Advocacy Group Files FCC Complaint Over Verizon Tethering Ban 190
Hugh Pickens writes "Cnet reports that the advocacy group Free Press has filed a complaint with the FCC that argues Verizon Wireless shouldn't be allowed to block tethering apps that let people connect their computers to the Internet through their phones' 4G wireless data network. 'This practice restricts consumer choice and hinders innovation regardless of which carrier adopts such policies, but when Verizon Wireless employs these restrictions in connection with its LTE network, it also violates the Federal Communications Commission's rules,' says the group. Those rules say Verizon 'shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice.' Google has made tethering apps unavailable through the Android Market for some phones that use wireless services from Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, saying in May it did so at the behest of carriers."
Well duh. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
+1 ironic for misspelling moron.
Re: (Score:3)
+1 ironic for misspelling moron.
It's an internet thing. [urbandictionary.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I actually like definitions #3 and 6:
Personally, I think intentional usage of the misspelled version dumb, not ironic (as implied by other definitions).
Re: (Score:2)
Now I just feel old.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
-1, Sued by Nike for trademark infringement of "Swoosh"
Re: (Score:2)
obviously people in Moran, Israel are getting kickbacks from the tethering restrictions... sheesh.
First thing I thought of was the song "Mr. Moran" by the Mighty Mighty Bosstones...
Re: (Score:2)
APK install would require rooting the phone, wouldn't it? I haven't tried, so this is an honest question. On Verizon, the Droid tethering app is the Verizon Tethering app, and requires you to pay extra to use it, even though you already pay for data. Rooting the phone breaks your warrenty, according to the manufacturers, and it breaks your contract with Verizon. In all senses, this is wrong, I pay for data, why should it matter if I use the data on the phone, my Nook, or my laptop?
Re: (Score:3)
FCC: Corporations working for Corporations (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...they already just let one of its commissioners take a blatant bribe from Comcast under the condition that they give them the ok to merge with NBC Universal.
Citation, please? Not just to keep you honest, but because I don't remember this and I want to know more.
Re:FCC: Corporations working for Corporations (Score:5, Informative)
FCC Commissioner Leaves To Become Lobbyist [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure that makes sense (Score:2, Insightful)
If they didn't the mifi would go byebye
https://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=products_mifi
Verizon does enable tethering (Score:2, Informative)
Verizon does have plans where people can tether without restrictions on the apps and devices. It is just separate from the mobile phone only plans.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a ripoff.
I want 5GB of data, to use however I see fit. They are fucking transport, that is it. I want to buy a dumb pipe.
Re: (Score:2)
I want 5GB of data, to use however I see fit. They are fucking transport, that is it. I want to buy a dumb pipe.
Your dumb pipe would cost a lot more than $40 a month.
Verizon has determined that $40 will make a profit based on what the average consumer will use on their smartphone. Unlimited tethering? I can't even guess how much resources that would be worth. $400/month? $4000/month? I don't want to pay that just so my wife can check Facebook on her phone.
That said, I think their tiered data pricing is too expensive. I'd like to use it on my upcoming vacation but it's not worth it. At 25% of the price I
Re: (Score:2)
I want 5GB of data, to use however I see fit. They are fucking transport, that is it. I want to buy a dumb pipe.
Your dumb pipe would cost a lot more than $40 a month. Verizon has determined that $40 will make a profit based on what the average consumer will use on their smartphone. Unlimited tethering? I can't even guess how much resources that would be worth. $400/month? $4000/month? I don't want to pay that just so my wife can check Facebook on her phone. That said, I think their tiered data pricing is too expensive. I'd like to use it on my upcoming vacation but it's not worth it. At 25% of the price I would probably pay for it and use it.
Really? Dumb pipe would cost more? Why can I buy a 'dumb pipe' SIM in other countries without a contract with 9GB of 'use it however' transfer? Yet, here the same thing seems to cost 450USD. The real answer is that we have no realistic competition between the carriers and as such they may screw us at will. I am not going to place blame for the situation, but that us what it is. After all, what are you going to do? Switch to the other carrier with the same policies?
