Home

Share this Story

FCC Still Concerned About Throttling, Asks All Carriers About Throttling Practices

data usage throttling data optimization

Over the last couple of weeks, the FCC has decided that it wants to know more about the throttling or “Network Optimization” practices of wireless carriers in the US. Their initial probing began with Verizon, after the company announced plans to start throttling the top 5% of its data users who have unlimited data plans and a 4G LTE phone come October 1. Today, Reuters is reporting that the FCC is actually looking into all of the major carriers, asking for them to explain how they decide when to slow down speeds for customers, because they are still very “concerned” that the reasoning could be a business rather than engineering issue.

News of the FCC looking into other carriers comes only a week after Verizon responded to a letter sent by FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler. In the response, Verizon basically stated that they aren’t the only ones in the industry who are throttling, and that their practice of “Network Optimization” is much more tailored than others. Big Red made sure to point out that they only throttle when a top data user is on a congested site, whereas other carriers throttle no matter what when a customer has qualified for slower speeds.

In statements made today, Wheeler pointed out that he was never a fan of the idea that “all the kids do it,” and that carriers better not be deciding to throttle customers based on their “economic relationship” with them.

The other carriers have yet to respond. If anything, this saga is only beginning.

Via:  Reuters
  • imronburgundy

    Can they go ahead and question them on their tiered data policies as well?

  • John Davids

    Dear Tom Wheeler:

    You have our attention. Despite all odds, it turns out you may NOT be just a shill for Big Telco. Please continue to prove us wrong. Thanks.

    Love,
    The Internet

  • Rahul Shah

    Good for me. Now I will have a real statement from straight Talk, about their 3GB plan cap or whatever.

  • Steve

    This is the FCCs job… so why the hell are they just NOW coming around to it if the average cell phone fan has known about it for YEARS?

  • MaxBangayvef

    Lila . although Matthew `s st0rry is shocking, last wednesday I bought a gorgeous Nissan GT-R: from having made $4749 this month and-also, 10-k this past munth . it’s definitly my favourite work I have ever done . I began this 8-months ago and immediately started making a cool more than $87… per-hr .

    for detail check tech tab….

    go to this web-site

    ==============>> Payatom.Com

    ==============================

  • SewWhat

    BAHAHAAHAHAAA… One kid gets caught with it’s hand in the cookie jar and rats out the rest…

  • Vishal Khedkar

    I read a lot about this, but can’t get what the hell ‘Throttling’ means? What is it actully?

    • Adrynalyne

      Throttling by definition is controlling flow by constricting the flow of something.

      If you throttled someone, you choked them; constricting the air into their lungs.

      If your ISP is throttling you, they are constricting your flow of data ; in other words, speed.

  • Razma

    I really hope the FCC nails Verzion for the BS they’re trying to spin this time

  • militaryguy11 .

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: wireless should be just like broadband, in that you have unlimited usage of the broadband, but that you pay for the SPEEDS. Definitely how it should be, and why the waters are getting so muddy here.

  • 213ninja

    i know this point has been made before but i’m mad bro….the problem in Verizon’s case is that they are only applying the throttling to users still on legacy unlimited data plans. if this were truly about performance (as stated when they lied to the FCC), they’d throttle EVERYONE hitting the “busy tower”. it doesn’t matter if i have a 1GB plan, if i’m streaming porn all day because i decided that i don’t mind paying for it, i’m allowed to abuse their “busy tower”? or even worse, i’m streaming porn all day because i don’t realize how much data porn uses, and i’m still allowed to abuse their “busy tower”?? the only reason i’m allowed to do it on a 1GB plan is because they can bill me more money on overages. that’s it, plain and simple…

    • SilentPatriot

      Slowing down those pay-per-byte customers would “throttle” all that profit…

  • John

    Too many questions, not enough action. I guess the VZW was satisfactory and now the other carriers are being questioned to be consistent. How shrewd indeed.

  • jak_341

    I don’t want the Government anywhere near the communications industry; either wireless or cable.

    • http://twitter.com/JohnnyACE562 GRAND MASTER SEN$Ei {{-_-}}™

      If they can finally fix the problem, I don’t care. {{-_-}}

  • jhjr24

    Good to hear. :D

  • Anthony Tyson

    I just want my “unlimited” data with 1gb at “4G LTE speeds” to not drop to “2G” absolutely useless speed after the 1gb. It should just not be LTE.

  • http://twitter.com/geoff5093 Geoff Johnson

    It’s all about money. They would throttle everyone if it was a performance issue, not just those on plans that don’t cost users as much.

  • verizon scum

    this makes me sick

  • Mikey Styles

    Yay give the FCC a bone for once doing something right, even though that ugly term “Net Neutrality” is lurking around & they haven’t been on the consumer side of things so far. Throttling will continue imo & Net Neutrality will eventually be washed away. $$$$$$ always wins in these types of situations.

  • Cael

    In a minute the carriers will have us paying not by GB but by speed….

    • Franklin Ramsey

      I’m honestly surprised this isn’t the case since this is how cable companies do it.

  • Nick

    Dog and pony show. The FCC doesn’t care about the public interest anymore since we can’t lobby like corporations.

  • FortitudineVincimus

    I wrote this the last time…

    “particular cell sites” – and that is their future loophole. There is no proof they have or have to give or can demonstrate that any 1 cell tower is “experiencing unusually high demand” and that fact is how they can & will take advantage of the situation. They essentially can say, at any whim, “oh hey, THAT tower is experiencing unusually high demand”. Really? Says who? Them? No independent proof of that fact so it is ripe for abuse. We don’t even know what defines “unusually high demand.” That is so purposefully nebulous it allows them to do their throttling in any situation they want really and we just have to bend over and except it. They give a fake definition as to how and why they will use it to try to chill out peoples complaints, but really, it is just an empty open ended definition that can cover pretty much any tower or situation they want.

    Glad the FCC is at least snooping around.

    • Suicide_Note

      I love the word nebulous. Nice choice!

    • Ninja

      I work for an ISPs and it’s simple to determine this. Those towers are fed by fiber and have limited bandwidth. Think of it as a bigger version of your wireless router at home. You only have X amount of bandwidth and you may be fine with normal use. But say you throw a party and 200 people show up and they all connect to your WiFi. Your service becomes slow and unreliable. Why? Because you still only have x amount of bandwidth. If you were to limit each user to a certain amount of bandwidth, you would be able to increase reliability. 200 people aren’t fighting for bandwidth anymore.
      As for how they can tell. It’s quite simple. Those towers have lots of other connected equipment to get your traffic where it needs to go. Even the most basic devices will let you see the load on a specific link. And as for your comment about speed vs data usage…that’s how traditional Internet works.

      • Justtyn Hutcheson

        I think he was getting at the fact that there is no formal definition for “unusually high traffic”. To hijack your example, at my house I typically have 3-4 WiFi devices connected. If my whole family comes over and there are suddenly 15 devices connected, a 500% increase would certainly qualify as “unusually high”. However, I also have a 50/10 Mbps cable connection feeding that router, which should be more than adequate for that many devices. So while not a strain by any means, if I didn’t like my 2nd cousin because he was a bully in the third grade, I could throttle him, tell him that the reason is because of having so many people and he’s the youngest, and nobody could say anything about it because they don’t know it’s unnecessary. The excuse I give *sounds* reasonable, so I can get away with my little vindictive behavior.

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/nemesis099 Nemesis099

        I think the real issue is that Verizon has the keys to what towers are clogged and will receive throttling. But what if they decide that is every tower in the area so unlimited users can’t use the network.
        This is the real issue is that the user can’t see the congestion so they don’t know why they are being throttled and Verizon can set the amount of congestion to start throttling which could be 5% bandwidth usage of that tower. As Verizon has tried and tried again to extract money and punish users who paid for their service I find this to be an issue when they can retaliate without any recourse from the user other then switching providers or moving to a more expensive plan.

    • HarvesterX

      What gets me is that 4.7GBs falls in the 5% yet they offer tiered 6GB plans.

  • http://www.androidanthem.com/ BaldyPal

    Of course they are throttling unlimited data users in order to push them on to tiered data. Why do they have to go into “concerned” investigations in order to determine something that is so obvious?

    • Justtyn Hutcheson

      Because as a legal entity, for them to do anything about it “obvious” isn’t enough. They need evidence. Hence, an investigation.
      Though, one wonders what the end result will be. A few million in fines for a company that make billions in profit? Yeah, that’ll tech them….

      • HarvesterX

        Tech em…lol wondering if you meant that typo

  • Notus

    Okay FCC either put up or shut up..

  • Cael

    Whelp, looks like Verizon just ruined it for the other carriers. Time for them to gang up on Verizon now.

  • Jeff C

    I’m all for unlimited data and I don’t like throttling any more than anyone else. But I’m sick and tired of our government meddling in everything. I don’t need their help. I need them to get out of my life as much as possible so that free markets can work.

    • Duane Westerhaus

      I agree with you whole heartedly Jeff, but there is a time and place for government to step in. When a corporate monopoly (or duopoly as is the case with Verizon / ATT) becomes so huge that it no longer responds to the needs of it’s customers, then the government likely our best recourse. I applaud FCC chairman Tom Wheeler’s investigation into the throttling practices of this industry! Hopefully something positive will come of it!

      • jak_341

        You have the choice to change carriers. It isn’t a duopoly at all.

        • Duane Westerhaus

          I don’t have the choice (or more accurately desire) to change where I live – rural America. So your comment has no merit.

          • RiceCake

            Or you can chose to not have wireless. It isnt mandatory that everyone has a cell phone. We dont particularly “NEED” them.

          • Duane Westerhaus

            This is true. And if I worked close by I could theoretically get along on a flip phone waiting until I got home to use data. My house is actually completely hardwired. I however work in the transportation industry traveling cross country. So for me, and 3 million+ others who work in this industry, having wireless service is actually quite necessary.

          • jak_341

            That is a personal problem, not a Federal Government intervention issue.

        • CoreRooted

          Given that nearly all the “carriers” are actually just subsidiaries of the “Big 4″, there really isn’t much choice. There are actually very few independent carriers and those usually have such a small footprint that switching to them is virtually pointless unless you are geographically bound to a single location (town, city, whatnot). For those living in the more rural areas, they have even less choices given that usually only one or two carriers even provide coverage to those areas.

          Also, when switching carriers, Nine times out of ten, there are enormous ETF fees and such. For instance, for me to leave my carrier today, it would cost me in excess of $1,000. That’s just in ETF fees.

          So, tell me what the “choice” is again because I’m not seeing where a lot of people really have much choice once they choose their carrier to begin with.

          • jak_341

            You have choice. You may have to adjust what your wants are to fit what is offered.

    • jimt

      Free markets only really work when it isn’t a monopoly. Had any choice from PG&E or even say Comcast, lately?

    • Big EZ

      They create a problem so we’ll want them to fix it. Problem is, it never gets fixed, and requires them to do more and more. Just like health care. They have made our system as bad as it was, now the new “fix” is designed to bring it to its knees so we need single payer to “fix” it. Many politicians supporting it have already admitted that this is just a step towards single payer.

    • jak_341

      Absolutely agree! It’s good to see some people value free market principles.

    • CoreRooted

      Yeah, because that worked out really well with the airlines, right? Oh, wait… No. It didn’t because, like the wireless landscape in our country, there were only 5 domestic airlines [at the time] and they took advantage of the deregulation to lock out foreign airlines serving our airports so that they could charge nearly any rate they wanted. Now, we get to pay fuel surcharges, luggage surcharges and other ridiculous fees that, because of a lack of oversight and regulation, can’t be debated by the consumers.

      Deregulation and free markets only work when done with an industry that actually supports competition. The wireless industry in this country does NOT have a workable model for deregulation and competition. The upfront cost to even start a wireless carrier is prohibitive to all but the wealthy and you don’t really see many of them jumping in the fray.

      Maybe if we were still in the 1930s, free markets would succeed, but we aren’t and these massive corporations are going to do everything in their power to screw consumers. All we need to do is look at France and their wireless free market debacle going on there. Free markets doesn’t work when applied to mega-corporations. Free markets (as envisioned by Roosevelt), were supposed to prevent corporations from being able to dominate a market by establishing anit-trust and anti-monopoly laws. So, who is supposed to enforce those laws? The government.

  • Alan Burnstine

    I am not on unlimited anymore for other reasons, so this doesn’t really impact me, but the net result of this is that Verizon is going to get rid of the last of the unlimited data plans…..

    • Suicide_Note

      It’s just a matter of time, unfortunately.

    • teebone

      Me, along with tons of other people who are on the unlimited plan will drop VZW if it gets bad. I don’t have an issue going with pre-paid with another carrier if it comes to that!!

      • Alan Burnstine

        That’s just it though. I don’t think there are “tons” of unlimited data customers left. Verizon has been enticing or intimidating unlimited users onto other plans long enough now that they don’t care about losing the last few. Particularly some of the ones I have seen boasting on these discussions about how they use 50+ gig per month on their unlimited plans. Verizon wants unlimited customers to leave, and will do everything short of actually saying so, and if the FCC keeps pushing this issue, they will just say so and drop the feature. There is nothing in your contract guaranteeing the rate. They have historically not canceled features without customers changing plans, but nothing prevents them from doing so except the bad press and some pissed off customers going elsewhere.

        • Justtyn Hutcheson

          Well, they can’t change the terms of those in contract without forfeiting the ETF fees should those users choose to leave, but I’m with you otherwise. Off-contract, they only need to give a 30 day notice; continuing service is acceptance of the new terms. And they are likely close to the point that the one-time loss is an acceptable risk versus the “losses” from not having heavy data users on unlimited plans.

        • teebone

          At the same time however, that’s what made VZW the best service provider around, the fastest service and connectivity. I get super fast LTE speeds in a small town in SW Wisconsin that ATT and the others don’t get. I think they’ll lose money cause unlimited people are willing to pay full price to keep unlimited data. If they do this throttling thing which might not affect me as much in the small town as a lot of people are with US Cellular there, people might leave for another carrier. I however won’t leave because of the service and where I frequent I get a lot of speed and connectivity. The biggest data hog is tethering…that’s how you can use up 50 to 100 plus of gigs a month. The other stuff not as much. I’m willing to wait it out and see how it affects me.

  • Mickey A Valentine

    Monkey see monkey do

  • KyleWay

    This feels like a smoke screen to get those of us concerned about Net Neutrality to jump on the soapbox and start shouting about something else. Maybe it’s just me. I mean, I would definitely say that I’m disinclined to believe anything said by anyone even remotely affiliated with the government.

  • LFOD

    It would be better if someone throttled the government.

    • moto x

      Can you really slow down something that slow already?

      • needtogetlaid

        I really need to throttle my noodle. I couldn’t resist. HEH

      • Jeff C

        They certainly aren’t slow when it comes to spending our money, or turning private enterprise into the enemy.

        • Justin W

          Or turning private enterprise regulations into regulations that protect them from competition and hurt us as consumers.

          • Jeff C

            Agreed.

  • Moto X

    Man it is really concerning that the FCC seems to have no idea this was going on. Verizon has had a similar policy for 3g for the last 3 or 4 years. And every single national provider throttles. It is very concerning that the commission over this industry does not understand how the industry operates. Its not like these policies were hidden, you can find them on any of their websites.

    • Justin W

      I think it’s concerning that they are clearly ignoring the obvious fact that only their Unlimited users are getting throttled after a seemingly random amount of data (and it’s given as a percentage of users, not as a hard and fast number, which would equal the opposite of unlimited).

    • Cael

      Nobody cared about Verizon’s slow 3G though and Verizon claims they’re 4G LTE can handle all this data plus they bought more spectrum from the FCC that was supposed to be open.

  • coolsilver

    Verizon and others: MORE SPEED!!! Just not a lot per month. Except you guys that we “let you” have more than we want you to have… Slow speed for you.

  • Adam Truelove

    Yes, ask the carriers to explain. I’m sure you’ll get truthful, meaningful answers with no BS.

    • http://www.androidanthem.com/ BaldyPal

      Exactly how i see it too. sarcasm and everything.
      FCC: Are you throttling unlimited data users because you want them to jump to tier data?
      Verizon: No
      FCC: Ok. You must be telling the truth. Case Closed boys! Next rounds on me.

    • Cael

      I think this is a 100% result of Verizon’s BS.

  • M3D1T8R

    A good sign. Let’s see how this plays out.

  • Droid Ultra

    Someone needs to let the FCC know that verizon is only doing to to make more money. It has nothing to do with network optimization.

    • j

      Agreed. The issue is they are only throttling unlimited data users that fall into the top 1%, not tiered data users that fall into the top 1%, which is discrimination and clearly aimed to get people onto tiered plans in order to prevent throttling.

      • j

        5%, not 1%

        • Bootleg Zani

          Except that Top 5% means using 4.7 GBs a month which is nothing.

          • mcdonsco

            Yea, my 67 year old mom uses 4.7gb’s a month easily.

          • Fattie McDoogles

            The problem with that is they have plans that offer more data than that to just one person. Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark!

          • Pedro

            And by nothing, you mean more than the other 19 people in the room.

          • HarvesterX

            Which means if you have a 6GB tiered plan you can be in that top 5% and not get throttled which is wrong because they are targeting only those on certain contracts

    • Hello

      You’re free to switch carriers if you don’t like it. And if they all suck, start your own cell business.

      • Mickey A Valentine

        Just need Bruce Waynes capital startup

      • mcdonsco

        While i am normally the first to hate on worthless government, in this particular case I’m glad to see the FCC looking into it and here’s why:

        Go ahead, go start a wireless company.

        The cost to start one is prohibitive; that’s why even the “new guys” on the block aren’t actually new…they are subsidiaries of the big ones. Unless you have BILLIONS (yes, with a B), you’ll never setup something to compete, even with sprint or metro PCS let alone Verizon or AT&T.

        Carriers know this and as a result for years they have been “following suit” with their competitors to try to make as much money as possible from our society’s increasing data use. And even though the new MUCH FASTER tech makes it CHEAPER for them to provide data; they all see the cash cow.

        What should be happening with the faster speeds is throttling EVERYONE to say 15mb/10mb so a crap load more lines can be accommodated on the towers without issue…instead, they’re giving us the stupid fast speeds (which is crazy, I tether a lot for my laptop and have ZERO need for anything faster) and CHARGING ABSURD PRICES FOR EVERY GB.

        15mb/10mb is PLENTY FAST for wireless; the only people that would disagree are using their unlimited accounts as their primary internet at home to use for Xbox gaming, torrent downloads etc…for the VAST MAJORITY of people, 15/10 is MORE THAN ENOUGH.

        So again, I say, throttle us to that speed / similar then give us as much data as we need for a REASONABLE price.

        But, it will likely never happen.

        • Steve Ciszewski

          Even Xbox gaming doesn’t use up a lot of data, it’s mostly data being uploaded rather than downloaded. Even with that being said 10—15 mbs is plenty fast enough as when I used my phone for tethering for Xbox gaming it was with a Droid Incredible 2 (not an LTE capable phone). You hit the nail on the head with your post, just wanted to give some more insite for the Xbox.

          • Justtyn Hutcheson

            The issue with any gaming over wireless is the ping introducing too much inconsistent lag. When your ping varies from 50 ms to 300 ms at any given time, most multiplayer games have a rough time. It’s not impossible to enjoy, but it is definitely less enjoyable than a 4 ms ping from a wired connection.

          • HarvesterX

            Lol i remember back when anything under 100ms was considered to be awesome. I never had online lag caused by my ping when the ping was only in the mid to low hundreds…4ms is crazy. I haven’t used wired in a long time…I didn’t know pings have gotten so low.

