[tw04]

Not even remotely accurate.

First off, they used 25GB of data - that's not what any rational person would consider "a lot" for an emergency service fighting a wildfire. It's not even "a lot" in the generic sense in 2018 in any country that isn't the US or Cuba.

Second, the new plan is $99 for the first 20GB, and $8/GB thereafter. In other words, just to get back to baseline they would be at $139 which they blew through in a day or two. So you're talking several thousand dollars vs. $39 for a resource that costs Verizon nearly nothing to provide during an emergency such as this.

[whatpad]

Does the fact that the government seems to have done nearly no due diligence regarding capacity planning play a factor in your criticism of Verizon? They relied on one emergency device with one communication link and thought $39/mo was sufficient apparently. That's silly and incompetent for any IT professional.

[andymal]

The article makes it seem like Verizon told them it would not be throttled. "We made a mistake in how we communicated with our customer about the terms of its plan"

[StudentStuff]

It was $37.99 a month, and its the standard unlimited data device plan under the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA). Up until recently, it was truly unlimited, but Verizon has decided to start throttling it without renegotiating their multi-state contract.

[dawnerd]

Seriously. Verizon could have gotten some positive PR too.

[Domenic_S]

they used 25GB of data - that's not what any rational person would consider "a lot" for an emergency service fighting a wildfire.

This isn't self-evident. How much data is appropriate for an emergency service fighting a wildfire? What in the world are they doing with all that data?

[pixl97]

Have you even been in a modern fire fighting communications station? By your statement, I'll take that as a no.

[Domenic_S]

You're right, I haven't! I imagine a lot of people haven't. I didn't say the statement was wrong, just not self-evident.

[jimktrains2]

> How much data is appropriate for an emergency service fighting a wildfire?

As much as they need?

[whatpad]

It is not Verizon's problem if the government signed up for the wrong sized plan. It is not Verizon's problem if the government did not shop around for the best deal.

It is Verizon's problem if the case can be made that $8/GB is gouging. However $10/GB is a very common price among contractless carriers such as Tracfone and Google, so $8/GBis certainly in the ballpark.

Does not offering a bulk discount equate to gouging? IDK.

[StudentStuff]

Verizon was likely mot meeting the terms of their contract under the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA), they likely statement messaged these government customers back in 2016 saying "we're changing the terms" without renegotiating the contract as they were supposed to. This $37.99 unlimited plan is offered by both AT&T and Verizon under the WSCA contract, only Verizon chooses to throttle this plan...