Re: (Score:3)
I have this "dumb pipe" in Austria right now (posting this over it), on a 3G connection to a (originally) mobile phone provider. $15 per month for 15 GB transfer (no extra charges above that). Don't see how this is so unbelievable.
So it's limited.
Verizon is not prohibiting tethering. They just don't allow it on their unlimited data phone plan. I hate Verizon as much as the next guy, but how can anybody expect an unlimited unrestricted wireless connection for cheap?
Same with these people complaining about cable modem caps. Residential cable service is for residential usage, which follows typical usage patterns. Anybody who wants to feed torrents all day long needs to find out what a full T1 costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon charges $30 a month for tethering, on top of the data plan you have, and it pulls out of the same data plan, unless you are on unlimited, than it is 5GB. So my phone service is $99 for 500 minutes a month, unlimited text and data, and they want another $30 for the privilage of using data on my computer through my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, how you "use it" differs depending on the device you do the browsing on - browsing on a smart phone or PDA actually produces a lot less traffic than browsing on a desktop or laptop, because behaviours differ between the two types of devices (not to mention all of the other crap going on on a full blown PC, such as checking for OS updates, virus protection updates, ftp uploads etc etc etc).
Now, you might say "yes, but they've charged me for 5GB, so why does that matter - let me use it until i
Re: (Score:3)
meanwhile, you already pay to use your data how you want,and now they want a surcharge for using that same data how you want.
Re: (Score:2)
They sold Unlimited Data. If they are going to put restrictions on how I can use it, then it is no longer Unlimited, and at the very least they should NOT be able to sell it as such, and anyone who was mislead into signing up by their sales pitch saying so should be refunded 3x what they paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has been willing to challenge this in court, is the issue. I imagine there is plenty of precedent though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Differing usage patterns cause differing loads on the network - internet usage on a smart phone is lighter than internet usage on a desktop, for a variety of reasons. Its not charging extra for the same bandwidth, its charging extra for the totally different usage pattern.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Every time this issue comes up, I see several posters make the claim that they are using the same amount of data whether they are using just their phone or tethering to your laptop. Then I sit there dumbfounded as this crap gets modded insightful and repeated over and over again. From personal experience using a Blackberry Storm and tethering for work purposes when necessary, the argument is complete crap.
While using just my phone, most of the websites I pull up are mobile versions
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're just arguing semantics. In a sane world, they would be, because those two terms mean the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
In a sane world,
You must not be from around here...
Re: (Score:2)
He mean to say "insane world"
Re: (Score:2)
No, I paid for data. They said I could use X GB/month. They do NOT get to dictate how I use that allotment.
Re: (Score:2)
*not out loud, mind you. It's in the fine print somewhere.
How about... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Install android-wifi-tether, turns the phone into a wifi access point. Since not every device you might want to use has a host usb port.
Weak argument (Score:2)
I don't think this will make me any more popular around these parts, but this is a weak argument. Verizon isn't restricting LTE devices. They are restricting the connectivity for non-LTE devices.
I think the main problem is that so many people have been able to use it without having to pay, but now Verizon is actually enforcing the provisions of the contract. A backlash is predictable, but this FCC complaint just doesn't have legs.
The other argument I see quite a bit is that "unlimited data" means unlimited
Re: (Score:2)
How is making it so you can't use certain apps on your smartphone, which has LTE, not restricting a LTE device?
Re: (Score:2)
They actually aren't making it so that you can't use a tethering app. What happens is that when you attempt to use a web browser on the tethered device, you are redirected to a page that tells you you're being naughty. The tethering app itself runs just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
While you're on the subject of weak arguments, you should probably examine your own. You're falling prey to the "device" mentality. "Device" has nothing to do with it. Throughput is what the company is selling, and throughput is what you're consuming. By the same rationale, your ISP could sell you an "unlimited data" product and argue that it only extends to your modem, not to the machines behind it.
