# The "piece of trash" corporate citizen awards **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 22, 2018, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020 "2018-08-22T03:36:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/1 "2018-08-22T03:36:17Z")
I hereby nominate Verizon for the 2018 Piece of Trash corporation of the year. They throttled the internet connection of the Santa Clara County Fire Dept. **during an active fire.** > [@](#): > > Verizon Wireless’ throttling of a fire department that uses its data services has been submitted as evidence in a lawsuit that seeks to reinstate federal net neutrality rules. > > “County Fire has experienced throttling by its ISP, Verizon,” Santa Clara County Fire Chief Anthony Bowden wrote in a declaration. “This throttling has had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services. Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire’s ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services.” > **[Verizon throttled fire department’s “unlimited” data during Calif. wildfire](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttled-fire-departments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/)** > > Fire dep't had to pay twice as much to lift throttling during wildfire response. This is a stunning example of “we’ll do something just because we can, and morality be dammed” type of thinking that some people seem to delight in. And, of course, now that they’ve been caught, the backpedaling has begun. ---
**Author:** ![dorvann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df705f/32.png) [@dorvann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorvann)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/2 "2018-08-22T04:17:30Z")
Another top contender has to be MGM Resorts International for attempting to sue the victims of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting at the Route 91 Harvest music festival. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/3 "2018-08-22T05:58:15Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > I hereby nominate Verizon for the 2018 Piece of Trash corporation of the year. They throttled the internet connection of the Santa Clara County Fire Dept. **during an active fire.** > [Verizon throttled fire department’s “unlimited” data during Calif. wildfire | Ars Technica](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttled-fire-departments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/) > > This is a stunning example of “we’ll do something just because we can, and morality be dammed” type of thinking that some people seem to delight in. And, of course, now that they’ve been caught, the backpedaling has begun. You’ve heard of the banality of evil, and I suspect this is another example. There was probably some ill-thought-out policy which some mid-level functionary stuck to in spite of obvious reasons not to, until the shit hit the fan publicly. So it is about greed, but the greed represented by a company being unwilling to invest anything in developing common sense instead of blind obedience in its staff. This is all my assumption, of course, based on the years I spent in the corporate world. It might be something completely different. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/4 "2018-08-22T06:29:50Z")
Bad behavior by Verizon, but the article implies that this is a net neutrality issue - it’s not. Verizon were not selectively throttling certain content. It appears that Verizon sold a customer a data package with the misleading description “unlimited”, without clearly disclosing that the package involved severe throttling if they exceeded some monthly limit. Clearly not a suitable package for a fire department. And then Verizon didn’t do the right thing promptly in an emergency when the data cap became apparent. But net neutrality is not about all customers getting the same speeds and data caps. We can choose to pay for whatever suits. Net neutrality is about neutrality toward _content_ - that we can download anything we like at the speed we have paid for. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/5 "2018-08-22T18:01:10Z")
> [@dorvann](#): > > Another top contender has to be MGM Resorts International for attempting to sue the victims of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting at the Route 91 Harvest music festival. Before you emotionally bring this up, you need to read a bit more about the legal issues behind this. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/6 "2018-08-22T18:10:02Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Bad behavior by Verizon, but the article implies that this is a net neutrality issue - it’s not. Verizon were not selectively throttling certain content. > > It appears that Verizon sold a customer a data package with the misleading description “unlimited”, without clearly disclosing that the package involved severe throttling if they exceeded some monthly limit. Clearly not a suitable package for a fire department. And then Verizon didn’t do the right thing promptly in an emergency when the data cap became apparent. > > But net neutrality is not about all customers getting the same speeds and data caps. We can choose to pay for whatever suits. Net neutrality is about neutrality toward _content_ - that we can download anything we like at the speed we have paid for. This is correct. An update to that story says “The Santa Clara fire department has responded to Verizon’s claim that the throttling was just a customer service error and “has nothing to do with net neutrality.” To the contrary, “Verizon’s throttling has everything to do with net neutrality,” a county official said” That county official is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/7 "2018-08-22T18:20:46Z")
