FCC Rules That Verizon Cannot Charge For 4G Tethering 218
schleprock63 writes "The FCC ruled today that Verizon cannot charge extra for users for 4G Wi-Fi tethering. The FCC used the original agreement in the auction of the C block spectrum which said 'licensees offering service on C Block spectrum "shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee's C Block network, subject to narrow exceptions."' So Verizon cannot charge for tethering on 4G service, this raises the question of whether they can continue to charge for tethering on 3G or 1x?"
Good for the Judges (Score:5, Interesting)
About time we got some smart rulings.
I don't see why this won't apply to 3G or any other type of tethering either, since it's all the same.
Re:Good for the Judges (Score:5, Informative)
I don't see why this won't apply to 3G or any other type of tethering either, since it's all the same.
Because the issue is in which part of the wireless spectrum they are using. As far as I can tell, this ruling only applies to the new C Block spectrum, not the parts of the spectrum they used to have.
Re:Good for the Judges (Score:5, Informative)
I don't see why this won't apply to 3G or any other type of tethering either, since it's all the same.
Because the issue is in which part of the wireless spectrum they are using. As far as I can tell, this ruling only applies to the new C Block spectrum, not the parts of the spectrum they used to have.
Exactly. This was the feature that Google basically spent $4B on a few years ago. The spectrum for LTE went to carriers specifically with the requirement that they follow "net neutrality" style rules on usage; no blocking or "channeling" certain features according to service.
Re:Good for the Judges (Score:5, Informative)
Important note: BID $4B on, but did not win, so spent nothing.
Re:Good for the Judges (Score:4, Interesting)
It must feel really good for Google. They get to slide that knife in 3 years later. They probably did pay some tens of thousands of dollars to line up that $4 billion bid, but that's a drop in the bucket to be able to stick it to Verizon like that. And have the government do it for them.
It looks like Google is really coming of age. They too have learned to manipulate the federal government, just as all the cable and phone providers before them. :P
Re:Good for the Judges (Score:5, Informative)
Correct. However the conclusion you've implied is not correct.
THIS is an administrative ruling, having the full force of law. It remains "law" until overruled by a court. The result is, that it is a law, until proven in a court to be otherwise.
Further, your implication is fairly short sighted, in that you assume something isn't a law (or acts like a law) unless a court rules on it. The fact is, most laws (and administrative rulings) are lawful until someone challenges it in a court.
THIS was an administrative hearing which FUNCTIONS much like a court for most intents and purposes. Therefore the ONLY recourse left to VZ is an actual court. And having already been ruled on by an Administrative hearing, the hurdle is much much higher for VZ than normal court case
Re:Good for the Judges (Score:5, Interesting)
THIS was an administrative hearing which FUNCTIONS much like a court for most intents and purposes. Therefore the ONLY recourse left to VZ is an actual court. And having already been ruled on by an Administrative hearing, the hurdle is much much higher for VZ than normal court case
$1.25 million (paid to the Treasury Dept) works out to 5,208 customers paying $20/month for a year.
Raise your hand if you really think Verizon only had 5,208 customers pay for 4G tethering.
Corporations love these consent decrees because it means they get a slap on the wrist in return for promising not to do [bad thing] again.
At the absolute bare minimum, Verizon should be paying back the customers their $20 x # of months.
Ninety nine times out of a hundred, consent decrees piss me the hell off.
Re:Good for the Judges (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. This is a drop in the bucket for them. They got to violate the rules, penalize/price gouge customers, and give the government a small penance. Honestly I think they should bring back Unlimited data with no restrictions including tethering as their actual punishment. If that's not acceptable, I'm willing to compromise on the punishment be taking all of the executives, striping them naked, and flogging them in public. I think either is fair.
The FCC really needs to make these punishments actual hurt and be a burden. $1.25 mil isn't even a slap on the wrist for VZW and I doubt they'd miss it in their ledgers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So suddenly the "manager" of said government branch can make and strike down "laws" at will, without being accountable to anyone - unless of course the rest of the government decides to call them on it.
