Verizon Throttles Fire Dept Data, Risking Lives for Cash

[Ethel mermania]

Hi ya NSG, remember the Net Neutrality Debate? And some of you said, "let the market work it out, what could go wrong?" What indeed? How about this: http://fortune.com/2018/08/21/fire-chie ... -fighting/



Silly firemen, trying to save lives and put out fires, when there's a quick buck for Verizon to be made. Want to save lives? Pay up some cash first! What does NSG say?

I think that this is exactly why we need Net Neutrality, and why we don't need Verizon and others being given permission to play fast and loose with data transfer speeds.

Reasons why I became a Socialist.

Because you don't understand the difference between net neutrality and datacaps?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Verizon should be punished? Why? For providing the service their customer paid for?

In the documents, flagged by Ars Technica, Bowden writes that the fire department had purchased an unlimited data plan from Verizon for a support unit’s connection, but the company started throttling speeds “to 1/200, or less” after the unit hit 25GB of use.

Bowden writes that the resulting throttling from Verizon “had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services,” as responders were unable to properly track and route firefighting resources. The company continued to slow data speeds even after being informed it was “actively impeding” responders’ ability to fight the blazes, Bowden writes. Ultimately, the fire department had to sign up for a new, more expensive plan before speeds were restored.

Emphasis mine.

So no, they weren't providing the service the customer paid for at all.

Yes they did, they hit a cap though, so the provider began to throttle it, something written into the contract. Read contracts properly, get the service you need, problem solved.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Reasons why I became a Socialist.

Because you don't understand the difference between net neutrality and datacaps?

Or doesn't like contract law.

[Firaxin]

Reasons why I became a Socialist.

Because you don't understand the difference between net neutrality and datacaps?

No the priority of money over lives.

[Ethel mermania]

Because you don't understand the difference between net neutrality and datacaps?

No the priority of money over lives.

That is fairer, h9wever as Verizon is a private enterprise, why are they suppose to give their service away?

[Firaxin]

No the priority of money over lives.

That is fairer, h9wever as Verizon is a private enterprise, why are they suppose to give their service away?

Legally, they aren't. However given the importance of the internet and what it can provide, everyone should have "free" access to it. Not free exactly, instead you pay for it with taxes.

[Uxupox]

That is fairer, h9wever as Verizon is a private enterprise, why are they suppose to give their service away?

Legally, they aren't. However given the importance of the internet and what it can provide, everyone should have "free" access to it. Not free exactly, instead you pay for it with taxes.

you can pay for mine if you want.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

That is fairer, h9wever as Verizon is a private enterprise, why are they suppose to give their service away?

Legally, they aren't. However given the importance of the internet and what it can provide, everyone should have "free" access to it. Not free exactly, instead you pay for it with taxes.

Giving the government total control of the internet isn't a can of worms I'd like to open

[Ethel mermania]

That is fairer, h9wever as Verizon is a private enterprise, why are they suppose to give their service away?

Legally, they aren't. However given the importance of the internet and what it can provide, everyone should have "free" access to it. Not free exactly, instead you pay for it with taxes.

They had access, the problem was the speed of the access.

So you are advocating for government control of the internet?

[Alvecia]

Legally, they aren't. However given the importance of the internet and what it can provide, everyone should have "free" access to it. Not free exactly, instead you pay for it with taxes.

They had access, the problem was the speed of the access.

So you are advocating for government control of the internet?

I might tbh.

[Firaxin]

Legally, they aren't. However given the importance of the internet and what it can provide, everyone should have "free" access to it. Not free exactly, instead you pay for it with taxes.

you can pay for mine if you want.

As soon as I have a job and have to pay taxes, I'll pay for your internet, equal to how much I would pay for your internet under that system.

[Uxupox]

you can pay for mine if you want.

As soon as I have a job and have to pay taxes, I'll pay for your internet, equal to how much I would pay for your internet under that system.

thanks. i always love free stuff. however i won't pay taxes for that. i'll declare poverty first.

[Uxupox]

They had access, the problem was the speed of the access.

So you are advocating for government control of the internet?

I might tbh.

no thanks dude. we all know how China turned out.

[Firaxin]

Legally, they aren't. However given the importance of the internet and what it can provide, everyone should have "free" access to it. Not free exactly, instead you pay for it with taxes.

