Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Rules That Verizon Cannot Charge For 4G Tethering

Posted by Soulskill on from the and-there-was-much-rejoicing dept.

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?"

12 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. Verizon only by MBCook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:Verizon only by MorrisonHiker · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  2. Ah-HA by DWMorse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
  3. Re:Too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. Re:Good for the Judges by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:Too late... by dyingtolive · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
  6. Re:Good for the Judges by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  7. Re:Good for the Judges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  8. Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin. by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin. by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  10. Re:Good for the Judges by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  11. Re:By the hair of my chinny-chin-chin. by PsyciatricHelp · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.