Slashdot Mirror
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'...'"
Like Verizon would let a silly little thing like laws get in their way...
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.
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/
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.
Verizon: we keep working you like a whore.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
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".
Bush never actually said that, by the way.
http://factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bush didn't say it, he did it. Actions speak so much louder than words.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
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.
You wouldn't happen to have a list of C-Band devices would you?
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
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.