FCC Rules That Verizon Cannot Charge For 4G Tethering

schleprock63 writes "The FCC ruled today that Verizon cannot charge extra for users for 4G Wi-Fi tethering. The FCC used the original agreement in the auction of the C block spectrum which said 'licensees offering service on C Block spectrum "shall 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, subject to narrow exceptions."' So Verizon cannot charge for tethering on 4G service, this raises the question of whether they can continue to charge for tethering on 3G or 1x?"

Comments

Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "Invited everyone you knew," shithead.

Ha ha.. I bet you thought I was going to say something about "cosmonaut" didn't you!

By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[Anonymous Coward]

So Verizon cannot charge for tethering on 4G service, this raises the question of whether they can continue to charge for tethering on 3G or 1x?

Your answer lies in those "narrow exceptions".

Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[Penguinisto]

s'okay - even if the FCC ruled that Verizon cannot charge for any tethering at all, they'd simply charge for using the phone in a 'special data mode', or they'd happily rig all new phones to count double towards your data cap while tethered (after all, you're using two data 'channels' now - one to the laptop, and one to the tower!). Basically, they'd come up with some other sleazy move that sounds halfway legit to the non-techie user.

Never underestimate the capacity of a telecom carrier to do evil for profit.

Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[MightyMartian]

Yes, but at least the ruling means that if they try sleazy moves, there is a door to fight them.

Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[Farmer Tim]

Never underestimate the capacity of a telecom carrier to do evil for profit.

Wait, the profit isn't just a fringe benefit?

Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[PsyciatricHelp]

So Verizon cannot charge for tethering on 4G service, this raises the question of whether they can continue to charge for tethering on 3G or 1x?

Your answer lies in those "narrow exceptions".

Its a regulation on the bandwidth block used for 4g. not the range for 3g. different frequencies, different rules.

Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[theqmann]

Does 4G ONLY use the relevant C block? If it's multiband, couldn't they just re-direct data bits to the non-C block they already had and continue charging?

Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Suit yourself, but a Schmeisser is lighter, heaps easier to hold on to, and can be used from a greater (and safer) distance.

Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[jd2112]

You would think Verizon would encourage thethering. That much easier to change overages.

Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[noc007]

There's a difference between making a profit and price gouging your customers.

Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[llorllale]

I think that would depend on the device the user has.

Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[Yobgod Ababua]

If it doesn't use the C-block, it's performance drops too close to that of earlier protocols that also don't use the C-block, which would result in PR and marketing suicide.

Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[Anonymous Coward]

To which, they're NOT geared up to bill differently for 4G and 3G tethering. It's very probably the reason that they went to no tethering charges on the "shared data" plans. Thing is...they're now going to have to give it to everyone for free for all intents and purposes. Even the grandfathered unlimited data plans. Some of those aren't throttled either.

Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[ottothecow]

Gotta get everybody off of unlimited plans first.

I think verizon had a bunch of unlimited stuff coming into 4G and even a few backdoor methods to get unlimited data after they stopped offering it--I remember seeing it reported somewhere that you could enable some business-tethering unlimited feature for a month and then ask a support person to take off the tethering part...they would take off tethering but the unlimited data would stay on the account (I use AT&T so I can't verify if this still works).

I'd be happy paying for overages instead of a monthly tethering fee...The only time I ever tether is to do work (otherwise I try to avoid random internet browsing when traveling and things like looking up a restaurant for dinner reservations can be done just fine from the phone interface) and I would just get reimbursed for any charges incurred. Having a $10 charge every month even when I am not traveling and working (or coming anywhere near the data cap I pay for) is a much more obnoxious situation.

Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin.

[lonecrow]

Everyone say a nice "Thank you" to Google, the hero of the people. They put their money where their mouth is and offered a minimum bid of $4.6billion but only if the certain policies where implemented:

• Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
• Open devices: Consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
• Open services: Third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms; and
• Open networks: Third parties (like internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee's wireless network.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spectrum_auction

Good for the Judges

[Nyder]

About time we got some smart rulings.

I don't see why this won't apply to 3G or any other type of tethering either, since it's all the same.

Re:Good for the Judges

[yakatz]

I don't see why this won't apply to 3G or any other type of tethering either, since it's all the same.

Because the issue is in which part of the wireless spectrum they are using. As far as I can tell, this ruling only applies to the new C Block spectrum, not the parts of the spectrum they used to have.

Re:Good for the Judges

[jeffmeden]

I don't see why this won't apply to 3G or any other type of tethering either, since it's all the same.

Because the issue is in which part of the wireless spectrum they are using. As far as I can tell, this ruling only applies to the new C Block spectrum, not the parts of the spectrum they used to have.

Exactly. This was the feature that Google basically spent $4B on a few years ago. The spectrum for LTE went to carriers specifically with the requirement that they follow "net neutrality" style rules on usage; no blocking or "channeling" certain features according to service.

Re:Good for the Judges

[Archangel Michael]

Correct. However the conclusion you've implied is not correct.

THIS is an administrative ruling, having the full force of law. It remains "law" until overruled by a court. The result is, that it is a law, until proven in a court to be otherwise.

Further, your implication is fairly short sighted, in that you assume something isn't a law (or acts like a law) unless a court rules on it. The fact is, most laws (and administrative rulings) are lawful until someone challenges it in a court.

THIS was an administrative hearing which FUNCTIONS much like a court for most intents and purposes. Therefore the ONLY recourse left to VZ is an actual court. And having already been ruled on by an Administrative hearing, the hurdle is much much higher for VZ than normal court case

Re:Good for the Judges

[Anonymous Coward]

Important note: BID $4B on, but did not win, so spent nothing.

Re:Good for the Judges

[Penguinisto]

Protip: The FCC is not a court.

True, but they cannot simply be ignored, either. A pissed-off FCC can seriously ruin the day of any telecom carrier (or manufacturer, or broadcaster for that matter).

So yeah, basically Verizon will do what they say. I'm pretty sure Verizon wouldn't want some massive snafu getting in the way of license renewals or the next round of spectrum purchase bidding.

Re:Good for the Judges

[TubeSteak]

THIS was an administrative hearing which FUNCTIONS much like a court for most intents and purposes. Therefore the ONLY recourse left to VZ is an actual court. And having already been ruled on by an Administrative hearing, the hurdle is much much higher for VZ than normal court case

$1.25 million (paid to the Treasury Dept) works out to 5,208 customers paying $20/month for a year.
Raise your hand if you really think Verizon only had 5,208 customers pay for 4G tethering.

