Verizon Drops The Axe! Will Disconnect Unlimited Data Users Using Extraordinary Amounts Of Data!

[tech_head]

I worked for "Baby Bell" too, actually as a Bell Atlantic Mobile representative when I signed myself up for the UDP and issued myself 4 consecutive phone numbers, each ending in 000, 100, 200, & 300. So I had the personal experience of understanding the system from the other side. I did everything from installing car phones to programming phones for activation and selling them, to selling fleet phone plans, to selling data packages.

What I know is that if a contract has an escape clause, a company can exercise that clause "with discretion" on any contract-holder they wish. The only exceptions are when the FCC, FTC and AG, as well as other consumer watchdog organizations get involved and take it to court.

I agree that if people want to try to keep their plan active they do have potential recourse through those agencies and such, but it's an uphill climb. But then most things in life that have the greatest value come on the heels of hard work.

I also say, governments and corporations don't have consciences, they have interests and will do whatever forwards those interests.

So do I find it surprising that Verizon kicked people off UDP? Nope. They tried throttling those same people and got slapped. The then initiated a $20 up charge on those plans.

It will be an uphill battle, but since they have not dumped me I can't fight that battle.

What they are trying to do is chip away until UDP is all gone.
Wholesale elimination of just the UDP feature and forcing everyone to new plans would draw attention and they don't want that kind of attention. Eliminating a few at a time doesn't draw a lot of attention unless those folks are vocal and make Verizon prove they somehow violated their TOS.

Like I said, I'm fine if they dump my UDP feature, but make sure they treat everyone equal and get rid of every plan not active in the system. No $25 loyalty plans, no grandfathered plans of any type. Fair is fair. Right?

 

[kodiak799]

What I know is that if a contract has an escape clause, a company can exercise that clause "with discretion" on any contract-holder they wish. The only exceptions are when the FCC, FTC and AG, as well as other consumer watchdog organizations get involved and take it to court.

And VZW can, and has, amended terms of contracts. In some cases, relatively minor amendments can, and have, been considered breaches or voids in which instance the user could terminate without paying the ETF.

But if you're on month-to-month, you're technically rolling over onto a new contract each month. They just did one such amendment - the $20 price increase. And, note, that only triggered when you rolled off contract. AND it was only certain types of UDP plans (not all of them) - and no squawking from the FCC, FTC or anyone else.

 

[tech_head]

And VZW can, and has, amended terms of contracts. In some cases, relatively minor amendments can, and have, been considered breaches or voids in which instance the user could terminate without paying the ETF.

But if you're on month-to-month, you're technically rolling over onto a new contract each month. They just did one such amendment - the $20 price increase. And, note, that only triggered when you rolled off contract. AND it was only certain types of UDP plans (not all of them) - and no squawking from the FCC, FTC or anyone else.

The FTC, FCC or AG don't regulate the rates that Verizon charges.
So no, an increase in rates doesn't get the attention.

For the FCC it's how they handle Block-C and it can be seen as a ploy to circumvent restrictions they had when they agreed to the spectrum. An example is when they tried to throttle unlimited customers.
Throttling unlimited customers brought the FCC and FTC in because for them unlimited meant not artificially capped after certain usage levels. They could throttle on a congested cell, but it must be ALL users.

The FTC only cares about Verizon as so far as they do not violate trade law and consumer protection laws at the federal level. But calling it "UNLIMITED" on the bill and then cancelling people because they used data might cause them to act due to false advertising or fraud.

The AG in a state might be concerned that Verizon is targeting some users that fall within the TOS and are being terminated anyway. Also false advertising or fraud.

So no; they don't care that Verizon charges $20 more. They do care that what Verizon says on your bill and how they treat you after you use data are different.

 

[kodiak799]

The FTC, FCC or AG don't regulate the rates that Verizon charges.
So no, an increase in rates doesn't get the attention.

Yes, but isn't what VZW is doing here in essence a rate question?

You keep making this about what you think the TOS should be rather than what the TOS actually are. Sorry, but you can't demonstrate irreparable harm to force completion of the contract. And despite breach remedies being spelled out in the TOS, you really don't have more than a subsidized phone as skin in the game.

If this ever gets to court, and doesn't get laughed out of court, VZW is going to win.

 

[FoxKat]

Yes, but isn't what VZW is doing here in essence a rate question?

You keep making this about what you think the TOS should be rather than what the TOS actually are. Sorry, but you can't demonstrate irreparable harm to force completion of the contract. And despite breach remedies being spelled out in the TOS, you really don't have more than a subsidized phone as skin in the game.

If this ever gets to court, and doesn't get laughed out of court, VZW is going to win.

What he said...

 

[tech_head]

All I can say is, let's wait and see.
People said the same thing about throttling and Verizon backed down due to Block C.

People doing nothing to violate the TOS have been sent the letter.

 

[kodiak799]

All I can say is, let's wait and see.
People said the same thing about throttling and Verizon backed down due to Block C.

Ummmkay....We'll wait and see. There were specific agreements to block C....but lest's wait and see.

 

[tech_head]

Ummmkay....We'll wait and see. There were specific agreements to block C....but lest's wait and see.

But, the way they have singled specific users for termination that they couldn't throttle may be an issue. It's an end around Block-C requirements that they do not throttle. "If we can't throttle them, we'll get rid of them." That might be an issue.

We'll see.

 

[FoxKat]

But, the way they have singled specific users for termination that they couldn't throttle may be an issue. It's an end around Block-C requirements that they do not throttle. "If we can't throttle them, we'll get rid of them." That might be an issue.

We'll see.

Good point and interesting. I wonder if the lawyers can make any money on this?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[kodiak799]

But, the way they have singled specific users for termination that they couldn't throttle may be an issue. It's an end around Block-C requirements that they do not throttle. "If we can't throttle them, we'll get rid of them." That might be an issue.

Obviously other carriers are able to throttle. That was specific to VZW purchase agreement for Block-C.

Throttling is a slippery slope because if you allow it on 100GB+, who's to say they won't do it at 20GB+? On the other hand, companies have always been free to choose who they do business with (so long as they don't discriminate against a protected class). And that's all this is.

If you want to take it a step further, honoring the UDP is a "loyalty" program, and it would be VZW sole discretion to define what constitutes continued qualification for this program.

It could go to court, but there are literally at least a handful of winning arguments for VZW. It's hard to imagine "hey, VZW won't keep offering me this sweetheart deal I abused" could be a winning argument. You can't show harm/injury, you can't show illegal discrimination, and you really can't even show unfairness.

 

[kodiak799]

I wonder if the lawyers can make any money on this?

Other than legal fees (and who in their right mind would foot that bill?), no. Because if it would go south for VZW, they would probably just end UDP - so there's not going to be any large class action payout.

First they ended our subsidized upgrades. Then they raised our price $20. You're not going to get the courts to force terms on a plan VZW clearly has little interest in continuing to offer.

 

[FoxKat]

Other than legal fees (and who in their right mind would foot that bill?), no. Because if it would go south for VZW, they would probably just end UDP - so there's not going to be any large class action payout.

First they ended our subsidized upgrades. Then they raised our price $20. You're not going to get the courts to force terms on a plan VZW clearly has little interest in continuing to offer.

Agreed but the lawyers will still get a nice paycheck defending Verizon.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[tech_head]

Other than legal fees (and who in their right mind would foot that bill?), no. Because if it would go south for VZW, they would probably just end UDP - so there's not going to be any large class action payout.

First they ended our subsidized upgrades. Then they raised our price $20. You're not going to get the courts to force terms on a plan VZW clearly has little interest in continuing to offer.

You are right and the question is not whether they can discontinue "loyalty plans" or not, it's pretty clear they can. The specific question that the FCC is likely to address, is if Verizon is now dumping those they could not throttle as an end around the Block-C requirements they signed up for.

If that is the case, Verizon may have an issue. Unlimited plans cannot be throttled unless they also throttle others with similar data usage on tiered plans. This was spelled out by the FCC. I suspect someone at Verizon thought; "Why don't we just notify them that we are kicking them off. We aren't throttling."

So there is nothing that says Verizon can't end loyalty plans, it will look rather odd that they dumped only those they could not throttle. Hence the 100GB+ usage model.

 

[Mustang02]

Agreed but the lawyers will still get a nice paycheck defending Verizon.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I would assume Verizon has their own legal team. Most fortune 500 companies do.

 

[FoxKat]

I would assume Verizon has their own legal team. Most fortune 500 companies do.

Oh I know that. I'm just saying this is just another opportunity to earn their high pay.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk