VZW disabling tethering apps from market

[freezyfreaky]

This merely states that google sided with them, that doesn't mean that google was in the right here. Just because a company does something doesn't make it right or lawful. Google is known for pushing the limits with certain things (i.e. the wifi capturing). Plus this article only states what is already known, that they were removing the apps from the marketplace, that doesn't say you can't side-load them or root and get them that way also. Merely saying they won't be in the marketplace. There is amazon's marketplace also which already has easytether in it, do you think pdanet won't follow, or any other tether program that is removed from google's marketplace?

Unfortunately verizon has no legs to stand on in this, they knew exactly what they were getting into when they signed the contract for the 4g spectrum. This is the express reason why they would go to tiered pricing. While this type of contract most likely does not exist for their 3g network, because if it did everyone would know about it, it does exist for their 4g. Which is why they are moving from unlimited to tiered. This is their only recourse to the contract they signed. It's not because verizon's network would be hurt, it's because their pocketbooks would be. They make millions off selling their tethering plan and don't want to give it up. That is their right as a company to do so, while i may not agree with them, it is nonetheless their right.

What it actually states is:

"This compliance by Google has come as a big surprise for some because it skirts the edge of licensing conditions for keeping applications and handsets open on the C Block spectrum Verizon uses for its LTE network. In fact, Google is remembered for pushing the price of the C Block spectrum sale up past $4.6 billion in order to ensure those licensing conditions would be in place. The conditions state devices and apps can’t be blocked from using the C Block through a service. However, the app blockage is allowed as Verizon isn’t blocking access to any devices, just ensuring any such devices pay for an appropriate data plan. Google on the other hand is complying with a carrier request, not directly breaking the licensing conditions."


So as mentioned by others and myself, the spectrum guideline doesn't apply because Verizon/Google are not doing anything to block access to devices, but rather wanting to get paid for their services (crazy concept, right?)


Sure, someone can take it to court...but those people are the ones with no leg to stand on. I think people see something and start running away with it, till its disproved, then they scramble to find the next justification. I've said it before and I'll say it again.



Verizon/Google are not mom and pop organizations. While that doesn't mean they're infallible, trust me their legal teams look at everything before a new policy is instituted. It's not some dude in a conference room clicking OK without consulting anyone. I highly doubt Verizon/Google are worried about the spectrum guidelines, and they are within the guidelines.

"In addition, C Block licensees cannot exclude applications or devices solely on the basis that such applications or devices would unreasonably increase bandwidth demands. We anticipate that demand can be adequately managed through feasible facility improvements or technology-neutral capacity pricing that does not discriminate against subscribers using third-party devices or applications."

Unfortunately THAT is what they are doing. Google is in their right to remove an application but the fact is that you can get that application from many other sources, and google knows that. They are just trying to keep verizon happy, which is what they are doing, knowing full well that because amazon app store and the internet exists, people will still use that program. Unfortunately that program falls in the category of an application that would unreasonably increase bandwidth, and that is the argument that verizon has stated many times as the reason why they charge for tethering. It's not because of any other reason. The fact that if someone tethers their phone to their computer and uses no data, then it doesn't hurt their network, and they don't care about that. A third-party device unfortunately falls into the "computer" range. No matter how you want to look at it. You can look at it 50 ways till sunday and come up with 100000 different reasons why the contract doesn't apply to verizon and google.

The fact is that we don't see eye to eye, and of course i know you will come back with another witty reply to mine showing how i'm wrong in 100% of what i say.

The way I see it is Verizon is not blocking the tethering apps because it uses more bandwidth but because it is allowing another device that isn't approved by Verizon on their network without a data plan. I think the intent is actually for net neutrality. But hey, I like I said before, I don't mind being wrong with this one.

 

[czerdrill]

What it actually states is:

"This compliance by Google has come as a big surprise for some because it skirts the edge of licensing conditions for keeping applications and handsets open on the C Block spectrum Verizon uses for its LTE network. In fact, Google is remembered for pushing the price of the C Block spectrum sale up past $4.6 billion in order to ensure those licensing conditions would be in place. The conditions state devices and apps can’t be blocked from using the C Block through a service. However, the app blockage is allowed as Verizon isn’t blocking access to any devices, just ensuring any such devices pay for an appropriate data plan. Google on the other hand is complying with a carrier request, not directly breaking the licensing conditions."


So as mentioned by others and myself, the spectrum guideline doesn't apply because Verizon/Google are not doing anything to block access to devices, but rather wanting to get paid for their services (crazy concept, right?)


Sure, someone can take it to court...but those people are the ones with no leg to stand on. I think people see something and start running away with it, till its disproved, then they scramble to find the next justification. I've said it before and I'll say it again.