If your network access "device" cannot support other "devices" by providing access to the data connection, th
Re: (Score:2)
People's main problem is that the restriction is arbitrary and has no purpose other than squeezing money out of already-paying customers.
I pay Verizon $30 a month to get data to my phone. They want me to pay more to get data through my phone to my laptop. Data is data, so the same amount of usage costs more. Why? The restriction isn't technical in nature, it's purely a business decision.
If they wanted to make people pay in proportion to the load they put on the network, that's one thing. Data downloaded to
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with everything you wrote. It is definitely, absolutely just a way to charge customers more. But I would also argue that the only reason this is an issue at all is because tethering has value to the customer, and isn't charging customers money to deliver value exactly what service providers do for a living?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have free tethering (and I don't work for or own stock in a service provider). But this argument that we should get it for free just because the SPs _could_ offer i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually scared that that's the point of them limiting Fios and other services recently... The push to go full wireless LTE instead of using land lines (kind of like phone to cell phone has done) but they are trying to hold onto as much control as they can for that inevitable transition. I mean, why put in more fiber to the home if you can just sell them a wireless hotspot and charge them more for a limited connection?
Re: (Score:3)
Tethering has value to the customer, and that's why they buy phones that feature tethering, or applications that enable it. Tethering is not a service provided by the carrier, so they have no business charging for it, just like they have no business charging for the installation of any other third party applications that may use the supposedly unlimited data connection. You cannot argue that the service provider offers anything on your system other than the data connection, because it does not.
There's nothi
Re: (Score:2)
I think I understand the analogy, but what I believe you're saying is that they _shouldn't_ charge for tethering, not that they _can't_. There's a world of difference between the two.
Re: (Score:2)
Bytes are Bytes. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no difference between a byte to my phone versus a byte to other device.
Yes there is. The bytes to your phone are a different color [sooke.bc.ca] than the ones being sent to your other device.
Re: (Score:2)
Well slap my ass and call me a Commie Mutant Traitor: there is no color.
AT&T charges just for using a "smartphone" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see the bill on that .. because while AT&T can see the device on the other end via the IMEI they do not bill based on that.
there is no difference in billing for voice on a normal or a smart phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"How can they justify any of this?"
Is it that difficult to understand even basic economics? They offer a service for people to buy at a market price. It's their choice to buy it or not. If nobody wants it at the price they offer then they'll either have to discontinue if there is no money to be made or lower the price to pick up buyers. You can't even try to claim it's a monopoly here as there are many choices if you are not happy with their service, go elsewhere.
The carriers can do whatever they please (Score:3)
I don't understand what's the big deal. In the grand scheme of things, I know blocking tethering apps may be against FCC rules, but I'm not betting the carriers will actually follow those rules. But here's what you CAN do:
Step 1. Get an unlockable, rootable phone. ALL carrier phones are locked, but some are easily rooted and all of them can be unlocked for a small fee. So you can still get a subsidized phone, just be careful which one you pick. As a rule of thumb, never pick up a brand new model, but almost every single 3-6 month old model is rootable.
Step 2. Install a custom ROM like Cyanogenmod.
Step 3. Use the tethering capabilities built into your ROM, without the need of any extra apps.
If you can't follow these steps, then find friends who can or pay somebody to do it for you. My gf, who doesn't have a clue how to unlock and root phones, is using CM7 nightlies on her HTC just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
And its trivial for a carrier to tell that the data coming off your phone doesn't match mobile device usage heuristics, or is reporting unusual browser headers, or using ports that phones won't normally use.
And then they can whack you with huge fees for it. (Read your TOS)
Re: (Score:2)
"My gf, who doesn't have a clue how to unlock and root phones, is using CM7 nightlies on her HTC just fine."
Amazing.
