UPDATE: Verizon Cutting OFF Unlimited Data Users Using More Than 100GB Per Month

[DroidModderX]

​

Yesterday we found out Verizon's plans to finally ditch those of us still left on the unlimited data plan. Sources were reporting that Verizon would disconnect lines using "extraordinary" amounts of data. They would be sending out notifications starting today July 21st to give people time to make changes by the cut off date of August 21st at which point your line would incur a hard stop.

Today reports from ArsTechnica let us take a sigh of relief. The Verizon rep who spoke with ArsTechnica this morning had this to say,

"Because our network is a shared resource and we need to ensure all customers have a great mobile experience with Verizon, we are notifying a very small group of customers on unlimited plans who use an extraordinary amount of data that they must move to one of the new Verizon Plans by August 31, 2016," a Verizon spokesperson told Ars. "These users are using data amounts well in excess of our largest plan size (100GB). While the Verizon Plan at 100GB is designed to be shared across multiple users, each line receiving notification to move to the new Verizon Plan is using well in excess of that on a single device."

According to this statement it would appear that Verizon is only looking to get rid of customers who circumvent Verizon's tether lock and power up their entire home network. This is not what the unlimited data plan is intended for. Really you are only supposed to use this data on your device. Although I am sure we have all been guilty of tethering this data at one point or another. I have still not received a message from Verizon as to whether or not they are shutting down my account. I generally don't go over 60GB per month on my device and that is just using the data on my phone. Hopefully this 100GB hard limit sticks.

Are there any of you out there who are still worried about losing your UDP after this revelation?

Via ArsTechnica

Thanks Boidsonly for the tip

 

[LoneWolfArcher]

100GB+/month?!?! How is that even possible. You'd have to live on the device streaming video almost every waking hour!

 

[shockracer]

I can't say I blame VZW on this one. Abusing a good thing is now only going to affect those doing the abuse and not those using in moderation!

 

[pc747]

Wow I have 30 gigs (many months 40 from the roll over data) and I barely hit 5. My heaviest use I'll burn 9.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[bkdodger]

33GB & 22.5GB last two months


6S PLUS

 

[LoneWolfArcher]

Wow I have 30 gigs (many months 40 from the roll over data) and I barely hit 5. My heaviest use I'll burn 9.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I think I hit 15 GB one month, but that was because I was watching some TV I had missed on-demand. Usually I am between 5 and 10.

 

[94lt1]

I'm at 26 right now(watching air wolf on Netflix) ..but I also pay for unlimited hotspot ..another line on my account is constantly around 100 gigs..I think they do a lot of ps4 online stuff. And yes it's paid for with unlimited hotspot

 

[Mustang02]

I'm at 26 right now(watching air wolf on Netflix) ..but I also pay for unlimited hotspot ..another line on my account is constantly around 100 gigs..I think they do a lot of ps4 online stuff. And yes it's paid for with unlimited hotspot

Which is 100% acceptable. You aren't circumventing the hotspot or simcard pull trick. You're paying for it. So are you to be reprimanded for paying extra for a hotspot service?

 

[tech_head]

I can't say I blame VZW on this one. Abusing a good thing is now only going to affect those doing the abuse and not those using in moderation!

How does one abuse "unlimited" with normal use?
They have a 100GB plan, they just want $400+ for it.
This is nothing more than Verizon wanting to monetize something they previously forced people to take when they didn't want/need it.

You do remember when Verizon forced all smartphone customers onto unlimited plans, right?
At the time they were expensive and were pretty much useless except for receiving your email.
I asked then, can't I just use WiFi? At the time they said no. Now they propose that exact model!

Anyway, I hope everyone that gets the letter calls the FCC.
Verizon's stance is, you can use the data, we just want you to pay more for it.
They have finally come out and said it. This is just like the throttling they the FCC almost dinged them for.

