Related
http://nationaljournal.com/tech/kohl-seeks-to-block-at-t-merger-20110720
Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., who chairs the Senate's Antitrust Subcommitteee, is calling for regulators to block the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, saying on Wednesday that it would be "highly dangerous to competition and consumers."
Kohl wrote to the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission to argue that the merger would concentrate the market too much.
"I have concluded that this acquisition, if permitted to proceed, would likely cause substantial harm to competition and consumers, would be contrary to antitrust law and not in the public interest, and therefore should be blocked by your agencies," he wrote.
The senator's letter provides political cover to the FCC and Justice if they want to either block the proposed $39 billion merger outright or impose stringent conditions. The approval process is expected to last until at least the end of the year.
Kohl noted that cell phones are a daily necessity. “Therefore, in this industry, perhaps more than any other, full and vibrant competition is essential so that all consumers realize the benefits of this technology at the best prices and with the most choices.”
An AT&T spokesman disputed Kohl's assessment.
“We ... feel his view is inconsistent with antitrust law, is shared by few others, and ignores the many positive benefits and numerous supporters of the transaction," the spokesman said.
"This is a decision that will be made by the Department of Justice and the FCC under applicable law and after a full and fair examination of the facts. We continue to believe those reviews will result in approval of this transaction."
AT&T contends that competition will remain vigorous in the wireless industry even after the transaction.
It says that the merger will allow the companies to offer advanced wireless services to almost all Americans. That pledge has helped AT&T make inroads with lawmakers in both parties as it seeks approval of the deal. A group of 76 Democrats wrote to regulators in June saying that the merger may be beneficial to the spread of broadband access.
The letter from Kohl has been anticipated for weeks and helps set the tone for how Democrats in Congress will view the deal.
Earlier Wednesday, top Democrats in the House also expressed caution about the deal, saying that it could discourage investment and restrict innovation.
"We believe that AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would be a troubling backward step in federal public policy--a retrenchment from nearly two decades of promoting competition and open markets to acceptance of a duopoly in the wireless marketplace," House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote in their letter to FCC and the Justice Department.
"Such industry consolidation could reduce competition and increase consumer costs at a time our country can least afford it."
AMEN! ten chars
788346: SprintFreeMsg: Public hearings on proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger July 21, 25, 27 in Culver City, San Diego, Fresno. More info at www.cpuc.ca.gov/merger
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Cool now I may get back on Tmo when I move to Georgia next year when my sprint contract is up.
"We believe that AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would be a troubling backward step in federal public policy--a retrenchment from nearly two decades of promoting competition and open markets to acceptance of a duopoly in the wireless marketplace," House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers, D-Mich., wrote in their letter to FCC and the Justice Department.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, that's 'cuz 30 years ago a certain little company known as AT&T was broken up into the "baby bells" (Of which Verizon, aka Bell Atlantic was one) because they were found guilty of leveraging their monopoly status unfairly and in harm to the consumer and the market and ultimately innovation.
...to be fair they only stifled innovation in 'the market' so far as the market itself is concerned. There was no market, they owned the whole game. They were actually a very technologically innovative company...though I'm sure Bell Labs was a pretty distant branch from the root of all that evil.
So, we are really to believe that a convicted abusive monopolist that has reformed and is bigger than even before is to be trusted? The company by the same name that at one time wouldn't allow you to plug in a phone from anyone but them? That wouldn't let you own your own phone? That would hard-wire a phone and charge you monthly for each extension in the house? Pffffffft.
daneurysm said:
So, we are really to believe that a convicted abusive monopolist that has reformed and is bigger than even before is to be trusted? The company by the same name that at one time wouldn't allow you to plug in a phone from anyone but them? That wouldn't let you own your own phone? That would hard-wire a phone and charge you monthly for each extension in the house? Pffffffft.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great stuff, dude! If you were running for office, you'd have my vote!
Best news I heard all day... That and it gives me a chuckle to think of ATT still being forced to pay deutsche telekom billions even if the merger falls through
I'm still weary of it. There was an article out the other day talking about lobbyists working as staffers for politicians and guess who had the most of them, AT&T. and they all seemed to work for just the right people.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA Premium App
I know it's massively off-topic, but I really wanted to share my recent telephone experience with AT&T Wireless "customer service."
First, its important to note that I have two phones on my account: an iPhone 4 and the Samsung Galaxy SII. AT&T knows this and verified it on each one of my calls.
Having in mind that I wanted to harass them about Carrier IQ, I called to "demand" that AT&T stop spying on me. I explained that I work in the health care industry and that CIQ (carrier iq) transmitting that data was not only a violation of my privacy, but also likey a violation of federal HIPPA laws.
For each person I spoke with, I simply explained that I never agreed to share my personal information, and I'm not legally able to share my business information - regardless of AT&T's privacy policy - due to HIPPA laws. I would ask that the CIQ program be removed from my phones or disabled.
First person I spoke with (obviously outsourced call center) asked me to hold and hung up on me after 20 minutes of hold.
So, I called back again, and this person eventually said they'd have to escalate my concerns. She put me on hold for 30 minutes, came back to say she found a supervisor for me to talk to, and then she hung up on me as well.