Corporations love these consent decrees because it means they get a slap on the wrist in return for promising not to do [bad thing] again.
At the absolute bare minimum, Verizon should be paying back the customers their $20 x # of months.

Ninety nine times out of a hundred, consent decrees piss me the hell off.

Re:Good for the Judges

[schleprock63]

exactly my point in the post. the ruling was very specific to the C block spectrum. 3g and 1x are different spectrum under different rules. i can see tethering when i'm in a 4g area, move to the 3g area and get completely screwed in fees! schleprock

Re:Good for the Judges

[Dunbal]

Yeah and you always have to be careful about laws that create government branches and then sneak in little bits of text that say the new branches' regulations will have the same force as a law. So suddenly the "manager" of said government branch can make and strike down "laws" at will, without being accountable to anyone - unless of course the rest of the government decides to call them on it.

Re:Good for the Judges

[Zontar The Mindless]

Somebody never worked in radio, did they?

Re:Good for the Judges

[msauve]

"THIS is an administrative ruling, having the full force of law. It remains "law" until overruled by a court."

No, it's a consent decree, which VZW has agreed to, and is therefore binding. They agreed to it, simply because they've implemented pay-per-GB "share everything" plans, where the more data used, the more money they make. That makes the decree pretty innocuous. They still have unlimited smartphone data contracts extant, and have traditionally allowed contracts to remain grandfathered, but they don't have to do so. The biggest reason for them not to move everyone off unlimited data immediately, is that to do so allows customers to cancel a contract with no early termination penalty. I expect that at some point, everyone will be forced onto plans where they make more money as you use more data. They've already stated that there will be no more subsidized phones (i.e. you'll pay $700 instead of $200 w/2 yr contract for a smartphone) if you want to keep unlimited data. So, that's basically $20/mo, only a bit less than they charged to tether.

Re:Good for the Judges

[whoever57]

Verizon didn't deny any device access - they just charged for each device, something which wasn't denied by the rules.

But the did not just "charge for each device", they added an extra charge for devices that were not connected to their network

If people hadn't gotten greedy, violated their contracts,

But that's the point of the ruling: Verizon wasn't allowed to put those limitation in their contracts. According to you, only Verizon's customers have to abide by contract terms, while Verizon itself doesn't have to abide by contract terms it agreed with the FCC

"shall 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, subject to narrow exceptions."'

The restriction which Verizon agreed to was they would not limit or restrict " the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice". Clearly, retricting tethering is limiting the ability of their customers to use the applications of their choice.

Re:Good for the Judges

[Obfuscant]

The restriction which Verizon agreed to was they would not limit or restrict " the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice". Clearly, retricting tethering is limiting the ability of their customers to use the applications of their choice.

Is it "restricting" your choice if they charge the same amount to tether using their phones or your own?

This same kind of language is in federal law regarding cable services and the use of CPE (customer provided equipment). Cable companies are not supposed to do things that limit the use of CPE without good cause. Who pays any attention to that?

Certainly not Comcast. When they forced everyone but basic cable subs to go digital, they broke the use of a lot of CPE. They COULD have left the digital signals for the Digital Basic service unscrambled and obeyed the spirit and letter of the law, but they chose not to. This isn't any premium service, it's the lowest tier of digital -- if you don't subscribe to digital they can trap your line to cut out all the digital service completely.

No, they said, you can't trap digital. Would you like to rent another DTA to connect to your VCR?

And now they are dropping all analog signals, which makes all analog CPE useless.

Re:Good for the Judges

[llorllale]

Precisely why the same ruling should be extended to all xG.

Re:Good for the Judges

[Dragonslicer]

So suddenly the "manager" of said government branch can make and strike down "laws" at will, without being accountable to anyone - unless of course the rest of the government decides to call them on it.

So they aren't accountable to anyone, except for the people that they're accountable to. Got it.

Re:Good for the Judges

[noc007]

Exactly. This is a drop in the bucket for them. They got to violate the rules, penalize/price gouge customers, and give the government a small penance. Honestly I think they should bring back Unlimited data with no restrictions including tethering as their actual punishment. If that's not acceptable, I'm willing to compromise on the punishment be taking all of the executives, striping them naked, and flogging them in public. I think either is fair.

The FCC really needs to make these punishments actual hurt and be a burden. $1.25 mil isn't even a slap on the wrist for VZW and I doubt they'd miss it in their ledgers.

Re:Good for the Judges

[msauve]

Is your problem with reading, or comprehension?

Re:Good for the Judges

[Dunbal]

Yeah and how often does the government get involved in the inner workings of one of these departments? Heck, they can't even get a true audit of the Federal Reserve. So I'd say the accountability is pretty minimal. Look at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. They had to be well past insolvency for anyone to clue in that there may be a problem. No, accountability is the least of your worries...

Re:Good for the Judges

[MobyDisk]

I thought they had to offer the analog boxes for free, which they did for me back when I had cable.

Re:Good for the Judges

[Curunir_wolf]

Protip: They are effectively a first-level court, at least in their area of power.

Not trying to be a dick, just trying to introduce you to the very baffling world of administrative law.

Well, you're right, except it's not that baffling if you just think of bureaucrats as lords of the manor, and everyone else as dirty serfs. Sure, the bureaucrats bicker all the time over who gets which piece of the dirt, but as a serf, it's clear that your portion is exactly nothing.

Re:Good for the Judges

[Curunir_wolf]

And having already been ruled on by an Administrative hearing, the hurdle is much much higher for VZ than normal court case

Not quite. Actually, this decision is the first opportunity for Verizon to challenge the ruling in a court, according to the APA (Administrative Procedure Act). You can't challenge rules written by an executive agency until you reach the "final action" by the agency. This is it.

Re:Good for the Judges

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, when I first skimmed this story, I fell into the trap of thinking "oh hmm, the government is doing their job for once". But you and GP are both right, this just makes it worse by merely taxing Highway Robbery :(

These bastards need to truely pay for their crimes, publicly, soon, at the governments hand, before the people have to take it upon themselves.