            But yeah games don’t need to transmit (or shouldn’t need to unless poorly written) much data for online taking to work. Much less than most people would think.

        • http://twitter.com/geoff5093 Geoff Johnson

          I had you up until they should lower our speeds.

          There is X amount of bandwidth provided for each carrier at each cell site. Now, why would you be opposed to the idea that anyone can use data as fast as they want if no one else is using it? Would you want a tower with say a 150Mbps fiber connection to limit you to just 15Mbps if the tower is not congested?

          When more people are using that particular tower, the speeds are reduced anyways, it’s not like one person will use 60Mbps while the other person gets 5Mbps. Throttling happens naturally when you have lots of people on a tower. The carriers are throttling people needlessly, just because they want to annoy us enough that we give up our plan.

      • Big EZ

        This is the problem. Because of all the regulation you can’t just start a cell business. These companies are monopolies because they pay for it, and to stifle competition with regulation.

      • HarvesterX

        Well disqus won’t let me downvote this so I’ll make a post to do it. Ok, thanks for your insight

  • King of Nynex

    If the FCC actually stands up to the mobile industry for once, I’ll make sure to buy a lottery ticket on that same day.

    • Welfare Joe

      Yes, the more we have government involved in our lives the better. They do such a great job at everything.

      • Justin W

        While your point of sarcasm is accurate, I’d rather see the FCC actually monitor carriers than let the carriers run wild over everything like AT&T and Verizon have been as of late.

        • Jeff C

          We need less FCC intervention, not more. And get rid of regulations that stifle competition.

          • T4rd

            We wouldn’t need any FCC intervention of the carriers were doing the right thing. That’s a significant reason of why the FCC exists; to keep providers in check and keep them from abusing their control. If the FCC didn’t enforce anything, then you could absolutely say goodbye to Net Neutrality.

          • Mikey Styles

            Net Neutrality is being washed away & the FCC has basically handed out the keys throughout this process. N9t to insight an argument but please don’t give them any medals yet.

          • T4rd

            I don’t disagree with you about the FCC and Net Neutrality, but they are at least stalling the process. There’s still a chance they may come through and make it right, albeit slight. With that, I don’t see how you could construe them intervening with the carrier’s throttling implementation as a negative action.

          • Mikey Styles

            No I actually couldn’t agree more with what they are doing & the approach in which they taking. I’m just very hesitant to give them a proverbial “Bone” considering they’re best efforts haven’t amounted to much of recent. Personally my opinion is Big Money & Political clout has negated some of the proactive measures they’ve tried to install.

          • Big EZ

            What they are doing here is great. BUT, it’s only for show, and will not amount to anything.

          • Big EZ

            If we didn’t have the fcc, we would have competition. The competition would keep companies straight, or the next guy who is offering more, and cheaper will put them under. The heavy regulation is what allows these companies to be monopolies.

          • Fattie McDoogles

            The FCC is on your side. They want the carriers to play fair and give you what you have been paying for. Not what Carriers think you should get for your money. Verizon is right that they don’t throttle the same way that other carriers do (T-Mobile, we’re looking at you). However, Verizon shouldn’t be allowed to throttle people for ANY reason unless someones is putting serious strain on the network. Which should actually never happen.

          • d-rock

            Can you elaborate on this or is this just a general statement? For instance, the FCC decided to LIMIT the purchasing power of AT&T and Verizon when it came to spectrum purchase so Tmobile and Sprint had an opportunity. Had it not been for this “regulation”, competition would have been further stifled.

            May the strong survive is a policy that stifle’s competition and lets the one with the most money and influence win.

          • James_75

            Why do they have the most money?

          • d-rock

            Because AT&T + Verizon = corporate conglomerates formed from the richest and most successful wireless companies over the last 20 years…because our government law makers actually back corporate gains much more than they back competition.

          • James_75

            Without customers supporting them they have nothing. Apparently they are doing something right in the eyes of their customers.