I called back, this time very annoyed. I asked the person from the outsourced call center to either transfer me immediately to a supervisor, and if she wasn't able to do so without putting me on a hold of more than 1 minute, to transfer me to the department that handles contract cancellations. She put me on hold for 20 minutes and came back with a supervisor (supposedly... the "supervisor" was more clueless than the original rep.) (Note that the rep did EXACTLY what I asked her not to do: put me on hold again.)
Now, I'm going to point out again that I only have two phones: the iphone 4 and the SGS2. This was confirmed, even, by most of the people I talked to.
So, anyway, I asked that "supervisor" to transfer me to the department required to cancel my service. She did, and now I'm talking to a person named "Tim" (I also have his last name, but won't print it here) in their resolutions dept. Tim, and that was probably his real name, didn't sound like he worked for an outsourced call center.
I again asked to have the CIQ software removed or disabled from my device. He said he wasn't able to do that. However, he did inform me that AT&T has adopted a policy that they will NOT waive ETF's due to CIQ concerns.
I asked, then, if he'd waive the ETF based on section 1.2, item 5 of the wireless service agreement (....reasonable cause to believe that equipment is being used for an unlawful purpose.) He said he would not. When I asked if that was AT&T's policy (to knowingly allow a device to be used illegally), he said "I plead the 5th." (I'm not joking - he actually said that.)
That was about the extent of my call with AT&T.
So, what's the punch line?
At no point did any of the people I talked to do anything other than read prepared scripts or responses. It never even occured to any of them to mention that it's trivial for the user disable monitoring software on the iphone with a simple menu selection. No one even came up with the absolutely brilliant suggestion that the SGSII doesn't even have CIQ on it.
The cluelessness of their customer service people, the fact that no one seemed in any way concerned with my issue, the fact that none of them seemed to have even a hint of knowledge beyond their scripts, and their absolute rudeness has, however, had one impact: I no longer wish to be an AT&T customer. Even the $140 I'll have to pay for an ETF is worthwhile (assuming I can't get out of it somehow.)
Take care
Gary
Just FYI, it's the iPhone that you have that has CIQ, not the GSII...You're either complaining about the iPhone or AT&T, neither of which reason this really should be here. Can't say it doesn't suck, but yeah, just a problem of relevance.
yahoowizard said:
Just FYI, it's the iPhone that you have that has CIQ, not the GSII...You're either complaining about the iPhone or AT&T, neither of which reason this really should be here. Can't say it doesn't suck, but yeah, just a problem of relevance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
How many times does this need to be said that our phone doesn't currently have it?
yahoowizard said:
Just FYI, it's the iPhone that you have that has CIQ, not the GSII...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? No kidding? Did you read my post before responding? Perhaps you missed this part:
No one even came up with the absolutely brilliant suggestion that the SGSII doesn't even have CIQ on it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as the iphone (which I only mention as it's the only other phone I have with AT&T and), I also have the following in my post:
...it's trivial for the user disable monitoring software on the iphone with a simple menu selection
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As a matter of fact, you seem to completely have missed the end of the post... Where I state that I'm complaining about AT&T. I thought I was pretty obvious when I described the call in the following terms: "The cluelessness of their customer service people, the fact that no one seemed in any way concerned with my issue, the fact that none of them seemed to have even a hint of knowledge beyond their scripts, and their absolute rudeness "
Do you work for AT&T, yahoowizard?
AT&T are an Orwellian nightmare. I've had calls like this with them. It's infuriating and generally pointless, you'll achieve better results banging your head against a wall. "Ma Bell" was disbanded in the 80's because they became such a gross monopoly. In a generation, they're back to ruling all and showing no signs of slowing down. Now, they have these draconian practices and are notorious for "nickel and diming" consumers.
Even scarier? They installed and maintain monitoring equipment for the CIA. They can and do monitor your calls and traffic. Sounds like nutty conspiracy stuff, right? Read about it. It's all part of "homeland security" and as an engineer, I've seen these installations first-hand.
The free-for-all anarchy days of the net are drawing to a close.
Mark. My. Words.
No longer sent from my BlackBerry.
HIPPA
Captain Zero said:
Even scarier? They installed and maintain monitoring equipment for the CIA. They can and do monitor your calls and traffic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it is technically Homeland Security, but that is just nitpicking. The issue of HIPPA seems like it might be a legitimate angle, both from the perspective of the medical professional and the patient. Bringing that to the attention of groups fighting CIQ and the Patriot Act would probably be better than posting them on what is essentially a hacker site.
It does not surprise me that the ATT support center had no idea of what you were talking about. Most people have no idea how their rights and their privacy have been taken away from them.
The problem here is that you are dealing with low-level employees (even the call center supervisor) who had no power to make the initial decision about CarrierIQ, nor have any power to change the decision as to individual customers. Also, the CSR's likely have not received any training on what to do when customers call them about CarrierIQ.
just got a call from gloria of the fcc saying that they are serving verizon wireless with violations of the locked bootloader on moto devices!
I want to say, "woot!", but I'll remain skeptical.
Me too, but was completely caught off guard by the call and thought I was in trouble of some sort of trouble.
davwman said:
Me too, but was completely caught off guard by the call and thought I was in trouble of some sort of trouble.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would the FCC call you?