Re:Good for the Judges

[Areyoukiddingme]

It must feel really good for Google. They get to slide that knife in 3 years later. They probably did pay some tens of thousands of dollars to line up that $4 billion bid, but that's a drop in the bucket to be able to stick it to Verizon like that. And have the government do it for them.

It looks like Google is really coming of age. They too have learned to manipulate the federal government, just as all the cable and phone providers before them. :P

Re:Good for the Judges

[jaymemaurice]

In soviet russia, 3G area moves to you!

(sorry)

Re:Good for the Judges

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that there is no legal basis for such an extension. Verizon bid on and purchased those other bits of spectrum without any similar condition, retroactively imposing one would not be right, or fair, and would be one more step towards the law not meaning anything. And if you think big companies like Verizon would suffer more than individuals under a system where the rules for behavior change according to what those in authority think is "right" and/or "fair", you really need to study more history.

Re:Good for the Judges

[locketine]

Comcast has called, emailed and sent me multiple letters offering me free equipment to support their switch to all digital. I'm a basic cable subscriber who has only been watching the digital HD channels that have always been offered as part of the basic service (not digital). The lowest tier of digital service blocks the channels I get as a plain basic subscriber which is very odd to me but it probably complies with the law you speak of since their lowest tier service doesn't scramble those channels.

Re:Good for the Judges

[ottothecow]

So what happens if you are cruising along, surfing the internet on 4G and all of the sudden you hit a 4G dead spot for 30 seconds. The phone will handle the handover to 3g (or god forbid...edge or gprs), your netflix stream will have a drop in quality, and then what?

Will you get hit with a $15 tether-roaming charge since you left 4G and now they can charge you? If the failover mode on 4G is to use one of those other chunks of spectrum...would the rule have to follow the 4G connection onto the other connections?

Re:Good for the Judges

[Attila Dimedici]

Why would the rule follow to the other chunks of spectrum? The rule is specifically a product of conditions the FCC put on the sale of the spectrum that Verizon uses for 4G. Verizon knew those conditions when they bid on that spectrum. No such conditions existed in Verizon's agreement with the government under which they purchased the right to use the other spectrum. Therefore the government has no legal basis to impose restrictions on how they charge for its use (at least in this particular manner.
This does not mean that we cannot blast Verizon for such charges. It just means that the answer is not federal regulation. Not everything that is wrong to do, should be illegal to do.

Re:Good for the Judges

[a-zarkon!]

When deploying an 802.1x WLAN infrastructure, the way I provide more bandwidth for an increasing user population is to add access points to my topology. This allows for fewer users per access point, which provides the users with more effective bandwidth. An ancillary benefit is my topology tends to have more fault tolerance with lower degradation in the event of a node failure.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but can you explain how this principle would not work for a cellular data provider's network? Would adding more cells not yield similar benefits?

If the principles are roughly the same, then I would contend that providers may address the challenges of serving more bandwidth over limited spectrum by adding more cells (which granted means they are making a substantial capital investment in their network infrastructure).

Re:Good for the Judges

[lilfields]

Verizon could just as easily put in a switch that detects ICS software on the phone and upon it being activated (or seeing it's packages across the network) switches the phone to 3G, despite there being 4G coverage in that area. I don't know if this will apply to 3G, but I am betting these issues will arise and the FCC will get involved or rewrite the contract upon FCC license renewals.

Re:Good for the Judges

[Attila Dimedici]

The behavior you are suggesting would be perceived by the market as bad behavior and would result in Verizon suffering loss of market share. In addition, that might be a violation of existing laws and regulations. It would certainly subject Verizon to significant time in court defending the behavior.

And yet VZ was up 0.19 today

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, Wall Street is not too worried about this. They're trying to move everyone to bundled data packages anyway.

Verizon only

[MBCook]

Note that this ruling applies to Verizon ONLY. It's a result of the rules they agreed to during the 700MHz auction a few years ago. AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and everyone else are free to continue to charge you extra for what you already paid for.

Re:Verizon only

[pscottdv]

T-Mobile lets me tether for no additional cost. In fact, tethering came preinstalled on my phone.

Re:Verizon only

[LiENUS]

It is? http://offers.t-mobile.com/tethering/admin/faq.jsp/

Re:Verizon only

[grahamsz]

They've taken that away. Works on my G2, it worked on my girlfriend's old phone but when she upgraded to a Galaxy S, tmobile started charging her to tether.

It's a shame, makes me rethink staying with them

Re:Verizon only

[the_humeister]

Root, install Cyanogenmod, done.

Re:Verizon only

[MorrisonHiker]

Yep. My friend has the original Google Nexus One phone. For years, he had no problem tethering devices. Then one day, he started getting messages in the web browser telling him that he had to subscribe to a tethering plan for $15 or so a month. I showed him how to change a setting on his browser for the http user agent and he hasn't seen the tethering warning since.

Re:Verizon only

[Chewbacon]

Verizon should take this and run with it. "No charge to tether: only at Verizon!" The sound of it makes me wanna jump ship to them.

Re:Verizon only

[noc007]

There's ways around the tethering fee; it all depends on your morals and whether you consider the TOS valid in that regard.

If you're happy with T-Mobile and the service they provide sans that one little thing, don't bother changing. They all suck.

Re:Verizon only

[pscottdv]

Yup. It is. I use it everyday to surf on my unlocked Nook Simple Touch and/or my Stylistic tablet and I have never been hit with an extra charge.

I'm on a prepaid plan and my phone is a stock Samsung Dart.

Re:Verizon only

[jaymemaurice]

I'm sure you love it that they read all your packets - I mean, the internet would be quite boring if they didn't read at LEAST 32 bytes in.

Re:Verizon only

[crypticedge]

You can still tether without signing up for a tethering plan. I've been doing it for 2 years on t-mo without any extra charges. I did once get a "contact customer service to continue using this feature" page but that went away after a few hours (and I was particularly abusive to the tether feature that month)

Re:Verizon only

[LiENUS]

Just because you can doesn't mean it isn't a contractual violation. T-mobile says you should pay them money to use the feature but doesn't block you. It's the honor system but t-mobile does in fact charge you to tether. You are just being dishonest and tethering without paying.

Re:Verizon only

[pscottdv]

You are just being dishonest and tethering without paying.

How can violation of a policy I knew nothing about be dishonest?

