Verizon Wireless Blocks The Updating Of Apps They Feel Are Unauthorized

[SquireSCA]

Probably becausde they're young immature and have a sense of entitlement they're no to in the slightest. The teens and 20s kids go to college for a few semesters and all of a sudden they have a JD and the man is out to get them

In this case, people have a sense of entitlement because we were sold something that they called unlimited, and they are locked into a contract paying the highest plan prices, only to be told that, "But if you use too much you will be throttled, and you cannot use these apps, etc..."

It may be in the fine print, but let's face it, what was advertized and what we got are two different things.

 

[Anathema]

I would ONLY be mad if this wasn't true...

Oh and protip: You can always turn off your data and enable WiFi to update or download these “unauthorized” apps from the Market. Ha-ha, Verizon!

If they tried to block me from downloading what I want with my own internet, I would be pissed the **** off. You know, since that's illegal.

It does, however, bother me that companies like this are allowed to blindly alter their contract after we've signed it and say "too bad" but we have to pay termination fees....

 

[Natey2]

In this case, people have a sense of entitlement because we were sold something that they called unlimited, and they are locked into a contract paying the highest plan prices, only to be told that, "But if you use too much you will be throttled, and you cannot use these apps, etc..."

It may be in the fine print, but let's face it, what was advertized and what we got are two different things.

I can't imagine what I'd need more than 5GB/month for. My highest was like 3GB, and that includes Netflix usage.

Here's the fine print:

Verizon:
http://tinyurl.com/vzwtos
http://tinyurl.com/vzwtos1

AT&T:
http://tinyurl.com/attwds


Sent from my unrooted DroidX using DroidForums app.

 

[czerdrill]

I would ONLY be mad if this wasn't true...

If they tried to block me from downloading what I want with my own internet, I would be pissed the **** off. You know, since that's illegal.

It does, however, bother me that companies like this are allowed to blindly alter their contract after we've signed it and say "too bad" but we have to pay termination fees....

It bothers me more that ppl sign contracts without knowing what they're signing and then blame the company for enforcing that contract.

How do you ppl not understand what you're saying? You're essentially saying "I should not bound by the contract I signed and verizon should not enforce the terms of that contract "

As much as some ppl here want convince themselves that there is, the truth of the matter is there is No gray area, there is No maybe this is what they meant, there is No verizon is screwing me over.

It's entitlement plain and simple. It's a sad state of affairs when a company is blamed for doing nothing wrong and so few ppl realize the flaw inherent in all their arguments: you agreed.

To the person who asked why hasn't there been a hero? Because the ppl who were saying "I will leave verizon blah blah blah" and "verizon won't get my money" were simply not getting caught so it was easy to talk tough. Clearly things have changed and now those same ppl are here just crying about it all the while paying their bill every month. Their excuse now for not leaving? "The evil company has an ETF forcing me to remain with them. Rather I will spend 1200+ a year because they ain't getting my 350!! That will show them!!" But the people who are happy with their service are the ones being taken advantage of haha. There's never going to be a hero because there never was going to be one. Ppl patted themselves on the back and called themselves hackers and think their vigilantes but the truth is they're just immature and entitled.

This is the perfect opportunity for ppl to leave for sprint. Obviously no one is going anywhere....

 

[SquireSCA]

Yes, we signed a contract, because they all require it. You cannot get a cell phone plan without it. Even if you pay full price for the phone and don't sign a pricing contract, there is still a usage or TOS contract that you are signing. And they can change it whenever they want, while you cannot.

If I made a contract that says I can punch you in the face twice a day, yes, I may be entitled to enforce it because you agreed to it, but it doesn't negate the fact that I am a scumbag for putting that into the contract.

In any event, nobody has explained to me why the guy who tethers with his unlimited plan and only uses 1GB a month combined, is "worse for the network" than the guy who doesn't tether but uses 7GB a month on his unlimited plan.

If this was about "abusers", they would simply go after people that use too much bandwidth, regardless of what device they used it for.

As has been pointed out, this is a business practice that was tried in several other industries and had to be abandoned because it isn't really fair to the consumer. If I pay for cable, I should not have to pay more based on what room I choose to watch it in. If I pay for internet, I shouldn't have to pay more to use it on my laptop versus my desktop. If I pay for a landline phone and I supply my own phones, it shouldn't cost me more to call from the bedroom instead of the kitchen.

This crap will go away at some point, just as it has in the other industries.

 

[czerdrill]

Yes, we signed a contract, because they all require it. You cannot get a cell phone plan without it. Even if you pay full price for the phone and don't sign a pricing contract, there is still a usage or TOS contract that you are signing. And they can change it whenever they want, while you cannot.

What you can do if they change it, is leave without an ETF. If you are made aware of the changes (just like you were made aware of the initial terms) and still choose to stay, that's your problem not theirs. If you choose to pay $1200+ a year to be screwed over, when paying $350 will free you of the evil company, that's your problem not theirs.

