Verizon Internet throttling

Grantapus

Member
Hello. I recently got the Verizon "Beyond Unlimited" plan, however Verizon says they will throttle video even though I'm paying over 90 bucks a month for "Unlimited" data. So I was wondering If I use a VPN, (IP Vanish) will it stop the throttling because It does not know what I'm using the data for? Would this work for hotspot throttling too?
 

Intel_man

VIP Member
With Beyond Unlimited, you get a 15 GB allowance of data at 4G LTE speeds for Mobile Hotspot each bill cycle. Once you've used the 15 GB of 4G LTE data, your Mobile Hotspot data speed will be reduced to up to 600 Kbps speeds for the rest of the bill cycle. Non-Mobile Hotspot data will continue to be unlimited at 4G LTE speeds until 22 GB, while your Mobile Hotspot is reduced to up to 600 Kbps.

You can purchase a Data Boost on a line to get 5 GB more of 4G LTE speeds for Mobile Hotspot to use until the end of your bill cycle. Limit 20 Data Boosts per line per bill cycle. Visit our Data Boost FAQs to learn more.

Note: A Data Boost will not extend your 4G LTE speeds on non-Mobile Hotspot data use once you've used 22 GB a month. Once you've used 22 GB of data on a line, in times of congestion your data may be slower than other traffic.
Once your line exceeds 22 GB during your bill cycle, most of the time you'll continue to enjoy the same great network experience.

If you've already used 22 GB on a particular line during your current bill cycle and are on a cell site that's congested at that moment, your download may be temporarily queued behind other Verizon customers. This may result in slower download speeds relative to another Verizon customer's experience on the same cell site at that moment.

Purchasing a Data Boost will not prevent your data from being temporarily slower in times of congestion.
Using a VPN will not circumvent the data allowance before throttling.
 

beers

Moderator
Staff member
I think that's kind of like a milkshake situation.

If your VPN can compress the data (more watery/melted) you can ingest more milkshake data. Otherwise your straw's been crushed by Verizon so all data through it would be more thick and slow.

I agree with a queuing policy to facilitate better service for more people, but I disagree with Verizon undersizing the backhaul to the cell tower and not having enough bandwidth for busy areas. Airspace bandwidth is a toss up between the two.
 

OmniDyne

Active Member
but I disagree with Verizon undersizing the backhaul to the cell tower and not having enough bandwidth for busy areas.
I'm not trying to defend Verizon (a corporation that gets government subsidies and avoids massive amounts of taxes) but I personally think the bandwidth issue isn't Verizon's fault, or really any providers fault. I think the problem is urban sprawl. It's hugely expensive to lay infrastructure and provide adequate service to users because the maintenance required is serious. Permits, bureaucracy involved with local, state, and federal governments, labor, training employees, line repairs (I'm sure everyone is aware how expensive fiber is) compacted by endless amounts of cookie cutter houses being thrown up at a fierce pace; it's incredibly difficult to keep up with expansion. We should be building up, not out.

I feel this is partially evidenced by Germany; they (providers) don't give a rats ass about smaller towns. I visited a group of friends out there and smaller towns enjoy 10Mbps speeds that were also capped. That's it. 1.25MB/s at the same prices Americans pay for 65Mbps+. Expansion is heavily regulated as is infrastructure and they aren't worried about providing superior infrastructure to rural customers because it's damn expensive and a pain in the ass.

Google is also pulling out on laying its fiber infrastructure and I don't blame them. The majority of bandwidth is used for Netflix and Youtube (I do love me some Netflix) but it isn't essential usage. Who needs to eat up 400GB+ a month of streaming services?
 
Last edited:

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
Google is also pulling out on laying its fiber infrastructure and I don't blame them. The majority of bandwidth is used for Netflix and Youtube (I do love me some Netflix) but it isn't essential usage. Who needs to eat up 400GB+ a month of streaming services?
Who cares what I'm doing with my data? If I pay for it, then that's none of their business if I'm doing advanced bandwidth heavy calculations that will treat cancer or if I'm streaming Friends for the 9th time thru in the past year.

All this would be solved if it was treated as a basic utility and done by local government and not a for profit company.
 

OmniDyne

Active Member
All this would be solved if it was treated as a basic utility and done by local government and not a for profit company.
I disagree. Germany, and just about any other European country, uses a mixture of private sector and government solutions for infrastructure, including electrical infrastructure. You can't just leave it up to local governments and the private sector will always enjoy certain advantages that governments don't, especially as local governments continue to struggle for funding.