Giving the government total control of the internet isn't a can of worms I'd like to open

Now this is something I can understand, as obviously my ideal government wouldn't be in place. Perhaps I'd have to wait until it is in place.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

A fire department doesn't need Internet strictly speaking. Fire departments have been around for longer than the Internet has existed. They get a phone call, they get an address, and using a map or GPS, they deploy a truck and that is it.

Like with anything, the Internet increases the efficiency of civil services and with that increased efficiency comes a better ability to save lives and property.

[Firaxin]

As soon as I have a job and have to pay taxes, I'll pay for your internet, equal to how much I would pay for your internet under that system.

thanks. i always love free stuff. however i won't pay taxes for that. i'll declare poverty first.

You'll have to, otherwise you lose your right to the internet because you are not a citizen. Also, I'm not paying for its entirety only the fraction of the full amount. Basically divide its full amount by the amount of US citizens, and you'll have how much I'll pay. Of course, the actual tax would cost more because we're paying for everyone's internet, not just yours.

[Uxupox]

thanks. i always love free stuff. however i won't pay taxes for that. i'll declare poverty first.

You'll have to, otherwise you lose your right to the internet because you are not a citizen. Also, I'm not paying for its entirety only the fraction of the full amount. Basically divide its full amount by the amount of US citizens, and you'll have how much I'll pay. Of course, the actual tax would cost more because we're paying for everyone's internet, not just yours.

nah. if the government wants to pay for mine and it wants to pay for it then sure however i'm not paying for anybody else.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

There is a problem with ISPs playing fast and loose with the language, to deliberately mislead people about what internet speeds they will actually get.

[Big Jim P]

thanks. i always love free stuff. however i won't pay taxes for that. i'll declare poverty first.

You'll have to, otherwise you lose your right to the internet because you are not a citizen. Also, I'm not paying for its entirety only the fraction of the full amount. Basically divide its full amount by the amount of US citizens, and you'll have how much I'll pay. Of course, the actual tax would cost more because we're paying for everyone's internet, not just yours.

We definitely don't need more taxes to give people more "free" crap, especially luxuries.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

There is a problem with ISPs playing fast and loose with the language, to deliberately mislead people about what internet speeds they will actually get.

If that regularly happens, I'd agree with you; for organisations that don't have in-house legal services, like competent councils should do. Their's a reason why courts are much more generous to consumers in cases like this, big organisations really should be aware or should do everything possible to make themselves aware of the terms and conditions that they are agreeing to, they have far more in the way of resources than consumers and so don't need the same degree of protections.

[Vassenor]

There is a problem with ISPs playing fast and loose with the language, to deliberately mislead people about what internet speeds they will actually get.

#speedsupto

[Alvecia]

I might tbh.

no thanks dude. we all know how China turned out.

I’m no political expert by any means, but I suspect that state run internet isn’t a direct cause of pseudo communistic authoritarian government.

[Uxupox]

no thanks dude. we all know how China turned out.

I’m no political expert by any means, but I suspect that state run internet isn’t a direct cause of pseudo communistic authoritarian government.

Idk but Chinese internet is pretty bad. One wrong google search or bad Facebook post could potentially land you 3 years of prison.

[Vassenor]

I’m no political expert by any means, but I suspect that state run internet isn’t a direct cause of pseudo communistic authoritarian government.

Idk but Chinese internet is pretty bad. One wrong google search or bad Facebook post could potentially land you 3 years of prison.

Good thing the First Amendment exists then.

[Telconi]

Verizon should be punished? Why? For providing the service their customer paid for?

In the documents, flagged by Ars Technica, Bowden writes that the fire department had purchased an unlimited data plan from Verizon for a support unit’s connection, but the company started throttling speeds “to 1/200, or less” after the unit hit 25GB of use.

Bowden writes that the resulting throttling from Verizon “had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services,” as responders were unable to properly track and route firefighting resources. The company continued to slow data speeds even after being informed it was “actively impeding” responders’ ability to fight the blazes, Bowden writes. Ultimately, the fire department had to sign up for a new, more expensive plan before speeds were restored.

Emphasis mine.

So no, they weren't providing the service the customer paid for at all.

Yes they were, quantity and speed are two different things.