Re:Verizon only

[LiENUS]

You probably should have looked closer at your terms of service before signing up. I just check t-mobiles prepaid website it clearly says you need the Smartphone Mobile Hotspot option at $15 a month in order to use tethering.

So if I read the article correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I read the article correctly, since they're no longer able to charge $20/mo for tethering, we should all brace for industry-wide data plan price increases of... about $20.

Re:So if I read the article correctly

[Atzanteol]

That's what I'm reading too...

Re:So if I read the article correctly

[hawguy]

So if I read the article correctly, since they're no longer able to charge $20/mo for tethering, we should all brace for industry-wide data plan price increases of... about $20.

If they thought they could have already raised prices $20 without resulting in a backlash leading to loss of revenue or other undesirable outcome (i.e. price regulation), they would have already done so.

But in any case, if they want to make the same revenue the price increase would be lower than $20. If 1 out of 10 customers bought the tethering plan, then they'd only need to raise prices $2 for everyone to make the same amount of revenue.

Re:So if I read the article correctly

[msauve]

"Brace for" implies something in the future. What you imply has already occurred. No new unlimited data plans, just pay-per-GB, where they don't care what uses the data. For people with grandfathered unlimited plans, no more ~$500/2 year new phone subsidies if you want to keep unlimited, which is the $20/month you mention.

Re:So if I read the article correctly

[Mousit]

If they thought they could have already raised prices $20 without resulting in a backlash leading to loss of revenue or other undesirable outcome (i.e. price regulation), they would have already done so.

They have already done so. In fact they went beyond twenty. They went to the "Share Everything" service plans and completely eliminated the Individual plans. They've also stated that grandfathered plans will be forced to change over if they wish to upgrade their devices. So no more grandfathered unlimited plans for anyone, at least if they ever want to replace their current phone (or god forbid it gets broken).

The cheapest Share Everything plan is.. (ready for this?).. about $30/mo more than the cheapest Individual plan that was previously available, as the article points out. Interestingly enough, this went into effect almost exactly a month before this FCC ruling. Now, I'm not usually one for conspiracies, but I'm also not usually one for coincidences either..

Ah-HA

[DWMorse]

So THIS is why they converted to the consumer benefit-free data-bucket plans. You can add any device to your plan, but they'll make sure it bites your smartphone and every other device in your plan in the ass if you make a single wrong step. Well played.

FCC: "Can you hear us now?"
VZN: "Yeah, and we got it covered."

Re:Ah-HA

[rgbrenner]

Huh??? Are you saying that previously you could tether a device and it would not have counted? Yeah right...

You were going to get charged for the bandwidth either way. Previously it would have count against the smartphones data usage.

your post really doesn't make any sense.

Re:Ah-HA

[Atzanteol]

Previously VZW offered unlimited 3G plans (like the one I'm still on). And if you root your phone you get free tethering. So no, it wouldn't count.

Re:Ah-HA

[msauve]

Tethering without paying for the tethering feature has always been a contract violation. This consent decree only changes that for 4G, not for 3G. You're an example of abusive customers who have caused cost to increase.

Re:Ah-HA

[tsotha]

Did they ever offer unlimited 4G plans, though?

Re:Ah-HA

[CheshireDragon]

Your last line says it. You CAN root your phone and get free tethering.

Re:Ah-HA

[CheshireDragon]

no, ever hear of Network Optimization> That is how Verizon stops the 'abusers.' It's a form of throttling and is imposed on the high usage 3G users that still have the unlimited plans. 4G users never had the option for unlimited plans so they are not optimized. Go over your 2GB and you get charged 10$/GB. It's sick as I can easily do 2+/GB a day on my 4G, BUT the company pays for it so I don't care. Last month June 28th to July 28th, I tried to limit my usage to the extreme and I still hit 6GB. Verizon just needs to change the GB rating since 4G is so blazing fast that the average Joe doesn't realize how much they are D/Ling until it's too late.

Re:Ah-HA

[xmundt]

This is a good point. A bit ago, I noticed that at certain times of the day my aircard would seem to be running slow. Well, being kind of compulsive, I gathered about a month's worth of data by doing speed tests every half hour. I discovered a very interesting pattern in doing this. It seems that every day, between 8:00 and 9:00 in the morning, my speed would drop from megabit rates to 128K (at best- and 64K typical). It would stay slow like that until sometime between 22:00 and 23:00 at night, then, would pop back up to "broadband" rates again.
          Verizon was claiming, at the time, that any speed drops would be the result of traffic congestion at the local tower. If this was the case, I would not have seen such an obvious and consistent curve. After all...The area I live in is lightly populated, and, a vast majority of the people go elsewhere for work. There are not that many companies in the area either that would be depending on cell towers for their communications. This, and the obvious shape of the speed curves, make me think that it was nothing more than deliberate throttling to discourage the use of the cell system for data access.
          I do keep statistics about my bandwidth usage, and, on the average, I pull about 12 gig a month. While more than some, it is considerably less than I used to use. A year or so ago, I was watching more online entertainment content (hulu and youtube have some amazing content), and, was listening to radio stations from around the world that stream their content. I was pulling the high-quality streams for this data too, which adds to the usage. I was also pulling down Linux ISOs and other large data files, so, that added up quickly to the 65 gig or so per month I was using. Now, I almost never watch streaming video, because of the buffering issues (and because of that I am NOT seeing some of the Olympic events I would have liked to watch), and, I choose the lowest quality of streamed sound from the radio stations. I also am simply not listening to as much online content like that as I used to.
          So...the bottom line for me is that I am annoyed by Verizon's business decisions, and, they are pushing me closer and closer to leaving their company, and, moving on to alternative providers. Because of changes in my reality, the need for the remote access offered by the aircard has pretty much gone away, so, I would be quite comfortable with dumping that and going with cable or dsl. We shall see.

Re:Ah-HA

[msauve]

"4G users never had the option for unlimited plans so they are not optimized."

You are incorrect. Until very recently (around the beginning of June), there were unlimited 4G plans, and they have never been throttled.

Re:Ah-HA

[tangelogee]

Not in so many words, but anyone who pre-ordered the Galaxy S3 could keep it, which is what I did. That was the last time you could do it before the subsidy went away. Hopefully this means I won't have to pay to tether now.

Re:Ah-HA

[MistrBlank]

Why do you people continue to believe that the "bucket" plans are the only data plans? They're shared family plans, not individual plans which still exist.

