Verizon is the one who made estimates and set their data speeds based on those estimates. The consumer entered into their agreements with Verizon on the assumption that they would be able to fully utilize their device. The abnormal consumers are those who constantly stream pandora, netflix, and youtube all day on their phones, and probably a lot of other stuff that I don't even know how to do. (I stream a lot on my phone, and I use maybe 1/3 of my "allotted usage" under my "unlimited plan" with AT&T.

Verizon is treating these consumers in a discriminatory manner as compared to other customers who maybe even pay less or use their service less. If anything, the abnormal consumers are in the bracket of their customer base who pay the most for the service, and that is who Verizon should be most loyal too.

And I understand your argument about investment in infrastructure, but I think its unclear whether investing in infrastructure, or throttling these customers' data speeds will result in more loss. These customers need the data speed to handle whatever it is they are doing on their phones. So, assuming that customers won't leave as a result of Verizon doing this to them, then yes, investing in infrastructure is certain to cost more than throttling data speeds. But, if some of these customers leave, which is highly likely after they are informed of what's going on, Verizon might in the long run suffer more loss than they would have had they invested more in their infrastructure.

-- AustinKlar - 22 Sep 2011