I suppose the only tangential way that the Verizon story could be construed as relevant to net neutrality is as evidence of a general principle that an ISP is unscrupulous and can’t be trusted to behave well. But I think that’s a poor approach to free market capitalism. In general, we should set up regulations on the basis that nothing really depends on market participants being “good” in some way, but that the regulatory environment is sufficient to enforce a desirable result for society provided market participants simply follow the law while pursuing profit. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/8 "2018-08-22T18:32:49Z")
Frankly, I think someone managing the Santa Clara County network screwed up by choosing such a package. “Yada, yada unlimited. Great.” Dude, when dealing with life and death stuff, you should maybe read the fine print. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/9 "2018-08-22T18:34:38Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > I suppose the only tangential way that the Verizon story could be construed as relevant to net neutrality is as evidence of a general principle that an ISP is unscrupulous and can’t be trusted to behave well. But I think that’s a poor approach to free market capitalism. In general, we should set up regulations on the basis that nothing really depends on market participants being “good” in some way, but that the regulatory environment is sufficient to enforce a desirable result for society provided market participants simply follow the law while pursuing profit. I agree. That’s why it was strange to find people thinking that the end of net neutrality would be good for consumers, when the ISPs were all for it. The ISPs weren’t for it to HELP their customers. They were for it to CHARGE their customers more money. Seemed plain as day to me. ---
**Author:** ![Shoeless](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shoeless/32/7099_2.png) [@Shoeless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shoeless)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/10 "2018-08-22T21:04:45Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Frankly, I think someone managing the Santa Clara County network screwed up by choosing such a package. “Yada, yada unlimited. Great.” Dude, when dealing with life and death stuff, you should maybe read the fine print. This. Verizon has like three or four different levels of “unlimited” data now. I can imagine someone in purchasing thinking “Why should I pay more for unlimited when I can get unlimited for half of that?” ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/11 "2018-08-22T21:16:36Z")
If I were a Verizon bigwig, and I heard that the firefighters needed more data bandwidth, rather than hold out for a $2 upgrade, I’d give them a free data account just for the goodwill it would generate. Think of the positive publicity! Since they didn’t do that, I’d say a “piece of trash” award is entirely appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/12 "2018-08-22T21:50:13Z")
No, the Verizon throttling first responders thing is a net neutrality issue. This article from a year ago explains - > **[AT&T Lies Again, Insists Net Neutrality Rules Will Hurt First Responders](https://www.techdirt.com/2017/08/09/att-lies-again-insists-net-neutrality-rules-will-hurt-first-responders/)** > > So one of AT&T, Comcast and Verizon’s favorite bogus claims about net neutrality rules is that such consumer protections will somehow prevent the sick or disabled from getting the essent… When the ISPs were arguing that net neutrality - hereafter NN - is harmful, they claimed that the NN rules established by the FCC actually made it more likely that emergency calls would be slowed down because, they claimed, that the emergency calls would be in the same pool as everyone else. That article quotes an AT&T VP as saying that the repeal of NN would allow for emergency calls to have priority, unlike in the days of NN. This was a straight up lie on the part of the ISPs. You can read the rules regarding emergency calls in the original documents that established NN. Here’s the link - the emergency calls section starts on page 131. > **[FCC-15-24A1.pdf](https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-15-24A1.pdf)** > [@Open Internet Rules that established NN](#): > > In the 2010 Open Internet Order we adopted a rule that acknowledges the ability of broadband providers to serve the needs of law enforcement and the needs of emergency communications and public safety, national, and homeland security authorities. This rule remains in effect today. > > To make clear that open Internet protections coexist with other legal frameworks governing the needs of safety and security authorities, we retain this rule, which reads as follows: > > [RIGHT]_Nothing in this part supersedes any obligation or authorization a provider of broadband Internet access service may have to address the needs of emergency communications