I filed a complaint against verizon and moto and the woman gloria needed to know what company i wanted it filed against, I said both and she followed with " the fcc will be serving appropriate paperwork for violating regulations about the bootloader" Again im not making this up and was completely suprised myself by this.
davwman said:
I filed a complaint against verizon and moto and the woman gloria needed to know what company i wanted it filed against, I said both and she followed with " the fcc will be serving appropriate paperwork for violating regulations about the bootloader" Again im not making this up and was completely suprised myself by this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, I did just a bit of digging.
You filed a consumer complaint, correct??
On consumer complaint, once a complaint is logged, they wait for a response from the company in question. When a response is given, it is reviewed, and then the FCC will determine if the company should be served a forfeiture order.
This order can be anything from financial liability of the company, which then can be pursued by the consumer, to as much as a forfeiture of their FCC regulation status, meaning they no longer can receive FCC approvals.
It's not clear if they're able to force Moto to unlock to bootloaders.
There is some information online about FCC complaints being turned down after the step you just described, because the company provided legitimate documentation of their actions.
There's also no limitation to the timeframe by which this can be completed, at least not as far as I can find.
So this is just a first step, and also a step that MAY have been taken before, and Motorola may have already submitted documentation on this, which means it would be turned down rather quickly.
What we do know is that after you notified of the findings, then you can request a copy of Moto's submission for your records.
That could be very interesting, or it could be a whole lot of nothing. Still it's interesting to hear that they are following through on your complaint.
@garlick, thanks for the info
Sure garlick. But don't you think that Moto (on Verizon Wireless orders) has currently violated an FCC regulation, documented or not?
Even documented, it has been violated and....
1. An international company like Motorola that can't receive FCC approvals is like to fail, so in this case, they will find a compromise with FCC and if not the RAZR, every other device released by Motorola and other companies (everyone has to receive the FCC approval prior selling a mobile device) will be UNLOCKABLE or UNLOCKED at their market release time;
2. Financial damage to a company like Motorola Mobility is a really bad thing: they don't have money to lose (okay, now that they're Google it isn't so much like that). Even if they lose money for the RAZR, they won't for other devices, so that they'll be UNLOCKABLE or UNLOCKED;
3. Surely the FCC will better examinate the next approval they'll give to Motorola, so that at least the next devices will be UNLOCKABLE or UNLOCKED.
What if they simply "lose" the papers where a consumer complains anything?
Oh well, that can lead to other problems, worst than economically damaging a company...
I mean, if this battle won't be win for the Droid RAZR, it will be a win for all the future devices from every company out there wanting to release a device with LTE capabilities in the US.
A new for AT&T to earn more money??
Administrative Fee (Consumer and Individual Responsibility User (IRU) lines only)
The Administrative Fee helps defray certain expenses AT&T incurs, including but not limited to: (a) charges AT&T or its agents pay to interconnect with other carriers to deliver calls from AT&T customers to their customers; and (b) charges associated with cell site rents and maintenance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What a B.S.! Can't stand these communication companies and the lack of options in this country.
sbi1 said:
A new for AT&T to earn more money??
What a B.S.! Can't stand these communication companies and the lack of options in this country.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer. Its ridiculous what this government let these corporations get away with. Of course at the working man's expense.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
lildoggs said:
The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer. Its ridiculous what this government let these corporations get away with. Of course at the working man's expense.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They don't make enough money.... they justify by letting us pay only $200 for a $700 phone. Tha'ts how they get away with it... we can all go to the European way and just buy the phones up front and save a little on the service. But they will still make tons of money of us. $37 stock price for today 11%+ rise year to date... They obviously need more and more :crying:
I called AT&T yesterday to ***** about it, I asked the CSR "What 'new' expenses does AT&T have now that they didn't have last month?". Sure enough he started reading to me the same thing as I posted above. I said "don't read this to me, I can read it myself. I want to know what NEW EXPENSES do you have..."
He said "we don't have that info". I said "well, HQ should give you the answers".
I got so pissed at him that he ended up giving me a credit of the 4 lines times this bull**** fee for the next year ($30). Sure, I was happy and appreciative of his attempt to make a customer happy. Nevertheless, can't wait for my contract to expire to get the hell out. That's why I don't take 'free/discounted' phones from AT&T. Only international versions, nothing with AT&T logo on it. I will not be tied in contracts with big corporations any more.
Sure, it's much more difficult now to go somewhere else when Straight Talk no longer have AT&T sim cards, but we'll see.
sbi1 said:
That's why I don't take 'free/discounted' phones from AT&T. Only international versions, nothing with AT&T logo on it. I will not be tied in contracts with big corporations any more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could not agree more, well said.
Sent from the i777
Quick & Easy BBB, FTC, FCC links
Some momentum is growing at forums.att.com to have a mass of customers report to the BBB, FTC, and FCC, so I am posting easy links here, in case others wish to do so as well.
It's really quick and easy to make your voice heard .
BBB: www.bbb.org/atlanta/business-reviews/telephone-companies/atandt-in-atlanta-ga-7935/file-a-complaint
FTC: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en
FCC: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
You can base your info on the following but you will have to edit it to fit in the web forms:
"AT&T has raised the price on every wireless line in service by $.61 a month by adding a new fee to every bill, which they explain as follows:
"MOBILITY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE" Effective May 1, 2013, the Administrative Fee will be $0.61 per line per month. The Administrative Fee helps defray certain expenses AT&T incurs, including but not limited to: (a) charges AT&T or its agents pay to interconnect with other carriers to deliver calls from AT&T customers to their customers; and (b) charges associated with cell site rents and maintenance."