Too late...

[plazman30]

I'm still leaving as soon as the iPhone 5 comes out. Only so many times that you can be treated like complete crap before you won't take it any more.

Re:Too late...

[Anonymous Coward]

i hope you realize the irony of your statement...

Re:Too late...

[Bonker]

Wait... You're leaving Verizon because they've treated you like complete crap and are going to either Sprint or ATT?

I mean, let's completely ignore for the moment how Apple treats their customers. Sprint or ATT? You SERIOUSLY think either of these guys will treat you better than Verizon?

Re:Too late...

[dyingtolive]

The warm glow of consumerism will shield him from ATT/Sprint.

Re:Too late...

[CaptainLard]

Moving to Finland aye?

(That was where most of the lowest price/best connectivity braggarts claim they're from, right?)

Re:Too late...

[Phteven]

There's always Virgin Mobile. Yes, I know they're a subsidiary of Sprint (in the U.S.), and they probably won't be getting the iPhone 5 anytime soon, but you can get the iPhone 4S with unlimited data and texting for $30 a month.

Re:Too late...

[jxander]

There area actually quite a few pay-as-you-go vendors that support high end phones these days.

If you don't mind eating a $600+ initial investment to buy your own phone outright. Virgin Mobile has good reception in my area, and costs a mere $30/month for unlimited text and data.

Re:Too late...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as a datapoint, I have always been treated quite well by Sprint. In contrast, Verizon is the antichrist.

Re:Too late...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sprint or ATT? You SERIOUSLY think either of these guys will treat you better than Verizon?

Traditionally, they have always done so. There is no single provider that will treat you worse than Verizon. Don't get me wrong, AT&T sucks, but they can't match verizon in suckitude.

Sprint not only beats verizon, but is actually pretty damn good. What's your problem with them?

Re:Too late...

[Bonker]

Virgin Mobile is actually what I use for cell service, simply because Pay-as-you-go service nicely prevents any overcharge hijinks.

Choosing between Verizon, Sprint, and ATT is like choosing between Joe Jackson, Ike Turner, and O.J. Simpson.

Virgin Mobile is like Bobby Brown, holding to the terribly flawed analogy. You're gonna regret hooking up, but at least you can get away from it if you're not on crack.

Re:Too late...

[Keen Anthony]

You kinda failed to ignore Apple yourself there. I might leave Verizon for AT&T as well. They will have the more interesting Windows phone, the iPhone 5, and Androids that aren't Motorola (which I am no longer supporting). Sure, AT&T customers have their own complaints, but for years I've stuck with Verizon because Verizon swore that life outside Verizon walls was no life at all. It was cold and dangerous, and there was no connectivity. It's just not that true in my area. Besides, I know that once I have a 4G phone in my hands, I'll blow through Verizon's paltry bandwidth cap in no time at all (I'm grandfathered unlimited now). There's just no benefit to being with Verizon under the new plans once you discount for connectivity in the middle of nowhere like Mojave unless you really want one of the exclusive phones.

Re:Too late...

[Mike Buddha]

Choosing between Verizon, Sprint, and ATT is like choosing between Joe Jackson, Ike Turner, and O.J. Simpson.

Virgin Mobile is like Bobby Brown, holding to the terribly flawed analogy. You're gonna regret hooking up, but at least you can get away from it if you're not on crack.

Well, Joe Jackson has way better coverage way out West.

Re:Too late...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Before you get too excited about switching carriers, I should let you know I'm leaving AT&T because their idea of a contract is that I pay them until the contract is over, but they don't have to hold up their end of the deal. Here's my story:

Last year I renewed my contract with Unlimited Data grandfathered in. Six months later they announced a 3 gig limit before 'throttling' would begin. (At this point I'd like to note that my contract does mention they'll play around with network performance as necessary, but the 3 gig limit is NOT specified in it.. they just arbitrarily added it.) They do not say, however, what the minimum speed will be. In my view, this is a critical component of the contract. The speed that they reduce the connection down to affects the tasks I can do with my phone. I don't care, for example, if I cannot watch Netflix on the road, but if I cannot get email or text messaging, then how can they really call it "unlimited"?

I contacted their customer service, after going round and round with lines like "well if you use Wifi..." or "if you switch to a tiered plan..." or "... well it really won't affect you", I could not get an answer. One day I got a letter from AT&T from some VP of such and such department saying that I should be happy because they've upgraded the network in my area and that they're glad I'm continuing to be a customer of theirs. At the bottom was a request for feedback with this VP's email address. I emailed him explaining that I don't know what 'throttling' actually means and, instead of writing me back, he punted my message off to customer service. Frustrated, I emailed again and told them that if they had read my email they would realize that I'm addressing the VP and that customer service was already of no help and.. customer service, NOT the VP, replied again. They said that their network performance was proprietary information that they would NOT share with me. The only way I'll find out how slow my connection will be throttled is if I go over the limit and see what happens. I'm getting to a point where this is very tempting to do. I don't really want to abuse their resources but they're driving me to it.

If you do end up going to AT&T I wish you luck, but I strongly recommend that you do NOT assume that any contract you enter into with them will mean you'll have any guarantees of service. Two years is a long time to be disgruntled.

Re:Too late...

[OhPlz]

I had been a Verizon Wireless customer since the late 90s. I recently dropped them and went with a prepaid provider, switching to the unlocked Google Nexus sold directly from Google. I've had it for a few months now and there hasn't been anything to complain about. The monthly cost is about what I was paying for a lousy voice plan, grandfathered evdo data, and no texting on an ancient Motorola flip phone. These companies are just reselling the bigger company's network so the bargain may not last forever if the big guys lose all their customers, but at least for now there are options.

The only drawback is that you have to pay out of pocket for the phone. But with the increase in monthly charges I would have faced through Verizon to go to a "smartphone", I would have paid for it within not too many months even IF they covered the whole cost of the phone.

Re:Too late...

[gmhowell]

Was there a guaranteed minimum speed on the old contract? That seems to be the crux of your complaint, but you don't indicate what the minimum guaranteed speed was originally. You also kind of walked past the fact that the original contract says they can adjust things on their own, arbitrarily, and without your input.

I agree it's a shitty contract, but it doesn't sound like they have violated it or that they are outside of industry norms.