So they aren't accountable to anyone, except for the people that they're accountable to. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a consent decree, which VZW has agreed to, and is therefore binding. They agreed to it, simply because they've implemented pay-per-GB "share everything" plans, where the more data used, the more money they make. That makes the decree pretty innocuous. They still have unlimited smartphone data contracts extant, and have traditionally allowed contracts to remain grandfathered, but they don't
Re: (Score:2)
Protip: The FCC is not a court.
True, but they cannot simply be ignored, either. A pissed-off FCC can seriously ruin the day of any telecom carrier (or manufacturer, or broadcaster for that matter).
So yeah, basically Verizon will do what they say. I'm pretty sure Verizon wouldn't want some massive snafu getting in the way of license renewals or the next round of spectrum purchase bidding.
Re: (Score:3)
Somebody never worked in radio, did they?
Re:Good for the Judges (Score:5, Informative)
But the did not just "charge for each device", they added an extra charge for devices that were not connected to their network
But that's the point of the ruling: Verizon wasn't allowed to put those limitation in their contracts. According to you, only Verizon's customers have to abide by contract terms, while Verizon itself doesn't have to abide by contract terms it agreed with the FCC
The restriction which Verizon agreed to was they would not limit or restrict " the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice". Clearly, retricting tethering is limiting the ability of their customers to use the applications of their choice.
Re: (Score:3)
The restriction which Verizon agreed to was they would not limit or restrict " the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice". Clearly, retricting tethering is limiting the ability of their customers to use the applications of their choice.
Is it "restricting" your choice if they charge the same amount to tether using their phones or your own?
This same kind of language is in federal law regarding cable services and the use of CPE (customer provided equipment). Cable companies are not supposed to do things that limit the use of CPE without good cause. Who pays any attention to that?
Certainly not Comcast. When they forced everyone but basic cable subs to go digital, they broke the use of a lot of CPE. They COULD have left the digital signals
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they had to offer the analog boxes for free, which they did for me back when I had cable.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet VZ was up 0.19 today (Score:2, Informative)
Verizon only (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Verizon only (Score:5, Informative)
T-Mobile lets me tether for no additional cost. In fact, tethering came preinstalled on my phone.
Re: (Score:3)
They've taken that away. Works on my G2, it worked on my girlfriend's old phone but when she upgraded to a Galaxy S, tmobile started charging her to tether.
It's a shame, makes me rethink staying with them
Re: (Score:2)
Root, install Cyanogenmod, done.
Re: (Score:2)
There's ways around the tethering fee; it all depends on your morals and whether you consider the TOS valid in that regard.
If you're happy with T-Mobile and the service they provide sans that one little thing, don't bother changing. They all suck.
Re:Verizon only (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. It is. I use it everyday to surf on my unlocked Nook Simple Touch and/or my Stylistic tablet and I have never been hit with an extra charge.
I'm on a prepaid plan and my phone is a stock Samsung Dart.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
long story short...t-mobile tethering is free. I don't abuse it and only use it during emergencies (type long emails in laptop/ VPN), which has always come through for me when traveling out of state.
long story short...shortsightedness is still...short.
Nothing is free. Your bill is merely printed differently to not itemize certain features.
All of this is bullshit is nothing more than window dressing, and will be proven once Verizon loses, and does nothing more than adjust their package rates from obscene to ludicrous...oh, and print their bills like yours.
Re: (Score:2)
If Verizon could just increase the rates without losing customers, why exactly haven't they done so already? They hate free money?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So if I read the article correctly (Score:4, Insightful)
So if I read the article correctly, since they're no longer able to charge $20/mo for tethering, we should all brace for industry-wide data plan price increases of... about $20.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I'm reading too...
Re:So if I read the article correctly (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I read the article correctly, since they're no longer able to charge $20/mo for tethering, we should all brace for industry-wide data plan price increases of... about $20.
If they thought they could have already raised prices $20 without resulting in a backlash leading to loss of revenue or other undesirable outcome (i.e. price regulation), they would have already done so.
But in any case, if they want to make the same revenue the price increase would be lower than $20. If 1 out of 10 customers bought the tethering plan, then they'd only need to raise prices $2 for everyone to make the same amount of revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah-HA (Score:5, Interesting)
So THIS is why they converted to the consumer benefit-free data-bucket plans. You can add any device to your plan, but they'll make sure it bites your smartphone and every other device in your plan in the ass if you make a single wrong step. Well played.
