I find it astonishing that this could happen. What kind of rampant capatilism allows a company to actively shit all over a public service like this. Here in Australia, most public services and...
I find it astonishing that this could happen. What kind of rampant capatilism allows a company to actively shit all over a public service like this.
Here in Australia, most public services and government agencies have their internet provided by a specific non mainstream ISP (i.e. not Telstra or Optus), which I guess gives them some protection from this kind of thing.
If you use an asterisk, you can leave your search open ended. So "Verizon *fire" or "*fire" would work, whereas just "fire" misses because of the "wild" part.
If you use an asterisk, you can leave your search open ended. So "Verizon *fire" or "*fire" would work, whereas just "fire" misses because of the "wild" part.
I'm not sure this is a net neutrality issue at all, though. Apparently Verizon has some kind of unlimited w/o throttling plan that SCFD had to upgrade to, so Verizon was operating according to the...
I'm not sure this is a net neutrality issue at all, though. Apparently Verizon has some kind of unlimited w/o throttling plan that SCFD had to upgrade to, so Verizon was operating according to the contract. Verizon does share some responsibility, as:
"Regardless of the plan emergency responders choose, we have a practice to remove data speed restrictions when contacted in emergency situations," Verizon's statement said. "We have done that many times, including for emergency personnel responding to these tragic fires. In this situation, we should have lifted the speed restriction when our customer reached out to us. This was a customer support mistake. We are reviewing the situation and will fix any issues going forward."
Is Verizon a shitty company for throttling SCFD? Yes. Did they fuck up by not disabling the throttling like they have done in the past? Yes. Do I want to see Verizon burn in hell? Absolutely. But is this a net neutrality issue? No, and it's muddying the waters.
The real issue here is that we need better options for internet access, both cellular and non-cellular, and carriers shouldn't be allowed to put "unlimited until X GB, then you can be throttled down to 200 kbps at will" in the fine print - you should have to display that up front in the same font at the same size as your unlimited claims, and representatives should have to disclose that instead of saying it's up to the user to read the fine print and find that out. In addition:
Verizon said it "made a mistake" in communicating with the department about the terms of the plan
I find it astonishing that this could happen. What kind of rampant capatilism allows a company to actively shit all over a public service like this.
Here in Australia, most public services and government agencies have their internet provided by a specific non mainstream ISP (i.e. not Telstra or Optus), which I guess gives them some protection from this kind of thing.
I'd bet it was already posted here few days ago, but I can't find it. Maybe it was deleted?
Thank you. Searching "verizon fire" or "fire" doesn't seem to work. I need to learn how the search works.
If you use an asterisk, you can leave your search open ended. So "Verizon *fire" or "*fire" would work, whereas just "fire" misses because of the "wild" part.
Dang it, I checked ~tech and ~news but not far down enough I guess.
Ridiculous. Ajit pai should be thrown on the front lines of those fires.
I'm not sure this is a net neutrality issue at all, though. Apparently Verizon has some kind of unlimited w/o throttling plan that SCFD had to upgrade to, so Verizon was operating according to the contract. Verizon does share some responsibility, as:
Is Verizon a shitty company for throttling SCFD? Yes. Did they fuck up by not disabling the throttling like they have done in the past? Yes. Do I want to see Verizon burn in hell? Absolutely. But is this a net neutrality issue? No, and it's muddying the waters.
The real issue here is that we need better options for internet access, both cellular and non-cellular, and carriers shouldn't be allowed to put "unlimited until X GB, then you can be throttled down to 200 kbps at will" in the fine print - you should have to display that up front in the same font at the same size as your unlimited claims, and representatives should have to disclose that instead of saying it's up to the user to read the fine print and find that out. In addition:
I get the feeling this was not a mistake.