Re:Too late...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Was there a guaranteed minimum speed on the old contract?

No, there was not, and you are right. If I had technical grounds to break the contract without an ETF I would.

However, I did purchase the phone while they were running ads that you can do things like get email and view maps etc. It probably wouldn't hold up in a court of law, but from a customer service point of view they really should make good on what they showed us.

Re:Too late...

[gmhowell]

I understand where you're coming from.

Unfortunately, in an oligopolic situation like we have with mobile phones, there's not much value in improving service of any sort.

Re:Too late...

[noc007]

You do know that Virgin Mobile is Sprint, right? It started out as a MVNO on Sprint. Later Sprint bought it out and now it's just another brand like Boost.

Re:Too late...

[noc007]

Maybe you need to file a complaint with the BBB, FCC, and/or FTC. I don't know which one or combination of them will help, if at all. The BBB seems to move a little faster than the FCC and FTC. Look at this article and how long it took the FCC to enforce the rules on the C-block.

Personally I'm trying the BBB for my dispute with VZW. I did get a call from someone that wasn't on their standard CS team saying they've received the complaint and are looking into it.

Re:Too late...

[gmhowell]

Yeah, you work up that lawsuit on those terms, let me know how it works. I know which side I'll be betting on.

Re:Too late...

[swalve]

What in the hell are you doing with a phone that uses up 20g a month? I use like 250m, and use all the data I can think of, constantly.

Re:Too late...

[Bonker]

Oh, yes. Oh, yes. The 'pay as you go' is the important part.

Re:Too late...

[Briareos]

Shouldn't that be "the iRony"?

Re:Too late...

[plazman30]

The iPhone 5 is for my wife. I'm getting an Android phone.

Re:Too late...

[plazman30]

I don't believe anyone will give me better service than Verizon. I expect them to give me the same crappy service Verizon gives me at a better price. The iPhone is for my wife. That's why I am waiting for the iPhone 5. I'm hopping on a Galaxy Nexus. The fact that Verizon was the ONLY carrier that released the Galaxy S III with a locked boot loader tells me that Verizon is a company that I don't want to stick with any more. To upgrade my phone now requires me to get into a plan that's going to cost me $30 more a month. If I switch to AT&T, I can get a plan that's $30 cheaper than I am paying now.

Re:Too late...

[plazman30]

I really should have specified that I am waiting on the iPhone 5 for my wife. My plan it to use a rooted Galaxy Nexus.

FUCK THE FCC!!

[MickyTheIdiot]

...wait.. what? They did something good for customers?

[Gilda Radner] Never Mind [/Gilda Radner]

Re:FUCK THE FCC!!

[Em Adespoton]

...wait.. what? They did something good for customers?

[Gilda Radner] Never Mind [/Gilda Radner]

You really expect most Slashdotters to google Gilda?

Re:FUCK THE FCC!!

[Sylak]

The FCC tends to do things good for the consumer when it's NOT related to commercial broadcast TV and Radio spectrums.

Re:FUCK THE FCC!!

[LateArthurDent]

...wait.. what? They did something good for customers?

[Gilda Radner] Never Mind [/Gilda Radner]

You really expect most Slashdotters to google Gilda?

You expect anyone to need to google Gilda?

Re:FUCK THE FCC!!

[AngryDeuce]

Dude, what are you talking about? We're all fucking old.

Re:FUCK THE FCC!!

[TubeSteak]

Are the customers getting their money back?
You know, for the tethering costs they should never have paid?

...wait.. what? The customers aren't?
Never Mind

Re:FUCK THE FCC!!

[nateb]

RIP. I just ran out of mod points, sorry.

What Does This Mean?

[Githaron]

What does this mean for us that have unlimited 4G data plans?

Re:What Does This Mean?

[rmdingler]

If Verizon resembles Sprint, it means they've been taxing that ass...perhaps inappropriately.

Re:What Does This Mean?

[evilRhino]

It means that you can tether away. Just keep in mind that if you buy another subsidized phone, you will lose your unlimited plan.

"Fast" lane.

[Ostracus]

So Verizon cannot charge for tethering on 4G service, this raises the question of whether they can continue to charge for tethering on 3G or 1x?

Who in the world tethers a 1xRTT connection? 3G is more understandable, but still slow.

Re:"Fast" lane.

[Daetrin]

It's not quite 1x, but i do tether the 2g connection from my phone. I have multiple devices with WiFi only (DS, 3DS, Nexus 7) and my 2.5 year old phone only gets 2g. (Okay, technically it can get 3g, but due to a bug introduced about a year ago it randomly reboots if 3g is left on for a long period so i mostly just leave it on 2g all the time.)

Although admittedly i certainly wouldn't _pay_ for the option, but since in my case it's free, why not?

Re:"Fast" lane.

[demonlapin]

I've done it when traveling... Gmail took a loooong time to load.

Re:Free tethering then? Maybe..

[pscottdv]

"shall 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, subject to narrow exceptions"

Such radical thinking

[Andrio]

You mean to tell me I can use the data I already paid for, without paying extra arbitrarily? What kind of radical thinking is this?

In all seriousness, Verizon and the others should be forced to refund all they've charged for tethering. That was theft, pure and simple.

Re:Such radical thinking

[ArsonSmith]

How is it anything even close to theft? I just checked my bill and everything I signed up for was right there. They didn't charge me anything for tethering because I said not to. If someones willing to pay for using Verizon's network in ways Verizon didn't intend how is that theft?

Re:Such radical thinking

[Andrio]

You paid for a certain amount of data. Let's say 3 GB. What you do with that data shouldn't matter. Yet they charge you 30 bucks (or whatever) to use that data in a specific way.

Re:Such radical thinking

[Andrio]

They don't let you tether if you don't pay for the service. You can get around it by being rooted though.

Re:Such radical thinking

[msauve]

"You paid for a certain amount of data. Let's say 3 GB. What you do with that data shouldn't matter. Yet they charge you 30 bucks (or whatever) to use that data in a specific way."

Maybe it shouldn't matter, but that's what you agreed to when you signed a contract with VZW (paying for data to the phone only, not tethering). If you don't think that's acceptable, and signed the contract anyway, well - that's just stupid, and trying to rationalize unethical behavior is simply disingenuous.

Re:Such radical thinking

[gmhowell]

But what service are they providing? The tethering is a function of the phone, created by someone who is not Verizon. The bandwidth was already paid for. What exactly did Verizon do to earn $20?

