"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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
Except, it's a dumb ruling. Verizon didn't deny any device access - they just charged for each device, something which wasn't denied by the rules. They were device agnostic - you want to use your PC on spectrum C? They'll sell you an LTE modem and a contract. They'd even sell you a hotspot and contract which could support 5 simultaneous devices. Claiming that they violated the rules by not allow tethering apps is a red herring, as they were only useful to violate the contract terms. The real intent of the rule on allowing any app was to prevent the carrier-only app store, and consequent monopoly pricing, IMHO.
The real result of this is consumer hostile, as access costs have risen, significantly. VZW has obviously known this was how things were headed for a while. Why do you think they got rid of new unlimited smartphone data plans and went to more expensive "share everything" ones? If people hadn't gotten greedy, violated their contracts, and started pulling 50 GB of tethered data a month, VZW might still offer unlimited smartphone data. This ruling was the icing on the cake which forced them to move to "pay for volume" data pricing, where they're perfectly happy to have you use as much as possible, at a much higher cost.
"power-draining devices can negotiate a higher power output if the bus is capable of supplying it. That's in spec."
No, it isn't.
For USB 2.0, the maximum draw is 500 mA (Ipphcf, USB 2.0 spec, section 7.2.1, "may draw up to 5 unit loads," which are defined to be 100 mA) . USB 3.0 allows up to 900 mA. The USB Battery Charging spec, version 1.2, allows a maximum draw of 1.5 A for a portable device (Idev_chg, section 4.6), but is used for dumb chargers, as the data lines are shorted by 200 Ohms. Additionally, the micro-USB spec only requires a 1.8 A rating for power contacts, setting a maximum safe limit unless a manufacturer can reliably identify the end-to-end use of higher rated connectors. Apple uses a non-standard method to recognize that more is available, and presumably uses connectors with ratings exceeding what's required by the spec.
No, the limit for a specification USB charger is 1.5 A. Anything more is out of spec. The limit for the power contacts of a micro-USB connector is 1.8A.
Charging by plugging into a USB device, like a laptop, is limited to 500 mA.
1) It's not a law, it's a voluntary agreement among manufacturers (made at the urging of the EU). 2) I understand that Apple includes an adapter cable which allows charging from a micro-USB cable.
"You realize that Google takes a 30% cut fom paid apps, too, right?"
You know that Google doesn't force sales to be via their store, right? That's the developer's choice - unlike IOS. There are independent stores, or they can sell directly.
Of course, with IOS, unless your customers are jailbroken, all apps have to be sold through Apple. So there's 100% piracy, although Apple only steals 30%, like any successful parasite.
That wiring was a part of the Ethernet specification doesn't make Ethernet a wiring specification. Ethernet didn't really take off until the DIX era, and DEC DELNIs, which avoided the hassles of thick coax and vampire taps, were available almost immediately, even before Ethernet became IEEE802.3.
Slashdot Mirror
Is your problem with reading, or comprehension?
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
"About time we got some smart rulings."
Except, it's a dumb ruling. Verizon didn't deny any device access - they just charged for each device, something which wasn't denied by the rules. They were device agnostic - you want to use your PC on spectrum C? They'll sell you an LTE modem and a contract. They'd even sell you a hotspot and contract which could support 5 simultaneous devices. Claiming that they violated the rules by not allow tethering apps is a red herring, as they were only useful to violate the contract terms. The real intent of the rule on allowing any app was to prevent the carrier-only app store, and consequent monopoly pricing, IMHO.
The real result of this is consumer hostile, as access costs have risen, significantly. VZW has obviously known this was how things were headed for a while. Why do you think they got rid of new unlimited smartphone data plans and went to more expensive "share everything" ones? If people hadn't gotten greedy, violated their contracts, and started pulling 50 GB of tethered data a month, VZW might still offer unlimited smartphone data. This ruling was the icing on the cake which forced them to move to "pay for volume" data pricing, where they're perfectly happy to have you use as much as possible, at a much higher cost.
I'd rather get support from a HS grad who knows the product, than someone with a masters in anthropology, who doesn't.
"I bought a simian two weeks ago, it has hdcp."
Do you get a discount when buying a handicapped monkey?
"power-draining devices can negotiate a higher power output if the bus is capable of supplying it. That's in spec."
No, it isn't.
For USB 2.0, the maximum draw is 500 mA (Ipphcf, USB 2.0 spec, section 7.2.1, "may draw up to 5 unit loads," which are defined to be 100 mA) . USB 3.0 allows up to 900 mA. The USB Battery Charging spec, version 1.2, allows a maximum draw of 1.5 A for a portable device (Idev_chg, section 4.6), but is used for dumb chargers, as the data lines are shorted by 200 Ohms. Additionally, the micro-USB spec only requires a 1.8 A rating for power contacts, setting a maximum safe limit unless a manufacturer can reliably identify the end-to-end use of higher rated connectors. Apple uses a non-standard method to recognize that more is available, and presumably uses connectors with ratings exceeding what's required by the spec.
LOL. Your electronics ignorance is apparent. Might as well claim that USB power adapters put out 1-1000 Amps, by your logic.
Innumeracy is rampant. 1.5 != 2.
No, the limit for a specification USB charger is 1.5 A. Anything more is out of spec. The limit for the power contacts of a micro-USB connector is 1.8A.
Charging by plugging into a USB device, like a laptop, is limited to 500 mA.
Only if you want to slow charge via USB. Otherwise, you carry the Apple charger.
1) It's not a law, it's a voluntary agreement among manufacturers (made at the urging of the EU). 2) I understand that Apple includes an adapter cable which allows charging from a micro-USB cable.
"You realize that Google takes a 30% cut fom paid apps, too, right?"
You know that Google doesn't force sales to be via their store, right? That's the developer's choice - unlike IOS. There are independent stores, or they can sell directly.
Of course, with IOS, unless your customers are jailbroken, all apps have to be sold through Apple. So there's 100% piracy, although Apple only steals 30%, like any successful parasite.
That wiring was a part of the Ethernet specification doesn't make Ethernet a wiring specification. Ethernet didn't really take off until the DIX era, and DEC DELNIs, which avoided the hassles of thick coax and vampire taps, were available almost immediately, even before Ethernet became IEEE802.3.
"On-call is for emergencies, and it is typcially uncompensated."
Your employer really has you fooled.
By similar logic, people should drive at night with their headlights off. If they can't be seen, it makes it harder for other drivers to hit them.
It was obviously written by a guy from WHATever.
You don't know about Congress?
ITYM "Jah".
Isn't there some Wall St. banker, living off the usury, after which a blood sucking parasite would be better named?
if they migrated here from Siberia, they're not native Americans, are they?