I think U.S. carriers are either too pressed by competition or too greedy. In Argentina (only 3 nationwide) you can get 500 voice minutes, 250 SMS, 250 MMS plus unlimited data (2GB full speed, after that 128kbps) for about USD 50. That includes tethering if you happen to chose an Android 2.2 phone with your plan. You can also have 500 MB (plus 200 minutes and 200 SMS) for USD 30 and also do te
Re: (Score:2)
Notice I did not say run stock Android, but a custom ROM. Cyanogen has tethering enabled, and the current version is based on Android 2.3.4. And as far as I know, it also does not report anything back to the carriers. Choose wisely, and you will not hav
My experience (Score:3)
I filed an FCC complaint last month regarding AT&T charging for tethering -- basically the same complaint. As expected, the FCC didn't do anything except give my contact information to AT&T so that AT&T could contact me to tell me that my contract basically allows them to impose whatever restrictions they want.
Obviously I realize the contract sucks, which is why I filed the complaint. If I have a 2GB plan, I should be able to do whatever I damn well please with those 2GB of data.
Hopefully this group (and the voices of others) will have more success. You can file a consumer complaint online here: http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints_tcpa.html [fcc.gov] if you're so inclined, though be aware that the FCC will give out your contact information to your carrier. Also false/anonymous, complaints probably won't help.
Re: (Score:2)
That's that whole dilemma with reporting someone any time. You may get the report in, but you're going to end up paying for it with self imposed grief. Eventually it's going to get out that you were the one that reported because the management talks. So you just suck it up at times and go with it or find a new job where it's bound to happen again.
I haven't had one of those cases in a while, but I did have one about 7 years ago involving me filing a complains against a supervisor I was not a direct report
Usage Patterns (Score:2)
Unlimited plans are available because carriers know that all the smart phones will not be accessing the net all the time. I doubt very much that many people will be watching movies or downloading torrents for hours at a time on a smartphone. If you get enough people doing this, as would happen if tethering was allowed, you would swamp the carrier network.
Yes the bits are the same but the usage pattern is much different between tethering and smartphone use. If you insist on tethering to unlimited plans say g
Just charge for the data and be done with it... (Score:3)
They are in the business of selling data access. Just charge an extra $10/GB (or whatever the market will bear) and be done with it, and quit lying to customers about having sold them an "unlimited" plan in the first place.
There is something seriously innovation-chilling about the company dictating what the source of the data is...
Re:They own the network. (Score:5, Informative)
They own the network, but they license the spectrum. The spectrum is managed by the government for the public good, and as a result, Verizon pays for the privilege, and they have an agreement with the FCC detailing allowed use.
At one time, AT&T charged extra for modem use (Score:5, Insightful)
They can do as they please.
People who tether are not harming the network that the carriers own. What is the carrier's complaint, and how does it square up with the Carterfone decision [wikipedia.org]? At one time, AT&T charged extra for the "tethering" of the day, namely the privilege to use a modem on a phone line. It also limited modems to using acoustic coupler technology. Had this continued, had Carterfone not opened up the market to equipment in the customer's control, we very likely wouldn't have had home Internet access in the 1990s.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>How would you like someone telling you how to run your business?
I'm a person with innate natural rights, not a Thing like Verizon. Being a thing, it has no more rights to privacy or self-regulation than a tree, a rock, or a building.
For that matter, It doesn't even have a right to exist, and government can revoke its corporate license at any time. (At which point verizon reverts to a private direct-owned entity, rather than a government-created entity.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a person with innate natural rights, not a Thing like Verizon. Being a thing, it has no more rights to privacy or self-regulation...
Verizon is just a group of people and the equipment that some of those people pitched in their money to own. Do people stop having rights when they peaceably assemble?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Do people stop having rights when they peaceably assemble?
Of course not. The People inside Verizon retain all of their rights to speak, think, publish, but Verizon Itself - the corporation - has no more rights than the building or parking lot in which the people sit.
Re: (Score:2)
This, a thousand times this.