Re:Such radical thinking

[whoever57]

Maybe it shouldn't matter, but that's what Verizon agreed to when they signed a contract with the FCC (paying for Spectrum without arbitrary limits on usage). If they don't think that's acceptable, and signed the contract anyway, well - that's just stupid, and trying to rationalize unethical behavior is simply disingenuous.

FTFY.

Re:Such radical thinking

[demonlapin]

It might violate his contract, but I'd hardly call it immoral. Besides, how can a contract whose terms are take-it-or-leave-it pretend to be the result of a fair negotiation between the parties?

Re:Such radical thinking

[swalve]

That's a specious argument. You don't pay for the data, you pay a specific rate for data on a particular type of device. That's like renting a Kia Rio for an unlimited miles weekend and then towing a 30' boat with it 24x7. It's like using the unlimited refills at McDonald's to fill up a cooler full of Coke.

Re:Such radical thinking

[swalve]

The bandwidth was already paid for.

No, you pay for the ability to use up to that amount of data with a smartphone.

What exactly did Verizon do to earn $20?

They built a service that people want to use.

Re:Such radical thinking

[gmhowell]

I either wrote my questions poorly or you aren't understanding what I'm getting at.

The person is already using the service on his cell phone: cellular voice and data at whatever rate.

There is a $20 surcharge to tether a laptop or other device to the cellphone to use that data. What did Verizon do to earn the surcharge? There's no more data being used. The data limits and caps process normally. The $20 tethering surcharge doesn't extend the cellular data limits. The $20 tethering surcharge does not make it possible for the phone and laptop to be tethered. Nothing on Verizon's end changes. So why do they get the $20 surcharge.

Re:Such radical thinking

[msauve]

You don't know the difference between morals and ethics, do you?

Re:Such radical thinking

[swalve]

1. They get it because it's a premium they have found that they can charge for. What the market will bear and all of that free market stuff.

2. But also, because the price for smartphone data takes into consideration the normal usage patterns of the devices. Which in this case, it for them to almost never get near the limit of data. If most smartphones always used their limit of data, then the regular price for the smartphone would go up. Now, when you tether, you are almost by definition using the network more than you would with just a smartphone. It is two devices rather than one.

Look at it like this: you buy a cup of coffee at a place with free refills. You drink it down, and then refill it and give the cup to your friend. The manager gets upset with you. You say "it's free refills, what I do with my refill is my business!" And he says "yeah, but only for one person." The price of the cup of coffee assumes that the average person is going to drink 1.2 cups of coffee in a sitting. Same with the 2gb of data: it assumes that one device is going to use 1.2gb of data in a month. (Made up number.) If you connect two devices, that average is going to go up. They could charge everyone more to account for that excess usage, or they could charge a premium only to the people who use it. $20 is cheaper than paying for a separate connection for the tethered device.

Re:Such radical thinking

[ArsonSmith]

I payed for a data plan that had restrictions on use. I didn't pay for just data. It's not like I could store up all the data and use it later either. I payed for a car but there's still restrictions on where I can drive, how I drive and where I can park it.

Re:Such radical thinking

[gmhowell]

Much better answer than the first, terse one. I expected the former (your number 1) and they use your number 2, but I was rather hoping I was missing some 'item 3'.

Narcissists

[Penurious Penguin]

Those FCC folks -- just a buncha narcissistic vulnerability pimps I tell ya.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/23/verizon_narcissistic_vulnerability_pimps/
They should have also ruled that Verizon sucks.

I'll be waiting to hear from T-Mobile

[scottbomb]

What they used to give me at no extra charge (tethering/hot-spot) they now charge $15/mo. I don't even use it very often but I DO use it. Most of the time, I don't even come close to my high-speed data limit (5 GB) either.

Re:I'll be waiting to hear from T-Mobile

[sethstorm]

If you don't mind 3G, get an N900 (or similarly 3G capable phone that is equally carrier-hostile) and do tethering through that.

Not sure about the carrier-hostile 4G equivalent though.

Re:I'll be waiting to hear from T-Mobile

[DMUTPeregrine]

I've used the USB tethering on my phone (T-Mobile Vibrant) rather often with no extra charges or complaints from T-Mobile. Phone is rooted running an AOKP-based ICS rom, Chimera v2.2.

Re:I'll be waiting to hear from T-Mobile

[shutdown -p now]

For T-Mo, that's Galaxy Nexus - purchased unlocked directly from Google, of course.

Good, now can we kill metered data as well?

[sethstorm]

If the FCC had any bravery in them, they'd find a way to kill off the rampant use of metered data - and without the carrier raising the cost.

The lack of metered data is what had made the Internet good to work with. Now all it does is just engender politics about who gets exempt - much like the Bad Old Days of Compuserve.

Re:Good, now can we kill metered data as well?

[tsotha]

If the FCC killed off data metering and didn't allow the carriers to raise their prices, the carriers would respond the same way landlords respond to rent control - they wouldn't put another damn dime into improving their networks. Ten years from now the rest of the world would be on, like, 8G while here in the US we'd still be using the exact same network we're using today. You'd end up getting about ten kilobits per second during peak hours as everyone else using the closest cell tries bittorrent the latest two star movie in super high def, and your voice calls would only go through because they drop down to 1x where they don't have to compete with data.

Re:Good, now can we kill metered data as well?

[petermgreen]

Equally radio spectrum is a limited resource and building more base stations or replacing the existing ones with newer tech is expensive. Also once the cell density gets above a certain point you will almost certainly get into diminishing returns because the path losses are simply not high enough to properly isolate the cells from each other. Do you really want your mobile service to be terrible because a few heavy users are running bittorrent continuously.

Some kind of balance needs to be struck between preventing gouging by the cartel of mobile carriers and keeping bulk data on fixed lines where it belongs.

Re:Good, now can we kill metered data as well?

[sethstorm]

Flat rate data didn't discourage carriers from upgrading to 2G and 3G - and doesn't seem to harm Sprint that much to keep it.

With flat rate data, they have to actually Do The Right Thing when they engineer their network.

With metered data, they don't have to develop their network even if they do raise their rates. See Verizon Wireless and AT&T for examples.

Re:Fuck FCC? No.. Fuck Cellphones.