This is a baloney way of saying "price increase", and is a blatant violation of basic contract law which does not allow the changing of terms after the beginning of a bilateral agreement. The vast majority of ATT customers have 2-year contract agreements which prevent their switching carriers without paying a huge penalty clause.
The ATT Wireless Agreement reads: "If we increase the price of any of the services to which you subscribe, beyond the limits set forth in your customer service summary... you may terminate this agreement without paying an early termination fee or returning or paying for any promotional items."
CTIA Consumer Code reads: "Carriers will not modify the material terms of their subscribers' contracts in a manner that is materially adverse to subscribers without providing a reasonable advance notice of a proposed modification and allowing subscribers a time period of not less than 14 days to cancel their contracts with no early termination fee."
ATT claims that the price for the service remains the same and are only adding a "fee".
What's from stopping AT&T from adding an additional $50/month fee and not letting customers out of their contract?
$.61 doesn't sound like much, but some people have multiple lines. In addition, multiplied by 115.78 million customers, AT&T makes an extra $847 million a year from this dishonest price hike.
As it is not any kind of tax or government mandated charge, the new fee should be included in the basic price displayed in advertising and informational material. The new fee should only be charged on new contracts beginning after the increase, and existing contract customers must be allowed to either reject the price hike or be allowed to terminate their service without penalty, as the contract has already been breached by the carrier."
Coincidentally I just cancelled one of my add-on packages with Comcast cable and they also tried to charge a $2.xx administrative fee. Although the CSR waived it as a 'one time courtesy,' seeing the same issue here highlights what appears to be a growing trend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDbfCbQnH8
harryspar said:
Some momentum is growing at forums.att.com to have a mass of customers report to the BBB, FTC, and FCC, so I am posting easy links here, in case others wish to do so as well.
It's really quick and easy to make your voice heard .
BBB: www.bbb.org/atlanta/business-reviews/telephone-companies/atandt-in-atlanta-ga-7935/file-a-complaint
FTC: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en
FCC: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
You can base your info on the following but you will have to edit it to fit in the web forms:
"AT&T has raised the price on every wireless line in service by $.61 a month by adding a new fee to every bill, which they explain as follows:
"MOBILITY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE" Effective May 1, 2013, the Administrative Fee will be $0.61 per line per month. The Administrative Fee helps defray certain expenses AT&T incurs, including but not limited to: (a) charges AT&T or its agents pay to interconnect with other carriers to deliver calls from AT&T customers to their customers; and (b) charges associated with cell site rents and maintenance."
This is a baloney way of saying "price increase", and is a blatant violation of basic contract law which does not allow the changing of terms after the beginning of a bilateral agreement. The vast majority of ATT customers have 2-year contract agreements which prevent their switching carriers without paying a huge penalty clause.
The ATT Wireless Agreement reads: "If we increase the price of any of the services to which you subscribe, beyond the limits set forth in your customer service summary... you may terminate this agreement without paying an early termination fee or returning or paying for any promotional items."
CTIA Consumer Code reads: "Carriers will not modify the material terms of their subscribers' contracts in a manner that is materially adverse to subscribers without providing a reasonable advance notice of a proposed modification and allowing subscribers a time period of not less than 14 days to cancel their contracts with no early termination fee."
ATT claims that the price for the service remains the same and are only adding a "fee".
What's from stopping AT&T from adding an additional $50/month fee and not letting customers out of their contract?
$.61 doesn't sound like much, but some people have multiple lines. In addition, multiplied by 115.78 million customers, AT&T makes an extra $847 million a year from this dishonest price hike.
As it is not any kind of tax or government mandated charge, the new fee should be included in the basic price displayed in advertising and informational material. The new fee should only be charged on new contracts beginning after the increase, and existing contract customers must be allowed to either reject the price hike or be allowed to terminate their service without penalty, as the contract has already been breached by the carrier."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Complaints filed.
sbi1 said:
Complaints filed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You da man. How long did it take, a few minutes, right? We need more people to act.
Thanks for the heads up, I didn't even notice it. I filed a complaint with the FTC and will look into switching when my contract ends next month
Does this fee count as a material change in the contract? I'm guessing not. Sneaky
edit: I now read harryspar's post completely. When Sprint did this, many people were able to cancel and not pay an ETF, but I'm guessing AT&T will fight this but some people might be able to get away with it.
havanahjoe said:
When Sprint did this, many people were able to cancel and not pay an ETF, but I'm guessing AT&T will fight this but some people might be able to get away with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some people have been successful, see thread on fawallet.com: http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1270724/
harryspar said:
You da man. How long did it take, a few minutes, right? We need more people to act.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup. few minutes and the bastards "responded" to the BBB one with the usual B.S., to which I responded with (basically) "Cut the B.S.". Nothing will change until everyone files a complaint.
