VZW disabling tethering apps from market

[freezyfreaky]

Other than this topic is getting out of hand IMO. The point has been made numerous times. If people want to do things illegal it will continue. It's like a lock on a car. It only keeps honest people honest, those that want in that car are still going to get it in it.

Besides that, and back to the post I was quoting, the fact is that Verizon has shown it "grandfather's" plans, so it will be new customers not those currently on unlimited that get tiered. Verizon will probably give those on unlimited 3G now some sort of incentive (such as keeping there unlimited) to upgrade to 4G.

It's been shown by track record that verizon does things like this.

I believe Verizon has said that eventually all unlimited data plans will be phased out. They say that model is unsustainable.

If unlimited data is unsustainable then all the DSL providers, clearwire, digis, etc.. are in trouble.

The only reason it wouldn't be sustainable would be something to do with the vzw network itself.

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

It is more costly to build and maintain a wireless cellular infrastructure than a wired one.

 

[xan]

So why is it called "tethering" anyways? the handset is acting just like a modem, i dont "tether" my computers and wii to my wifi modem. i just use my unlimited data my isp sells me for a monthly fee.

I guess VRZ can make its own definitions tho....after all I certainly know theres nothing that is actually certified about their refurbs...

Whats next? a bluetooth pairing fee?

 

[bplewis24]

My guess is that blocking the sideloading of apps by AT&T doesn't fall under the spectrum guidelines. They are simply blocking the installation of non-market apps. In this situation, however, the FCC is clearly stating that the carrier cannot block apps for bandwidth rationale.

That's a distinction without a difference. Whether an app is in the Android market is primarily up to developer choice.

And the FCC said bandwidth couldn't be the ONLY rationale. I'm sure VZW can come up with plenty of other reasons.

Also, I doubt the FCC would take the perspective "data is data". I'm fairly certain you can block apps that enable violation of your TOS. Like I said, blocking Netflix probably would fall under this rule. VZW would argue, likely very successfully, that they aren't blocking an app for bandwidth rationale but rather an app that enables stealing of their service. They are attempting to prevent their service from being illegally extended to other devices - nothing to limit data intended to and agreed to for the smartphone itself.

The entire premise of your argument is flawed because it's based on Verizon's ToS which are completely trumped by the government's regulations. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to grasp, but contracts don't mean a damn thing without enforcement of them. I've mentioned several times that if Verizon was ever taken to court for their tethering restrictions there is a very real chance they would lose, and this is just further evidence of that. But I digress...

You'd better believe if Verizon wanted to circumvent guidelines they agreed to when they bid on the spectrum they would face a storm of problems.

Anyway, the distinction and the difference are very real, very clear and very tangible. If people continue to choose to ignore them or simply aren't able to distinguish between them that's fine with me.

Brandon

 

[bplewis24]

I'll just add this bit from Wikipedia (which shows that Verizon does in fact realize how tangible and distinct this is):

"After the open access rules were implemented, Verizon Wireless filed suit against the FCC on September 13, 2007, seeking to have the rules dismissed on the grounds that the open access requirement "violates the U.S. Constitution, violates the Administrative Procedures Act … and is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by the substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law."[7] On October 23, Verizon chose to drop the lawsuit after losing its appeal for a speedy resolution on October 3. However, the CTIA stepped in to challenge the same regulations in a lawsuit filed the same day.[8] On November 13, 2008, the CTIA dropped its lawsuit against the FCC.[9]"

 

[Mysfit]

I am not a bad guy and dont want people thinking that. Its just an opinion I have. I am not all for stealing services (now i have downloaded music and movies, who Hasnt?) but to go this fart is beyond me. thats all.

I haven't.... and know lots of other people that haven't either.

 

[freezyfreaky]

My guess is that blocking the sideloading of apps by AT&T doesn't fall under the spectrum guidelines. They are simply blocking the installation of non-market apps. In this situation, however, the FCC is clearly stating that the carrier cannot block apps for bandwidth rationale.

That's a distinction without a difference. Whether an app is in the Android market is primarily up to developer choice.

And the FCC said bandwidth couldn't be the ONLY rationale. I'm sure VZW can come up with plenty of other reasons.

Also, I doubt the FCC would take the perspective "data is data". I'm fairly certain you can block apps that enable violation of your TOS. Like I said, blocking Netflix probably would fall under this rule. VZW would argue, likely very successfully, that they aren't blocking an app for bandwidth rationale but rather an app that enables stealing of their service. They are attempting to prevent their service from being illegally extended to other devices - nothing to limit data intended to and agreed to for the smartphone itself.