Verizon/Google are not mom and pop organizations. While that doesn't mean they're infallible, trust me their legal teams look at everything before a new policy is instituted. It's not some dude in a conference room clicking OK without consulting anyone. I highly doubt Verizon/Google are worried about the spectrum guidelines, and they are within the guidelines.

"In addition, C Block licensees cannot exclude applications or devices solely on the basis that such applications or devices would unreasonably increase bandwidth demands. We anticipate that demand can be adequately managed through feasible facility improvements or technology-neutral capacity pricing that does not discriminate against subscribers using third-party devices or applications."

Unfortunately THAT is what they are doing. Google is in their right to remove an application but the fact is that you can get that application from many other sources, and google knows that. They are just trying to keep verizon happy, which is what they are doing, knowing full well that because amazon app store and the internet exists, people will still use that program. Unfortunately that program falls in the category of an application that would unreasonably increase bandwidth, and that is the argument that verizon has stated many times as the reason why they charge for tethering. It's not because of any other reason. The fact that if someone tethers their phone to their computer and uses no data, then it doesn't hurt their network, and they don't care about that. A third-party device unfortunately falls into the "computer" range. No matter how you want to look at it. You can look at it 50 ways till sunday and come up with 100000 different reasons why the contract doesn't apply to verizon and google.

The fact is that we don't see eye to eye, and of course i know you will come back with another witty reply to mine showing how i'm wrong in 100% of what i say.

The way I see it is Verizon is not blocking the tethering apps because it uses more bandwidth but because it is allowing another device that isn't approved by Verizon on their network without a data plan. I think the intent is actually for net neutrality. But hey, I like I said before, I don't mind being wrong with this one.

That's the way I see it too, and yes it would be awesome if they did violate the spectrum license haha, but not likely.

 

[takeshi]

Now before you go off about what V s tos say. Just think about what I am asking.

Why does it matter? Your question doesn't change the TOS.

http://b2b.vzw.com/broadband/bba_terms.html

Customers who do not have dedicated Mobile Broadband devices cannot tether other devices to laptops or personal computers for use as wireless modems unless they subscribe to Mobile Broadband Connect.

 

[czerdrill]

So as mentioned by others and myself, the spectrum guideline doesn't apply because Verizon/Google are not doing anything to block access to devices, but rather wanting to get paid for their services (crazy concept, right?)

Yeah, my reading of that is mostly to prevent carriers from blocking OEM's, and perhaps more specifically, an app like Netflix which could spike usage.

The best corollary I could come up with is the little spat between Google Voice and IOS. Google whined to the FCC and Apple backed off, although I think the issue was more about anti-trust than the spectrum guideline.

Now, if I read that spectrum guideline, looks like the other main area it would apply is VZW preventing me from activating my Sprint Android phone on their network. Not an issue right now as the tech is different.

But blocking apps that enable the circumvention of agreed to service, services they charge separately for? Not a chance. It's dead in the water because with tethering there is no way for VZW to know if you own your computer or your friend is stealing bandwidth on theirs. And certainly the spectrum guidlelines are not intended to force VZW to sell their service to 1 user so 10 can leech off it.

You would think this would be obvious.

 

[Josefius]

Download it from the June Fabrics website directly, and the installer will install it to your phone.

That was from June Frabrics.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

Did you download the PC install? When you install it on your PC, it will install it to your phone if it's not already on there.

No, I haven't tried that.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

 

[NeoandGeo]

I think every company has a different definition for unlimited.

And that definition only elicits whining when you don't get your way, right? I mean, aren't you proving my point that you're acting like a kid? haha...:icon_ banana:

Childish? Probably.

I will continue my usage of the internet, and you will keep drilling an anti-consumer anti-neutrality message down everyone's throats.

 

[New2u]

Unfortunately THAT is what they are doing. Google is in their right to remove an application but the fact is that you can get that application from many other sources, and google knows that. They are just trying to keep verizon happy, which is what they are doing, knowing full well that because amazon app store and the internet exists, people will still use that program. Unfortunately that program falls in the category of an application that would unreasonably increase bandwidth, and that is the argument that verizon has stated many times as the reason why they charge for tethering. It's not because of any other reason. The fact that if someone tethers their phone to their computer and uses no data, then it doesn't hurt their network, and they don't care about that. A third-party device unfortunately falls into the "computer" range. No matter how you want to look at it. You can look at it 50 ways till sunday and come up with 100000 different reasons why the contract doesn't apply to verizon and google.

The fact is that we don't see eye to eye, and of course i know you will come back with another witty reply to mine showing how i'm wrong in 100% of what i say.

