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

[94lt1]

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?

I haven't received anything yet.. we'll see and I'll let you know

 

[94lt1]

Here's my pondering..if 5G is on its way..clear all the tiered data people over to 5G with all its hiccups and growing pains and outages..and leave the unlimited heavy data users on 4g .flag the accounts and don't let them move to 5G ..I mean the heavy heavy users..let them use the 4g bandwidth..it's fine for em now..should be fine for them then..and no throttling...vzw and their crap..

 

[FoxKat]

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.

You know, what people have to realize and I'm sure most do (though some may think data is "free"), is that it costs money to run these networks, a HUGE infrastructure of everything from the increasing staffing salaries and the ever increasing costs of benefits, to research and development, to marketing and advertising, to application and licensing fees, to insurance, to site development and implementation, to leasing agreements for the cell sites, to leasing and the expenses of the store locations, to maintenance and upgrading, to troubleshooting and repair, to - I'm sure lots of other costs I haven't even begun to include.

Anyone that thinks just because the network can handle more data doesn't mean it doesn't cost more to push that extra data is mistaken. Obviously if someone is not in the industry they may not understand what incredible amount of manpower and money it takes to service 147MM+ people, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year and uninterrupted. Since it is a Public Utility it also must be extremely reliable and is considered mission-critically necessary, given that by law they must support 911 service. By last count there are at least 177,700 employees at Verizon Wireless. That's a lot of paychecks, and that doesn't even begin to touch on all the subcontractors.

Just because the coming of 5G spells faster speeds doesn't mean it wasn't at an added cost and that added cost MUST be passed onto the consumer. Just because the infrastructure is already in place for 4G doesn't mean it doesn't have ongoing and increasing costs to maintain it. Just because yours and my (expired), contract of 2006 or later initially said you have unlimited data at the then 3G speeds (or maybe 4G), doesn't mean they have to continue supplying 4G or even 5G at the same prices today. They are a for-profit business and just like a business you or I would run, we would both (hopefully), adjust our pricing and product offerings to not only meet customers' needs, but also to be at the least self-sustaining and more appropriately profitable.

 

[94lt1]

No but when a company makes as much as Verizon does..they can afford to "work with" their customers that make them that money.. especially since as a network they're starting to slide. .device everywhere is slowing down and even voice has taken a hit. It seems unless you're on a major interstates corridor ..you're service will be questionable. ..it used to not be that way...but what can ya do .

 

[FoxKat]

Well you actually make a good argument FOR Verizon doing this. If data speeds are slowing down isn't it likely due to tower saturation? And if so, don't those who use excessive data actually negatively impact service for those others who's service is being slowed? Also the argument for getting the same amount of data (or more), for far less than a current customer would pay, makes sense as well. If Verizon can convert them into 100GB contracts they will get more money that can then be used to increase the cell site's capacity.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Mustang02]

Well you actually make a good argument FOR Verizon doing this. If data speeds are slowing down isn't it likely due to tower saturation? And if so, don't those who use excessive data actually negatively impact service for those others who's service is being slowed? Also the argument for getting the same amount of data (or more), for far less than a current customer would pay, makes sense as well. If Verizon can convert them into 100GB contracts they will get more money that can then be used to increase the cell site's capacity.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I would put money that it's more people using their phones, not because of UDP users. Volte is horrible. They put up towers but aren't upgrading them or adding more bandwidth bit they sure as hell want to charge for it.

 

[FoxKat]

I would put money that it's more people using their phones, not because of UDP users. Volte is horrible. They put up towers but aren't upgrading them or adding more bandwidth bit they sure as hell want to charge for it.

Oh, I agree completely that they contribute to cell site saturation. I also believe that VOLTE is terrible at times (I use it too), but those are both either independent or dependent on the data stream being less taxed, depending on the situation.

When they put more towers up (or upgrade them), by its very nature they are increasing bandwidth, though individuals may not see an increased data throughput. Increasing bandwidth where it's already overloaded wouldn't necessarily result in being able to carry more subscribers unless they limit the shares of bandwidth to those on it. So to be able to handle more subscribers they will "apportion" the new bandwidth to more evenly distribute it and at the same time handle more connections on one site.

If Verizon must upgrade a site, install additional switches, run new fiber and add antennas to already saturated existing cell sites or new sites, or re-aim existing antennas on accompanying, less-taxed sites nearby to help take up the load, those expenses initially fall back on the carrier, Verizon, but ultimately they fall on the shoulders of the subscribers, through price increases or new pricing plans. Unfortunately Verizon wasn't quite prepared for how abuse of UDP could eventually be a burden in those cases and since UDP plans are grandfathered at much lower rates (mine is $70 for UDP shared on 2 lines), versus a 100GB single subscription which is $450, they are unable to recoup those added costs.

This is IMHO the main reason for this most recent big push.

 

[94lt1]

No I can tell you why the towers in major areas slow down..it's because they can at the push if a button.. manipulate antenna arrays to push more signal to an area..say...the stadium for some.big game or the race track or along the corridor of this stretch if highway..and they seem to always forget that those of us that took our "test-drives" did so before this was possible..meaning the signal was fixed and not always in a state of flux..

FoxKat you're probably familiar with the way 2 meters and ham radios work..you have to set your antenna and if you're running lots of power ..set your SWR's to allow the lowest possible you can..and get em lower with an antenna matcher system..

With the way they don't now...that's set to happen within and tolerance of +/- 2.0thats a big jump all over the damn place..

And that makes for huge changes is unusable signal..be it voice or data..and the tech is more line of site..so you can be right next to a tower or say half a mile away..and if they tipped it up just a tad..you're in this big black hole..unless you have a ladder...it's ridiculous...

 

[FoxKat]

No I can tell you why the towers in major areas slow down..it's because they can at the push if a button.. manipulate antenna arrays to push more signal to an area..say...the stadium for some.big game or the race track or along the corridor of this stretch if highway..and they seem to always forget that those of us that took our "test-drives" did so before this was possible..meaning the signal was fixed and not always in a state of flux..

FoxKat you're probably familiar with the way 2 meters and ham radios work..you have to set your antenna and if you're running lots of power ..set your SWR's to allow the lowest possible you can..and get em lower with an antenna matcher system..

With the way they don't now...that's set to happen within and tolerance of +/- 2.0thats a big jump all over the damn place..

And that makes for huge changes is unusable signal..be it voice or data..and the tech is more line of site..so you can be right next to a tower or say half a mile away..and if they tipped it up just a tad..you're in this big black hole..unless you have a ladder...it's ridiculous...

Yeah, I know this too. I wasn't so much trying to prove WHY service slows, so much as why they need to charge more for greater bandwidth and coverage, to help understand why UDP plans that are being used at "significantly in excess of 100GB/Mo are hurting Verizon, and why they want to eliminate them.

 

[cr6]

Sorry, if you seriously think the few remaining UDP users (regardless of their usage) are "hurting Verizon", let alone other users, you're sorely mistaken. This is about greed pure and simple.
SMDH

S5 tap'n

 

[FoxKat]

Sorry, if you seriously think the few remaining UDP users (regardless of their usage) are "hurting Verizon", let alone other users, you're sorely mistaken. This is about greed pure and simple.
SMDH

S5 tap'n

OK, let me rephrase... I don't necessarily personally think they're hurting them since I have no evidence of such. What I should have said is that could be how they see it and perhaps why they might be making that push.

Still, you must admit that there is no obligation on the part of Verizon to continue these expired plans. The contracts are long since gone, except for a very few Best Buy contact holders, and there's even question of whether those contacts are binding Verizon. It may be only a very tiny percentage of users who continue using data on those lines at amounts well in excess of 100GB per month.

Still even in some cases people are using them as a home ISP with either rooted phones or apps. This, all while the overwhelming majority of others are paying considerably more for a mere fraction with data caps. Don't forget, I'm a UDP plan holder but my averages have never come even close to 100GB total let alone per line for the two lines.

Frankly call it what you will, greed? How about fairness? Good fiscal business management? Triage?

Truth is they will probably not get much more money at all, instead those who were abusing the plan will most likely buy much lower data capped plans at similar pricing to their expired UDP plans, add the Safety Mode and cry foul. Verizon won't likely net much of a gain in revenue, if at all so much as stop the few leaks in the data consumption. If true this couldn't be called greed, but simply inventory management or loss control and IMHO that's a good thing.

