Is Verizon Breaking FCC Regulations With Locked Bootloaders?

First time accepted submitter PcItalian writes with an excerpt from an interesting editorial on XDA Developers: "The open access provision requires Verizon to '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.' It goes on to say, 'The potential for excessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network.' Verizon bought Block C and tried to have the provisions removed. They failed. ... That means if a device uses the Block C frequencies, Verizon cannot insist what apps or firmware it runs. ... So the question is, do any devices use Block C frequencies? Yes. Some are called Hotspots. Others are called the HTC Thunderbolt... [Hotspots] comply with FCC regulations as far as I'm aware. The HTC Thunderbolt, on the other hand, does not. In the list of rules and exceptions for the Block C license, it says this: 'Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section'...'"

Comments

Great

[Aerorae]

So what now? It's not like we can show this to Verizon and go "HAH! SEE! TOLDJA SO!" and expect them to unlock anything. If anything they've known about this for a very long time.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

No... you go to the FCC and let them know, and they fine Verizon... and then Verizon raises its rates to cover the losses and then.... fuck.

Re:Great

[Baloroth]

Class action, maybe? Or FCC fines, that'd probably more effective.

Re:Great

[TennCasey]

Nah, they'd probably just pay the fines and go about business as usual. It's not like the FCC would do anything about it.

Re:Great

[mariasama16]

There was a lawsuit filed against Verizon specifically because of this several months ago, though that lawsuit was more focused on tethering rather than locked bootloaders. Source: http://www.droid-life.com/2011/06/06/tethering-complaint-filed-with-fcc-by-free-press-against-verizon/

Re:Great

[robot256]

Nah, they'd probably just pay the fines and go about business as usual. It's not like the FCC would do anything about it.

It might get somewhere if somebody in Congress notices it and runs out of things to complain about while trying to not fix the economy.

Re:Great

[VJmes]

In an ideal capitalistic market, Verizon would then lose business from the higher pricing, their competition would get a leg-up. The alternative being that they do not pass this cost onto the consumer and remain at a competitive price-point.

In this bullshit version of real-world capitalism, Verizon increases the price and then the competition does as well, simply because they can get away with it. The alternative is that very few people can move carrier because of prohibitive consumer contracts, by the time many of these contracts have expired, consumers simply renew partially out of forgetfulness and partially due to convenience.

Re:Great

[hedwards]

The issue here isn't capitalism, it's failing to heed the warnings of Adam Smith, if you don't have sufficient regulation, this is exactly the kind of bitch slap you get from the invisible hand.

Re:Great

[Bacon Bits]

Class action, maybe?

Mandatory arbitration clause.

Or FCC fines, that'd probably more effective.

They'd just pay the fines and pass on the cost to the consumer, or donate to a few Congressional campaigns to get the oversight committees to yell at the FCC if the fines were actually relative to the resources Verizon has. It'd be far more effective for the FCC to go to court to get an injunction, but that kind of thing would just get Verizon to donate to a few Congressional campaigns....

Re:Great

[wisnoskij]

More like you can tell the FCC and then they might get around to eventually filing a official complain with Verizon and years pass and nothing comes of it.

Re:Great

[Baloroth]

Mandatory arbitration clauses might not stick up in court. Regardless, come to think of it class action probably wouldn't be appropriate anyways (they haven't harmed the consumer, they violated FCC regulations.)

Also, fines might have been the wrong word. What I meant was the FCC can tell Verizon "stop using Block C or stop locking down bootloaders." Verizon wouldn't like doing the first (although they wouldn't like the second, either).

The fines are just icing on the cake, although I agree they'll probably just be passed on to consumers. That wouldn't be a problem, of course, if the mobile market in the US was free (everyone could go elsewhere) but alas, it isn't really. And AT&T wants to make it less free. Damnit. this is why I don't own a smartphone.

Re:Great

[demonlapin]

Given the prices we paid in the fully-regulated days before the Ma Bell breakup, I'm not sure that regulation would do much to lower prices. Making all companies operate on the same spectrum would help, though.

Re:Great

[Roger W Moore]

if you don't have sufficient regulation...

I think the problem is not so much insufficient regulation so much as ineffectual regulation. If the consequence of violating the regulations is a 'tut, tut' and (possibly) confiscating their pocket change is it any wonder that they flout the rules?

Re:Great

[arth1]

Given the prices we paid in the fully-regulated days before the Ma Bell breakup, I'm not sure that regulation would do much to lower prices.

What was the average household telephone expense before the break-up? What is it now?

Instead of breaking up the Phone Company into little blobs that have merged back together faster than a Terminator, I think Bell should have been nationalized. Cause privatization has never made anything cheaper; quite the contrary. With capitalism, you get the cheapest product the market is willing to put up with at the highest price they are willing to pay. And unregulated capitalism is a recipe for corporate monopoly, as it allows for the leader to buy all competitors.

Re:Great

[erroneus]

With continued abuse, they are in violation of agreement and they lose the right to use Block C frequencies. Would anyone in the FCC stand to keep their job after resorting to such a response to repeated abuse? After all, there's abuse by mistake and there's wilful abuse. After being informed of the problem by the FCC, they are responsible not only to pay any fines, but also for correcting the problem. Failure to correct the problem and to continue the abuse then becomes wilful. They paid a lot of money to get the use of those frequencies. Sure would be a shame for Verizon to lose them... pretty sure there's no refund for that.

Re:Great

[DarkOx]

No the issue here is as usual to much regulation, and overly centralized regulation rather than two little. The regulation has created the entry barriers and made the market to little to function properly. Spectrum allocation should be in that hands of state and local municipalities, NOT the federal government.

Downside its likely nation wide cellular service with a single handset would be difficult, up side the customer would have a much more competitive market and lower costs for service around their home town.

Re:Great

[demonlapin]

Total household spending on Internet service in 1980 was zero. Total household spending on telegrams in 1980 was not much more. Total cost is rarely the best measure.

And nationalization is even worse. Why does it appeal so much to you? Is there some special expertise in government that makes running a phone company a good idea? It's not like the post office, which at least has the noble concept of providing all citizens access to certain basic communication at a low price via a mechanism that the government cannot cast official doubt upon.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, that is really really funny but if it was a real suggestion - it doesn't pass the smell test. Honestly - spectrum allocation done by the state and local municipalities? That's a riot. I guess if you don't want wireless to work it is a good way to make it happen. See, that the problem with "oh, there is too much regulation for the market to work". You have to balance that with the people who actually want their STUFF to work. Some regulation is good and needed.