The way I see it is Verizon is not blocking the tethering apps because it uses more bandwidth but because it is allowing another device that isn't approved by Verizon on their network without a data plan. I think the intent is actually for net neutrality. But hey, I like I said before, I don't mind being wrong with this one. [/QUOTE]

True but until the FCC defines what a third-party device means in that context, you cannot say that they didn't mean computers also. As stated before "THIS" whole argument between us all is the whole reason why they are going to tiered pricing. Why? Because i'm sure they figured out that they don't have legal grounds to stand on, and will use tiered pricing as their way to kill 2 birds with one stone. Not only does tiered pricing take care of the tethering problem, because if there is no unlimited service plan then you have to pay for your used allotment no matter what. It also takes care of any legal wrong doing they "might" have to worry about with limiting the ability to tether. You could argue they are going to tiered data for other reasons, but with the emergence of LTE i just don't see the other reasons being viable as much.

 

[freezyfreaky]

Unfortunately THAT is what they are doing. Google is in their right to remove an application but the fact is that you can get that application from many other sources, and google knows that. They are just trying to keep verizon happy, which is what they are doing, knowing full well that because amazon app store and the internet exists, people will still use that program. Unfortunately that program falls in the category of an application that would unreasonably increase bandwidth, and that is the argument that verizon has stated many times as the reason why they charge for tethering. It's not because of any other reason. The fact that if someone tethers their phone to their computer and uses no data, then it doesn't hurt their network, and they don't care about that. A third-party device unfortunately falls into the "computer" range. No matter how you want to look at it. You can look at it 50 ways till sunday and come up with 100000 different reasons why the contract doesn't apply to verizon and google.

The fact is that we don't see eye to eye, and of course i know you will come back with another witty reply to mine showing how i'm wrong in 100% of what i say.

The way I see it is Verizon is not blocking the tethering apps because it uses more bandwidth but because it is allowing another device that isn't approved by Verizon on their network without a data plan. I think the intent is actually for net neutrality. But hey, I like I said before, I don't mind being wrong with this one.

True but until the FCC defines what a third-party device means in that context, you cannot say that they didn't mean computers also. As stated before "THIS" whole argument between us all is the whole reason why they are going to tiered pricing. Why? Because i'm sure they figured out that they don't have legal grounds to stand on, and will use tiered pricing as their way to kill 2 birds with one stone. Not only does tiered pricing take care of the tethering problem, because if there is no unlimited service plan then you have to pay for your used allotment no matter what. It also takes care of any legal wrong doing they "might" have to worry about with limiting the ability to tether. You could argue they are going to tiered data for other reasons, but with the emergence of LTE i just don't see the other reasons being viable as much.[/QUOTE]

You know what's messed up? Even if removing the tethering apps are against the spectrum agreement, I would bet money that the FCC would change that clause to allow it to happen.

 

[New2u]

I guess I'm just looking at a different way from you. It hasn't been taken to court yet, so this is all speculation and neither one of us is right...yet. I just find it hard to believe that Google/Verizon just haphazardly violated their spectrum license without going through the guidelines with a fine toothed comb. Of course, there are some who think major corporations do do that...

Again, they might be wrong, but I doubt it...

I agree with you that neither of us is right until a court is brought in and decides 100%, if that ever happens. Until then you will see tiered data, the way around the contract they signed.

 

[czerdrill]

Unfortunately THAT is what they are doing. Google is in their right to remove an application but the fact is that you can get that application from many other sources, and google knows that. They are just trying to keep verizon happy, which is what they are doing, knowing full well that because amazon app store and the internet exists, people will still use that program. Unfortunately that program falls in the category of an application that would unreasonably increase bandwidth, and that is the argument that verizon has stated many times as the reason why they charge for tethering. It's not because of any other reason. The fact that if someone tethers their phone to their computer and uses no data, then it doesn't hurt their network, and they don't care about that. A third-party device unfortunately falls into the "computer" range. No matter how you want to look at it. You can look at it 50 ways till sunday and come up with 100000 different reasons why the contract doesn't apply to verizon and google.

The fact is that we don't see eye to eye, and of course i know you will come back with another witty reply to mine showing how i'm wrong in 100% of what i say.

The way I see it is Verizon is not blocking the tethering apps because it uses more bandwidth but because it is allowing another device that isn't approved by Verizon on their network without a data plan. I think the intent is actually for net neutrality. But hey, I like I said before, I don't mind being wrong with this one.