 

[FoxKat]

I've found interesting verbiage in the TOS that clearly leaves it up to Verizon to terminate a plan subscriber if the feel it is detrimental to their network and could negatively affect others's service. See second paragraph for the overriding disclaimer.

"Data Services: Prohibited Uses. You may not use our Data Services for illegal purposes or purposes that infringe upon others' intellectual property rights, or in a manner that interferes with other users' service; that violates trade and economic sanctions and prohibitions as promulgated by the departments of Commerce, Treasury or any other U.S. government agency; that interferes with the network's ability to fairly allocate capacity among users. Examples of prohibited usage include: (i) server devices or host computer applications that are broadcast to multiple servers or recipients such that they could enable "bots" or similar routines (as set forth in more detail in (ii) below) or otherwise degrade network capacity or functionality; (ii) "auto–responders," "cancel–bots," or similar automated or manual routines that generate amounts of net traffic that could disrupt net user groups or e–mail use by others; (iii) generating "spam" or unsolicited commercial or bulk e–mail (or activities that facilitate the dissemination of such e–mail); (iv) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other users or systems to use either Verizon Wireless' services or the Internet–based resources of others, including the generation or dissemination of viruses, malware, or "denial of service" attacks; (v) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the information, accounts or devices of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, Verizon Wireless' or another entity's network or systems; or (vi) running software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle, or "keep alive" functions, unless they adhere to Verizon Wireless' requirements for such usage, which may be changed from time to time.

***We further reserve the right to take measures to protect our network and other users from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance. These measures may impact your service, and we reserve the right to deny, modify or terminate service, with or without notice, to anyone we believe is using Data Plans or Features in a manner that adversely impacts our network. We may monitor your compliance, or the compliance of other subscribers, with these terms and conditions, but we will not monitor the content of your communications except as otherwise expressly permitted or required by law. See www.verizonwireless.com/privacy."

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[shockracer]

How does one abuse "unlimited" with normal use?
They have a 100GB plan, they just want $400+ for it.
This is nothing more than Verizon wanting to monetize something they previously forced people to take when they didn't want/need it.

You do remember when Verizon forced all smartphone customers onto unlimited plans, right?
At the time they were expensive and were pretty much useless except for receiving your email.
I asked then, can't I just use WiFi? At the time they said no. Now they propose that exact model!

Anyway, I hope everyone that gets the letter calls the FCC.
Verizon's stance is, you can use the data, we just want you to pay more for it.
They have finally come out and said it. This is just like the throttling they the FCC almost dinged them for.

Some people have a different definition of what normal use is.

They actually gave 2 options in those days. I think it was unlimited data or 500mb/1gb. For a couple years I was on unlimited and the wife was on the tiered plan, later I put the wife on unlimited too.

People abuse anything that is unlimited in this world then cry when it's taken away, when all it would have taken is self control and understanding what using something in moderation is.

 

[FoxKat]

Some people have a different definition of what normal use is.

They actually gave 2 options in those days. I think it was unlimited data or 500mb/1gb. For a couple years I was on unlimited and the wife was on the tiered plan, later I put the wife on unlimited too.

People abuse anything that is unlimited in this world then cry when it's taken away, when all it would have taken is self control and understanding what using something in moderation is.

I do agree with this in principle, however that is the inherent problem in offering something and stating "Unlimited", and the most obvious interpretation of that by anyone is verbatim. By definition Oxford dictionary says "Unlimited" is "Not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent". This is a very big problem in any area that the word is used, such as food buffets as we've all heard of the obese being escorted out of an eating establishment for "abusing" the "all you can eat buffet".

It should have stated "high limit" and given some upper threshold number that they could always then point to for people who don't read all the legalese, but they still do have a "disclaimer" in place within the Terms Of Service (TOS), that gives them the right to "deny, modify or terminate service, with or without notice" if it in their opinion becomes problematic for their network and other users.