[charlieo88]

In fact, I remember what pissed me off... I specifically got Skype on Verizon a few years ago, just used the smartphone functionality. Well shit, Verizon bought Skype... I ended up having to use Skype calls like regular phone calls. That's when I knew I was not looking back.

Verizon didn't by Skype, Microsoft did for $8b. Skype was Verizon's bitch for free.

Re:tmobile

[geekmux]

long story short...t-mobile tethering is free. I don't abuse it and only use it during emergencies (type long emails in laptop/ VPN), which has always come through for me when traveling out of state.

long story short...shortsightedness is still...short.

Nothing is free. Your bill is merely printed differently to not itemize certain features.

All of this is bullshit is nothing more than window dressing, and will be proven once Verizon loses, and does nothing more than adjust their package rates from obscene to ludicrous...oh, and print their bills like yours.

And its so cheap

[ArchieBunker]

I'm on the $25 "grandfathered" data plan. 300 talk minutes and unlimited data (2.5GB limit until throttling). Still only $25 a month without a contract, beat that.

Can't even USB tether on my phone

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

This is good news. My Verizon Galaxy Nexus is supposed to allow USB tethering but when I tried it, I got a popup with an 800 number and a message saying I have to order a special data plane. I'd be happy with any kind of tethering so I can use my laptop where my phone works.

Re:tmobile

[icebraining]

If Verizon could just increase the rates without losing customers, why exactly haven't they done so already? They hate free money?

They can't block tethering apps, but can charge

[thisisauniqueid]

I read elsewhere that they can't block tethering apps, but they can continue charging for tethering.

The answer is no.

[X0563511]

this raises the question of whether they can continue to charge for tethering on 3G or 1x?

The answer here is no, because of the very bit in the summary! It was a rider on their buying the spectrum block. Hence, other spectra are not effected.

About damn time

[splatter]

In the mean time if your on a JB iPhone you can use the teatherme app from cydia to over ride the provder settings. But I know from all the slasdot haters the only reason to JB an iPhone is if your a Gasp... Pirate.

Oversubscribed

[tepples]

You paid for a certain amount of data. Let's say 3 GB. What you do with that data shouldn't matter.

People who don't tether tend not to use all the data they paid for. Carriers count on overselling their capacity in this way.

Re:tmobile

[msauve]

You obviously haven't heard of VZW's new "share everything" plans, which eliminate unlimited data, and force all new contracts to be pay-by-volume at a significantly increased price. Or, that even if you have a "grandfathered" unlimited smartphone plan (which VZW can eliminate whenever they want), you will not be able to keep it and still get the every 2 year ~$500 new phone subsidy.

Willing to move to 4G-ville

[tepples]

I'd be happy with any kind of tethering so I can use my laptop where my phone works.

Would you be happy with having to move to a city where LTE (4G-Lite) service is offered? This ruling applies only to the frequency block that VZW is using for LTE, not the frequency block used for 2G or 3G. So be prepared to pay a tethering surcharge when you're "roaming" on VZW's 3G network.

Re:Willing to move to 4G-ville

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

Oh, I believe if Verizon isn't allowed to charge for 4g tethering, then they shouldn't be charging for 3g or 2g either. But, 4g is a first step. Also, I don't expect to have 4g wherever I go but now there's at least some chance I'll have a free connection. Its not like my phone doesn't tell me what type of data connection I have.

Hows About Refunds For The Robbed?

[tunapez]

Refund?

Refund????

Refund????!!!!????


I would like to yell it like dad did in Breaking Away, but the lameness of the /. lameness filter has rendered my post mostly lame.

Re:tmobile

[mlong]

And don't forget they got rid of new every 2, got rid of 1 year contracts, and started charging an upgrade fee. Verizon has been doing everything they can lately to shaft their customers

MetroPCS too

[kilodelta]

They block tethering easily - that is until you install the Easy-Tether app on the phone. It's ten bucks but lets you use the 4G LTE connection. I'm still searching for software that'll make it a Wifi hotspot though.

I was actually quite happy with AT&T.

[aussersterne]

Their in-store service was always good, and you had a 50/50 chance of getting really good service on a support call.

I had been with them 10 years by the time I left and midway through (around year 5) I could call and get an upgrade 6-8 months early for having been a "longtime customer." Just had to ask and they'd do it.

In a way, by offering even better service (making iPhone unlocks available) they lost me—the moment they started doing unlocks, I paid the early termination fee for every line, unlocked all of the iPhones in house (which AT&T did without hassle) and went to T-Mobile's $30/month unlimited no-contract data plan with them, with Talkatone and Google Voice+Chat for making all in-house calls via WiFi.

We'll save a goodly amount, we have unlocked iPhones for less than the retail cost, and we now are not bound by any contract.

But I have to say that when people ask about going to a carrier, I still recommend AT&T if they want a subsidized phone. They were reasonable enough that I stayed for a decade. (Trivia: Before that in the late '90s we were using Verizon and it was a disaster, customer service and billing wise, bad enough that even now I wouldn't consider them.)

Then change carriers.

[raehl]

Verizon is charging more because people will pay for the service.

I know I'll pay Verizon more because I get high speed data coverage in a lot more places than I do on any other network.

Although, I am one of the people who is saving huge on the new share-everything plans - cut my bill in half.

Re:Do big downloads at home

[CheshireDragon]

Indeed, if I didn't use my WiFi when I get home in the evenings I would skyrocket to 20-30GB/mo on my phone.

VOD like Netflix

[tepples]

One thing that might use over half a GB per day is watching an Internet video on demand service such as Netflix on the public transit commute to and from work. I'm under the impression that some VOD providers' contracts with video copyright owners do not allow buffering an entire episode at home on a fixed line connection and watching it later.

Re:tmobile

[Jeng]

T-mobile does not charge you extra to use the features currently on your phone, they just charge you for the data usage. They do not care if it is tethered or if you have a 4g hotspot set up on your phone or just downloading data to your phone they just look at it as data, as they should.

Is T-mobile the only US carrier that will give you a sim unlock code once your phone is paid for, upon request.

Re:Should Apply To Enterprise Data Plans

[elbowboy]

I actually called Verizon on Verizon and a supervisor told me it wasn't related which is odd as it is the exact same thing. But maybe there FCC can be smartenough to realize that a charge to use a specific app is the same thing.