          • d-rock

            What? I’m an AT&T customer, ONLY because Tmobile can’t get the same coverage because for the last decade the big two have bought out all the best spectrum, because they had more capital and the fcc bowed to the highest bidder instead of considering competition for consumers. Now big blue and big red (both forming from the baby bell split of the 80s) control the spectrum and market on the U.S. wireless industry, leaving everyone else to invest the same amounts of money into inferior spectrum, thus not getting the same bang for buck.

          • HarvesterX

            Or they hold “monopolies” in certain areas. It’s in quotes because i mean the costs of starting up any competition are artificially inflated too high plus that different carriers agree not to compete in certain areas. For example here you can’t say that we have a choice and to talk with our money when it comes to wireless because there is only one work it solution …VERIZON.

            Same principals applies to the cable networks and where these ISPs seem to be taking the their cues from.

        • Big EZ

          The FCC is what allows them to do this. There is no free market in the mobile industry. It is heavily regulated, and when something is regulated the first thing to be bought and sold are those in control.

          • Syrio35

            Exquisite conservative ignorant BS. Regulators are corruptible so let’s not bother with them. Let the companies merge into a monopoly because there is nothing to stop them and have it’s way with us even more than they already do.
            There is not such thing as a free market but it’s not exclusively because of the regulations.

      • King of Nynex

        This is one of the worst posts that I’ve read on this site, assuming it isn’t a parody of right wing trust in infallible corporate power.

        • CasperTFG

          It’s actually one of the better posts on this site. Besides the Peace Corps what other government program has achieved any amount of measurable success. And don’t confuse crony capitalism (“right wing”) with conservative free market principles taught by our founding fathers. Seems to be a lot of deliberately wrongful association with those on the right with corrupt business practices, something the left wing invented.

          • Syrio35

            Free market is a libertarian fantasy which, at those times when it sorta existed, was so inadequate that a myriad of regulations were adopted to try to deal with those inadequacies.

          • King of Nynex

            What other government program has achieved any amount of measurable success? Well, just off the top of my head:

            1) Creation of the Internet
            2) Space Travel
            3) Public universities
            4) Sewage Treatment
            5) Firefighters
            6) Highways
            7) Law Enforcement
            8) EPA enforcing that oil companies not obliterate our coast lines

            A truly free market results in robber barons who consolidate power into a select few. You need the government, who stands for its citizens, to ensure that corporations play by the rules. The problem is that politicians routinely select former corporate bosses to oversee regulatory agencies. This is why Net Neutrality is in jeopardy.

      • http://twitter.com/JohnnyACE562 GRAND MASTER SEN$Ei {{-_-}}™

        Lack of government involvement is how we got in this mess in the first place. {{-_-}}

    • T4rd

      The carriers must be negligent on their payments to the FCC. =p

    • tomn1ce

      Yeah right VZW will have this update out the door first. Just to prevent anyone else from unlocking the bootloader.

    • sski66

      Me too! WOW, can they really be doing there job & looking out 4 us?!

  • Fahad Beg

    hey they FCC is finally doing something productive.

    • Rosco

      Carriers should end all “unlimited” plans and put everyone on a pay per
      usage basis ($X/ GB). If someone wants to use 500 GB a month, great.
      Why should the low use customer pay for the losers who don’t have jobs
      and watch movies on their phone all day.

      • Shaunwin

        Have you lost your mind!

        • duke69111

          It likely either sarcasm or he/she is paying per GB already and just unhappy.

          • Big EZ

            Yep, someone is jealous.

      • Cael

        How about we honor what was paid for. You pay $30 for 2GB a month as in your contract or whatever. I’ll pay my $29.99 for unlimited as was in mine. Everyone wins.

      • mcdonsco

        You’re a moron! I use 20+GB/month regularly and it is 100% BUSINESS USE.

      • HarvesterX

        How do you suppose that US on unlimited pay our phone bills each month and never make a late payment so we can remain on our unlimited plans then if we can’t watch porn all day? Man…lol…

  • Ryan Gullett

    Do we actually have hope that the FCC can actually stop carrier throttling? Or is this wishful thinking.

    • Cael

      I do. They got FoxFi unblocked from the play store on Verizon. lol

  • KleenDroid

    Amazing