Re:Great

[hedwards]

That's bullshit, the real barrier to entry is that it's extremely expensive to put up your own network and there's scarcity issue with spectrum. Without FCC regulation the barriers to entry would be even more significant as you'd not only have to build the infrastructure, but you'd also have a race to install the most powerful equipment possible to blast over everybody elses equipment.

Like I said, this is the kind of bitch slap you get when there's insufficient regulation.

Re:Great

[d3ac0n]

...It's not like the post office...

To further your point, Do we really want a national wireless provider that would invariably have a total monopoly on wireless service and is run like the Post Office? Judging on how horribly the Post Office is run, I'd say not.

If anything, we have too MUCH regulation in place. The biggest one being the ability of wireless carriers to "buy" blocks of spectrum, thus locking out all other players. It's just another form of corporatism (Fascism without genocide) that our government has been engaging in for far too long.

If we must have regulation, let it be along the lines of "Here is the "cellular" block of spectrum. All carriers must operate within this spectrum, and no part of it is exclusive to any given carrier. Carriers may develop and use any technology that utilizes this spectrum in any way they see fit, provided it does not interfere with any other carrier's ability to use the same spectrum."

Make it a nice small block of spectrum, (I'll leave the specific ranges to the professionals) large enough to accommodate everyone, but small enough to free up spectrum currently locked up by the carriers for other uses (such as HAM and other private citizen uses, like private television broadcast and such) then let the carriers have at it.

The nice part about regulating in this manner is that it lowers the barriers to entry for new players, and allows for more competition, forcing prices down, without specifically punishing any one player or being a burden on anyone.

Re:Great

[hedwards]

Sufficient regulation implies that it's effectual.

Re:Great

[powerlord]

Regardless, come to think of it class action probably wouldn't be appropriate anyways (they haven't harmed the consumer, they violated FCC regulations.)

Class action on behalf of the American people?

Since government doesn't seem to be able/willing to hold corporate interests accountable to itself, is there any way for the people at large to force the issue?

Re:Great

[j-beda]

Given the prices we paid in the fully-regulated days before the Ma Bell breakup, I'm not sure that regulation would do much to lower prices. Making all companies operate on the same spectrum would help, though.

I recall some pretty high per-minute long distance charges back in the 1970s that's for sure.

However I recall a bit of info from Consumer Reports back in the late 1990s that was interesting. It was a graph of the cost of phone service and airline travel and one some other industry I cannot recall, plotted against time. For each industry, there was a fairly linear drop in pricing up until the date when the industry was "deregulated", and at that date, there was a deflection point followed by a new linear decrease in pricing. The interesting thing was that the rate of price decrease before the deregulation date was greater than after deregulation. From this data at least, it is not clear that deregulation actually acted to decrease pricing.

A bit of web sleuthing by me at least does not turn up much data one way or another to support this position. I find lots of articles comparing prices before and after deregulation in the phone and airline industries, but no data about the rate of price change.

Oh, maybe this is useful:

Data listed at http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/lec.html such as the 2008 book report on pricing at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284934A1.pdf does show on pg 36, table 2.2 that the US average household expenditure on phone service rose each year from 1980 ($325) through 2006 ($1,087) (from 1.94% of total household expenses to 2.25%). So at least from 1980, telephone costs have been higher. There is also data for consumer price indexes from before 1980 and price for 10 minute calls of various distances (local, medium, coastal, etc.) in some of the earlier publications, such as that for 1997 ( http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref97.pdf ).

Thus, while there were undoubtedly many many great benefits from deregulation of various industries, it is not absolutely clear that pricing is significantly lower than it would have been without deregulation in all cases. It is also not completely clear that similar results could not be achieved while maintaining tighter control over business practices that are undesirable for society at large.

Re:Great

[arth1]

And nationalization is even worse. Why does it appeal so much to you?

Because I've been through privatization of both a national phone service, national electricity service and national train service. In all cases, the privatization made service quality go straight down, and prices straight up. Exactly the opposite of what the uninformed right thinks will happen.

Is there some special expertise in government that makes running a phone company a good idea?

Yes, there is. The expertise in keeping the money local. They are not out to rip you off or make their CEO or investors richer.
The government won't sell you cheap Chinese equipment at a twelve time markup because that's what the market is willing to pay and it will maximize profit. It will probably sell you expensive home-made equipment because that creates local jobs, which increases local tax flow.

Re:Great

[Teancum]

There would be two different issues at hand here, where local governments certainly could be used (and IMHO ought to be used) for determining who could be issued individual licenses to operate within certain frequencies and established technical standards for those using those frequencies. This could including anything from licensing local television and radio stations to approving cell phone towers... not just the building permits but also the "right" to use certain frequencies in the local area.

This said, when "local" governments get involved in terms of frequency allocation for devices and in determining technical specifications, it gets to be very messy. A good example of that is how the Open BTS guys tried to set up a cell phone network in the country/island of Niue. Since the whole country has the population of a small midwestern town, it is a good case study to see what "local" regulation of frequencies would be like. The whole Niue chronicle is certainly well worth a read on its own (scroll down on the blog... they did the installation back in March 2010, but they also have provided cell phone service during the "Burning Man" events too). When people don't care about frequency allocations and make it a "free for all" in terms of how radio frequencies are being used, it can make life very uncomfortable for those using radio devices of almost any sort.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've picked a really truly horrible example.

The Post Office is a perfect example of a successful government service. They accomplish their mandate of delivering letters to any address in the country for a very low price. They deliver packages to any address in the country, at significantly lower prices than their for-profit competitors. They do it quickly and efficiently.

The only screwup is that we expect them to break even when we should be subsidizing them from general taxation, by raising the income tax rates for the wealthy.

Re:Great

[demonlapin]

Sounds like your phone, electricity, and rail service were being subsidized heavily by tax money when they were privatized. In that situation, costs can go down while end-user charges go up. (Without more detail, it's impossible to know whether that's precisely the case here, but it's often nearly impossible to tell - after all, the IRS collects most of the federal taxes in the US, and so agencies within the government have much smaller billing offices than private enterprises of the same size. The money is still being spent, of course, it's just not accounted for in each agency.)