I went through a similar experience with Sprint last year. They claimed it was not a "material change" as another poster eluded to and when I digged very deep in my contract - there was a clause which allowed them to add up to $2.00 per month in "fees" without being considered "material" changes...
I think it depends on the rep you get, some people I know used the fee to get out of their contracts and some it did not work for. I was able to get the fee waived (it was only 20 cents per month or so that they were adding this time) but I didn't feel like fighting to get any further.
In an attempt to get an official response from the parties involved with the locking of the phones, I am referencing 47 CFG 27.16 which has the following sections of interest, the former being more relevant than the latter.
(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section 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, except:
(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network, or
(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government regulation.
(e) 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, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks.
(f) Burden of proof. Once a complainant sets forth a prima facie case that the C Block licensee has refused to attach a device or application in violation of the requirements adopted in this section, the licensee shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it has adopted reasonable network standards and reasonably applied those standards in the complainant's case. Where the licensee bases its network restrictions on industry-wide consensus standards, such restrictions would be presumed reasonable.
I dont know if I will get anywhere with this but I am working on an open letter to VZW/Samsung (with EFF/FTC/FCC copied) requesting their official legal stance on this issue which will hopefully force them to respond according to part (f). I dont hold too much hope for this in the beginning but I am hopeful that this will gain traction as it seems, to me at least, that locking down the devices and not allowing installation of custom operating systems is in direct conflict with part (b) in that it "shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice".
Let me know what your thoughts are on this. I may be totally off base but I hope that I am not.
smokeyrd said:
In an attempt to get an official response from the parties involved with the locking of the phones, I am referencing 47 CFG 27.16 which has the following sections of interest, the former being more relevant than the latter.
(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section 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, except:
(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network, or
(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government regulation.
(e) 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, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks.
(f) Burden of proof. Once a complainant sets forth a prima facie case that the C Block licensee has refused to attach a device or application in violation of the requirements adopted in this section, the licensee shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it has adopted reasonable network standards and reasonably applied those standards in the complainant's case. Where the licensee bases its network restrictions on industry-wide consensus standards, such restrictions would be presumed reasonable.
I dont know if I will get anywhere with this but I am working on an open letter to VZW/Samsung (with EFF/FTC/FCC copied) requesting their official legal stance on this issue which will hopefully force them to respond according to part (f). I dont hold too much hope for this in the beginning but I am hopeful that this will gain traction as it seems, to me at least, that locking down the devices and not allowing installation of custom operating systems is in direct conflict with part (b) in that it "shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice".
Let me know what your thoughts are on this. I may be totally off base but I hope that I am not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon doesn't lock the phones. You can install any operator's SIM and use it. That's what this law is about - it's nothing to do with bootloaders, it's to do with portability of the phone between carriers.
Sorry, you're wasting your time.
k1mu said:
Verizon doesn't lock the phones. You can install any operator's SIM and use it. That's what this law is about - it's nothing to do with bootloaders, it's to do with portability of the phone between carriers.
Sorry, you're wasting your time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well that sucks. It seems like the law is referring to more than just the SIM cards because it references "devices and applications" but like I said before, I'm no lawyer. Part (e) is certainly intended to be about the SIM cards but part (b) seems to be a "general statement" In any case...waiting on the EFF response and we'll see where it goes from there. *shrug*
pected eekerman
smokeyrd said:
In an attempt to get an official response from the parties involved with the locking of the phones, I am referencing 47 CFG 27.16 which has the following sections of interest, the former being more relevant than the latter.
(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section 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, except:
(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network, or
(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government regulation.
(e) 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, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks.
(f) Burden of proof. Once a complainant sets forth a prima facie case that the C Block licensee has refused to attach a device or application in violation of the requirements adopted in this section, the licensee shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it has adopted reasonable network standards and reasonably applied those standards in the complainant's case. Where the licensee bases its network restrictions on industry-wide consensus standards, such restrictions would be presumed reasonable.
I dont know if I will get anywhere with this but I am working on an open letter to VZW/Samsung (with EFF/FTC/FCC copied) requesting their official legal stance on this issue which will hopefully force them to respond according to part (f). I dont hold too much hope for this in the beginning but I am hopeful that this will gain traction as it seems, to me at least, that locking down the devices and not allowing installation of custom operating systems is in direct conflict with part (b) in that it "shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice".
Let me know what your thoughts are on this. I may be totally off base but I hope that I am not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AFAIK this only applies to those phones that make use of the C-block (700MHz band) of the radio spectrum. Only some new phones utilize that frequency range, and I think they also have to be bought off contract from the manufacturer directly. I think the Nexus 7 2013 edition tablet is made to use the C-block spectrum, but even then Big Red found some way to get past and violate the open access policy and disallow those tablets to be used when they clearly can and do work with Verizon.
Basically, what Im saying is Verizon will always find ways to lock everything up and be buttholes about it. Im sure the guy in that Tom's Hardware article (I cant post links yet) is fighting Verizon to get his new tablet working as it should, but like others who have tried, hes apt to fail. We just have to wait and see and count on hackery and our beloved developers to get the things we want.
No letter/petition is ever going to persuade samsung or Verizon to unlock the bootloader. They can do whatever they want and aren't going to listen to a small amount of users who wish to flash custom software. Period.
