can VZW legally stop allowing unlimited plans for EVERYBODY in a couple of years?

[jtludwig]

With AT&T there was a one year term commitment for international data which was separate from the contract for the voice plan. You had to commit to a one year term for international data even if you were month-to-month for your voice plan. Verizon's was likely to be similar.

Sent from my A1_07 using HowardForums

Once again, an example of someone providing an answer/misinformation not based on actual experience.

As a user of both Verizon's former unlimited international plan and the new $25/100mb plans..There was no contract term and no ETF for this feature.

AT&T did have an ETF on their unlimited plan, so this is why I used Verizon at the time.

[jtludwig]

Verizon never required an agreement for adding or removing the international unlimited data. Once customers with that feature went out of contract or renewed their contract, the feature was forced off.

As someone who actually used these features, this is correct.

[TC_Mits]

@taoman: These three inhabit a separate reality...

Thank you for a most enlightening find!

Interesting, too, to ponder the complexities of the relationship between Google, which proposed the 700C restrictions, and vzw as Android partners.


Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]

[TC_Mits]

1234567890

[Zappy]

Can anyone find a single sentence in the FCC regs that prohits throttling of unlimited users?

[TC_Mits]

I can't.

Say, has anyone actually *seen* a Higgs boson?


Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]

[veriztd]

Once again, an example of someone providing an answer/misinformation not based on actual experience.

As a user of both Verizon's former unlimited international plan and the new $25/100mb plans..There was no contract term and no ETF for this feature.

AT&T did have an ETF on their unlimited plan, so this is why I used Verizon at the time.

What misinformation ?? As a prior CS rep for At&t, I will confirm there was a requirement for an additional contract for the international data roaming feature (at least while I was there until 2007) and is still probably there. They key was that it was not automatically added and some reps failed to follow up despite the explicit requirement.

[jtludwig]

What misinformation ?? As a prior CS rep for At&t, I will confirm there was a requirement for an additional contract for the international data roaming feature (at least while I was there until 2007) and is still probably there. They key was that it was not automatically added and some reps failed to follow up despite the explicit requirement.

I didn't disagree about AT&T! Read my last sentence.

[veriztd]

Sorry for the confusion on my part. I misinterpreted your response.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[taoman54]

Can anyone find a single sentence in the FCC regs that prohits throttling of unlimited users?

No, I can't. But I also can't find any verbiage pertaining to "tethering" yet the phonenews.com article seems to indicate there are restrictions against carriers charging extra for tethering on the C-Block which Verizon has "signed off on..."

So I tend to agree with TC_Mits assessment that it is probably "regulated by some broader language." Just because we can't explicitly find the words "throttling" or "tethering" in the regs doesn't necessarily mean it isn't covered by some other broader language somewhere.

I suspect there is no explicit reference to throttling, per se, in the rules. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't regulated by some of the broader language. There isn't going to be an easy answer *one way or the other* for either side here.

......... unless the regs are etched in stone tablets by lightning from Sinai and they can read for themselves, "XI. Thou shalt not throttle on 700C." they won't believe.

[Sam73065]

No, I can't. But I also can't find any verbiage pertaining to "tethering" yet the phonenews.com article seems to indicate there are restrictions against carriers charging extra for tethering on the C-Block which Verizon has "signed off on..."

So I tend to agree with TC_Mits assessment that it is probably "regulated by some broader language." Just because we can't explicitly find the words "throttling" or "tethering" in the regs doesn't necessarily mean it isn't covered by some other broader language somewhere.

Or simply the failure to find a prohibition against throttling of LTE by Verizon is indicative of the fact, that it is not prohibited from throttling data.

[TC_Mits]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkt...e_gdata_player

"Your arms off..." but "we'll call it a draw."

Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]

[Zappy]

No, I can't. But I also can't find any verbiage pertaining to "tethering" yet the phonenews.com article seems to indicate there are restrictions against carriers charging extra for tethering on the C-Block which Verizon has "signed off on..."

One interpretation is that tethering must be allowed because the carriers cannot discriminate between devices. So Smartphone = Tablet = Laptop = Smartphone tethered to a Laptop.

[taoman54]

Or simply the failure to find a prohibition against throttling of LTE by Verizon is indicative of the fact, that it is not prohibited from throttling data.

One interpretation is that tethering must be allowed because the carriers cannot discriminate between devices. So Smartphone = Tablet = Laptop = Smartphone tethered to a Laptop.

Entirely possible on both counts.

[greenbears]

OP here....

After the first two pages of replies, I got lost... what the heck did I ask originally?