See UPDATE: Verizon Cutting OFF Unlimited Data Users Using More Than 100GB Per Month

 

[The Stig 04]

I just don't understand the "abuse" part. If I'm paying for unlimited and have the need to or want to use 100gb, I should be able to use 100gb or more for that matter because I'm paying for UNLIMITED amount regardless of what anyone say's. Verizon not protecting themselves for the future is not mine or anyone else's problem but their own. If they decided to pocket all the money they've been making instead of using it to bolster their network again NOT MY PROBLEM! The balk when I use 100gb for $50 and say their network can't handle it but are ok with it if I pay $450......yeah um I'm gonna call bull on anyone using 100gb or more being detrimental to their network. Just plain greed!

 

[shockracer]

I do agree with this in principle, however that is the inherent problem in offering something and stating "Unlimited", and the most obvious interpretation of that by anyone is verbatim. By definition Oxford dictionary says "Unlimited" is "Not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent". This is a very big problem in any area that the word is used, such as food buffets as we've all heard of the obese being escorted out of an eating establishment for "abusing" the "all you can eat buffet".

It should have stated "high limit" and given some upper threshold number that they could always then point to for people who don't read all the legalese, but they still do have a "disclaimer" in place within the Terms Of Service (TOS), that gives them the right to "deny, modify or terminate service, with or without notice" if it in their opinion becomes problematic for their network and other users.

See UPDATE: Verizon Cutting OFF Unlimited Data Users Using More Than 100GB Per Month

In the buffet aspect, those that have taken advantage are now being escorted out with the option of a diet meal.

 

[FoxKat]

I just don't understand the "abuse" part. If I'm paying for unlimited and have the need to or want to use 100gb, I should be able to use 100gb or more for that matter because I'm paying for UNLIMITED amount regardless of what anyone say's. Verizon not protecting themselves for the future is not mine or anyone else's problem but their own. If they decided to pocket all the money they've been making instead of using it to bolster their network again NOT MY PROBLEM! The balk when I use 100gb for $50 and say their network can't handle it but are ok with it if I pay $450......yeah um I'm gonna call bull on anyone using 100gb or more being detrimental to their network. Just plain greed!

I hear your argument and yes, if detriment to the network were the only leg they could stand on, it would be a tough argument given your analogy of simply buying the same data with a current plan. I don't think that's the only underlying reason, and without saying I completely disagree with you on your other point of greed, I do think it comes down to economics.

The FTC could easily weigh in here, and could bring charges against Verizon for allowing some users to abuse the system (use of data at amounts that "significantly exceed" other similarly priced plans), and as a result it could force Verizon to increase the data allotments of other plans, or pay reparations to the injured users and reduce their plan charges accordingly. This would obviously be a negative economic impact to Verizon. From the FTC (The FTC's Use of Unfairness Authority: Its Rise, Fall, and Resurrection | Federal Trade Commission):

"The first step in the unfairness analysis is to determine whether there has been substantial consumer injury. It can be economic harm, or a threat to health or safety. Substantial injury is an objective test. As the Commission noted in the policy statement, emotional distress is ordinarily insufficient.(39) Substantial injury can consist of small harm to a large number of consumers, or significant harm to each affected individual. Even in the aggregate, total injury may not be large, as in cases when the company is small or the practice is one that creates unnecessary transaction costs. But relative to the benefits, the injury may still be substantial. To qualify as substantial, an injury must be real,(40) and it must be large compared to any offsetting benefits."

The other possibility is that a Class Action Lawsuit could be brought against them by affected users (those who feel they are paying too much for their data and know of these grandfathered UDP plans and their apparent abuse), again resulting in huge costs in legal fees, even if they eventually are found to be innocent of the charges, not to mention the millions it could cost to settle.

In the end, its those who decide to push the envelope in virtually all situations who cause the belts to tighten rather than loosen. Encroachment often results in loss of perceived ownership of land by those who encroach and new fences to prevent it in the future, and Verizon is simply taking action and justified in putting up a fence to protect their land.