What is the purpose of a developer edition? Thank you.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda app-developers app
richii0207 said:
What is the purpose of a developer edition? Thank you.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly, its just another way for Samsung to earn money. Normally, phones can be unlocked by going to the manufacturer website and using a special tool or some other sort of method. However, Verizon has completely removed that ability. So, Samsung, instead of helping devs by fighting to reverse that, they took it as a way to make extra cash by making a phone without Verizon's custom bootloader security that you buy out of contract from Samsung themselves. You get a completely unlocked phone, and Samsung gets pocket money. Not entirely fair, and it cheats people who need to buy the phone under subsidy, but such are companies like Verizon.
gnubian said:
No letter/petition is ever going to persuade samsung or Verizon to unlock the bootloader. They can do whatever they want and aren't going to listen to a small amount of users who wish to flash custom software. Period.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In this case the goal isnt to politely ask that they stop doing it. The goal is to force them to conform to Federal laws governing their use of the spectrum. That being said, after some input from other members here that looks to be doubtful. I'll still give it a shot and see what turns up. It cant hurt to try.
No can't hurt to try.. Like someone else already stated though.. Neither Verizon or Samsung really care about folks like us who wish to have an unlocked bootloader to flash custom ROMs and such. Were such a small number to them. Sux I know.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Mistertac said:
No can't hurt to try.. Like someone else already stated though.. Neither Verizon or Samsung really care about folks like us who wish to have an unlocked bootloader to flash custom ROMs and such. Were such a small number to them. Sux I know.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One piece of ammo you might want to use is the fact that Cyanogen and its partners are now making phones. CM is a custom ROM to start with and if the carriers don't want the phones on their network, a restraint of trade lawsuit could be in the works.
That said, the letter is still a long shot but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
ky5ever said:
Honestly, its just another way for Samsung to earn money. Normally, phones can be unlocked by going to the manufacturer website and using a special tool or some other sort of method. However, Verizon has completely removed that ability. So, Samsung, instead of helping devs by fighting to reverse that, they took it as a way to make extra cash by making a phone without Verizon's custom bootloader security that you buy out of contract from Samsung themselves. You get a completely unlocked phone, and Samsung gets pocket money. Not entirely fair, and it cheats people who need to buy the phone under subsidy, but such are companies like Verizon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who NEEDS an S4?
If you chose to have someone pay the bulk of the price for you in exchange for you signing a contract dictating usage... Where is your complaint?
I am all for "sticking it to the man", I heavily support us hacking the phones to get what we want... But Its hard to complain the "guy" who paid the bulk of the cost of your phone had a say what is going on.
Contrary to popular belief the a Samsung Galaxy S4 (non dev) does NOT cost $250. Its closer to $700. The difference in cost represents the cost of the restrictions placed on you by re-upping your contract and having limitations/bloatware put on your phone.
scryan said:
Who NEEDS an S4?
If you chose to have someone pay the bulk of the price for you in exchange for you signing a contract dictating usage... Where is your complaint?
I am all for "sticking it to the man", I heavily support us hacking the phones to get what we want... But Its hard to complain the "guy" who paid the bulk of the cost of your phone had a say what is going on.
Contrary to popular belief the a Samsung Galaxy S4 (non dev) does NOT cost $250. Its closer to $700. The difference in cost represents the cost of the restrictions placed on you by re-upping your contract and having limitations/bloatware put on your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Contrary to popular belief the a Samsung Galaxy S4 (non dev) does NOT cost $250. Its closer to $700.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what subsidy means....correct me if I am wrong?
Also, buying a retail (non-developer) S4 changes nothing. You still get bloatware, and you still get a locked bootloader, nothing changes.
Buying a phone out of contract just means you can go without data on your plan. It also means you do not have to keep paying for two years, obviously.
Buying a dev S4 is NOT done through Verizon. To get the ultra-super-special feature of an unlocked bootloader, you have to get it from somewhere else than Verizon. And that place is Samsung, directly.
Finally, I know nobody NEEDS an S4, I dont know why you had to attack me based on that assumption. I said anyone who needs the phone on SUBSIDY. Because, yeah, the only other option is $700, like you said.
ky5ever said:
That's what subsidy means....correct me if I am wrong?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, 100% wrong.
Look at your sales tax.
You bought a $700 phone and they refunded some money... Thats why you pay the sales tax on full price.
I mean, think of it this way... Find me a brand new S4 for $250 from a retailer. I have only $250 dollars. I will not sign any contracts or do any deals past the one event... Buying an S4. I have $300. Since you can buy S4's for $250, send me a brand new unopened S4 and you can pocket the profit...
But you cannot buy an S4 for $250 alone... So its pretty hard to call that the cost yes? Because no matter what it will cost you more then that to obtain one. You cannot straight trade $250 for an S4.
By definition subsidy is about the price you pay, but not cost.
See the following:
money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to Merriam-Webster.
The price you pay with a subsity is less then the cost of the good. The cost of the good is what you pay + whatever whoever else pays.
It may chance the price, but the cost
the price of something : the amount of money that is needed to pay for or buy something
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is still what is was before. Just now your not the one paying the bulk of it. Someone else is stepping in and taking up part of that burden.
But the cost the is taken up by Verizon is still recouped.
Firstly, and mostly, by the increase in monthly income due to more people resigning contracts.