FCC: "Can you hear us now?"
VZN: "Yeah, and we got it covered."
Re: (Score:2)
Huh??? Are you saying that previously you could tether a device and it would not have counted? Yeah right...
You were going to get charged for the bandwidth either way. Previously it would have count against the smartphones data usage.
your post really doesn't make any sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Previously VZW offered unlimited 3G plans (like the one I'm still on). And if you root your phone you get free tethering. So no, it wouldn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too late... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too late... (Score:5, Insightful)
i hope you realize the irony of your statement...
Re:Too late... (Score:4, Informative)
Wait... You're leaving Verizon because they've treated you like complete crap and are going to either Sprint or ATT?
I mean, let's completely ignore for the moment how Apple treats their customers. Sprint or ATT? You SERIOUSLY think either of these guys will treat you better than Verizon?
Re:Too late... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There area actually quite a few pay-as-you-go vendors that support high end phones these days.
If you don't mind eating a $600+ initial investment to buy your own phone outright. Virgin Mobile has good reception in my area, and costs a mere $30/month for unlimited text and data.
Re: (Score:2)
You kinda failed to ignore Apple yourself there. I might leave Verizon for AT&T as well. They will have the more interesting Windows phone, the iPhone 5, and Androids that aren't Motorola (which I am no longer supporting). Sure, AT&T customers have their own complaints, but for years I've stuck with Verizon because Verizon swore that life outside Verizon walls was no life at all. It was cold and dangerous, and there was no connectivity. It's just not that true in my area. Besides, I know that once I
Re: (Score:2)
I had been a Verizon Wireless customer since the late 90s. I recently dropped them and went with a prepaid provider, switching to the unlocked Google Nexus sold directly from Google. I've had it for a few months now and there hasn't been anything to complain about. The monthly cost is about what I was paying for a lousy voice plan, grandfathered evdo data, and no texting on an ancient Motorola flip phone. These companies are just reselling the bigger company's network so the bargain may not last forever
Re:Too late... (Score:4, Funny)
Virgin Mobile is actually what I use for cell service, simply because Pay-as-you-go service nicely prevents any overcharge hijinks.
Choosing between Verizon, Sprint, and ATT is like choosing between Joe Jackson, Ike Turner, and O.J. Simpson.
Virgin Mobile is like Bobby Brown, holding to the terribly flawed analogy. You're gonna regret hooking up, but at least you can get away from it if you're not on crack.
Re: (Score:2)
Choosing between Verizon, Sprint, and ATT is like choosing between Joe Jackson, Ike Turner, and O.J. Simpson.
Virgin Mobile is like Bobby Brown, holding to the terribly flawed analogy. You're gonna regret hooking up, but at least you can get away from it if you're not on crack.
Well, Joe Jackson has way better coverage way out West.
And its so cheap (Score:2)
I'm on the $25 "grandfathered" data plan. 300 talk minutes and unlimited data (2.5GB limit until throttling). Still only $25 a month without a contract, beat that.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that Virgin Mobile is Sprint, right? It started out as a MVNO on Sprint. Later Sprint bought it out and now it's just another brand like Boost.
Re: (Score:3)
Moving to Finland aye?
(That was where most of the lowest price/best connectivity braggarts claim they're from, right?)
Re:Too late... (Score:4, Interesting)
Before you get too excited about switching carriers, I should let you know I'm leaving AT&T because their idea of a contract is that I pay them until the contract is over, but they don't have to hold up their end of the deal. Here's my story:
Last year I renewed my contract with Unlimited Data grandfathered in. Six months later they announced a 3 gig limit before 'throttling' would begin. (At this point I'd like to note that my contract does mention they'll play around with network performance as necessary, but the 3 gig limit is NOT specified in it.. they just arbitrarily added it.) They do not say, however, what the minimum speed will be. In my view, this is a critical component of the contract. The speed that they reduce the connection down to affects the tasks I can do with my phone. I don't care, for example, if I cannot watch Netflix on the road, but if I cannot get email or text messaging, then how can they really call it "unlimited"?