Government jobs are also subject to featherbedding in a fashion that corporate jobs are not - companies may (and should) go out of business if they run out of money, while governments have a strong preference just to raise taxes to cover the shortfall.

Re:Great

[demonlapin]

The interesting thing was that the rate of price decrease before the deregulation date was greater than after deregulation.

I would suggest, though of course I can't prove, that the deregulation allowed all sorts of inefficiencies to be wrung out of the system at once. Once all the low-hanging fruit are gone, though, it's a lot harder to keep increasing efficiency at the same rate forever.

Re:Great

[demonlapin]

They also have a legal monopoly on the delivery of non-urgent mail and the use of mailboxes. It's hard to tell whether they're actually more efficient than FedEx or UPS because of that - the postal system in the US is financed largely by the delivery of junk mail.

Re:Great

[j-beda]

The interesting thing was that the rate of price decrease before the deregulation date was greater than after deregulation.

I would suggest, though of course I can't prove, that the deregulation allowed all sorts of inefficiencies to be wrung out of the system at once. Once all the low-hanging fruit are gone, though, it's a lot harder to keep increasing efficiency at the same rate forever.

Sure, that would be a good story if there was a fast drop at deregulation followed at some later time by a slower drop - but these graphs did not show that. The graphs showed relatively steep drops before dereg, and shallower ones after, with no particular big dips or drops in the time around deregulation.

Now my memory of a graph in a consumer mag from more than a decade ago is not particularly convincing - it would be nice if we could find some more reliable data.

Oh really?

[JRowe47]

Like Verizon would let a silly little thing like laws get in their way...

Re:Oh really?

[SpaceLifeForm]

Or like the FCC would let a silly little thing like laws get in their way. We shall see if they have any spine.

Re:Oh really?

[ShakaUVM]

>>Like Verizon would let a silly little thing like laws get in their way...

I'd donate money to anyone suing them to stop them from doing this sort of shit.

I don't want to look at "Need for Speed" or "Madden" or a dozen other trial apps that I can't fucking remove every time I pull up my applications list on my phone.

Re:Oh really?

[Coren22]

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/07/19-11

Free Press is suing Verizon over the exclusion of tethering apps in the market. This has to do with the c-block terms, and could mean much more if it is won.

Fuck Verizon

[Anonymous Coward]

I will revert to smoke signals before I use their "services" ever again.

And I speak from experience, having been abused by them.

Re:Fuck Verizon

[msauve]

...and ATT/Sprint/T-Mobile are better.....how?

Re:Fuck Verizon

[PenquinCoder]

I will not ever go back to using Verizon, either. I agree with AC sentiment towards 'fuck verizon'. This does -not- mean I will have to choose ATT/Sprint/Virgin Mobile or whatever. A cellphone is not a neccesity, I can do without.

Re:Fuck Verizon

[MaskedSlacker]

And this children, is known as the "tu quoque" fallacy. See also "...and the Democrats/Republicans/Invading Alien Armada are better ... how?" It is a logical fallacy employed by those who have nothing meaningful to say in making their point, so they just point fingers in the other direction as if it were a relevant response to the previous speaker. Many of them actually believe this passes for logical argument.

Re:Fuck Verizon

[Anonymous Coward]

It passes for a logical argument not only because I said so, but because many people believe it does. Anyone who says otherwise is a communist hippy.

Re:Fuck Verizon

[Anonymous Coward]

You think /. is a forum for formal debate? You're an idiot.

Re:Fuck Verizon

[Bucky24]

Um... Logic is not true simply because a lot of people say it is. That's the nice thing about it. Logic is true when it's true, and false when it's false, regardless of opinion.

Counter-Argument.

[Hotweed Music]

Apparently what they're doing isn't necessarily illegal, according to Android Police.

http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/10/24/psa-verizon-locking-bootloaders-on-lte-devices-likely-does-not-violate-fcc-block-c-spectrum-rules/

Re:Counter-Argument.

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Interesting view that may hold water.

However, the position becomes weak when there IS a security issue and Verizon fails to patch it within minutes of a fix being available. Or as WinMo 6 users like to call it, "The Windows Update feature that Wasn't."

The cycle continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally I dont agree with that kind of defeatism, but Verizon keeps doing this at every turn: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/solved-verizon-to-pay-25-million-fine-over-mystery-fees.ars. They are just up to the same old unethical behavior as before. Add uninstallable bloatware nagging you to buy things or use in app billing, they are really biting the hand that feeds them. Android phones are their bread and butter, making them cash hand over fist. Add insane data charges and it's really obvious how badly distorted the wireless market is. The ironic part? Google is who bid the c-block up to the open-access provision level. Forcing the winner to accept open access.

Re:The cycle continues

[Lehk228]

the way to stop this kind of BS is to make as a statutory penalty when a company is found violating any Law or FCC or FTC rule all customers have the option to cancel their contract with no fee or requirement to return a handset.

Re:The cycle continues

[TheGratefulNet]

that's not a bad idea.

my idea is to have the CEOs of such companies in violation wear a chicken suit in public for 30 days. (the other exec staff don't have to go as chickens but they do have to dress up as some kind of fowl.)

that would bring corporate abuse down to zero faster than you can say 'kernel [sic] sanders'.

or, is that just a crock pot idea?

Re:The cycle continues

[Adriax]

Never devise punishments on an empty stomach.

Re:The cycle continues

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Pay me what the CEOs are making, and I'll wear a chicken suit for 30 days. These fuckers can take a little humiliation, it doesn't change their bottom line.

These fuckers need to be hit where it hurts the most; the wallet. And I'm not talking about the companies wallet, I mean the HMFIC's personal bank accounts.

Also, convict a company of wrong doing? Did the HMFIC know about it? Since the HMFIC represents the company and the company is a 'person' make the company do the prison time, is the form of the HMFIC personally serving the time. And don't let them hire some fall guy to be HMFIC in name only; I'm talking about the HMFIC at the time the incident occurred. Also seize the fuckers 'golden parachute', under various rules for taking the assets of criminals who are paid to commit crimes.

Then corporate corruption will go to zero.

Re:The cycle continues

[Ihmhi]

No, the way to fix this is to seize all profits made as a result of the violation, and then add a fine on top of that.