If I made a contract that says I can punch you in the face twice a day, yes, I may be entitled to enforce it because you agreed to it, but it doesn't negate the fact that I am a scumbag for putting that into the contract.

I would not sign such a contract. Why did you sign yours if it contained such ridiculous terms?

In any event, nobody has explained to me why the guy who tethers with his unlimited plan and only uses 1GB a month combined, is "worse for the network" than the guy who doesn't tether but uses 7GB a month on his unlimited plan.

If this was about "abusers", they would simply go after people that use too much bandwidth, regardless of what device they used it for.

Probably because it's not really about abusers, and its actually about going after people who violate their TOS.

As has been pointed out, this is a business practice that was tried in several other industries and had to be abandoned because it isn't really fair to the consumer. If I pay for cable, I should not have to pay more based on what room I choose to watch it in. If I pay for internet, I shouldn't have to pay more to use it on my laptop versus my desktop. If I pay for a landline phone and I supply my own phones, it shouldn't cost me more to call from the bedroom instead of the kitchen.

You pay for separate cable boxes in each room don't you? Aren't you paying twice, three or four times for the same cable? Why do you have to sign up for a $80/month cable package and then pay $7/box a month? Cable is cable. All they're doing is splitting the same signal and routing it through different boxes. So yeah, you are paying extra to watch it in another room.

This crap will go away at some point, just as it has in the other industries.

Doubtful. This "crap" (and i'm talking about people complaining) has been going on since the days of the old Blackberrys. People have been whining about it for years, threatening to leave Verizon for years and its the same situation to this day. How much easier life would be if we could just violate contracts we signed and say things like "that's a scumbag thing to put in there" or "that's unfair" or "you said this, the contract i agreed to said something else so therefore it is your fault and not mine for not actually reading"...unfortunately it doesn't work like that.

 

[SquireSCA]

I would pay for extra cable boxes, because that is additional hardware. What I would not pay for are the TV's I plug those boxes into, or if I had Cable ready TV's and plugged them in without boxes.

Do you have DSL or a cable modem? Do they charge you for each device on your network? Why not?

 

[czerdrill]

I would pay for extra cable boxes, because that is additional hardware. What I would not pay for are the TV's I plug those boxes into, or if I had Cable ready TV's and plugged them in without boxes.

Do you have DSL or a cable modem? Do they charge you for each device on your network? Why not?

That's not the point. The point is cable is cable. They're not supplying you with all new cable service in each room, they're just splitting the one signal to multiple rooms. So you're saying if Verizon tethering required some extra USB device (hardware) and couldn't be done wirelessly, that data suddenly wouldn't just be "data" and youd give them $20/month? The reason you're paying for boxes is not because of hardware this hardware that it's because you have no other choice. Why aren't you complaining to the cable companies about cable being cable? It just sounds like what I've always said and that's that people are doing it and threatening to leave if they're stopped simply because they were never stopped. Now that they are, all we hear is complaining on these forums and Verizon still has all its customers intact.

No I do not pay for every device on my network. But having multiple devices is allowed per the agreement I have with my cable company. If it wasn't I wouldn't have signed up and pay $150/month for my cable/internet. Again...why are you paying Verizon just to get screwed? Why did you agree to such unfair terms? Why aren't you high-tailing it for Sprint now that they've stopped tethering without signing up through their plan? Why isn't the FCC being inundated with complaints from the many people here who swore that they'd leave Verizon and how "data is data"?

It was just a bunch of empty talk from people who were simply getting away with something that no one cared about.

 

[czerdrill]

BTW, if there was a way for people to get cable without having extra boxes even if they didnt have a cable-ready TV, believe me we'd be hearing complaints about cable being cable and how the cable companies are charging twice for the same thing. The difference here is, you have no choice when it comes to cable companies. With VZW, you were able to get around it.

 

[SquireSCA]

What I am saying, is that your ISP charges you for a line to your house, maybe a modem and possibly a router, depending on the company and options. But once the service is there, you can use it for your desktop, the laptop, your tablet and phone, your PS3, even a VoIP phone. You pay for a data connection to the net, but what devices use it and how you digest that data is up to you. They don't charge you for every device on your network.

Your Cable company provides the pipe to your house for TV. They can charge you for each box that provides additional features, PPV, DVR, etc. But the data line itself, can be shared with other TV's that do not require the boxes. And you don't get charged for each TV that you split the signal to, any more than you pay for each computer on your network that shares your internet service.

You pay for a landline to be installed to your house. They wire it to your junction box, and from there you can run a line to every room in your home and have a Sports Illustrated football phone in each room. You just pay for the one line in. Only time they charge you for more, is for a separate phone number, or if you want the service calls to extend past the line in and go to individual jacks. But if you just want the line in, you pay for that line and can share it with as many rooms and phones as you want.

The point is that at one time, that was not how these things worked. Each of those tried the business model of charging you for the line and each device connected to it. Not for the boxes, but for the "use" of it on another device. And that all went away.

I pay for the internet, let me decide what computer(s) I want to use it on, and I do.

I pay for TV, let me decide what room I want to watch it in, and I do.

