VZW disabling tethering apps from market

[kodiak799]

Because unfortunately right now, a computer can be considered a third-party device.

And how does that violate open access? Does VZW provide a way to connect your computer? Is there no VZW-approved method and plan to connect your computer to their network? Why then would you assume VZW has somehow violated the spectrum guidelines?

Open access says nothing about how VZW must structure their plans or offer the service. It specifically leaves the door open for pricing options, and that's exactly what VZW does. Just because you don't like separate plans for smartphone data and mobile broadband data doesn't mean VZW isn't compliant.

VZW opposed the spectrum guidelines most likely out of fear of losing some control over devices they approve for their network. Further down the road, most likely because when everyone is on LTE people will be able to switch carriers while keeping the same phone as they please.

 

[freezyfreaky]

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...

I think they see it as a loophole. I agree with you with your interpretation of its intent so even if it is a loophole, I believe the FCC would change the agreement to close it.

 

[kodiak799]

I just look at it as reaching, to be honest. .

Haha, I find it ironic that people whining about a contract they signed are saying if VZW didn't like the spectrum guidelines, they shouldn't have signed the contract!

 

[kodiak799]

...so even if it is a loophole

And even if it isn't, the tethers will latch on like they do to any other lame justification.

 

[czerdrill]

I just look at it as reaching, to be honest. .

Haha, I find it ironic that people whining about a contract they signed are saying if VZW didn't like the spectrum guidelines, they shouldn't have signed the contract!

indeed, it is strange that any reference to the TOS is dismissed as unfair and anti-consumer, but a misconstrued view of these spectrum guidelines is being preached as gospel. what works for the goose actually doesn't work for the gander i guess.

 

[freezyfreaky]

I would like to see the whole section of this agreement rather than a 2 paragraph snippet. I think it would bring more light to the situation.

 

[NeoandGeo]

I just look at it as reaching, to be honest. .

Haha, I find it ironic that people whining about a contract they signed are saying if VZW didn't like the spectrum guidelines, they shouldn't have signed the contract!

indeed, it is strange that any reference to the TOS is dismissed as unfair and anti-consumer, but a misconstrued view of these spectrum guidelines is being preached as gospel. what works for the goose actually doesn't work for the gander i guess.

It is not dismissed as it. Nearly all TOS/EULA/AUP are written in a way to hurt the consumer. I would bet 99% of them are this way.

 

[czerdrill]

Haha, I find it ironic that people whining about a contract they signed are saying if VZW didn't like the spectrum guidelines, they shouldn't have signed the contract!

indeed, it is strange that any reference to the TOS is dismissed as unfair and anti-consumer, but a misconstrued view of these spectrum guidelines is being preached as gospel. what works for the goose actually doesn't work for the gander i guess.

It is not dismissed as it. Nearly all TOS/EULA/AUP are written in a way to hurt the consumer. I would bet 99% of them are this way.

...or we could it look at it the logical way and say 99% of them are written to protect the company from people who take advantage of them. Of course that would be ridiculous that a company doesn't offer their services for free, right...?

 

[NeoandGeo]

That's what companies want you to think, and they are playing you very well while you go down on their rules and wipe your face with a great big smile on your face while they laugh at you.

 

[NeoandGeo]

Those that can comprehend their stance will continue to alter their TOS to their own will, and use their device freely and fairly.

 

[czerdrill]

Those that can comprehend their stance will continue to alter their TOS to their own will, and use their device freely and fairly.

and...you're still giving them your money, right? awesome plan to overthrow those evil companies!! :icon_ banana::icon_ banana:

 

[NeoandGeo]

I don't mind giving them my money when I can do as I please.

 

[NeoandGeo]

It's a tradeoff, I pay them for minutes I don't use, and for that favor they allow me to tether illegal devices to their network with my phone. It's a nice symbiotic relationship.

 

[wingdo]

Well cellular bandwidth isn't as cheap as it is for normal wired ISPs so their costs are higher. A lot of us have stated that they are doing this because of their 4G network. With that speed, there is a lot of incentive to get rid of home broadband and unauthorized tether instead to save money. Not sure even Verizon can handle that if enough people decided to go that route.

Quite simply, Verizon could NOT handle that. No cellular carrier could. Doing so would slow data speeds down for everyone.

You are totally correct (as you, I and many others in the thread have said). Your freaking cellular phone is NOT meant to replace your home ISP. Tethering without paying for it is in violation of the LEGALLY binding contract people signed when they agreed to the service.

Tethering is a separate service and is billed accordingly. People who bypass this are flat out stealing from VZW. There is no other way to say it. They are not paying a fee for a service which all carriers charge money. People can say that they are already paying too much money for the service, but then they are free to move to a different carrier. Stealing is stealing no matter how you look at it. Not paying for something you should be paying for is stealing. It's quite black and white, there is no shades of gray here. Verizon (and all the others) charge a fee for tethering. Finding a way around the fee so you don't have to pay it is flat out stealing.

 

[NeoandGeo]

Then I am stealing their internets with a big smile on my face. :heart: