of chickens with no heads. BUT... Greed is NOT GOOD, and We are definitely starting to be in the GREED territory. |
|
| TuxRaiderPen2 |
to Shakrai
said by Shakrai: and the lion's share of UDP'ers would save money on current pricing plans. I would have, nine out of ten times; I held onto my UDP simply for the freedom not to watch a meter.
Well I am that 1/10, and their new plans are NOT savings me. |
|
| TuxRaiderPen2 |
to elefante72
said by elefante72: prepaid bro. Go check out pagepluscellular or redpocket/CDMA which ride on VZW network. No reason to pay full boat for that type of usage.
Certain areas of VZW network are not available to PRE-PAID and MVNO's ie: Western KY. |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT |
to Shakrai
Yeah, I actually feel bad for people with no other options. Vz should offer a package with 100GB of data, throttled after that for like $70/mo that only works in certain rural areas that don't have land-based broadband. |
|
| BiggA |
to desarollo
100GB is extreme abuse for a wireless phone. The thing is, a lot of people who have no other options are using LTE for home broadband, where 100GB isn't that much. |
|
SysOp join:2001-04-18 Atlanta, GA |
to TuxRaiderPen2
Vote with your wallet.
Make America Great Again; pay to play or go with out. |
|
Simba7I Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT |
to BiggA
said by BiggA:The thing is, a lot of people who have no other options are using LTE for home broadband, where 100GB isn't that much. Oh, you mean when they touted that LTE could handle it? Then they say that 5G could handle it as well? It could, but people don't want to pay a ton for it. I would prefer 5mbps unlimited vs 50mbps for xx gigs. "Oooh.. I can download at 100mbps!!" Yep, but you'll burn through your bucket and dive directly into overages. Sure, 5mbps might be "slow", but at least my wallet isn't screaming in pain. |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ARRIS SB6141 Asus RT-AC68
|
BiggA
Premium Member
2016-Jul-27 8:09 pm
LTE just doesn't have the capacity to handle a ton of home connections. It's usually fine in coverage-limited rural areas that have a ton of excess capacity just sitting there. But it doesn't scale up well for home internet connections where you tend to have a lot of streaming versus small bursts of data like on a smartphone. |
|