I pay for a landline, let me decide what rooms I want to have it available in, and I do.

But cell phones are newer, they are where those other devices were 20 years ago, and they in turn will catch up with the times, because consumers will demand it. And if they don't fill it, someone else will see that void and demand in the marketplace and step in and capitalize on it, and once they do that, the bigger names will have to follow suit. All it takes is that first company to be bold enough to take that step, and the rest won't have a choice but to follow suit in order to stay competitive.

THAT is Capitalism at work.

They do what they do only because some lawyer put it in the contract, but contracts will change, the market will change and it isn't gonna last. They tried it everywhere else and it never lasts because charging you for the same thing multiple times is something that you can only get away with for so long... People will get sick of being nickled and dimed to death.

 

[kodiak799]

But you're ultimately paying for mobile data, not an ISP. If your cable was portable and could be shared, you better believe no one is selling you unlimited, much less allow unrestricted use. Comcast, I think, has some stuff you can view over the net or even on a wireless device. And guess what? They limit you to connecting one such device at a time (in some cases it might be 3).

 

[czerdrill]

I think you look at everything a little too peachy keen and not realistically haha. Yes, undoubtedly if a company comes out and gives you unlimited everything on the planet it would force the other companies to make some changes. The problem is no company could do this from a business or logical perspective. It's simply not a sustainable model to allow your customers to do whatever they please without imposing any restrictions. No company would do that, and I hope you're not waiting around for a company to do that. It's not going to happen. If a company tries, they will fail.

Sprint, the holy grail of unlimitedness, which everyone was supposed to run to, is also now imposing caps on its tethering, and they will undoubtedly move to tiers on their data plans in the future. Allowing your customers to use 60GB of data every month without any restriction is a quick way to hemorrhage money. The conspiracy theories and the stories about corporate greed and evil conglomerates are great to talk about, but at the end of the day its just silly talk.

I'm not sure why you think things are going to change, when there's no indication that it will. In fact, the recent events show that it's going in the exact opposite of the way you think it will (Sprint also moving to tiers on tethering).

You're right the point is it always wasn't like this. In fact, all the carriers offered unlimited data without restrictions/optimizing/throttling...now all of them have implemented some sort of tier.

Secondly it's mobile! Not landline!

 

[SquireSCA]

But you're ultimately paying for mobile data, not an ISP. If your cable was portable and could be shared, you better believe no one is selling you unlimited, much less allow unrestricted use. Comcast, I think, has some stuff you can view over the net or even on a wireless device. And guess what? They limit you to connecting one such device at a time (in some cases it might be 3).

What is the difference if it is mobile or not? Sharing with a wire, which can then be shared with a wireless router, is not much different.

 

[czerdrill]

What is the difference if it is mobile or not? Sharing with a wire, which can then be shared with a wireless router, is not much different.

Come on...really? Two completely different infrastructures.

 

[SquireSCA]

I think you look at everything a little too peachy keen and not realistically haha. Yes, undoubtedly if a company comes out and gives you unlimited everything on the planet it would force the other companies to make some changes. The problem is no company could do this from a business or logical perspective. It's simply not a sustainable model to allow your customers to do whatever they please without imposing any restrictions. No company would do that, and I hope you're not waiting around for a company to do that. It's not going to happen. If a company tries, they will fail.

Sprint, the holy grail of unlimitedness, which everyone was supposed to run to, is also now imposing caps on its tethering, and they will undoubtedly move to tiers on their data plans in the future. Allowing your customers to use 60GB of data every month without any restriction is a quick way to hemorrhage money. The conspiracy theories and the stories about corporate greed and evil conglomerates are great to talk about, but at the end of the day its just silly talk.

I'm not sure why you think things are going to change, when there's no indication that it will. In fact, the recent events show that it's going in the exact opposite of the way you think it will (Sprint also moving to tiers on tethering).

You're right the point is it always wasn't like this. In fact, all the carriers offered unlimited data without restrictions/optimizing/throttling...now all of them have implemented some sort of tier.

Seocndly it's mobile! Not landline!

1) Nobody said to not have any restrictions. Restrict bandwidth. If they think that 10GB is an "Acceptable and approved amount", fine, but let me decide how I want to use it. If they say, "You can eat this much of this food", it shouldn't matter if I use a spoon or chop-sticks to eat that amount of food that they said I could eat.

2) Yes, it is mobile not a landline. What's the difference apart from marketing and perception? I am paying for internet service via their network. Just because as I walk around and am still in their network doesn't change anything. Or should we apply that standard to ISP's? You pay for internet and wherever that DSL lint terminates in your house is where you must use it? If I hook up a router and move from room to room or the back yard, can they consider me now "sharing" and "using it mobile" and no longer landline and charge me more?

I have no problems with teirs. I have no problems with limiting, as THAT is the abuse. Tethering and using 500mb a month is not abuse or "stressing the network"... The guy why doesn't tether but watched Netflix 6 hours a day on his phone and uses 13GB a month, is. So go after that guy.