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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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

[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.

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."

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...

[dyingtolive]

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

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.