Quote:
|
The "Net neutrality rules and throttling" section of the second link discusses the connection of net neutrality to throttling plans. They allowed throttling only for "reasonable network management", and a commissioner interested in enforcing that rule (ie, not Ajit Pai) probably would not have accepted "because they hit a monthly limit" as a "reasonable network management" reason to allow the exception, in the absence of actual network congestion. So, while the story is mostly tangential to network neutrality, that aspect is directly connected.
|
No it isn't. It's bullshit. Ars Technica has to go back to 2014 and a commissioner who argued against throttling for
people with unlimited data plans.
Unlimited, which the fire folks did not have...
Unlimited, a program that Verizon stopped offering at the time. Maybe because they couldn't do it without throttling. It's arguable that they should not throttle people with unlimited. Arguable that there should be a rule about that. But it has no bearing on this story.
And now, in 2018, they offer it without throttling.
Even after the end of net neutrality rules.
The Santa Clara folks should look into Unlimited, because it's only a little more expensive --
they used 25GB in a month so they are "power users" -- and it would be a HELL of a lot cheaper than hiring LAWYERS.
In fact, wouldn't one single hour of one single lawyer pay for the entire difference to upgrade for several years? Ah, but if they did that, then the Santa Clara officials haven't fought the FCC, and can't make a case for re-election.