I contacted their customer service, after going round and round with lines like "well if you use Wifi..." or "if you switch to a tiered plan..." or "... well it really won't affect you", I could not get an answer. One day I got a letter from AT&T from some VP of such and such department saying that I should be happy because they've upgraded the network in my area and that they're glad I'm continuing to be a customer of theirs. At the bottom was a request for feedback with this VP's email address. I emailed him explaining that I don't know what 'throttling' actually means and, instead of writing me back, he punted my message off to customer service. Frustrated, I emailed again and told them that if they had read my email they would realize that I'm addressing the VP and that customer service was already of no help and.. customer service, NOT the VP, replied again. They said that their network performance was proprietary information that they would NOT share with me. The only way I'll find out how slow my connection will be throttled is if I go over the limit and see what happens. I'm getting to a point where this is very tempting to do. I don't really want to abuse their resources but they're driving me to it.
If you do end up going to AT&T I wish you luck, but I strongly recommend that you do NOT assume that any contract you enter into with them will mean you'll have any guarantees of service. Two years is a long time to be disgruntled.
Re: (Score:2)
Was there a guaranteed minimum speed on the old contract? That seems to be the crux of your complaint, but you don't indicate what the minimum guaranteed speed was originally. You also kind of walked past the fact that the original contract says they can adjust things on their own, arbitrarily, and without your input.
I agree it's a shitty contract, but it doesn't sound like they have violated it or that they are outside of industry norms.
Re: (Score:2)
Was there a guaranteed minimum speed on the old contract?
No, there was not, and you are right. If I had technical grounds to break the contract without an ETF I would.
However, I did purchase the phone while they were running ads that you can do things like get email and view maps etc. It probably wouldn't hold up in a court of law, but from a customer service point of view they really should make good on what they showed us.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand where you're coming from.
Unfortunately, in an oligopolic situation like we have with mobile phones, there's not much value in improving service of any sort.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you work up that lawsuit on those terms, let me know how it works. I know which side I'll be betting on.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you need to file a complaint with the BBB, FCC, and/or FTC. I don't know which one or combination of them will help, if at all. The BBB seems to move a little faster than the FCC and FTC. Look at this article and how long it took the FCC to enforce the rules on the C-block.
Personally I'm trying the BBB for my dispute with VZW. I did get a call from someone that wasn't on their standard CS team saying they've received the complaint and are looking into it.
FUCK THE FCC!! (Score:3)
...wait.. what? They did something good for customers?
[Gilda Radner] Never Mind [/Gilda Radner]
Re: (Score:2)
...wait.. what? They did something good for customers?
[Gilda Radner] Never Mind [/Gilda Radner]
You really expect most Slashdotters to google Gilda?
Re: (Score:2)
...wait.. what? They did something good for customers?
[Gilda Radner] Never Mind [/Gilda Radner]
You really expect most Slashdotters to google Gilda?
You expect anyone to need to google Gilda?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are the customers getting their money back?
You know, for the tethering costs they should never have paid?
Never Mind
What Does This Mean? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Fast" lane. (Score:2)
So Verizon cannot charge for tethering on 4G service, this raises the question of whether they can continue to charge for tethering on 3G or 1x?
Who in the world tethers a 1xRTT connection? 3G is more understandable, but still slow.
Re: (Score:2)
Although admittedly i certainly wouldn't _pay_ for the option, but since in my case it's free, why not?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be waiting to hear from T-Mobile (Score:2)
What they used to give me at no extra charge (tethering/hot-spot) they now charge $15/mo. I don't even use it very often but I DO use it. Most of the time, I don't even come close to my high-speed data limit (5 GB) either.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't mind 3G, get an N900 (or similarly 3G capable phone that is equally carrier-hostile) and do tethering through that.
Not sure about the carrier-hostile 4G equivalent though.
Re: (Score:2)
For T-Mo, that's Galaxy Nexus - purchased unlocked directly from Google, of course.
Good, now can we kill metered data as well? (Score:3)
If the FCC had any bravery in them, they'd find a way to kill off the rampant use of metered data - and without the carrier raising the cost.
The lack of metered data is what had made the Internet good to work with. Now all it does is just engender politics about who gets exempt - much like the Bad Old Days of Compuserve.
