Carterfone writes "Verizon is upset at the open access conditions for the 700MHz spectrum auction, and they're going to court to get them overturned. The company has filed a lawsuit in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, urging the court to overturn the rules. 'In its petition for review, Verizon argues that the FCC exceeded its authority in mandating the two open access conditions, accusing the Commission of being "arbitrary" and "capricious," and saying that the rules are "unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law." Google is critical of Verizon's lawsuit: 'It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services. Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics.'"
If there were any justice at all in the Universe, any statement by Verizon declaring it's support with consumers, or battling for them, would lead to the entire board of directors' heads exploding simultaneously while a hundred rabid ducks danced about singing "I'm Popeye the Sailor Man".
But there's no justice in the universe. Just judges.
But there's no justice in the universe. Just judges.
That will happen when the corporations have better access to the political system than you do. Shame you can't do anything about it, at least on a practical level.
That will happen when the corporations have better access to the political system than you do. Shame you can't do anything about it, at least on a practical level.
I have to play devil's advocate here...
1. Are you SURE there's nothing to be done?
2. Would you please define "practical", as used above?
3. Are you including illegal methodologies?
I'm not trying to quibble, but I've rarely found a situation SO dire that NOTHING could be done...
Verizon has always been about lock in and keeping away choice. That is why they never wanted to go with a sim card based cellphone system. it eliminates your ability to buy a unlocked phone and activating it without them getting their "fees" in their sideways.
Verizon wants you to do it their way, and really wants to force it upon you. when they bought GTE they tried to treat landline customers the way they treated cellular customers, they got nailed hard in court over that one.
In their sideways? What's a sideways? How many sideways does Verizon have? How do the fees go into their sideways? Is a sideway like a bag or a satchel, or more like a pocket? or is it more like a bank account?
IS-95/CDMA2000 has supported R-UIMs, the Qualcomm equivalent of the SIM card, for about five years now, but Verizon doesn't issue R-UIMs. They can provide them, they choose not to.
'It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services. Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics.'"
That's pretty funny, coming from a company which prohibited its Adword customers from discussing anything about the Adwords program with others.
Google late paying you one month? Don't post anything about it on your website, or boom, you weren't a customer anymore. I took a quick glace through the terms and couldn't find it; maybe they finally nix'd it.
PS: We're not CONSUMERS. We are PEOPLE, who MAY be CUSTOMERS.
I for one am very curious as to what Google plans on doing with that part of the spectrum. It is almost a sure thing that they'd unveil some sort of network, but I'm curious as to how they plan on actually using it. Probably ad supported, but seems like we're getting closer and closer all the time to a Google antitrust investigation, the way that MS was investigated. To some extent it surprises me that Google was allowed to purchase double click. Should Google purchase that part of the spectrum and fund it w
fixed it for you, the FCC I don't care what the FCC leads anyone else to believe. The FCC themselves believe that they own the airwaves and they have proven time and time again that they are going to do with them what they see fit.
Remember, we don't get to choose who runs the FCC and that's a serious ****ing problem. We own the spectrum and thus the FCC should be a group of elected officials that can be ****ing bounced when the general voting public decides they should go. Unfortunately, they're not and they
This shows you how scared the carriers are about these rules and Google getting hold of the bands.
Verizon's move vacates its primary contention. The open access rules are going to make the bidding intense because those who want to keep the other two open access rules off the table are going to being bidding heavily. Moreover, it is quite likely that Verizon and others will, if the two existing open access rules stick, attempt to buy up the bands and then simply not build or activate the infrastructure, thereby trapping consumers into the other bands where they are not subject to these rules.
Point being, this is sleight of hand. Their real move is going to be trying to buy the bands and keep them dark. Therefore, the bands are worth more with these rules in place than without and Verizon's contention that the FCC is disenfranchising the government of revenue by adding these rules is void.
They wont be able to keep the bands dark. If you read the development rules, they are required to do several billion dollars worth of Public Safety and emergency band build out over the next 10 years. I don't think any of these companies have the chops to spend $5B or more for band width, $5-$15Bn more on federally mandated build out and not put them to use.
If you read the development rules, they are required to do several billion dollars worth of Public Safety and emergency band build out over the next 10 years.