or law enforcement, public safety, or national security authorities, consistent with or as permitted by applicable law, or limits the provider’s ability to do so._[/RIGHT] > > 1. In retaining this rule, we reiterate that the purpose of the safety and security provision is first to ensure that open Internet rules do not restrict broadband providers in addressing the needs of law enforcement authorities, and second to ensure that broadband providers do not use the safety and security provision without the imprimatur of a law enforcement authority, as a loophole to the rules. > > Application of the safety and security rule should be tied to invocation by relevant authorities rather than to a broadband provider’s independent notion of the needs of law enforcement. Italics in the original. So because the ISPs lied in claiming that the NN rules prevented them from establishing priority emergency services, and also lied in claiming that they would be establishing priority services once NN is gone, Verizon’s recent throttling of the emergency responders is now an issue in the lawsuit brought by a bunch of Attorneys General asking that NN be restored. It remains to be seen how that suit will fare - it’s at the appeal stage - but ISP throttling of emergency services has always been a concern in the NN debate. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/13 "2018-08-22T22:14:15Z")
> [@Shoeless](#): > > This. Verizon has like three or four different levels of “unlimited” data now. I can imagine someone in purchasing thinking “Why should I pay more for unlimited when I can get unlimited for half of that?” Or maybe Verizon and other companies should stop using deceptive marketing practices. “Unlimited” shouldn’t be subject to four levels of definition, and I think we already know how the “fine print” and terms of service are purposely made long and complicated to ensure people won’t read them. Sorry, but caveat emptor has its limits. In my view, these tactics are commonplace in the modern era only because they can get away with it. If we allowed the regulating agencies to use their teeth instead of caving in to business pressure, this nonsense might happen less. ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2018, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/14 "2018-08-22T22:38:56Z")
I don’t see anything deceptive here unless maybe you expected the sales rep to read the entire contract aloud to whoever signed up for it. If anything I would expect the salesperson to push the higher dollar package while pointing out the bandwidth would be throttled once they exceeded the limit. While Verizon doesn’t have anyone even related to Mother Theresa on their board, they’re not the ones at fault here. Aside from not removing the bandwidth restriction once they were advised it was for emergency services and I still want to hear that conversation before I make a final decision on that. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/15 "2018-08-23T02:27:22Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Frankly, I think someone managing the Santa Clara County network screwed up by choosing such a package. “Yada, yada unlimited. Great.” Dude, when dealing with life and death stuff, you should maybe read the fine print. Are you under the impression that governments are made of money? I don’t know about you, but I expect government employees to try to avoid spending more of the taxpayers’ money than is actually necessary. In a situation like this, confronted with confusing or misleading marketing claims, I think that the original decision was a reasonable one. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/16 "2018-08-23T13:22:41Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > No, the Verizon throttling first responders thing is a net neutrality issue. This article from a year ago explains - > > [AT&T Lies Again, Insists Net Neutrality Rules Will Hurt First Responders | Techdirt](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170808/08262937955/att-lies-again-insists-net-neutrality-rules-will-hurt-first-responders.shtml) > When the ISPs were arguing that net neutrality - hereafter NN - is harmful, they claimed that the NN rules established by the FCC actually made it more likely that emergency calls would be slowed down because, they claimed, that the emergency calls would be in the same pool as everyone else. That article quotes an AT&T VP as saying that the repeal of NN would allow for emergency calls to have priority, unlike in the days of NN. > > This was a straight up lie on the part of the ISPs. You can read the rules regarding emergency calls in the original documents that established NN. Here’s the link - the emergency calls section starts on page 131. > > [https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs\_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf) > > Italics in the original. > > So because the ISPs lied in claiming that the NN rules prevented them from establishing priority emergency services, and also lied in claiming that they would be establishing priority services once NN is gone, Verizon’s recent throttling of the emergency responders is now an issue in the lawsuit brought by a bunch of Attorneys General asking that NN be restored. > > It remains to be seen how that suit will fare - it’s at the appeal stage - but ISP throttling of emergency services has always been a concern in the NN debate. Sorry, but you are incorrect. If the ISP said “Yes, there was a slow-down of your Internet service because we are not able to prioritize emergency traffic due to NN rules”, then you would be correct. The ISP throttled their connection based on usage, not on content. It had nothing to do with any other content or user of the ISP at that time. Something that could be done with NN, and something that could be done without NN. It is NOT a NN issue. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/17 "2018-08-23T13:27:35Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > **Are you under the impression that governments are made of money?** > > I don’t know about you, but I expect government employees to try to avoid spending more of the taxpayers’ money than is actually necessary. In a situation like this, confronted with confusing or misleading marketing claims, I think that the original decision was a reasonable one. Certainly not. I’ve been working for county government for 26 years. My Wife nearly 30. Some things are worth looking into though. And I stand by my opinion that whomever picked that plan dropped the ball (or didn’t fight enough for a better plan, not enough research etc.) ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/18 "2018-08-23T14:26:49Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Are you under the impression that governments are made of money? > > I don’t know about you, but I expect government employees to try to avoid spending more of the taxpayers’ money than is actually necessary. In a situation like this, confronted with confusing or misleading marketing claims, I think that the original decision was a reasonable one. Certainly not. I expect all employees to make the best decisions they can regarding spending employer’s money. I also expect them to do their due diligence and research what they’re proposing to spend money on. “Give me the cheapest [whatever] I can get.” is not due diligence. ---
**Author:** ![slumtrimpet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@slumtrimpet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slumtrimpet)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/19 "2018-08-23T17:04:59Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Sorry, but you are incorrect. If the ISP said “Yes, there was a slow-down of your Internet service because we are not able to prioritize emergency traffic due to NN rules”, then you would be correct. > > The ISP throttled their connection based on usage, not on content. It had nothing to do with any other content or user of the ISP at that time. Something that could be done with NN, and something that could be done without NN. It is NOT a NN issue. This [Arstechnica.com](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttled-fire-departments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/) piece explains a bit better how the NN changes did affect this particular instance. For one thing: > [@](#): > > Even if Verizon’s throttling didn’t technically violate the no-throttling rule, Santa Clara could have complained to the FCC under the now-removed net neutrality system, which allowed Internet users to file complaints about any unjust or unreasonable prices and practices. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s decision to deregulate the broadband industry eliminated that complaint option and also limited consumers’ rights to sue Internet providers over unjust or unreasonable behavior. also > [@](#): > > Verizon’s throttling was described in fire department emails beginning June 29 of this year, just weeks after the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality rules took effect. > > Even when net neutrality rules were in place, all major carriers imposed some form of throttling on unlimited plans when customers used more than a certain amount of data. They argued that it was allowed under the rules’ exception for “reasonable network management.” But while such throttling is generally applied only during times of network congestion, the Santa Clara Fire Department says it was throttled at all times once the device in question went over a 25GB monthly threshold. So yeah, Verizon did say “Yes, there was a slow-down of your Internet service because we are not able to prioritize emergency traffic due to NN rules” kinda. They said, “because of the repeal of NN rules we can throttle you anytime you go over your plan (that we sold you without telling you the details) and we don’t have to give a shit if it’s because of excessive traffic or if you’re emergency services. Sucks to be you. Pay us more money.” ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2018, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020/20 "2018-08-23T17:11:40Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Frankly, I think someone managing the Santa Clara County network screwed up by choosing such a package. “Yada, yada unlimited. Great.” Dude, when dealing with life and death stuff, you should maybe read the fine print. While I agree with this, I also agree with Verizon’s own admission that under the circumstances the emergency should have been prioritized regardless of the plan in place. Both sides dropped the ball. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-piece-of-trash-corporate-citizen-awards/820020.md?page=2)