Second, by the vendors who pay for their bloatware to be preloaded
Thirdly, by the increase in sales project to occur due to modifications made before sale, i.e. increasing security to make the product more viable for corporate and government use.
The cost is what it is, your price changes as you get someone else to foot the bill.
Hence the extra input from the guy who made up the difference in what you pay and the cost (Samsung is NOT selling the S4 to verizon at no profit, verizon buys phones to sell like any other retailer. Samsung doesn't care about Verizon contracts, only number of units sold to a retailer, on that basis Verizon CAN negotiate a better cost per unit, but that is really the same as any other retailer... Just their size gives them leverage. But Samsung has NOTHING to do with the subsidy. )
scryan said:
Yup, 100% wrong.
Look at your sales tax.
You bought a $700 phone and they refunded some money... Thats why you pay the sales tax on full price.
According to Merriam-Webster.
The price you pay with a subsity is less then the cost of the good. The cost of the good is what you pay + whatever whoever else pays.
It may chance the price, but the cost
Is still what is was before. Just now your not the one paying the bulk of it. Someone else is stepping in and taking up part of that burden.
But the cost the is taken up by Verizon is still recouped.
Firstly, and mostly, by the increase in monthly income due to more people resigning contracts.
Second, by the vendors who pay for their bloatware to be preloaded
Thirdly, by the increase in sales project to occur due to modifications made before sale, i.e. increasing security to make the product more viable for corporate and government use.
The cost is what it is, your price changes as you get someone else to foot the bill.
Hence the extra input from the guy who made up the difference in what you pay and the cost (Samsung is NOT selling the S4 to verizon at no profit, verizon buys phones to sell like any other retailer. Samsung doesn't care about Verizon contracts, only number of units sold to a retailer, on that basis Verizon CAN negotiate a better cost per unit, but that is really the same as any other retailer... Just their size gives them leverage. But Samsung has NOTHING to do with the subsidy. )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First off, what you are saying doesnt make any sense. You said that "contrary to popular belief, the S4 does NOT cost $250, its closer to $700."
Uhm, thats exactly what I said in my first post. So, no, I am not 100% wrong. Not even the slightest bit wrong. I said subsidy. Thats why the phone isnt actually $250. Cause thats what subsidy means. The phone is sold at a reduced price because the rest is paid off by Verizon.
You also stated that the reason there is bloatware and a locked bootloader is because, since Verizon paid half the price (or so), they assume some control over the phone.
My argument to that is, if that is the case, then how come buying the S4 out of contract for full price still gets you a bloated and locked device? The subsidy has nothing to do with bloatware. Verizon is going to bloat and restrict anything they sell THEMSELVES, no matter how it is purchased.
THAT is why, to get a phone sans bloatware and lock, you must get it from another company, and only purchase a SIM card and insert it to the phone.
You also now state that vendors pay Verizon for their bloatware to be preloaded. Uhm, no. Vendors made the phone. They dont have to pay anyone to install their own software on their own device. Verizon actually pays the vendors a small fee to have bloatware installed. That is part of the reason iPhones never have and never will have carrier bloat. Apple refuses to sell the software just so it can be slowed down.
Another thing. Verizon did absolutely nothing towards increasing security for corporate users. Samsung did. Also, Samsung made the bootloader able to boot custom ROMs and kernels, you just lose the ability to make KNOX containers. But, really, what average user is going to do that? The reason most of the average S4 users do not want the KNOX warranty void flag set is because it reduces resell value.
Samsung sells the phones at about $580-$600. Thats some profit off the manufacturing cost, which Im not sure of. Verizon then sells it for $700 plus taxes and all. Thats some profit for them, too. However, that is too high for the average user to pay. So, they have part of the cost paid for, as long as you promise to give them money for two years.
Verizon recovers the lost money from charging ridiculously high prices for CAPPED and SPEED LIMITED data, as well as by forcing the use of some of their services, like making you pay for internet if you have a smartphone. They cost more, so they make you pay for something else, a little over a long time, to recoup what they lost.
They DONT get it back from people resigning contracts. New contracts have nothing to do with phones purchased previously. Once the contract is paid, the phone is paid for, in full. So, starting a new contract starts payments on an entirely new session.
ky5ever said:
First off, what you are saying doesnt make any sense. You said that "contrary to popular belief, the S4 does NOT cost $250, its closer to $700."
Uhm, thats exactly what I said in my first post. So, no, I am not 100% wrong. Not even the slightest bit wrong. I said subsidy. Thats why the phone isnt actually $250. Cause thats what subsidy means. The phone is sold at a reduced price because the rest is paid off by Verizon.
You also stated that the reason there is bloatware and a locked bootloader is because, since Verizon paid half the price (or so), they assume some control over the phone.
You also stated that the reason there is bloatware and a locked bootloader is because, since Verizon paid half the price (or so), they assume some control over the phone.
My argument to that is, if that is the case, then how come buying the S4 out of contract for full price still gets you a bloated and locked device? The subsidy has nothing to do with bloatware. Verizon is going to bloat and restrict anything they sell THEMSELVES, no matter how it is purchased.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When you buy off contract you have the choice of
The phone still "costs" the market clearing price of an off contract S4... Sure that money is not anywhere, but its opportunity costs because they could have sold that unit subsidized for the market clearing price had they chosen.