In this case, it would be every HTC Thunderbolt Verizon sold (or rather, the profit made therein).

Fines will just be considered a business cost until they actually hurt. $100,000 isn't shit when you've sold $10,000,000* worth of phones in a month.

* Info from the Department of Pulling Numbers from my Ass for the Purpose of an Analogy.

Re:The cycle continues

[tibman]

highest mother fucker in charge?

Re:The cycle continues

[msauve]

"Never devise punishments on an empty stomach."

Huh? Chicken tastes like.....chicken.

Re:The cycle continues

[roblarky]

I'm guessing "Head MotherFucker In Charge". Bringing the "HNIC" term from the movie Lean On Me (at least the first time I heard it..) into a racially and politically correct format (I'm assuming the CEO of VZW is not an African-American).

Re:The cycle continues

[Anonymous Coward]

The best punishment is to revoke their license on the C band. They broke the terms on the license, they lose the license. Best for the US public as the FCC can re-auction C band for a few billion..

Re:The cycle continues

[larry bagina]

"Nigger" doesn't necessarily refer to a black person. There are plenty of white niggers, for example. There may even be some asian niggers. And there's definitely a lot of mexican niggers. In a few years, there will probably be more mexican niggers than black niggers.

Re:The cycle continues

[meerling]

Define public... If you don't do that sufficiently, they'll find a way to worm out of it.

Re:The cycle continues

[meerling]

I like the idea of the head honchos at the company going to jail for the crimes they oversee, as well as elimination of those "golden parachutes".
But I tend to get rather vindictive towards those that act with impunity simply because they think they can get away with it.

Re:The cycle continues

[hairyfeet]

That would be wonderful but i just don't see it happening, the 1% like the guys on top of Verizon thanks to Citizens United can just pay off any lawmakers and get immunity. I mean when they didn't bust intel who frankly made MSFT's actions that got them busted look like choirboys? I mean if rigging the most used compiler to send any chip they don't approve of (including their own P3 to make the P4 look like a decent product) through the ringer by forcing all math to use x87 mode (which has been depreciated for nearly 15 years) while bribing the ENTIRE PC OEM INDUSTRY so badly that one CEO compared their bribes to cocaine and STILL they don't get busted? really?

Hell with today's climate they could replace the default picture on all Verizon phones with goatse and would probably have a line of politicians standing up to applaud and tell them how wonderful they were for teaching the public about the importance of rectal exams!

Lets face it, they'll just get a puny fine that isn't even 1/20th they make on the screwjob, just so the bribed officials can claim they "did something about it" and they'll slip the congress critters a check while writing their fines off on their taxes! This is why we are gonna end up (I would argue we are already) on the short bus to the information superhighway while Asia rolls out supernetworks.

Re:The cycle continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they pay to change the law. Just saying.

Re:The cycle continues

[Anonymous Coward]

head

Re:The cycle continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Head Mother Fucker In Charge.... or possibly HalfCaf Mocha Frappachino In Charge.

Re:The cycle continues

[Andy Dodd]

Huh? How would Intel pull something like that with GCC - next to impossible.

Also the stated "crippling" you talk about would make the P4 look significantly WORSE than the P3, not better. The P4 is the first chip in which x87 instructions got crippled in favor of using SSE. (In the P4, the recommended method for floating point was SSE - even for non-SIMD work.)

Re:The cycle continues

[Anonymous Coward]

That will never happen as long as companies are considers "persons." Get rid of that and the person in charge is liable for the underlings. A lot of CEOs would be very, very, scared if that happened. Like when they could go to jail for an underling submitting fake charges on a bill.

Re:The cycle continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes you make sense. Why be such a fuckwad the other %99.99978 of the time?

Re:The cycle continues

[sexconker]

the way to stop this kind of BS is to make as a statutory penalty when a company is found violating any Law or FCC or FTC rule all customers have the option to cancel their contract with no fee or requirement to return a handset.

Or how about all customers are refunded the full retail price of the phone, as it was at the time of purchase, while still keeping the phone. Add in explicit language that states the rule covers discounted phones bought with a contract agreement, and covers any bullshit they may try to pull by saying people are leasing / renting the phones (like cable boxes).

Re:The cycle continues

[Bucky24]

Sounds like cruel and unusual punishment (well, unusual punishment anyway). Personally I think it's a lovely idea, but I don't think something like that is legal...

Re:The cycle continues

[sabt-pestnu]

> Info from the Department of Pulling Numbers from my Ass for the Purpose of an Analogy.

I bow to you, sir. Obviously, you have escaped beheading at the king's order by teaching the donkey to talk. And even done extra credit by teaching it statistics and numerical analysis.

Re:The cycle continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Phones are subsidized through your plan, I doubt many are bought outright. Through the way they do their accounting they'd probably just claim a zero dollar profit on every device they sell.

Re:The cycle continues

[hairyfeet]

Actually you need to look up the way they rigged their compiler friend. if you ran a program through say GCC and then ran it on both a late model P3 and an early P4? The P3 would WIN by about 30%. If you ran the exact same code through the Intel compiler after I believe it was Apr of 2003? Then the P4 would win by as much as 45%.

The reason that was is their purposely look for a "Genuine" flag and if it isn't found drop the code through an unoptimized x87 routine that frankly is like something from 1993. It really ties a boat anchor to any code that is run on a non intel CPU. this is why you can't trust benchmarks anymore as it has come out nearly all the benchmarking software has been compiled using the Intel compiler so every. single. test. if run on intel gets the full SSE treatment and for a P3 or non Intel CPU its shitty code city.

so look up "Intel compiler rigging tests" into the search engine of your choice and see for yourself. Several programmers have run significant testing involving changing the CPUID and the results are pretty damning. You can take the same program on ANY Intel machine and by changing the flag to authentic AMD you can watch it drop by nearly half performance wise. How in the hell they were allowed to get away with that can only be in my mind through the same way they controlled the OEM market, bribery. Frankly it couldn't be clearer if Intel made every program compiled with its compiler display Goatse if you have a non Intel approved CPU.

Re:The cycle continues

[nobodie]

i am just back from 15 years in Asia, the last 6 in China. Hear what I say!
The mobile phone market in Asia, including China, is more free than the North American market. You are being robbed, cheated, locked out and kept out of the phones, the services and the value of the mobile marketplace. You are only a revenue source for the companies, not customers, just useful chumps.