Smh



Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[mountainbikermark]

No I can tell you why the towers in major areas slow down..it's because they can at the push if a button.. manipulate antenna arrays to push more signal to an area..say...the stadium for some.big game or the race track or along the corridor of this stretch if highway..and they seem to always forget that those of us that took our "test-drives" did so before this was possible..meaning the signal was fixed and not always in a state of flux..

FoxKat you're probably familiar with the way 2 meters and ham radios work..you have to set your antenna and if you're running lots of power ..set your SWR's to allow the lowest possible you can..and get em lower with an antenna matcher system..

With the way they don't now...that's set to happen within and tolerance of +/- 2.0thats a big jump all over the damn place..

And that makes for huge changes is unusable signal..be it voice or data..and the tech is more line of site..so you can be right next to a tower or say half a mile away..and if they tipped it up just a tad..you're in this big black hole..unless you have a ladder...it's ridiculous...

Oh like you mean the 1 cell in my Verizon reception range that's aimed to the south and east and I'm a mile north and west of it and had no reception? That they have it aimed for optimum reception of the travelers along I95 and the hell with the residents of the city it's located in?

Support Our Troops!!!
Beast Mode 4

<><

 

[mountainbikermark]

OK, let me rephrase... I don't necessarily personally think they're hurting them since I have no evidence of such. What I should have said is that could be how they see it and perhaps why they might be making that push.

Still, you must admit that there is no obligation on the part of Verizon to continue these expired plans. The contracts are long since gone, except for a very few Best Buy contact holders, and there's even question of whether those contacts are binding Verizon. It may be only a very tiny percentage of users who continue using data on those lines at amounts well in excess of 100GB per month.

Still even in some cases people are using them as a home ISP with either rooted phones or apps. This, all while the overwhelming majority of others are paying considerably more for a mere fraction with data caps. Don't forget, I'm a UDP plan holder but my averages have never come even close to 100GB total let alone per line for the two lines.

Frankly call it what you will, greed? How about fairness? Good fiscal business management? Triage?

Truth is they will probably not get much more money at all, instead those who were abusing the plan will most likely buy much lower data capped plans at similar pricing to their expired UDP plans, add the Safety Mode and cry foul. Verizon won't likely net much of a gain in revenue, if at all so much as stop the few leaks in the data consumption. If true this couldn't be called greed, but simply inventory management or loss control and IMHO that's a good thing.

Smh



Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Most likely they've run the numbers and it'll cost less to lose the class action suit against the few remaining vs the extra profit made by the policy change.
I get and agree with what your saying in theory but with such large numbers after the dollar signs I truly believe the Benjamins are the reasoning not the bandwidth usage, which probably isn't even a consideration.

Support Our Troops!!!
Beast Mode 4

<><

 

[FoxKat]

Most likely they've run the numbers and it'll cost less to lose the class action suit against the few remaining vs the extra profit made by the policy change.
I get and agree with what your saying in theory but with such large numbers after the dollar signs I truly believe the Benjamins are the reasoning not the bandwidth usage, which probably isn't even a consideration.

Support Our Troops!!!
Beast Mode 4

<><

I think we are in basic agreement about all but the motivation. I do expect that some will move to a higher priced tier plan, but I also believe most will do a lateral shift to a similarly priced plan with lower caps, and some will decide it's better to take a hit to the data caps and save some Benjamins instead. Will the net result be more or less revenue? Tough to say. Will it result in a net reduction in data consumption over the network by those "excess" users? I am confident it will.

 

[FoxKat]

I believe we're basically in agreement about all but perhaps the motivation. I believe that this will result in only a minor few who transition to the 100GB plan or anything even close at a significant increase in monthly expense. I feel the loin's share will make a lateral transition to a similarly priced tiered plan and add the Safety Mode (probably where I'd go if I were forced out), and a significant percentage will opt for a monthly savings, take a hit to the data allotment and call it a day. Don't forget they will also lose some subscribers in this as well, lost revenue they can't recover. Will the net be an increase or decrease in revenue? Tough to say. Will it result in a significant net reduction in data consumption by that select group of UPD "excess" users, I say it will. People in many cases will consume in excess when things are free, but will "tighten the belt" when there is a financial impact to them. We've seen exactly these reactions in previous pushes, the phone subsidy forced plan change, and the $20 price increase as examples.

I really think if Verizon comes out of this push with no actual hit to the revenue, considering there is likely to be fallout to other networks as well, they will be more than pleased.