True but until the FCC defines what a third-party device means in that context, you cannot say that they didn't mean computers also. As stated before "THIS" whole argument between us all is the whole reason why they are going to tiered pricing. Why? Because i'm sure they figured out that they don't have legal grounds to stand on, and will use tiered pricing as their way to kill 2 birds with one stone. Not only does tiered pricing take care of the tethering problem, because if there is no unlimited service plan then you have to pay for your used allotment no matter what. It also takes care of any legal wrong doing they "might" have to worry about with limiting the ability to tether. You could argue they are going to tiered data for other reasons, but with the emergence of LTE i just don't see the other reasons being viable as much.[/QUOTE]

yeah i guess the wording is vague, but i guess i dont see the FCC forcing a carrier to allow unauthorized devices on their network. It will be made clear if/when someone decides to invoke this an take it to court, but I'm having a hard time believing that the FCC will say "you have to let users use your network without signing up for a plan, because of the spectrum guidelines". Pretty sure the wording, though vague, is referring to third party devices/applications that Verizon is aware of and not devices that people are using to circumvent paying.

 

[kodiak799]

"In addition, C Block licensees cannot exclude applications or devices solely on the basis that such applications or devices would unreasonably increase bandwidth demands. We anticipate that demand can be adequately managed through feasible facility improvements or technology-neutral capacity pricing that does not discriminate against subscribers using third-party devices or applications."

You guys are completely perverting what "open access" means and intends to accomplish. It is clearly not black & white and, at best, would be open to interpretation by a judge.

The intent behind that is to ensure carriers provide coverage to ALL devices. This means VZW can't say "we won't offer mobile broadband because the demand is too high for the network". In other words, they can't just sit on spectrum while there is a means and method for computers to access it. That is wholly different from offering access to one device and preventing that access from being shared with other devices.

They are FULLY within their rights to say this plan is for your smartphone, and if you want data for your computer here are these mobile broadband cards and tether plans. That's what open access is - they are not blocking content or devices. Open access does not force them to use or support a specific technology. Read the last line I bolded above -what is it about blocking a tether app that discriminates against those users in terms of service or price vs. other VZW customers?

 

[New2u]

yeah i guess the wording is vague, but i guess i dont see the FCC forcing a carrier to allow unauthorized devices on their network. It will be made clear if/when someone decides to invoke this an take it to court, but I'm having a hard time believing that the FCC will say "you have to let users use your network without signing up for a plan, because of the spectrum guidelines". Pretty sure the wording, though vague, is referring to third party devices/applications that Verizon is aware of and not devices that people are using to circumvent paying.

See the problem here is the FCC didn't "force" anyone to do anything, they signed a contract. If they didn't like the terms of said contract, they had the right to not sign it, just as we all have the right to not sign verizon's contracts if we don't like it. While vague at this moment, if taken to court with the vague guidelines either the user would most likely win, or the courts would require the FCC to have a better definition of what it is talking about. Because unfortunately right now, a computer can be considered a third-party device. While i'm sure that's not what they meant by it also, it would be in that category until they define what third-party means.

 

[New2u]

But as stated in many posts already, this would not matter with tiered pricing. Would they care if you tether with tiered pricing.. most likely not because your paying for your allotment no matter what, i doubt they would care how you use it. Though I do agree that with 3g and unlimited to your phone, means unlimited to your phone.

 

[czerdrill]

yeah i guess the wording is vague, but i guess i dont see the FCC forcing a carrier to allow unauthorized devices on their network. It will be made clear if/when someone decides to invoke this an take it to court, but I'm having a hard time believing that the FCC will say "you have to let users use your network without signing up for a plan, because of the spectrum guidelines". Pretty sure the wording, though vague, is referring to third party devices/applications that Verizon is aware of and not devices that people are using to circumvent paying.

See the problem here is the FCC didn't "force" anyone to do anything, they signed a contract. If they didn't like the terms of said contract, they had the right to not sign it, just as we all have the right to not sign verizon's contracts if we don't like it. While vague at this moment, if taken to court with the vague guidelines either the user would most likely win, or the courts would require the FCC to have a better definition of what it is talking about. Because unfortunately right now, a computer can be considered a third-party device. While i'm sure that's not what they meant by it also, it would be in that category until they define what third-party means.

I just look at it as reaching, to be honest. And that's all you guys really can do at this point. I know citing common sense doesn't mean much when it comes to legal guidelines, but it just seems odd that you guys would think the FCC would allow users to use unauthorized devices on the spectrum and circumvent paying. That is NOT what the intent of the guidelines are. I think it's painfully obvious, and I am baffled why others don't see that...

 

[Natey2]

On my phone, DroidTV is the biggest bandwidth hog, followed by my web browser, email apps, and this DroidForums app. I hope they don't ban the DroidForums app from the market
And I do use about 2GB/month.
Tethering isn't on the list of the biggest data usage apps.
Probably because I didn't tether at all last month.
But I will, just to make sure PdaNet 2.45 (Susteen Datapilot Tether) still works on my device.

Data obtained via the PhoneUsage app in the market.

Sent from my unrooted DroidX using DroidForums app