In China I can have as many SIM cards as I want. I pay by the minute and a robust and diverse marketplace keeps prices reasonable (about 2 dollars a month for the most basic service plus about a penny for a SMS message and 2 cents a minute for calls anywhere in the country. My wife just landed in Kunming, Yunnan province last weekend and had a new phone and SIM card for 20 dollars within an hour or so from landing.

Not only that, the market is pushing development of the best phones in the world!
The government stays out of it except in doing the kind of monitoring that our government does on people they don't like, we have no more freedom on that account either i fear. So, the corporate control of our mobile market is robbing us with the support of the government. The more money we spend on phones the less we have to support adverse political ideas like the occupy movements.

An old slogan, paraphrased.

[sethstorm]

Verizon: we keep working you like a whore.

Re:An old slogan, paraphrased.

[MiniMaul]

Verizon: we keep working you like a whore.

or the newer slogan: can you feel me now?

Re:An old slogan, paraphrased.

[ganjadude]

sadly in some places there really isnt a real option. where i live i can buy verizon... oh i can buy other phones, but there is no signal at my house for anyone but verizon..and even that is spotty. So while in europe that may not be the case where everything is closer together, where we are more rural it makes your choices limited.

Whos fault? HTC or Verizon?

[Falc0n]

I have the HTC Thunderbolt, unlocked running BAMF. According to the verizon rep, the bootloader lockdown was at the request of HTC. Additionally, the warranty is handled by the manufacturer, and would be void by them, not verizon. He told me that I could return the phone, and verizon only does some cursory testing to see if it turns on, functions, etc. The fact it was rooted wouldn't be detected until handed to HTC.
Now this is all assuming Verizon isn't lying to me. It could very well be all false. But it seems like they're trying to pin the fault on locked down phones to the manufacturer, NOT themselves. Aren't there some Android phones, made by Verizon that are unlocked?

Re:Whos fault? HTC or Verizon?

[saleenS281]

It is locked by HTC at Verizon's request. It is also denied warranty by HTC at Verizon's request. So yes, technically it is "HTC", but only insofar as they were told "do this or we won't take the phone at all".

Re:Whos fault? HTC or Verizon?

[silas_moeckel]

Thats one hell of an end run around the requirement for the spectrum. They are still knowingly selling a non compliant phone would seem reasonable they would need to stop selling defective phones and replace the ones they sold.

Re:Whos fault? HTC or Verizon?

[AndrewNeo]

Motorola just claimed with the new 'RAZR' that it was specifically Verizon that is causing the bootloader to be locked, on Verizon's version of the phone.

Re:Whos fault? HTC or Verizon?

[Andy Dodd]

Moto is just trying to find an excuse...

They want people to blame someone other than them, when it is CLEARLY *their* fault.

Just look at it this way:
Samsung - no locked bootloaders on any carrier (The Tab 10.1 is semi-locked, but that's even the wifi-only versions - and it's pretty light locking.)
HTC - Heavy bootloader locking only recently, and across all carriers. The Thunderbolt is just a bit higher profile, as it was the first one.
Motorola - All locked, all the time, with very rare exceptions, on all carriers - even European ones! In fact, with the original Droid, the Verizon variant was the only one WITHOUT a locked bootloader (the internation GSM variant, the Milestone, had a locked bootloader.)

Re:Whos fault? HTC or Verizon?

[triffid_98]

Samsung - no locked bootloaders on any carrier
HTC - Heavy bootloader locking only recently, and across all carriers. The Thunderbolt is just a bit higher profile, as it was the first one.
Motorola - All locked, all the time, with very rare exceptions, on all carriers

Wait what? Having a locked (but exploitable) bootloader is a lot different than what Motorola does. If you load an unsigned rom you will brick your phone.

The handset in question is locked by HTC

[AlphaWolf_HK]

HTC isn't a licensee.

HTC doesn't just lock phones that go to Verizon; they lock all of the phones they sell. You are buying a phone from HTC that HTC locks. Verizon can't tell you what you can or can't put on that phone, but by buying into HTC's walled garden, HTC can tell you what you will or won't put on that phone.

Verizon in fact can't even tell HTC to unlock their phone (not that they would want to) because they aren't allowed to tell the manufacturer how to make their phone.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[saleenS281]

Absolute rubbish. Apple tried to do away with removable SIM's entirely and the carriers said no. I suggest reading this interview:
http://allthingsd.com/20110523/exclusive-france-telecom-ceo-on-apple-android-and-how-you-can-kiss-your-unlimited-plan-goodbye/

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[AlphaWolf_HK]

First of all, that's in Europe, not the US, and thus second of all, there is no FCC mandate as to what European carriers are allowed to do on the C block.

Pretty fail for a troll attempt.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[c0lo]

Verizon in fact can't even tell HTC to unlock their phone (not that they would want to) because they aren't allowed to tell the manufacturer how to make their phone.

Oh, is it so?

HTC is committed to assisting customers in unlocking bootloaders for HTC devices. However, certain models may not be unlockable due to operator restrictions. We continue to work with our partners on this, check back often for ongoing updates about unlockable devices.

Granted, nowhere is Verizon mentioned explicitly in regards with the unlockable devices... but neither can be said that Verizon cannot ask HTC to unlock their phones.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[saleenS281]

Attempt at a troll? You said carriers don't dictate what manufacturers do with their phones. That's patently false, with evidence provided. If you think it doesn't extend to the US, you have your head in the sand. They tell the manufacturers yay or nay on every feature on the phone, and if the handset manufacturers don't comply, the phone doesn't get sold. Just like they dictate when phone updates are pushed, and what updates they get.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Oh, is it so [htcdev.com]?

Yes, actually.

That setup only applies to HTC's new phones, not phones already on the market, such as the Thunderbolt. And believe it or not, that isn't a full unlock. I own an HTC Evo 3D which is unlockable by that system. It doesn't turn off the security flag in the android hboot.

This means that while you can load custom roms that way, you still don't have a full nand unlock, and thus can't even load a custom recovery image, or do a number of other things.

This came about largely as a result of a bunch of posts to facebook, so they added this system. This is their halfway approach that silences those who were making all of the noise yet keeps the phone semi-locked down. The Nexus S 4G on the other hand is a full unlock.