If you would have read those very same rules a bit more closely, you would realize that the Public Safety bands and the Commercial bands are two different bands being auctioned off independently. The "C" block auction is the one that has these two rules attached that Verizon is trying to get thrown out.
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday September 13 2007, @05:51PM (#20596351)
They can't do that. The auction already has a build-up clause. The winner of the auction must build up infrastructure (or convert existing owned infrastructure) to deliver to a certain percentage of the population within 2 years, and then a larger one in 5 years - don't remember the numbers off the top of my head. I believe if they fail to do so, they lose their ownership of the band, or at least heavy penalties until they build it out.
"The 22MHz C block also comes with requirements: 40 percent coverage within four years, 75 percent coverage within 10. The FCC will automatically reclaimed "unserved portions of the license area" from companies that do not meet the build-out requirements."
What they didn't say is This spectrum should be available to the public under fair and decent pricing or anything of the like; they only added the two "Google Caveats". The phone companies could build up the entire infrastructure on top of existing infr
They can't do that. The auction already has a build-up clause... I believe if they fail to do so, they lose their ownership of the band, or at least heavy penalties until they build it out.
Yeah, as if that's going to deter the telcos from not breaking the agreement, just like they didn't build out the internet infrastructure the way they promised after getting a pile of tax breaks and other "incentives" from the government. What was the smackdown they got for that? Nothing? Yeah, that's what I thoug
Except that the day they win the auction, they start lobbying congress for extensions, due to "technical issues" that are making it harder to roll out service. And that open access thing? Well, that's much harder than we thought too. Gonna take more time, like, about another 8 years. Yea, just long enough for a new FCC chairman to be appointed by a new President, one who will forget all about this silly open access/90% roll-out clause.
I don't think you guys are giving the parent enough credit. Verizon may follow the letter of the agreement, but they certainly wouldn't follow the spirit.
Point being, this is sleight of hand. Their real move is going to be trying to buy the bands and keep them dark. Therefore, the bands are worth more with these rules in place than without and Verizon's contention that the FCC is disenfranchising the government of revenue by adding these rules is void.
What?
Why does Verizon care if the Government gets the revenue?
I don't understand why the open access rules would make any difference to the existing carriers if they just want to leave the band unused.
If they buy the bands with the open access rules on them, they have to leave them unused (unused = complying so narrowly with the FCC requirements that the bands are effectively underutilized) and therefore it's a very expensive way to protect their existing position. It protects one revenue stream, but does not add another. If they can get the open access rules off, then they can treat the bands as just an extension of their existing anti-competitive position and use it as extra bandwidth unchallenged. They
Under the FCC's rules, whoever wins the spectrum auction must allow consumers to use any device and any lawful application on their networks. After the FCC's decision, Verizon quickly made its position clear. "Imposing any such requirements in the competitive wireless market would reduce the revenue the government will receive from the spectrum auction and limit the introduction of new and innovative wireless services,"
Total B.S.! If I can use any device, then I can use the most innovative devices from anyone building them. If Version provides the most new and innovative wireless services at a fair price, they get my business. If someone else does, my business goes there. In short, Version contradicts themselves in the very same sentence.
As for reducing the revenue the government will receive from the spectrum auction, like how does that happen? Is Verizon going to pay a bazillion dollars for the spectrum if you have to buy only their devices and services afterwards, and that no one will buy a single Hz of it otherwise? I doubt that!
It's all such total B.S. from Verizon that nobody should be taking them seriously for a single instant -- and throw those blighters out of court!
It may be true that they will pay more if they can charge more for less services and keep competitors out.
The problem is, is that this is a national resource and the decision should also consider what the bidder is going to do with the spectrum and how much they are going to charge the consumer. These resources should be used in interest of citizens and not the monopoly which would like to hoard a limited resource which it uses as bat to beat it's own customers.
If you don't like the rules, then don't participate in the auction. You won't be missed. In fact, given that you already have the phone service side of the duopoly, I'd prefer that you not be part of this anyway! Pick up the toys you tossed out of the pram, and just go home.
This situation presents a case study: will American courts protect the public interest, or will they sell us out to corporate interests again?
If any of you ever felt like you might want to write some letters or make some phone calls, this would be a good time. Keep in mind that Verizon won't be hurt in any way if they don't get this frequency band. It's you and I that'll get hurt if they do...
This situation presents a case study: will American courts protect the public interest, or will they sell us out to corporate interests again?
The American courts will probably follow the law as written. If it gives the FCC the power to make this decision, they'll tell Verizon to go whistle, if it doesn't they'll say the same to the FCC. In great detail.
The place to buy the law is in congress. Federal judges are pretty much immune to external pressure due to the appointment system. In high-profile stuff
Ask the CLECs about Verizon's willingness to abuse the courts to get what they want. 10 years after passage of the 1996 Telecomm Act, the unbundling rules were finally finalized. But only because Verizon finally stopped suing. And they only stopped because they couldn't gut the 1996 Act, or gut broadband competition, any further.
I hope Google is willing to go to court because this simply will not end. Verizon will sue infinitely to delay the auction if they don't get what they want, and if the auction happens they will sue infinitely to block usage of the spectrum or to block open access. They've proven that nothing is enough for them.
The future is coming fast, and the sold spectrum is a problem.
Imagine the day you are carrying a little device in your pocket. This device is an all in one thing. It has a software defined radio in it, a reasonable sized display (3in diagonal maybe, 800x600 pixels?), some kind of keyboard, a microphone and a speaker. You can make phone calls, instant message, and almost any other form of communication. The infrastucture is WiFi, WiMax, CDMA, GSM, 3/4G, point to point, HDTV, AM, FM, XM, Sirius, GPS, pager, bluetooth and zigbee on whatever frequency is appropriate (remember software defined radio, it can do all of this in software).
You pick up the device, it has an address. You wish to communicate with someone else, they have an address. The device knows them, and their address. Through the infrastructure, Your device can find their device, picking the most suitable communication mechanism available. If they are in the same room, it'll do point to point, if they are in the same building, it'll do WiFi. Across town, maybe your device will do CDMA, and theirs will do GSM. Want to send email to someone, it'll figure out a route.
The only way this will work, is opening up everything. The spectrum, especially will have to be unencumbered (not owned). The carriers will have to act like carriers, accepting these all purpose devices, without a monopoly.
Sure verizon and ATT will scream, it isn't good for anyone. But actually it will work in their and our best interest. Their infrastructure could be more efficiently used (won't have to handle calls to the guy in the next cube). Sure we may have to pay what it costs to utilize their network instead of a flat fee, with silly gimicks. Initial purchase price will a little high (device not bundled with the service). They won't have to service the devices, or they could, if they build their own.
To get here, the spectrum that has already been sold will have to be returned to the rightful owners (us), and that will be expensive!!! The government could claim eminant domain, but that would probably be even less popular, and the lawsuits would probably cost even more money. We need to stop selling spectrum NOW!
The only way this will work, is opening up everything. The spectrum, especially will have to be unencumbered (not owned). The carriers will have to act like carriers, accepting these all purpose devices, without a monopoly.
That would be too logical. Sure would be nice though.
I'll say this, I'm disgusted with everything about the US cellphone market. From its backwardness in technology to vendor lock in and thoroughly crappy service. Recent phones are almost caught up to where Japanese domestic cellphones were four years ago and my Cingular sim works better in my wife's phone (a Nokia purchased in a random store in Manila) than on the phone I purchased when I started the account (I've only paid one of the two fines needed
Verizon is just inviting a decision like the Carterfone decision of 1968. It would be ironic if such a decision were made, and applied to the entire spectrum. Sometimes I wonder if we would have been better off without the breakup of the old AT&T. At least the old AT&T had some glimmer of a conscience, Verizon and the new AT&T show no signs of one whatsoever.
I wish I could boycott Verizon because of this, but I was already boycotting them because of their patent-troll lawsuit against Vonage. Vonage has saved me hundreds of dollars in phone bills over the past few years and it pisses me off that a company like Verizon comes along and sues them for something so obvious as phone-number-to-IP-address conversions instead of competing with them in the marketplace. I recently renewed my Cingular/AT&T contract with the AT&T 8525 which I'm very happy with... I ch
$181,692 for the Times, http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm [nypost.com]>apparently*. Of course you'd have to convince them to take it though, since I think Verizon may not appreciate the ad, and may offer the potential for greater profit in the future than a handful of angry technies complaining about something most people are blissfully unaware of.
* - this was just picked as the first result I got for the search for the price. No need to pay too much attention
Well, your own link says they discounted the "Betray Us" ad, so maybe they'd discount us. Let's put a fair price at $120k-$150k. There have got to be more than 12,000 people in America that believe Verizon is wrong, if they all gave $10...
Then again, the "Distributed Cash-Mob" model hasn't worked for very much in the past; using the very same models we could have financed legal playback for our favorite free software media players and the like.
Write down your complaints into a letter to give to Verizon when you do terminate. Like what they are doing now or not, you did sign up with them for a contract.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm in the same boat until March. I do plan to terminate my service with them primarily on their constrictive practices. What I find particularly distasteful is that they push legislation that practically makes it a legal requirement to bleed their customers with fees. Fees that seem to inevitably return to Verizon's pockets.
Try and find a place where your phone is roaming in another network, but covered by your "nation wide roaming plan". Generally your phone will show something like "Cingular network" on the phone. Make a phone call from that area during your "free nights and weekends minutes", and just leave that phone on as long as you can in that area. I actually went as far as to put my phone into a ziplock bag on vibrate and hid it in some bushes so it could sit there until the battery died. I could go daily to pick it up before work and drop it back off after work. Within 2 weeks my contract was canceled by Verizon without any termination charges.
It's actually quite easy, particularly if you have a phone eligible for their "unlimited" data plan like a Treo or something similar.
Sign up for their "unlimited" data plan, plug in your phone, get a nice big SD card, and download like crazy. They'll get rid of you as a customer within 10 days and release you from your contract.
Just so you all know, their "unlimited" data plan does not allow you to download music or video... You can do it, but it's technically against what they authorize.
I met the "can you hear me now?" dude (Paul, I think it was) about a year or 2 ago. On more than one occasion, I've vowed to kick his ass if I ever met him, but I didn't. It's like he said, "hey, they pay me and I don't have to do anything." Hell, I wouldn't turn the job.
Verizon. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Under the FCC's rules, whoever wins the spectrum auction must allow consumers to use any device and any lawful application on their networks.
No wonder they're pissed.
Verizon: We never stop working... for ourselves.
Shaking Heads (Score:2, Funny)
But there's no justice in the universe. Just judges.
Re: (Score:2)
That will happen when the corporations have better access to the political system than you do. Shame you can't do anything about it, at least on a practical level.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to play devil's advocate here...
1. Are you SURE there's nothing to be done?
2. Would you please define "practical", as used above?
3. Are you including illegal methodologies?
I'm not trying to quibble, but I've rarely found a situation SO dire that NOTHING could be done...
no suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon wants you to do it their way, and really wants to force it upon you. when they bought GTE they tried to treat landline customers the way they treated cellular customers, they got nailed hard in court over that one.
Re:no suprise-DETAILS PLEASE (Score:3, Interesting)
Details please. I love a good smackdown!
Re:no suprise-DETAILS PLEASE (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/006/ripoff0006518.htm [ripoffreport.com]
http://www.phoneplusmag.com/articles/0c1rnew4.html?cntwelcome=1 [phoneplusmag.com]
tons more. Verizon has tried their hardest to screw the customer for a really long time.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:no suprise (Score:4, Informative)
IS-95/CDMA2000 has supported R-UIMs, the Qualcomm equivalent of the SIM card, for about five years now, but Verizon doesn't issue R-UIMs. They can provide them, they choose not to.
Parent
Surprise! (Score:5, Funny)
Can you hear me now? No? Good.
"for the consumer!" (Score:4, Interesting)
'It's regrettable that Verizon has decided to use the court system to try to prevent consumers from having any choice of innovative services. Once again, it is American consumers who lose from these tactics.'"
That's pretty funny, coming from a company which prohibited its Adword customers from discussing anything about the Adwords program with others.
Google late paying you one month? Don't post anything about it on your website, or boom, you weren't a customer anymore. I took a quick glace through the terms and couldn't find it; maybe they finally nix'd it.
PS: We're not CONSUMERS. We are PEOPLE, who MAY be CUSTOMERS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably ad supported, but seems like we're getting closer and closer all the time to a Google antitrust investigation, the way that MS was investigated. To some extent it surprises me that Google was allowed to purchase double click. Should Google purchase that part of the spectrum and fund it w
Help the FCC lawyers! (Score:2, Interesting)
Wahhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the FCC
I don't care what the FCC leads anyone else to believe. The FCC themselves believe that they own the airwaves and they have proven time and time again that they are going to do with them what they see fit.
Remember, we don't get to choose who runs the FCC and that's a serious ****ing problem. We own the spectrum and thus the FCC should be a group of elected officials that can be ****ing bounced when the general voting public decides they should go. Unfortunately, they're not and they
Writer not from Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
I'll bet a couple of people around here were wondering how they misspelled "loose".
Re: (Score:2)
Does Verizon want to piss off even more people.... (Score:2)
You also lock down your phones to fore people to use the data planes so they pay to get photos off of the phone.
You hire people who don't know that $0.002 and 0.002 cents are not the same number.
You also put your poor UI on most of your phones.
What do you want to do next to rip us off?
This maybe way you did not get the iPhone.
Re:Does Verizon want to piss off even more people. (Score:2)
Just to be pedantic, $0.002 is actually 0.2 cents, if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure you meant to say something slightly different.
Running Scared (Score:5, Insightful)
Verizon's move vacates its primary contention. The open access rules are going to make the bidding intense because those who want to keep the other two open access rules off the table are going to being bidding heavily. Moreover, it is quite likely that Verizon and others will, if the two existing open access rules stick, attempt to buy up the bands and then simply not build or activate the infrastructure, thereby trapping consumers into the other bands where they are not subject to these rules.
Point being, this is sleight of hand. Their real move is going to be trying to buy the bands and keep them dark. Therefore, the bands are worth more with these rules in place than without and Verizon's contention that the FCC is disenfranchising the government of revenue by adding these rules is void.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you would have read those very same rules a bit more closely, you would realize that the Public Safety bands and the Commercial bands are two different bands being auctioned off independently. The "C" block auction is the one that has these two rules attached that Verizon is trying to get thrown out.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070815
Re:Running Scared (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What they didn't say is This spectrum should be available to the public under fair and decent pricing or anything of the like; they only added the two "Google Caveats". The phone companies could build up the entire infrastructure on top of existing infr
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, as if that's going to deter the telcos from not breaking the agreement, just like they didn't build out the internet infrastructure the way they promised after getting a pile of tax breaks and other "incentives" from the government. What was the smackdown they got for that? Nothing? Yeah, that's what I thoug
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Running Scared (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What?
Why does Verizon care if the Government gets the revenue?
I don't understand why the open access rules would make any difference to the existing carriers if they just want to leave the band unused.
Re: (Score:2)
They
Oh Poor babyyyyyyy !!! (Score:2)
Why Verizon's Claims are Total B.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
Total B.S.! If I can use any device, then I can use the most innovative devices from anyone building them. If Version provides the most new and innovative wireless services at a fair price, they get my business. If someone else does, my business goes there. In short, Version contradicts themselves in the very same sentence.
As for reducing the revenue the government will receive from the spectrum auction, like how does that happen? Is Verizon going to pay a bazillion dollars for the spectrum if you have to buy only their devices and services afterwards, and that no one will buy a single Hz of it otherwise? I doubt that!
It's all such total B.S. from Verizon that nobody should be taking them seriously for a single instant -- and throw those blighters out of court!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, is that this is a national resource and the decision should also consider what the bidder is going to do with the spectrum and how much they are going to charge the consumer. These resources should be used in interest of citizens and not the monopoly which would like to hoard a limited resource which it uses as bat to beat it's own customers.
Hey Verizon! (Score:2)
If you don't like the rules, then don't participate in the auction. You won't be missed. In fact, given that you already have the phone service side of the duopoly, I'd prefer that you not be part of this anyway! Pick up the toys you tossed out of the pram, and just go home.
A good example here (Score:4, Insightful)
If any of you ever felt like you might want to write some letters or make some phone calls, this would be a good time. Keep in mind that Verizon won't be hurt in any way if they don't get this frequency band. It's you and I that'll get hurt if they do...
Re: (Score:2)
The American courts will probably follow the law as written. If it gives the FCC the power to make this decision, they'll tell Verizon to go whistle, if it doesn't they'll say the same to the FCC. In great detail.
The place to buy the law is in congress. Federal judges are pretty much immune to external pressure due to the appointment system. In high-profile stuff
Regrettable but predictable (Score:5, Informative)
I hope Google is willing to go to court because this simply will not end. Verizon will sue infinitely to delay the auction if they don't get what they want, and if the auction happens they will sue infinitely to block usage of the spectrum or to block open access. They've proven that nothing is enough for them.
Selling spectrum is short sighted idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine the day you are carrying a little device in your pocket. This device is an all in one thing. It has a software defined radio in it, a reasonable sized display (3in diagonal maybe, 800x600 pixels?), some kind of keyboard, a microphone and a speaker. You can make phone calls, instant message, and almost any other form of communication. The infrastucture is WiFi, WiMax, CDMA, GSM, 3/4G, point to point, HDTV, AM, FM, XM, Sirius, GPS, pager, bluetooth and zigbee on whatever frequency is appropriate (remember software defined radio, it can do all of this in software).
You pick up the device, it has an address. You wish to communicate with someone else, they have an address. The device knows them, and their address. Through the infrastructure, Your device can find their device, picking the most suitable communication mechanism available. If they are in the same room, it'll do point to point, if they are in the same building, it'll do WiFi. Across town, maybe your device will do CDMA, and theirs will do GSM. Want to send email to someone, it'll figure out a route.
The only way this will work, is opening up everything. The spectrum, especially will have to be unencumbered (not owned). The carriers will have to act like carriers, accepting these all purpose devices, without a monopoly.
Sure verizon and ATT will scream, it isn't good for anyone. But actually it will work in their and our best interest. Their infrastructure could be more efficiently used (won't have to handle calls to the guy in the next cube). Sure we may have to pay what it costs to utilize their network instead of a flat fee, with silly gimicks. Initial purchase price will a little high (device not bundled with the service). They won't have to service the devices, or they could, if they build their own.
To get here, the spectrum that has already been sold will have to be returned to the rightful owners (us), and that will be expensive!!! The government could claim eminant domain, but that would probably be even less popular, and the lawsuits would probably cost even more money. We need to stop selling spectrum NOW!
Re: (Score:2)
The only way this will work, is opening up everything. The spectrum, especially will have to be unencumbered (not owned). The carriers will have to act like carriers, accepting these all purpose devices, without a monopoly.
That would be too logical. Sure would be nice though.
I'll say this, I'm disgusted with everything about the US cellphone market. From its backwardness in technology to vendor lock in and thoroughly crappy service. Recent phones are almost caught up to where Japanese domestic cellphones were four years ago and my Cingular sim works better in my wife's phone (a Nokia purchased in a random store in Manila) than on the phone I purchased when I started the account (I've only paid one of the two fines needed
Digging their own grave (Score:2)
Boycott (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I recently renewed my Cingular/AT&T contract with the AT&T 8525 which I'm very happy with... I ch
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
* - this was just picked as the first result I got for the search for the price. No need to pay too much attention
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, the "Distributed Cash-Mob" model hasn't worked for very much in the past; using the very same models we could have financed legal playback for our favorite free software media players and the like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I dont' like companies like Verizon (Score:5, Insightful)
If it makes you feel any better, I'm in the same boat until March. I do plan to terminate my service with them primarily on their constrictive practices. What I find particularly distasteful is that they push legislation that practically makes it a legal requirement to bleed their customers with fees. Fees that seem to inevitably return to Verizon's pockets.
Parent
Re:I dont' like companies like Verizon (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sign up for their "unlimited" data plan, plug in your phone, get a nice big SD card, and download like crazy. They'll get rid of you as a customer within 10 days and release you from your contract.
Just so you all know, their "unlimited" data plan does not allow you to download music or video... You can do it, but it's technically against what they authorize.
Re: (Score:2)
Call customer service..... a lot.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)