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.
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
Verizon: we keep working you like a whore.
or the newer slogan: can you feel me now?
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.
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.