Granted, nowhere is Verizon mentioned explicitly in regards with the unlockable devices... but neither can be said that Verizon cannot ask HTC to unlock their phones.

Again, Verizon can't tell the OEM's what to do with their phones. If you buy a phone that is locked, that is your choice.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[fermion]

In the US at leaset, carriers are the customer, not the end user. The carriers determine which features are required and how much money will be spent by the end user and how much support is required from the carrier. This presumable is the reason why Verizon would not deal with Apple back in 2007. Apple was designing a phone for that Apple wanted, and determined the prices Apple wanted. Verizon was not yet in a position where it had to play.

Google meant to change this situation with Android. Make a phone that consumers wanted, Create a market where consumers bought a phone made for end users, and then allow the carriers to complete for service. This plan, unfortunately, did not work. One reason is that Google was actually not going to service the Google phone, but rather allow the carriers to do incur those costs while Google made a huge profit on each phone. Obviously end users were not wild about paying a company for a product that denied the product was even made by them, and carriers were not wild about providing service for which they would not be paid.

In any case, everyone has basically blinked and phones are once again made, at least in part, for the carriers. This will happen until we have an old-ATT style breakup in which the governement tells everyone that they have to play nice.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[AlphaWolf_HK]

In the US at leaset, carriers are the customer, not the end user. The carriers determine which features are required and how much money will be spent by the end user and how much support is required from the carrier.

The C block is an exception. Read the links provided in the summary. Verizon isn't allowed to dictate features or limits to devices that make use of the C block.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[green1]

Verizon can't tell the OEM's what to do with their phones. If you buy a phone that is locked, that is your choice.

Verizon can't tell an OEM what to do with their phone, however Verizon CAN tell an OEM what to do with their phone if they want Verizon to carry it. This means that if said OEM doesn't comply they loose a HUGE retail opportunity. Most OEMs would rather let the carrier dictate terms than loose the carrier as a sales channel.

What you're saying would likely be true in one of 2 worlds:
1) A world where handsets are sold separately from service contracts (much of the world, but not North America)
2) A small enough carrier that the OEM wouldn't care if they lost them (again, not Verizon)

The end result is that carriers frequently DO dictate terms to the OEMs, in fact, to my knowledge the only OEM to ever stand up to a carrier on this one is Apple... and only because they wanted to put their own restrictions on instead of letting the carriers put theirs on.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[saleenS281]

HTC doesn't just lock phones that go to Verizon; they lock all of the phones they sell. You are buying a phone from HTC that HTC locks. Verizon can't tell you what you can or can't put on that phone, but by buying into HTC's walled garden, HTC can tell you what you will or won't put on that phone.

I RTFA. You made a false statement. You're now saying that Verizon couldn't tell them to do something because it's against the law. Good call. Verizon couldn't possibly tell another company to break the law, because it breaks the law. In fact, nobody can break the law. I bet you've never gone above the speed limit, because it's against the law. There was no price collusion in the memory market for years, because it was against the law. Intel didn't shit on AMD at OEM's, because it was agains the law.

You made an incorrect statement, I gave you proof otherwise that MFG's have long since demanded phone manufacturers make phones to their specification. Claiming they can't because it's on the C-block is humorous at best. They can do whatever they want right up until the point they get caught. Which is what this article is about, had you RTFA.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Verizon can't tell an OEM what to do with their phone, however Verizon CAN tell an OEM what to do with their phone if they want Verizon to carry it. This means that if said OEM doesn't comply they loose a HUGE retail opportunity. Most OEMs would rather let the carrier dictate terms than loose the carrier as a sales channel.

Hmm....No, not exactly.

On the C block, they can force Verizon to activate the phone for subscribers who request it. But the question ends up being: Is this profitable for the OEM? When an OEM makes a phone available for a given carrier, usually the carrier handles a lot of the burden of advertising and promoting that phone. For example, on Verizons website, Verizon stores, or orders over the phone, Verizon can completely deny that phone even exists if they'd like.

If you as a customer bring them a phone to that spectrum (passing FCC checks, of course) Verizon must make services available to it on your request. But how successful an OEM would be at providing that model is another question. Google tried to sell the original Nexus that way (unlocked, available to any GSM carrier that would take it) and it didn't sell too well from their own channels. Instead it was through t-mobil's channels that sold it well.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[joocemann]

You don't get it.

Verizon dictates, htc produces, verizon sells and operates. verizon is largely at fault.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[joocemann]

If your point stands, why is my Sprint Samsung Epic 4g locked??

You still don't get it. The litle pieces and crappy assemblies of ideas you keep pushing about this topic is comedy at its best. Its fun watching you eat your foot evry step of the way.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[green1]

That's because in North America phones are tied to contracts. Sure I can bring any phone I want and activate it on my current provider, but then I have to spend several hundred dollars on a phone. The carrier is willing to give me their phone for "free" if I sign a 3 year term. Now in an ideal world they'd give me a discount if I brought my own, but they don't, so I pay for that "free" phone whether I take it or not, I might as well take it. How many OEMs are willing to risk going up against free with a several hundred dollar device while also battling the marketing clout of the carrier? All just so they don't have to agree to the carrier's terms of locking the phone down and adding a few bloatware apps? Highly unlikely.

As I said, while OEMs don't "have" to do what a carrier asks of them, the truth is that they do, all the time, and if they don't, they won't sell any phones.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[c0lo]

On the C block, they can force Verizon to activate the phone for subscribers who request it. But the question ends up being: Is this profitable for the OEM?

'Course it is!!! "You brick the phone by ROM modding, you're outside of warranty... I sympathize with you; here, let me sell you my new model; you get a 10% discount for your 3days old brick".

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[toadlife]

why is my Sprint Samsung Epic 4g locked??

It's not. It and all other Samsung phones can be easily flashed with a program called ODIN. Just tar up the filesystem images, modem, and kernel and flash away.

Google: ODIN samsung

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[Miamicanes]

The day Verizon allows customers to walk into a Verizon store and buy a R-UIM card that will allow them to use any physically-compatible phone on Verizon, you might have a point. However, in the real world, Verizon and Sprint dictate the phones available for use on their networks, and have more or less complete veto power (the sole real-world exception being that Verizon will grudgingly allow you to use a Sprint twin of a Verizon phone that's been reflashed to Verizon firmware, but AFAIK nobody has EVER gotten a completely alien phone (with EVDOrev.A chipset) to do EVDOrev.A on Verizon, and as of a year or so ago, if you were willing to live with slow 1xRTT to use an alien phone on Verizon, you'd still have dysfunctional voicemail and MMS.

Remember, the T-Mobile and AT&T Samsung Galaxy S II has a better CDMA chipset than Sprint's does. In theory, someone able to create his own radio firmware and access to Verizon's internal docs could forcibly reflash one to do EVDO on Verizon. The catch is, to do it legally, he'd probably have to get his phone individually certified by the FCC, because Samsung only had the GSM SGS2 officially certified for GSM and UMTS, even though the Qualcomm chipset inside is perfectly capable of CDMA.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony Ericsson has an option called Openboot that is in effect on all phones they sell if the carrier hasn't explicitly stated that they want it locked. It becomes rather simple to then check if there's a Sony Ericsson phone that's open on other carriers and locked on Verizon.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[Andy Dodd]

Um, it isn't?

The most bootloader "locking" I've seen with Samsungs is the "custom binary count" counter/warning in newer phones. It'll rat on you that you flashed a custom kernel via ODIN, but it will happily boot it.

This goes for every GalaxyS variant (including the Epic 4G) - although most of these don't have the "new" custom binary count feature, all interim devices (like the Infuse and Droid Charge), and all GS2 variants (which all have CBC counters - but happily boot custom kernels.)

So if anyone is eating your foot, it's you. It's clear that you either don't have a damn clue or you're trolling.

As to my credentials in this regard - I maintain custom kernels for the AT&T Infuse and AT&T GSII. I know for a fact that the original Epic 4G had unlocked bootloaders and PLENTY of custom kernels because I based some of the features in my Infuse kernel series on an Epic 4G kernel series.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[Andy Dodd]

Don't forget Heimdall for Mac/Linux users. Heck - I know a lot of ROM devs use it on Windows too because it's just plain more consistent.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[Anonymous Coward]

the parent was not implying that HTC had complete control over the handset, which they do not. The carriers buy and market the handset, and if the carrier does not like the features of a handset, it will not reach consumers.

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[toadlife]

I didn't know Heimdall supported Windows. I'll have to give it a whirl.

Thanks!

Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC

[CodeHxr]

By the same token, are they required to sell devices that they don't want to sell (such as, devices that don't comply to internal standards)?

To quote GWB

[bmo]

"It's just a fucking piece of paper"

Verizon will do what they will, because the penalties for not complying with regulations are infinitesimal compared to the profits from nickel-and-diming customers.

--
BMO

Re:To quote GWB

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Bush never actually said that, by the way.

http://factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

Re:To quote GWB

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if you point out the truth. We heard that Clinton said the same thing. Eventually Obama will supposedly say it too and dumb monkeys who keep voting for dumb and dumber will keep claiming that "the other side" did something or other first and that justifies why they do it back. Blah blah blah blah blah.
 
It's old and it's tired but the retards will keep making these foolish claims. But have no fear, knowing this makes it that much easier to know who isn't worth listening to.

Re:To quote GWB

[sjames]

Verizon will do what they will, because the penalties for not complying with regulations are infinitesimal compared to the profits from nickel-and-diming customers.

Exactly. The penalties should be more significant, like fix it in 30 days or lose the spectrum, no fees refunded.

Re:To quote GWB

[Anonymous Coward]

> Bush never actually said that, by the way.

Well your critical thinking skills aren't much better than the parent poster.

The article to which you linked states that he probably didn't.

No-one can know definitively whether or not he did so.

Re:To quote GWB

[http]

Bush didn't say it, he did it. Actions speak so much louder than words.

Re:To quote GWB

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably don't beat your wife.

No-one can know definitively whether or not you do so.

(see also "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" by Carl Sagan)

Re:To quote GWB

[webheaded]

Guy was a big enough douche that we don't have to lie about the things he said. The truth is just as bad as fiction for him most of the time.

Its Verizon

[Anonymous Coward]

HTC has a bootloader unlock tool, however it doesn't support the thunderbolt. It has the usual drawback (voided warranty), but it would still be worth it to have an officially sanctioned unlock process. If I were to guess, the reason for this situation is due to external pressure from a certain carrier on HTC.

Oh, and this was posted from a laptop tethered to an HTC thunderbolt with an "unlocked" bootloader.

What about C block bidders?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would other companies that bid on the C block have standing to sue? Some allegation like... Verizon's willful violation of its license terms demonstrates that it won the auction on false pretenses; those false representations led competitors to lose the auction, etc., etc.

Re:What about C block bidders?

[Pence128]

Maybe... If other C block bidders could have made more money by charging for inherent features, they could have bid a lot more.

Land lines

[tepples]

oh i can buy other phones, but there is no signal at my house for anyone but verizon

Not even a land line? I thought that's what the universal service fee was for: to get land-line coverage up to 100%.

Re:Land lines

[ironjaw33]

oh i can buy other phones, but there is no signal at my house for anyone but verizon

Not even a land line? I thought that's what the universal service fee was for: to get land-line coverage up to 100%.

Where I live, the land line choices are Verizon... and Verizon. There was even an article in the local paper today about how Verizon is letting its copper infrastructure go to waste, so if you live in a place that doesn't have FTTx, you're definitely screwed.

Re:Land lines

[compro01]

Not even a land line?.

Who do you think owns the landlines?

Depending on where you live, you either get AT&T, Centurylink (formerly Qwest, and USWest before that), or Verizon.

here's a map. A bit old, so the names are wrong, but the areas are still accurate.

USWest is now CenturyLink, Pacific Telesis, Southwestern Bell, Bellsouth, and Ameritech are now the new AT&T, and Bell Atlantic and NYNEX formed Verizon.

Re:Land lines

[tepples]

As I understand it, the land line operations of Verizon are largely separate from the operations of Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless.

Why would we talk about suing?

[chaboud]

Non-compliance by Verizon is cause for the FCC's termination of Verizon's licenses of C-Block bands. At that point, the FCC should reclaim the licenses and re-auction them to parties who would know that they can sub-lease them to a Verizon that they have by the balls.

The move here is to petition the executive branch to actually do its fucking job, which may mean firing the entire Genachowski FCC and starting over.