Re: (Score:2)
That's certainly how it should be, but that's not how corporations are viewed here. They're legally considered people (even though the legal justification for that is a bullshit throwaway line written by a corrupt asshole of a judicial clerk and should have no legal standing)
Recent supreme court decisions have found that corporations enjoy human rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to donate to political campaigns. They're basically people who can't die, and who have no morality because their onl
Re: (Score:2)
The [p]eople inside Verizon retain all of their rights to speak, think, publish...
Do they retain the right to act in concert with each other?
Let me put it another way. The people (people!) making this decision for Verizon think that the best way to allocate their limited resource (bandwidth) is to charge extra for tethering. You're in favor of the government telling those people (people!) to allocate the limited resources of a large group of people (the people who own Verizon) in a different way, one that may make them less money.
You presumably decided on your career based on a numb
Re: (Score:2)
Only when they limit their liability by use of a fictional person commonly referred to as a corporation. If you want full rights, you should take the full risk a natural person takes.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, since a company can be "too big to fail", an argument can be made that people can become "too big to fail" and thus taxpayer money must be spent to keep old 1 ton tubby alive!
Re: (Score:2)
>>>According to the law, Corporations have all the same rights as a natural person.
Please quote which "law" you are referring.
Thank you.
(Hint: No such law exists so no point wasting your time.)
Re: (Score:2)
How would you like someone telling you how to run your business?
About as much as I like a service provider selling me an "unlimited" data plan, and then limiting how and how much I can use it. Sorry, but unlimited means unlimited. Either change the plan so it isn't called "unlimited", or change your use policies so I can use the data however i want.
Re: (Score:2)
Which carrier allows this?
This is a market failure, no option for this exists.
T-mobile was once an option, but with the pending AT&T purchase it is not an option.
I will be leaving Verizon at the end of my contract, but it seems the best I can do is Sprint. Their coverage is not very good and what is to say they don't start to do similar things?
We need regulations forcing all carriers onto the same types of networks and that they all sell each other transport. This way competition can exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Sprint allows this and their coverage and plans have been getting better and better for the last four years.
Right now sprint is doing everything they can to be the "Consumer Friendly" option, with unlimited text and data forthwith same price as Verizon and AT&T's more limited options.
Not a Sprint shill or anything. Just a satisfied customer.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good. Unless the T-mobile deal falls through that is who I will be switching too. Even if it means I have no cell coverage when I visit my parents in bumblefuck PA.
Re:They own the network. (Score:4, Informative)
I would note that technically sprint charges an extra 10 bucks for allowing tethering.
Re:They own the network. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That falls in line with the idea that municipalities should own the utilities/fiber in the ground and ISPs/companies pay for the use of them. When the city lays new road or resurfaces an old road, bury a channel of electric, water, sewer, and fiber (and maybe coax?) and charge the companies that supply those lines for the upkeep. The channels should be big enough for some expansion based on the width of the road. Houses and or complexes would just tap into those lines via access boxes to supply their por
Re:They own the network. (Score:5, Interesting)
In an environment where the carriers tell the FCC what the rules should be, or where companies buy legislation ... the 'market' has already failed.
Why does everyone continue to believe that the 'market' is this self-regulating entity which comes up with optimal solutions and gets corrected by competition and other factors? It simply doesn't work that way, and it never has.
The 'market' isn't there to serve you or me, it's been set up so the major players hold all of the cards. It sure as hell isn't 'fair'.
*laugh* So, you think regulating the market into uniformity and proscribing what they can do will lead to competition and fairness?
Your beloved market doesn't work that way, and the carriers would balk and say they're not willing to spend the money or not be differentiated by being incompatible. Seriously, if someone on the FCC can rule there's no problem with a merger ... and then take employment with the beneficiary of that merger ... do you expect any regulation to not be stacked in favor of the big players?
It's an idealized economic model ... it doesn't operate the way people think of it, and it never has ... it doesn't have these wonderful self correcting measures, and regulation/legislation only distort things ... and, really, even if it *did* work that way, the big players would game the system to get an advantage.
Years of watching this kind of stuff have convinced me that this 'market' and 'competition' of which you speak is a myth. Start out with a fair one, and you'll get cartels and price fixing within a short period of time ... and competition won't naturally create better solutions, it will create better solutions at exploiting you.
People don't have perfect information, they don't make rational informed choices, and everybody is out to fuck everybody else over. All subsequent assumptions are distorted ... and, occasionally when we see the markets tank, we get to see how badly the underlying system has been manipulated so that someone gets rich at everyone else's expense. Selling off bad debt as if it was AAA rated investments, for instance ... one big shell game. A Ponzi scheme on a massive scale. And, yet, its proponents continue to claim that it will fix everything.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to work in Europe where all the carriers are on GSM and switching providers is as simple as a sim card swap.
Re: (Score:2)
*phbtbtbtb* Europe, who goes there? ;-)
But, seriously, did they all choose to use that infrastructure (ie because of Nokia or something), or were they told they had to?
Lord knows I like my GSM cell phone ... when I want a new phone, I swap my SIM card and it works great. I can see being able to change carriers that easily would be great if you needed to.
It just seems like the carriers in th
Re: (Score:2)
The market isn't there to serve anyone. I, for instance, cannot start up my own cable company and provide service to a neighborhood because local government won't let me.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. We can't demand that government regulate everything.
Sure, but when Verizon has explicit agreements with the FCC after licensing the spectrum from their LTE services, is it not reasonable to expect the government to hold Verizon to that agreement? Or are you ignorant of the fact that Verizon made this agreement and is flagrantly violating it?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Damn straight! I don't like any of the cable TV terms of any company so I don't have Cable TV!
Me neither.
I use an antenna to receive 50 stations (~42 if you eliminate duplicates) from the surrounding area. Plus syfy.com to watch my favorite fantasy/science fiction shows. I don't see any reason to throw-away $1000/year on comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only 1 or 2 devices?
CM supports 27 devices officially, there are plenty more unofficial ports of CM for other devices.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're saying that Android should support wireless tether out of the box,
I know several people who have android 2.2+ phones, and theirs had wifi tethering out of the box. 3G network in, wifi tether out. If it isn't working "out of the box", someone removed it from the box.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon removed it out of the box. There is a tether application, but it extorts you out of, I believe, $30 a month.
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of OSS apps that do tethering. Google has no lockdown on Android, you can install out of market apps. Heck, CM7 makes all kinds of changes to android, CM7.1 adds the ability to block permissions.
http://code.google.com/p/android-wifi-tether/ [google.com]
It is GPLv3.
You might not be trolling, but you are quite uninformed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or to make it simpler, just make some nice OSS apps that destroy Google's lockdown on Android so that we who pay $70-90 a month for a 3G/4G cell plan (individual, not family plan) can rightfully use the service we pay through our teeth for ?
The irony to this question is that Google has done a lot to subvert the normal lockdowns that had been a staple of the US wireless telcom industry.
Re: (Score:2)
can someone tell me why the same community of OS / compiler / OSS people can't come together, fork Android, and really just say to Google "thank you but no thank you, you've done good but you can't do anymore."
Already been done with the various ROMs and the AOSP. Besides, if you were to completely fork it, there'd be a lot of work maintaining compatibility with Google Android, otherwise you wouldn't really be able to load it onto most devices.
Re: (Score:2)
...but with the WebOS phones from Verizon, the tethering app is included... by Verizon... for free!
Re: (Score:3)
Which is ironic because it's was Google who got the 'shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice' clause in the LTE spectrum in the first place to prevent carriers from denying people's ability to use Android devices.
Re: (Score:2)
If Verizon and Google are agreeing to restrict the market, it sounds like a antitrust conspiracy under the Sherman and Clayton Acts
Only if Google does it just for Verizon, no?
So far as I know, Android Market has customization provisions for all cell providers, not just Verizon. It may be that Verizon is the only one blocking tethering apps, but AT&T could probably do so as well if it wanted, so "competition" is not affected here.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends - what weighs more:
1) a pound of bullshit?
2) a pound of telecom?