The entire premise of your argument is flawed because it's based on Verizon's ToS which are completely trumped by the government's regulations. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to grasp, but contracts don't mean a damn thing without enforcement of them. I've mentioned several times that if Verizon was ever taken to court for their tethering restrictions there is a very real chance they would lose, and this is just further evidence of that. But I digress...

You'd better believe if Verizon wanted to circumvent guidelines they agreed to when they bid on the spectrum they would face a storm of problems.

Anyway, the distinction and the difference are very real, very clear and very tangible. If people continue to choose to ignore them or simply aren't able to distinguish between them that's fine with me.

Brandon

This seems like the intent is to provide net neutrality. Doesn't seem like this would apply to 3G anyway since this was when they were auctioning the 4G spectrum.

Personally, I don't think this seem to apply in this situation because Verizon is blocking apps that are allowing other devices to use their network and not because it is using extra bandwidth. But still, firing an e-mail to the FCC is worth a shot, right? I would not mind being wrong on this one!

 

[cynnar]

Wow this place heats up real quick around here. I know cause I was guilty for some time myself.

I read a post about Verizon will not let you stay grandfathered in forever. I must say my father has a unlimited data card account he got back when alltel offered it. He has successfully kept his unlimited plan and was told that they cannot change his contract but have to honor it. They have tried everything to get him to switch, but until they give him unlimited on something new he will stay just where he is at.

Sent from my Droid

 

[kodiak799]

The entire premise of your argument is flawed because it's based on Verizon's ToS which are completely trumped by the government's regulations. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to grasp, but contracts don't mean a damn thing without enforcement of them. I've mentioned several times that if Verizon was ever taken to court for their tethering restrictions there is a very real chance they would lose, and this is just further evidence of that. But I digress...

You'd better believe if Verizon wanted to circumvent guidelines they agreed to when they bid on the spectrum they would face a storm of problems.

Anyway, the distinction and the difference are very real, very clear and very tangible. If people continue to choose to ignore them or simply aren't able to distinguish between them that's fine with me.

Brandon

My argument is flawed? Are you a lawyer? If not you almost certainly know less than I do, as at least I have a few classes in contract law. Lawyers out there literally look for this stuff all the time trying to spot an easy class-action lawsuit they can put together. If VZW was likely to lose in court over their tethering restrictions I can guarantee they would have already been there.

Use a little common sense. This entire "regulation" is desperate reaching - won't change a thing. You are making SOOOO many assumptions that this rule applies, much less that VZW would lose.

And, sorry, TOS do matter. VZW DID NOT sell you "unlimited" tethering on your Droid. The govt cannot force them to do so. The govt cannot force them to sell or give away a service. They have every right to block an app that enables people to steal their service, and there is precedent backing them up.

 

[kodiak799]

If unlimited data is unsustainable then all the DSL providers, clearwire, digis, etc.. are in trouble.

Well, a number of providers HAVE started limiting home broadband. Granted, we are talking 150-250gigs a month, but with people dropping cable and apparently going crazy on torrents it's starting to strain capacity, apparently.

Same argument....Bandwidth is not unlimited. If you're pipes can handle 100gigs per user and people start using 150gigs, you have a problem. And then you either invest to double capacity (and double price) or charge the heavy users more and ration it that way.

I know I don't want to pay more money because they have to invest in infrastructure with people going crazy and using 10-20 times what I do. The heavy users can pay for the additional infrastructure.

 

[Natey2]

If anyone wants a shorter url...

ATT
Verizon

Sent from my unrooted DroidX using DroidForums app

 

[Snow02]

If anyone wants a shorter url...

ATT
Verizon

Sent from my unrooted DroidX using DroidForums app

Tethering is neither mentioned, nor alluded to in verizon's customer agreement.

 

[droid doctor]

People people point is vzw is banning tethering apps what are you gonna do about it. There's nothing we can do why don't we stop trying to fight it and people if you want tethering so bad why don't you fork over the 20$ and move on with your lives. If you want to complain about the tethering and internet connection then quit being so cheap and buy a modem and some internet service. We can't look at our smartphones to solve all of our problems.

 

[MoeDaddy]

It's interesting that just today PdaNet put out a new version:

New! Version 3.0 improves performance and fixes multiple connection issues. Now allows you to hide Tether usage.

Guess it is moot and I'm sure other apps will follow suit so VZW/AT&T can do whatever they want but there will always be the cat and mouse game...

 

[rebaf]

It's interesting that just today PdaNet put out a new version:

New! Version 3.0 improves performance and fixes multiple connection issues. Now allows you to hide Tether usage.

Guess it is moot and I'm sure other apps will follow suit so VZW/AT&T can do whatever they want but there will always be the cat and mouse game...

lol....sweet....

 

[NeoandGeo]

Wow. I am even getting better speeds with 3.0 over 2.45