Verizon, caught red-handed(buzzmachine.com)
buzzmachine.com
Verizon, caught red-handed
http://buzzmachine.com/2013/09/17/verizon-caught-red-handed/
14 comments
From the article:
Some also caution that on the Verizon network, my
Nexus 7 will connect only if LTE is available; it
will not be able to fail down to slower speeds
as it could on other networks. True; that is how
my Chromebook Pixel works and I am willing to live
with the limitation for the price.I don't understand your point of quoting the article. Does it not hash with what I said above?
I don't think it's a rehash. Your original comment makes it seem as though Jarvis was expecting LTE plus CDMA fallback, but the quoted portion from his post says he understands there is no fallback and that he only wants LTE.
Yes, but that still leaves the issue of why Verizon would issue you a Nexus 7 SIM while denying officially they can do so, multiple times:
"We apologize for any inconvenience; however, it can not be activated." - https://twitter.com/VZWSupport/statuses/380081363166048256
"I'm excited you got your Nexus 7 but not all LTE tablets are created equal. It's not part of our line up & can't be activated" - https://twitter.com/VZWSupport/statuses/379946773730443264
"This is not yet a device that is Verizon 4G LTE certified. We’ll let folks know when it's certified." - [Edited and corrected the URL] http://www.androidcentral.com/verizon-responds-inqury-about-...
Yes, but that still leaves the issue of why Verizon would issue you a Nexus 7 SIM while denying officially they can do so, multiple times:
"We apologize for any inconvenience; however, it can not be activated." - https://twitter.com/VZWSupport/statuses/380081363166048256
"I'm excited you got your Nexus 7 but not all LTE tablets are created equal. It's not part of our line up & can't be activated" - https://twitter.com/VZWSupport/statuses/379946773730443264
"This is not yet a device that is Verizon 4G LTE certified. We’ll let folks know when it's certified." - [Edited and corrected the URL] http://www.androidcentral.com/verizon-responds-inqury-about-...
[deleted]
There are a lot of pretty unpleasant things that Verizon are doing that one could make a compelling argument for being violations of the upper C-block agreement. But, this really isn't one of them.
For instance, selling phones with features stripped from them (bootloader unlock capabilities on HTC One, for instance), is really not brilliant, and may well be a violation of the intent of the terms, if not the letter. The same might be the case for stripping tethering services from devices. (They certainly did get nailed once for asking Google to block a tethering app on their behalf; I think they caved before the FCC intervened. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; the details on that one are hazy in my head.)
But, there's nothing that says they have to sell you service (or sell you a SIM card). If you have one, you can attach it... but there's nothing that says they have to give you one for that purpose.
The "protection of the licensee's network" clause is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, by the way. They can set up as onerous of a certification process as they (reasonably) want, and indeed, they have in the past -- the intent of the regulation is just that they have to apply it fairly. The reason why these rules are there are that cell networks are incredibly fragile, and very sensitive to antenna calibration; especially on CDMA networks, the near-far problem[1] can be pretty lethal to service for everyone on the tower if just one device is miscalibrated. It wouldn't at all surprise me if they had similar extensive calibration requirements for their LTE network, and they'd be well within their rights to do that sort of thing.
I'm as much of an unhappy Verizon customer as the next fellow, but whining that you can't just go transmit on their frequencies with devices that they haven't tested is not really conducive to the cause of folks who would say that Verizon's upper C-block management is behaving in a fashion that limits customer freedom.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-far_problem
For instance, selling phones with features stripped from them (bootloader unlock capabilities on HTC One, for instance), is really not brilliant, and may well be a violation of the intent of the terms, if not the letter. The same might be the case for stripping tethering services from devices. (They certainly did get nailed once for asking Google to block a tethering app on their behalf; I think they caved before the FCC intervened. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; the details on that one are hazy in my head.)
But, there's nothing that says they have to sell you service (or sell you a SIM card). If you have one, you can attach it... but there's nothing that says they have to give you one for that purpose.
The "protection of the licensee's network" clause is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, by the way. They can set up as onerous of a certification process as they (reasonably) want, and indeed, they have in the past -- the intent of the regulation is just that they have to apply it fairly. The reason why these rules are there are that cell networks are incredibly fragile, and very sensitive to antenna calibration; especially on CDMA networks, the near-far problem[1] can be pretty lethal to service for everyone on the tower if just one device is miscalibrated. It wouldn't at all surprise me if they had similar extensive calibration requirements for their LTE network, and they'd be well within their rights to do that sort of thing.
I'm as much of an unhappy Verizon customer as the next fellow, but whining that you can't just go transmit on their frequencies with devices that they haven't tested is not really conducive to the cause of folks who would say that Verizon's upper C-block management is behaving in a fashion that limits customer freedom.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-far_problem
Is it a CDMA thing? Because for literally the last decade and a bit, I've been taking whatever phone I want and putting it on whatever network I want here in Australia, no "carrier certification" needed...
Even with the device provisioning and tower handoffs now being done within the SIM card in LTE enabled devices on Verizon, they still require consent to get any sort of CDMA signal (which until VoLTE rolls out, includes making phone calls). At least with LTE and SIMs finally on Verizon since 2010, you can activate any device by simply popping in your SIM card, though only if the device already is allowed on their network, since it does checks to verify the MEI[1] number.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Equipment_Identifier
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Equipment_Identifier
Yup.
> For instance, selling phones with features stripped from them (bootloader unlock capabilities on HTC One, for instance)
Every phone from the Galaxy S3 onward on Verizon has had a bootloader unable to be unlocked per Verizon's request to the OEM. Galaxy S3 on Verizon was also the only S3 to have a bootloader that could not be unlocked the day of release (it could be later on through various hacks). They have no phones I find interesting unfortunately and I'll be leaving them I think once my contract runs out or my Galaxy Nexus gets too old. Plus, if I want to keep my unlimited data in the case they do happen to get the next Nexus, I would have to pay a 150% or so markup buying it off contract versus buying the GSM version from Google and using T-Mobile.
Every phone from the Galaxy S3 onward on Verizon has had a bootloader unable to be unlocked per Verizon's request to the OEM. Galaxy S3 on Verizon was also the only S3 to have a bootloader that could not be unlocked the day of release (it could be later on through various hacks). They have no phones I find interesting unfortunately and I'll be leaving them I think once my contract runs out or my Galaxy Nexus gets too old. Plus, if I want to keep my unlimited data in the case they do happen to get the next Nexus, I would have to pay a 150% or so markup buying it off contract versus buying the GSM version from Google and using T-Mobile.
A comment on the article reads: "They are already flat out violating the same lease obligations by blocking Google Wallet".
I'm wondering - if the allegations are true, why doesn't Google sue? Are they trying to preserve some kind of relationship with Verizon?
I'm wondering - if the allegations are true, why doesn't Google sue? Are they trying to preserve some kind of relationship with Verizon?
Because it wouldn't accomplish much. Verizon has been on a bandwidth buying spree and it is speculated that they are gearing up to sell off their 700MHz band, and the obligations that come with it.
So, legal action at this point would accomplish little more than rack up legal bills while Verizon stalls long enough to make the point moot.
So, legal action at this point would accomplish little more than rack up legal bills while Verizon stalls long enough to make the point moot.
This comment makes no sense at all. They would never throw away their lte network they JUST finished building over the past 3 years. They are just starting to roll out their 2nd layer of lte on their aws spectrum.
> This comment makes no sense at all.
Ah. So we're talking about phone companies!
> They would never throw away their lte network they JUST finished building over the past 3 years.
Whoa! No one said anything about throwing away their LTE network.
They are probably going to have to update that network in a few years anyway, particularly as VoLTE picks up. Keep in mind I'm not talking about them ditching it overnight, but rather over several years as lawsuits drag out.
> They are just starting to roll out their 2nd layer of lte on their aws spectrum.
They rolled out on the C band. It never touched any of the A & B bands it picked up, and in fact, they just sold them off (http://www.androidcentral.com/att-closes-19-billion-deal-ver...) in exchange for more AWS spectrum.
Now, based on what they've said publicly, their plan is to keep the 700MHz spectrum, and use it for coverage, and then use the AWS spectrums for handling densely populated areas.
But rumour has it they've been considering the possibility of a broader divestment, which is partly why they are picking up spectrum all over the place.
Ah. So we're talking about phone companies!
> They would never throw away their lte network they JUST finished building over the past 3 years.
Whoa! No one said anything about throwing away their LTE network.
They are probably going to have to update that network in a few years anyway, particularly as VoLTE picks up. Keep in mind I'm not talking about them ditching it overnight, but rather over several years as lawsuits drag out.
> They are just starting to roll out their 2nd layer of lte on their aws spectrum.
They rolled out on the C band. It never touched any of the A & B bands it picked up, and in fact, they just sold them off (http://www.androidcentral.com/att-closes-19-billion-deal-ver...) in exchange for more AWS spectrum.
Now, based on what they've said publicly, their plan is to keep the 700MHz spectrum, and use it for coverage, and then use the AWS spectrums for handling densely populated areas.
But rumour has it they've been considering the possibility of a broader divestment, which is partly why they are picking up spectrum all over the place.
When an agreement has clauses like reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee’s network, then you have nothing to complain. Well at least you can't reasonably complain about them violating the agreement, because a clause like that basically lets them do what they want.
Even if they had to prove that not allowing the Nexus 7 is needed for the protection of the network, it would be trivial for them to come up with some reason and all attempts to prove them wrong will end up with "your $REASON is no valid argument. I can't tell you why though because that's a trade secret".
Whenever you read an exception like this, be assured that the whole agreement is worthless because anything can be tailored to fit that exception.
Even if they had to prove that not allowing the Nexus 7 is needed for the protection of the network, it would be trivial for them to come up with some reason and all attempts to prove them wrong will end up with "your $REASON is no valid argument. I can't tell you why though because that's a trade secret".
Whenever you read an exception like this, be assured that the whole agreement is worthless because anything can be tailored to fit that exception.
Well to quote the quoted regulation:
"shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability"
They aren't really doing any of that are they? Do they say that LTE will never be available to you on your device? Or that you can only use it so many hours per day or only between such and such a time? I believe that is what would be required for them to violate these regulations. And it appears that they are acting within their legal rights to postpone their "mandatory inspections to make sure the devices aren't bugged with something that could disrupt their networks" or something. Are they doing it to gain a market advantage for a bit? Sure. Is it immoral? Maybe. But is it against FCC regulation? That's much harder to prove.
To say they are sidestepping regulation is one thing, or to say that they're being immoral for their corporate actions. But suggesting that they are violating FCC regulation is a statement of fact. A statement that could lead to you being sued with libel.
I'm not saying you are wrong to be upset, I'm just saying: be careful what you say.
"shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability"
They aren't really doing any of that are they? Do they say that LTE will never be available to you on your device? Or that you can only use it so many hours per day or only between such and such a time? I believe that is what would be required for them to violate these regulations. And it appears that they are acting within their legal rights to postpone their "mandatory inspections to make sure the devices aren't bugged with something that could disrupt their networks" or something. Are they doing it to gain a market advantage for a bit? Sure. Is it immoral? Maybe. But is it against FCC regulation? That's much harder to prove.
To say they are sidestepping regulation is one thing, or to say that they're being immoral for their corporate actions. But suggesting that they are violating FCC regulation is a statement of fact. A statement that could lead to you being sued with libel.
I'm not saying you are wrong to be upset, I'm just saying: be careful what you say.
> Well to quote the quoted regulation:
"shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability"
They do make people pay extra to officially be allowed to tether other devices to their tiered data LTE connection. Those against people tethering used to be quick to say, "It's to keep people from sucking down 200GB+ a month in bandwidth when Verizon offered unlimited data."
However, that rational does not exactly work when only a minority still hold onto their unlimited data almost 2 years after Verizon stopped it for anyone renewing their contract. Especially not when most users are now limited to 2-4GB a month before overage fees.
They do make people pay extra to officially be allowed to tether other devices to their tiered data LTE connection. Those against people tethering used to be quick to say, "It's to keep people from sucking down 200GB+ a month in bandwidth when Verizon offered unlimited data."
However, that rational does not exactly work when only a minority still hold onto their unlimited data almost 2 years after Verizon stopped it for anyone renewing their contract. Especially not when most users are now limited to 2-4GB a month before overage fees.
> They aren't really doing any of that are they?
They are doing all three. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
They are doing all three. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
Another example of a double standard where the corporation can violate regulations with impunity yet an individual is imprisoned for an inordinate term in regards to the act of incrementing a digit within a URL.
Why doesn't Google make a bid to take majority control of T-Mobile? It would seem like the perfect marriage.
Because T-Mobile is a company that actually knows how to handle customer service and tends to value its customers and employees highly; a practice that is almost antithetical to TelCo business.
The complete culture-incompatibility the two companies have would destroy the value of any purchase.
Not so perfect, really.
The complete culture-incompatibility the two companies have would destroy the value of any purchase.
Not so perfect, really.
I agree T-Mobile has stellar customer service, I contacted them about poor coverage in a new area I moved to. Got a $40 credit on my line, and within a month a network technician had fixed the issue and brought my coverage up.
It's amazing the difference though, I'd call Verizon and would get a generic "We'll send someone to check on it" months later nothing would change. It's nice to be with a company that will actually do something about your problems.
It's amazing the difference though, I'd call Verizon and would get a generic "We'll send someone to check on it" months later nothing would change. It's nice to be with a company that will actually do something about your problems.
Google wants their services to be available on all US wireless carriers in the US, not just one. And however much they fail to demonstrate it sometimes, Google wants their services available in the rest of the world, too. Getting entangled in a particular wireless market would also be an issue.
If they bought/had control of T-Mobile why would that prevent Android phones from being sold on Verizon/AT&T/Sprint let alone on other carriers around the globe?
I often wonder if Google deciding not to purchase this spectrum was the biggest mistake they've made.
Stop bitching about it and get off Verizon's network, enough of you leave and they'll start to open up. Right now they have no incentive, idiots like this guy will keep buying shit that locks them in for another 2 years and all he can do about it is bitch on a blog.
What's the optimal response in this situation? Can he sue?
A thought: Maybe try to register the chromebook after switching the SIMs?
from the tweet: "It works w/T-Mobile, A&T & Verizon. Or it's supposed to."
So who's fault is it? I wouldn't put anything pas Verizon (and ATT&T) but maybe Google didn't certify it or whatever
edit: " http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/24/4553054/new-nexus-7-lte-at... Update: We've learned from Google that 3G service will work through HSPA on AT&T and T-Mobile. Verizon users will be left out, however, as a CDMA radio isn't included — only an LTE one. That shouldn't be a huge issue for Verizon users though, as the carrier now has LTE coverage in over 500 markets."
So who's fault is it? I wouldn't put anything pas Verizon (and ATT&T) but maybe Google didn't certify it or whatever
edit: " http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/24/4553054/new-nexus-7-lte-at... Update: We've learned from Google that 3G service will work through HSPA on AT&T and T-Mobile. Verizon users will be left out, however, as a CDMA radio isn't included — only an LTE one. That shouldn't be a huge issue for Verizon users though, as the carrier now has LTE coverage in over 500 markets."
its Verizon's fault. if you put an activated verizon SIM card in it, it works. Verizon is just refusing to sell you a Sim card if you say it's for a nexus 7.
So the question is then why is Verizon willing to lose a paying customer ?
What kind of game are they trying to play here, that probably involves Google, the creator of the device ?
What kind of game are they trying to play here, that probably involves Google, the creator of the device ?
So for Nexus to work, Verizon would have to upgrade their POS (Point of sale) system? If that's the case, seems like a Google problem, device makers should work within existing rules, can't count on ATT and Verizon to upgrade their systems each time a new device comes out.
Either way the OP with "caught red-handed" made it seem like a conspiracy
Either way the OP with "caught red-handed" made it seem like a conspiracy
Its a Verizon problem, because the FCC rules they agreed to when they bought that spectrum was that they had to allow any device. Not they had to allow devices that had the right code for their POS terminals. There's no technical reason that Verizon should have to update their POS system for every new device, they just need to sell Sims not for use in any specific device.
The contention is that the terms of Verizon's spectrum license require open access. If that's true, the capabilities of their IT systems aren't an excuse. And in any case the whole point of the SIM card design is to allow exactly what the author is trying to do. Every carrier in Europe for the last decade and a half has managed to do this, but somehow the biggest carrier in the US can't be expected to make it work somehow?
So for Nexus to work, Verizon would have to upgrade their POS (Point of sale) system? If that's the case, seems like a Google problem
> So for Nexus to work, Verizon would have to upgrade their POS (Point of sale) system?
What makes you believe that? Others have reported simply buying an activated SIM and putting it in there, so I can't understand what would make you believe that they have to update their POS systems?
What makes you believe that? Others have reported simply buying an activated SIM and putting it in there, so I can't understand what would make you believe that they have to update their POS systems?
Ugh, more pointless tech drama. Can we agree that this doesn't really matter and move on?
This Jarvis guy is talking about how Verizon tried looking up his device's ESN/MEID which is a CDMA thing. The Nexus 7 doesn't have CDMA. This makes me think that both he and the reps he's been working with didn't understand how CDMA and LTE provisioning works.
Edit: clarification.