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.