If you knew how much it costs a water utility company to run just 100 feet of PVC drinking water infrastructure, you'd understand.
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
I disagree. Germany, and just about any other European country, uses a mixture of private sector and government solutions for infrastructure, including electrical infrastructure. You can't just leave it up to local governments and the private sector will always enjoy certain advantages that governments don't, especially as local governments continue to struggle for funding.
I think it stems more from a fundamental change in how people perceive internet access and treating it as a requirement and not a luxury. Not saying it would be an easy switch overnight but moving forward it needs to be treated and viewed differently by both providers and end users.
 

Intel_man

VIP Member
Who cares what I'm doing with my data? If I pay for it, then that's none of their business if I'm doing advanced bandwidth heavy calculations that will treat cancer or if I'm streaming Friends for the 9th time thru in the past year.
2014 called. They want their net neutrality back.
 

Intel_man

VIP Member
There's been a "big push" ever since Ajit Pai took it down. California passed a law about it... but it's being challenged.
 

OmniDyne

Active Member
I think it stems more from a fundamental change in how people perceive internet access and treating it as a requirement and not a luxury. Not saying it would be an easy switch overnight but moving forward it needs to be treated and viewed differently by both providers and end users.
Sure, the US needs serious reform when it comes to internet, but again, local governments will never be able to afford the laying and maintenance of the infrastructure, and making it a "requirement" isn't the best idea. Water isn't a requirement. It's a utility provided by either local, state, not-for-profit, or for profit entities, and its use is regulated heavily (in some areas), but if you don't pay your bill, you don't get water. The companies aren't forced by law to provide you with water. You still have to pay a tap fee (several thousand dollars) to acquire service and then pay monthly to maintain it.

It may seem silly, but there are serious disadvantages to labeling internet as a "basic utility".

Again, infrastructure is expensive. I mean super expensive. It's understated. It isn't as simple as throwing lines on poles or digging a trench and throwing pipe in.
 

Darren

Moderator
Staff member
Sure, the US needs serious reform when it comes to internet, but again, local governments will never be able to afford the laying and maintenance of the infrastructure, and making it a "requirement" isn't the best idea. Water isn't a requirement. It's a utility provided by either local, state, not-for-profit, or for profit entities, and its use is regulated heavily (in some areas), but if you don't pay your bill, you don't get water. The companies aren't forced by law to provide you with water. You still have to pay a tap fee (several thousand dollars) to acquire service and then pay monthly to maintain it.

It may seem silly, but there are serious disadvantages to labeling internet as a "basic utility".

Again, infrastructure is expensive. I mean super expensive. It's understated. It isn't as simple as throwing lines on poles or digging a trench and throwing pipe in.
Don't get me wrong I'm fairly ignorant on the whole subject (you clearly have done your homework) but I feel like a fundamental shift in how it's treated and regulated is definitely in order. It's too crucial to modern society to let it be run amok by the rich and powerful. I don't think we're disagreeing there.

My usage of the word requirement is probably a poor choice on my part. I'd put it more akin to water or HVAC services. It's viewed as a luxury more akin to having premium HD channels or something. Difference from that kind of service is that you don't pay bills, buy goods, communicate personally and professionally, with it. Surviving in modern society is greatly enhanced in nearly every way by having internet access.
 

OmniDyne

Active Member
you clearly have done your homework
Honestly, it's experience. When (or if) you build (or own) a house, you'll understand. Every utility requires a fee to start new service. Water and sewer are typically together and aren't cheap. Where I live the water tap is $2000 and sewer is about the same in addition to the grinder pump and tie-in on the 3" main (installation and maintenance is on the home owner/ builder and typically runs between $4000 to $8000). New power connections out here cost well over $1,000.

But it gets super expensive when service isn't available in your area and you'd like it run anyways. A water system in Texas wanted to charge a family member $4,000 for a tap because he was just short of the water main. So they were attempting to charge him a percentage of the total cost it would take to run the added main in addition to the tap. I work for the water system out here and it's a not-for-profit organization. It cost the company $86,000 to run a water main down a road that isn't particularly long but they had to bore quite a bit of it underground due to concrete driveways and underground power cabling. We were told if we hit and damaged an AT&T fiber line, we'd be fired without question. The power company out here broke an AT&T fiber line and were billed $20,000.

Anyways, I think it's important to remember the events in Flint, Michigan. Just because the services are provided by a public utility doesn't mean the quality is superior. Realistically, public service is subject to far more bureaucracy and political whim, especially when budget cuts are involved.
 
Top