Installing a new OS on my Windows machine doesn't void the warranty, and neither should installing a new build of Android on an Android device. There should be a golden bootloader that is locked that then allows the installation of any operating system software. Then you can make a relatively unbrickable device that gives people complete choice. TPM for the DRM dicks if you really think you have to, bud I'd rather that we, as a people, decide to stop stabbing ourselves in the face.

Verizon shouldn't be allowed any end-runs, nor should, frankly, anyone else. So the FCC didn't man up and actually give us network and device neutrality that makes sense. That's not the end of the world if they actually enforce C-Block restrictions effectively.

Re:Why would we talk about suing?

[CCurzon]

There should be a golden bootloader that is locked that then allows the installation of any operating system software. Then you can make a relatively unbrickable device that gives people complete choice.

I would like to see something like this on almost any device. Hell, my car's transmission has a "limp mode" to get me to a garage if there's a problem, why shouldn't my computer? It does't need to be a full OS, just enough to get a full OS on there.

Re:Why would we talk about suing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just gonna leave this here: http://esupport.fcc.gov/complaints.htm

Violate license...lose it

[Roger W Moore]

No, the way to fix this is to seize all profits made as a result of the violation, and then add a fine on top of that.

The 'fine' should be loss of the license. They appear to have broken the license deliberately to make more money so they should have to repay the money and then lose the license for having proven themselves untrustworthy to have it. This would certainly be disruptive to customers but if governments behaved this way you'd soon see companies taking their responsibilities a lot more seriously and there there would be less need for such forceful action.

Re:Violate license...lose it

[drinkypoo]

You don't have to go so far, and hurt the customer. Just take away the ill-gotten gains and then some as suggested above in the comment you quoted which removes the profit motive.

Re:Violate license...lose it

[shaitand]

I'd go a little farther. Take away the ill gotten gains and fine them. Seize the spectrum and open it. Consumer devices will still work.

Re:Violate license...lose it

[drinkypoo]

Uh no, no they won't. Without regulation, that particular type of spectrum use won't work, because you'll have would-be players stepping on one another's use. Licensing spectrum is one of the few legitimate purposes for the FCC.

Mind you, other consumer devices could be made to work on that spectrum if we weren't using it for same, but everyone using it now would be ass out.

Re:Violate license...lose it

[MobyDisk]

It wouldn't hurt the customer so much if they weren't monopolies. If one grocery store lost their license to sell food due to an FDA violation, customers would go to another store. This is handled in the banking industry by requiring insolvent banks to sell to another bank. That way customers can keep their accounts, just with another bank. You you can't mandate that Verizon sell the company and accounts because there are only 4 providers in the country and Verizon is already the largest. If there were 400 providers, each with a compatible system, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

I like the Switzerland model

[Wattos]

Here in Switzerland you can buy your phone at any shop that sells mobiles and sign a contract with a phone company.

The cool thing is, if you do so, you get a phone which came directly from a factory, e.g. no sim lock, no bloatware, etc. It is a really cool approach, but I dont know how heager us companies would be to adapt this approach.

Re:I like the Switzerland model

[Bob the Super Hamste]

That has been a common complaint in the US for years. I wish I had bought a phone while I was in Europe and brought it back with me to the states. As much of a libertarian as I am I still see the need for market regulation especially since we have an imperfect free market.

Re:I like the Switzerland model

[silas_moeckel]

The big issue is we have multiple incompatible networks unlike the eu. Some of those networks even had innovative tech. Nextels 2way service that even worked handset to handset when out of range of towers, Sprint bought them out and killed it. Granted with software radio's that we use now it would not seem to hard to make a universal phone in the US.

Re:I like the Switzerland model

[Shatrat]

You can buy an unlocked GSM phone from Newegg as easy as you like. You can also purchase a SIM-only contract from T-Mobile. These things exist. The US market is conditioned to expect the subsidized phone model, though.

Probably

[sangreal66]

and this is not the first time the question has been raised -- see also: potential future 4G iPhone (which will be very interesting)

With regards to the Thunderbolt, however, the bootloader is easily unlocked so it doesn't seem to be the best case to get upset about.

Not a violation

[Spazmania]

The requirement doesn't mean they have to hook up only unlocked phones. Just like the requirement decades ago wasn't that AT&T stop renting hardwired phones. The requirement is that if I buy any random device capable of talking on their network, they must allow me to use it on their network... even if that device does things with their network they'd rather it not.

Re:Not a violation

[sgt scrub]

You wouldn't happen to have a list of C-Band devices would you?

Re:Not a violation

[Spazmania]

I do not, but I would venture to guess that most devices sold by Verizon at their stores can be purchased as unlocked phones ready to be hooked up to a carrier via other channels.

I've not looked at the regulation in question

[brokeninside]

But, depending on the circumstance, a lawsuit might compel the FCC to take action.

Unacceptable

[sgt scrub]

Block C should never have been sold. They should have charged for permission to build devices that communicate over 700hz and left the connectivity and use up to the public. Allowing ONE company to control a frequency is completely unacceptable!

RICO prosecution

[swb]

Why not a RICO prosecution?

It's clearly a conspiracy on the part of executives to break the law and obtain illegal profits.

Let's seize all the personal assets of these executives, fine them a few million dollars personally and throw them in jail.

When "aggressive billing practices" starts becoming a significant risk of loss of personal fortunes and extensive jail time, then you'll see greater caution.

Google's Doing some nasty things

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to stop users from installing the latest operating system on old phones.

I don't think the rule says what you think it does

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFA: The open access provision requires Verizon to “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.”

I'm not sure how this translates into "all bootloaders must be unlocked."

I can see it meaning "You can purchase any compatible LTE device and Verizon can't turn you down." Or even "Verizon can't kick you off their network for choosing to void your warranty and root your phone." (And if they are preventing either of those things, then that's a whole different article.)

In the case of the Thunderbolt, Verizon is selling you device with a specific set of specifications and features. If the specifications and feature set of that device don't meet your requirements, then you are free to purchase a device that does. If no device exists, they you are free to modify your device to expand on the included features and specifications. (It's fairly trivial to unlock the Thunderbolt's bootloader, even if there's no HTC-approved way of doing it.)

Citation Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the proof? I just tried googling for this document and all I could was page after page of this exact summary. Where's the link to the doc where that snippet is coming from?