Complaints re 5 GB limit

[#1]

If you aren't happy with Verizon, you should switch to another carrier.  That's how our free enterprise system works.

[Zehan]

You keep complaining that Verizon is doing all of this just to make money, and we keep telling you YES! YOU'RE RIGHT! AND THAT'S NOT THE POINT! It's not illegal for Verizon to do this. They're in it for the money, and they're going to do whatever they can to protect that revenue. Highway robbery? Please. Only if the robber were to say "We're going to take this, okay?" and you said "Sure! Where do I sign?" You have a choice whether or not to buy, even if Verizon is your only choice of a service provider. If you don't agree with the pricing, STOP COMPLAINING AND CANCEL. That's the only way to send a clear message to Verizon.

Wireless services are not a right or a utility, they're a SERVICE. Verizon doesn't owe you anything, including a price drop, and the longer you rant about how terrible the pricing model is while simultaneously paying your bill each month, the more you're going to look like a hypocrite.

{please keep your posts courteous}

[Sirreel]

To reiterate, I complained that a 20-fold price increase for usage over an arbitrary limit resulted in an unfair price for that portion. Did I agree to it? Not quite. I thought the overage charge was 1/10th of the actual charge. Too bad for me. But, there is such a thing called a contract of adhesion, where one party is weak (unsophisticated) and the other is powerful (sophisticated), and the powerful party tells the weak one "take it or leave it." (sounds a little like your arguments ?) The weak party has no choice but to accept the terms because no alternatives exist. The courts frown on powerful parties who take advantage of weak parties with nasty terms in their contracts. In particular, courts don't like punitive terms in adhesion contracts, where something happens that triggers a payment from the weak party that bears little relationship to the actual cost the powerful party incurs as a result of that trigger. It's a punishment imposed on the weak party and a windfall, or money for nothing, for the powerful party. So, your comment about their pricing structure not being illegal may not be true as between the parties, although it might not violate any statutes. As I said before, I don't mind paying a fair price, but those fees are not fair.

My line of work makes having an internet connection mandatory. My choices were dial-up (no caps at least), satellite or Verizon wireless. Oddly enough, by the time I paid for an extra phone line for dial-up, the costs for all three were similar. I read bad things about satellite (latency, weather dependency, and daily bandwidth limits) and rejected that option early on, so went with Verizon. Am I getting my money's worth? Compared to my costs for dial-up, it's an amazing deal. Do I want more data from Verizon for less money? Absolutely. Anybody who doesn't want a better deal than the one they have is either not too bright or has too much money than is good for them.

Since I don't have other viable options for internet access I'll crab at Verizon while I continue with their service. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, that makes me a well-informed consumer who has made the best choice possible, now advocating to make that choice even better. I can't imagine why you would take umbrage with my position or why you seem to take Verizon's side. Do you like restrictive terms? Paying extra? If so, let me know if there's something I can sell you. I'll gouge you for it if it'd make you happy.

[gwhnewbie]

Oh Yes! Very logical Burn! Good on you.

[moreunhappiness]

---

nmchileman wrote:

I appreciate the fact that your post is well written, has valid points and clear ideas. It's a breath of fresh air compared to the usual complaint posts. However, please allow me to retort.

Verizon Wireless caps your broadband usage for the same reasons other wireless carriers and ISPs do: to control usage, to protect and maintain the integrity of the network, and to provide a model that allows overage to generate a revenue stream - to make money.

Putting a cap on usage does help control usage, because most people who use the service won't have a problem staying within the limits. 5GB of usage is a decent amount if you use your service as a supplement to your installed internet at home or public WiFi. VZ Access Manager can help you do this with a setting that automatically connects itself to your home network or public WiFi when in range, preventing you from always connecting to mobile broadband.

Who's responsibility is it to protect the network? The operator of course. VZW has always put the network first. The network is everything. When you say Cricket takes more responsibility in the health of it's network, keep this in mind: Leap Wireless only has 4.3 million customers. Verizon Wireless is fast gaining on 90 million customers. Huge difference. Leap doesn't have to worry as much about bandwidth hogs putting strain on it's network. Initially VZW did offer an unlimited mobile broadband plan where they reduced your speeds if you had a habit of exceeding the 5GB limit. As the service got adopted by more and more people simply throttling the usage wasn't enough.

Even if every one of those 4.3 million customers used Cricket's mobile broadband service VZW would still have more people using it's netbooks, wireless cards and smartphones. All using the 3G network taking up bandwidth. So Cricket can let the few people who do have that service run amok and it won't be disastrous.

Consumer wise, I can see where you're coming from about having the usage roll over. I can agree with that, I guess it would be nice. On the business side. Why? VZW doesn't NEED to do that. Should they? Maybe. Maybe not. 5GB is a generous allotment for space on the 3G network. If it's used as it's supposed to be used people shouldn't have a problem staying well under the limit. Besides, they provide you with an additional option to manage your usage: free WiFi in thousands of locations across the country (mostly Starbucks) that you would normally have to pay for. It's a win-win. You get free WiFi in a lot of hotels, airports and cafe's and they get a way to offload large amounts of data from the network at little cost.

Get used to caps people. Home ISPs like Comcast and Time-Warner are running trials in several markets for capped/tiered pricing. I don't like it, but it's coming.

---

Get used to caps people??????? no...fight the caps people. Without customers, there will be nothing to cap. Money is great and I agree we all should try to make as much as we can BUT acting as if we have no choice is the wrong message to send. We do have a choice.  Do not give your money to those who conduct deceptive sales practices.  Without customers, there will be nothing to cap. Get on with the most local, small provider you can. Then, when he gets too big, warn him, the shut him off just like the rest. This is they way it works. There is no reason you have to give your hard earned money to a business that lures you in with deceptive sales practices and then treats you as if you do not matter. 18billion in revenue can shrink to nothing in the matter of moments. Acting as if you do not have a choice and being complacent is what has allowed big business to think they can treat people this way. Don't be afraid to tell your friends how dissatisfied you are with a company or service. All we have as customers are eachother. Big businesses are only after your money...that's why they are in business. Remember, they only have the money and resources that you give them to use against you.

[Greg4Wireless]

CAPS = more profits for companies.