Re: (Score:2)
If the FCC killed off data metering and didn't allow the carriers to raise their prices, the carriers would respond the same way landlords respond to rent control - they wouldn't put another damn dime into improving their networks. Ten years from now the rest of the world would be on, like, 8G while here in the US we'd still be using the exact same network we're using today. You'd end up getting about ten kilobits per second during peak hours as everyone else using the closest cell tries bittorrent the la
Can't even USB tether on my phone (Score:2)
Willing to move to 4G-ville (Score:2)
I'd be happy with any kind of tethering so I can use my laptop where my phone works.
Would you be happy with having to move to a city where LTE (4G-Lite) service is offered? This ruling applies only to the frequency block that VZW is using for LTE, not the frequency block used for 2G or 3G. So be prepared to pay a tethering surcharge when you're "roaming" on VZW's 3G network.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't block tethering apps, but can charge (Score:2)
The answer is no. (Score:2)
this raises the question of whether they can continue to charge for tethering on 3G or 1x?
The answer here is no, because of the very bit in the summary! It was a rider on their buying the spectrum block. Hence, other spectra are not effected.
About damn time (Score:2)
In the mean time if your on a JB iPhone you can use the teatherme app from cydia to over ride the provder settings. But I know from all the slasdot haters the only reason to JB an iPhone is if your a Gasp... Pirate.
Hows About Refunds For The Robbed? (Score:2)
Refund????
Refund????!!!!????
I would like to yell it like dad did in Breaking Away [youtube.com], but the lameness of the
MetroPCS too (Score:2)
Re:Free tethering then? Maybe.. (Score:4, Insightful)
"shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee's C Block network, subject to narrow exceptions"
Re: (Score:2)
How is it anything even close to theft? I just checked my bill and everything I signed up for was right there. They didn't charge me anything for tethering because I said not to. If someones willing to pay for using Verizon's network in ways Verizon didn't intend how is that theft?
Re: (Score:2)
Oversubscribed (Score:3)
You paid for a certain amount of data. Let's say 3 GB. What you do with that data shouldn't matter.
People who don't tether tend not to use all the data they paid for. Carriers count on overselling their capacity in this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it shouldn't matter, but that's what you agreed to when you signed a contract with VZW (paying for data to the phone only, not tethering). If you don't think that's acceptable, and signed the contract anyway, well - that's just stupid, and trying to rationalize unethical behavior is simply disingenuous.
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But what service are they providing? The tethering is a function of the phone, created by someone who is not Verizon. The bandwidth was already paid for. What exactly did Verizon do to earn $20?
Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin. (Score:5, Insightful)
s'okay - even if the FCC ruled that Verizon cannot charge for any tethering at all, they'd simply charge for using the phone in a 'special data mode', or they'd happily rig all new phones to count double towards your data cap while tethered (after all, you're using two data 'channels' now - one to the laptop, and one to the tower!). Basically, they'd come up with some other sleazy move that sounds halfway legit to the non-techie user.
Never underestimate the capacity of a telecom carrier to do evil for profit.
Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but at least the ruling means that if they try sleazy moves, there is a door to fight them.
Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin. (Score:4, Funny)
Suit yourself, but a Schmeisser is lighter, heaps easier to hold on to, and can be used from a greater (and safer) distance.
Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin. (Score:5, Funny)
Never underestimate the capacity of a telecom carrier to do evil for profit.
Wait, the profit isn't just a fringe benefit?
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between making a profit and price gouging your customers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin. (Score:5, Informative)
So Verizon cannot charge for tethering on 4G service, this raises the question of whether they can continue to charge for tethering on 3G or 1x?
Your answer lies in those "narrow exceptions".
Its a regulation on the bandwidth block used for 4g. not the range for 3g. different frequencies, different rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If it doesn't use the C-block, it's performance drops too close to that of earlier protocols that also don't use the C-block, which would result in PR and marketing suicide.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I remember what pissed me off... I specifically got Skype on Verizon a few years ago, just used the smartphone functionality. Well shit, Verizon bought Skype... I ended up having to use Skype calls like regular phone calls. That's when I knew I was not looking back.
Verizon didn't by Skype, Microsoft did for $8b. Skype was Verizon's bitch for free.