Re: The 5 GB limit

Dave Rudisill wrote:
> I see there is some new text related to the 5 GB limit..
>
> "If usage exceeds 5 GB/line/month, we reserve the right to reduce
> throughput speeds to a maximum of approximately 200 Kbps."
>
> <http://support.vzw.com/features/data_services/broadband_national_access.html>
> or
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yfovwy

So it's still "unlimited" but they reduce your throughput?!

I understand that they don't want people downloading full length movies
and the like, but they could find other ways to prevent this.

You know what I hate about Verizon is that they use their market
dominance in both voice and data without any repercussions because
there's no place else to go for most users. If you want good voice
coverage, you have to go to Verizon, as Sprint, T-Mobile, and AT&T are
far worse in almost every area of the country. You want high speed data,
you can go with Sprint or Verizon, but Verizon has such a better voice
network that you don't want to give that up just for slightly better
data policies.

At 30 Nov 2007 13:12:12 -0800 SMS 斯蒂文• � wrote:


> So it's still "unlimited" but they reduce your throughput?!



Seems fair to me. Unless you're Larry downloading from usenet every movie
and album made since Edison invented the Grammophone, how likely will the
average customer use 5GB/month on a phone or even a data card?

Unlike the old 5GB hard limit, this seems an adequate tradeoff to me.


> I understand that they don't want people downloading full length
> movies and the like, but they could find other ways to prevent this.


But the beauty of this is that if you need to engage in a previously
forbidden task, like streaming or file sharing for a limited time you can.


> You know what I hate about Verizon is that they use their market
> dominance in both voice and data without any repercussions because
> there's no place else to go for most users.


As they say, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

On 2007-12-01, Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> At 30 Nov 2007 13:12:12 -0800 SMS ???? ? wrote:
>
>> So it's still "unlimited" but they reduce your throughput?!
>
> Seems fair to me. Unless you're Larry downloading from usenet every movie
> and album made since Edison invented the Grammophone, how likely will the
> average customer use 5GB/month on a phone or even a data card?

I don't know what an average customer does, but I do know that in the
month I had 11 GB of use I did this by just using the data card
for everything I did with the laptop, rather than connecting it
to my home network at home and work network at work. This was
just a "normal" month for my laptop, the only thing abnormal about
it was that I didn't use the wired networks available where I spend
most of my time. Most of this usage was related to real work, in
fact, and didn't even violate the application constraints in the
Terms & Conditions (not that they've ever enforced those, or anything
other than the byte volume limit); if I cut out the playing altogether
I wouldn't have saved much.

> Unlike the old 5GB hard limit, this seems an adequate tradeoff to me.

I don't think so, I think they've really made it worse. Before, if you
needed more than 5 GB to get your work done, they'd let you know their
service wasn't for you, release you from your contract and let you see
if you could buy the service you needed elsewhere. This was quite
reasonable from my point-of-view. Now, however, when you hit 5 GB
they'll intentionally break your service so you can't get your work
done, but apparently won't release you from your contract
and will charge you the ETF penalty if you want to drop them in favor
of someone else who provides a service that meets your needs. That
is not an improvement.

>> I understand that they don't want people downloading full length
>> movies and the like, but they could find other ways to prevent this.
>
> But the beauty of this is that if you need to engage in a previously
> forbidden task, like streaming or file sharing for a limited time you can.

Note that, as far as I can tell, nothing has ever been forbidden
in practice except exceeding the 5 GB per month limit (text in
the T&Cs not withstanding). The only thing that's changed is what
happens when you exceed 5 GB per month, and for the reasons stated
above I think this change in no way favors the user. Not that this
surprises me, though.

Dennis Ferguson

At 01 Dec 2007 21:51:26 +0000 Dennis Ferguson wrote:

> Now, however, when you hit 5 GB
> they'll intentionally break your service so you can't get your work
> done, but apparently won't release you from your contract
> and will charge you the ETF penalty if you want to drop them in favor
> of someone else who provides a service that meets your needs. That
> is not an improvement.


Slowing your service to 200kbs is hardly "breaking it" though, is it?

Maybe because my carrier, T-Mo, is still using EDGE, I have a jaded view-
I'd love to have the first 5GB come down at EVDO speed! ;-)

> > But the beauty of this is that if you need to engage in a previously
> > forbidden task, like streaming or file sharing for a limited time you
can.
>
> Note that, as far as I can tell, nothing has ever been forbidden
> in practice except exceeding the 5 GB per month limit (text in
> the T&Cs not withstanding).

I understand that- I was counterpointing SMS' idea that they could find
"other ways" to stop you from engaging in high-bandwidth use- I was saying
I'd rather have a service slowdown than simply be prohibited technologically,
for example, from streaming video.

> The only thing that's changed is what
> happens when you exceed 5 GB per month, and for the reasons stated
> above I think this change in no way favors the user. Not that this
> surprises me, though.


What will be interesting is to see if it's enforced automatically. As you
say, the last limit wasn't enforced closely either.