After Backlash, Verizon Will Give Rural Data Users A Bit More Time To Get The Hell Off Its Network

from the limited-unlimited dept

When last we checked in with Verizon Wireless, it was taking heat for kicking at least 8,500 wireless customers off of its network without much warning. The short version: Verizon created a program aimed at shoring up connectivity to rural areas, but after hyping the program and promising rural users access to unlimited data, Verizon realized the roaming costs were higher than initially projected, resulting in them quickly pulling the plug. In a notice to customers Verizon justifies the purging of these mostly-rural users by insisting they're using a "substantial" amount of data:

"During a recent review of customer accounts, we discovered you are using a significant amount of data while roaming off the Verizon Wireless network. While we appreciate you choosing Verizon, after October 17, 2017, we will no longer offer service for the numbers listed above since your primary place of use is outside the Verizon service area."

There's several problems here. One, Verizon's apparent inability to understand what "unlimited" means is a decade and numerous lawsuits old, yet clearly the company hasn't learned much. Two, nowhere is the company telling these users what a "substantial" amount of data is, leaving them uncertain as to what they were supposed to do. And three, many of these impacted customers say their usage is absolutely nowhere near excessive, and in some instances amounted to little more than a few gigabytes per month:

"My family has three lines, and we had a 6GB plan," Dedmon, who lives in Machiasport, told Ars. "We frequently either bumped it or had to purchase 1GB extra for $15." Dedmon provided us with screenshots of her data usage that back this up.

The Dedmon family's data use shows they were going through about 2GB or a little more per person each month. But the disconnection notice from Verizon told Dedmon that her family was "using a significant amount of data while roaming off the Verizon Wireless network."

So Verizon apparently thought it was a good idea to sell limited "unlimited" plans, then kick many of these users off the network for bogus reasons. But problems began to emerge when Verizon simply refused to state how much usage was too much. Additional problems surfaced when law enforcement officials began to state that the sudden disconnections have impacted them too, reducing their ability to protect the public. Facing the added backlash from law enforcement, Verizon was forced to issue a statement saying they'd be giving many of these users an additional few months to get the hell out of dodge:

"We recently notified approximately 8,500 Verizon customers that we would no longer offer service to them because our costs when they roam on other wireless networks exceeds the amount they pay us every month. Since that notification, we have become aware of a very small number of affected customers who may be using their personal phones in their roles as first responders and another small group who may not have another option for wireless service.

After listening to these folks, we are committed to resolving these issues in the best interest of the customers and their communities. We’re committed to ensuring first responders in these areas keep their Verizon service.

If you’ve received a letter in the past two weeks, we’re giving you more time to switch providers - you now have until December 1, 2017. If there is no alternative provider in your area, you can switch to the S (2 GB), M (4 GB), 5 GB single line or L (8 GB) Verizon plan but you must do so by December 1.

While that's nice of Verizon and all, nothing in Verizon's statement explains why it's falsely claiming that many of these users were consuming excessive data when they weren't. The statement itself also goes well out of its way to downplay a problem that's impacting around 20,000 lines belonging to around 8,500 users -- so far. Again, if companies don't want customers "abusing" unlimited data plans, there's quite a simple solution: stop using the word unlimited. And again, Verizon's been facing lawsuits and investigations for its inability to use the dictionary correctly for more than a decade.

But there's another problem bubbling just under the surface of this mess. Verizon has spent years justifying its failure to upgrade its fixed-line networks (in many instances after getting numerous tax breaks or subsidies to do so) by claiming wireless broadband was going to be "good enough" for these users. And in the wake of natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy, Verizon simply refused to repair destroyed fixed-line infrastructure, insisting that wireless was "good enough." Yet here we are, and it's abundantly clear that good enough -- simply isn't.

Filed Under: competition, fcc, unlimited, verizon wireless
Companies: verizon

DOJ Insists That There Is No Proof Verizon Wireless Shared Phone Data With NSA

from the look-over-there! dept

Oh boy. Last month, as you may recall, the DC circuit appeals court struck down a lower court ruling that found the NSA's phone records collection program (under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act) unconstitutional. The ruling was based on something of a technicality. The Snowden documents revealed that Verizon Business Services was participating in the program and sharing its phone records, but the plaintiff in the case, Larry Klayman, was a customer of Verizon Wireless, which is not the same entity. Thus, the court decided, Klayman had no standing since he could not prove that Verizon Wireless had participated in the program and handed his phone records over to the NSA. Of course, as many pointed out at the time, while it was true when the case was filed that it was only known that Verizon Business Services participated in the program, since then it's become clear that (as everyone suspected anyway) that Verizon Wireless participated as well.

This detail actually came out just a few weeks before the DC circuit ruling, in a NY Times story based on documents it obtained via a FOIA request and lawsuit. The article was officially about US officials using the phone records program to target Iran, but as Marcy Wheeler pointed out at the time, that fact wasn't really new or surprising. The really new thing, buried in the documents, was that Verizon Wireless participated in the phone records program. You see, as part of that data dump (which was forced upon the government by the FOIA lawsuit), there's a letter sent to Judge John Bates on the FISA Court, telling him about "a compliance incident." And in that letter, it's made clear that the program includes Verizon Wireless among others: So, this should be helpful, right? Well, not according to the DOJ. In a filing in another lawsuit, filed by Anna Smith in the 9th Circuit, the DOJ is insisting that what you see in that FOIA release is not proof at all and barely worth discussing. The DOJ's tap dancing is fairly impressive:

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is improper. Whether Verizon Wireless has participated in the Section 215 bulk telephony-metadata program is not “an adjudicative fact,” within the meaning of the rule plaintiffs invoke.... An adjudicative fact is one that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned,” id., such as when the document was filed.... It is not appropriate to take judicial notice of disputed factual matters.

Huh. So is the DOJ really asserting that a document the government itself released that says Verizon Wireless was a part of the program is a disputed fact? Yes. Yes, it is.

Plaintiff asserts... that the document she relies on was released by the government in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. But plaintiff does not contend that this document was declassified, and in fact the government has not confirmed the authenticity of the document plaintiff has produced or of any facts plaintiff purports to infer from it. The identities of the providers who have participated in the Section 215 bulk-telephony metadata program, apart from the fact that Verizon Business Network Services (VBNS) participated for a time in 2013, remain classified.... The extent to which any other carrier has participated in a government intelligence-gathering program could not be deduced merely from the caption of any purported legal filing, especially one that does not specify the scope of a proceeding, or state explicitly the nature of the carrier’s involvement in a particular matter being addressed.

Wow. So the government released this document (following a FOIA lawsuit) and now the government claims that the fact that Verizon Wireless is listed in there is still a classified bit of information, and no one (mainly the court) should read anything more into it. As the ACLU told Politico in response to this:

"The secrecy here is entirely a fiction. The purpose of it is to insulate the government's surveillance activities from judicial review," the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer said. "We now live in a kind of bizarre world where their position is that [the letter disclosed to the Times] doesn't count and that the term 'official disclosure' is drawn so narrowly that it is excludes their own affirmative disclosure on their own letterhead. ... It’s a fiction that bears no relation to reality and, at a certain point, I think -- I hope -- courts aren't going to entertain that fiction anymore."

We shall see.

Filed Under: doj, mass surveillance, nsa, patriot act, section 215, surveillance, verizon business services, verizon wireless
Companies: verizon