The off contract verizon S4 still comes with all of that because that is what they decided to do with what they sell. Just like I can go buy a corvette and paint on a race strip and sell it at my dealership. If you want a discount from me on a corvette you need to run a bumpersticker with my logo, and I am forcing you to have a race strip. If you don't want a race strip... Buy from chevy.
ky5ever said:
You also now state that vendors pay Verizon for their bloatware to be preloaded. Uhm, no. Vendors made the phone. They dont have to pay anyone to install their own software on their own device. Verizon actually pays the vendors a small fee to have bloatware installed. That is part of the reason iPhones never have and never will have carrier bloat. Apple refuses to sell the software just so it can be slowed down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Vendors didnt make the phones. Vendors are:
a person or company offering something for sale, esp. a trader in the street.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The people who make the bloatware profit off their apps or services. Guys who sell services (vendors) pay verizon to put their apps on phones so that the end consumer will hopefully like it and continue using the service.
ky5ever said:
Another thing. Verizon did absolutely nothing towards increasing security for corporate users. Samsung did. Also, Samsung made the bootloader able to boot custom ROMs and kernels, you just lose the ability to make KNOX containers. But, really, what average user is going to do that? The reason most of the average S4 users do not want the KNOX warranty void flag set is because it reduces resell value.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Having Admin rights reduces security. Its just a fact. Its the reason user accounts exist in linux, and why you only become administrator briefly each time rights need to be granted in both android and linux. Your phone is more secure if you don't have to option to mistakenly load something insecure on it. This is simply a fact, you can read it from pretty much any book that discusses the subject. YOU may be super admin, but there is no test before admin rights are given... and if one of your employees is not the super admin he thinks he is, your security has been compromised.
ky5ever said:
Verizon recovers the lost money from charging ridiculously high prices for CAPPED and SPEED LIMITED data, as well as by forcing the use of some of their services, like making you pay for internet if you have a smartphone. They cost more, so they make you pay for something else, a little over a long time, to recoup what they lost.
They DONT get it back from people resigning contracts. New contracts have nothing to do with phones purchased previously. Once the contract is paid, the phone is paid for, in full. So, starting a new contract starts payments on an entirely new session.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They make money in more ways then just monthly contract. Again, do you think they are not paid to load bloat? Do you really not acknowledged that a phone that cannot be modified is more secure from the viewpoint of a corporation issuing phones to random employies? This increases sales and profit.
The fact that its mean kind does not mean a damn thing. Its a deal YOU already agreed was fair, and VZ has your signature to prove it. If it wasn't fair, why didn't you sign up for the better option?
You were presented with, in writing, the fact that you would not be allowed to modify your phone if you asked VZ for help with the price. If you didn't read your contact, or didn't believe they would hold you to it... I don't know what to tell you.
And honestly that is what it comes down to more then ANYTHING.
MAN THE **** UP. You knew VZ locks phones from the get go. They don't hide it. Even if it was unlocked you agreed contractuatlly that you should not be able to modify the phone.
The real difference is that we haven't been able to beat them yet. Be upset about that, but you signed up for what you signed up for man... Very transparent.
15 33663429
scryan said:
When you buy off contract you have the choice of
The phone still "costs" the market clearing price of an off contract S4... Sure that money is not anywhere, but its opportunity costs because they could have sold that unit subsidized for the market clearing price had they chosen.
The off contract verizon S4 still comes with all of that because that is what they decided to do with what they sell. Just like I can go buy a corvette and paint on a race strip and sell it at my dealership. If you want a discount from me on a corvette you need to run a bumpersticker with my logo, and I am forcing you to have a race strip. If you don't want a race strip... Buy from chevy.
Vendors didnt make the phones. Vendors are:
The people who make the bloatware profit off their apps or services. Guys who sell services (vendors) pay verizon to put their apps on phones so that the end consumer will hopefully like it and continue using the service.
Having Admin rights reduces security. Its just a fact. Its the reason user accounts exist in linux, and why you only become administrator briefly each time rights need to be granted in both android and linux. Your phone is more secure if you don't have to option to mistakenly load something insecure on it. This is simply a fact, you can read it from pretty much any book that discusses the subject. YOU may be super admin, but there is no test before admin rights are given... and if one of your employees is not the super admin he thinks he is, your security has been compromised.
They make money in more ways then just monthly contract. Again, do you think they are not paid to load bloat? Do you really not acknowledged that a phone that cannot be modified is more secure from the viewpoint of a corporation issuing phones to random employies? This increases sales and profit.
The fact that its mean kind does not mean a damn thing. Its a deal YOU already agreed was fair, and VZ has your signature to prove it. If it wasn't fair, why didn't you sign up for the better option?
You were presented with, in writing, the fact that you would not be allowed to modify your phone if you asked VZ for help with the price. If you didn't read your contact, or didn't believe they would hold you to it... I don't know what to tell you.
And honestly that is what it comes down to more then ANYTHING.
MAN THE **** UP. You knew VZ locks phones from the get go. They don't hide it. Even if it was unlocked you agreed contractuatlly that you should not be able to modify the phone.
The real difference is that we haven't been able to beat them yet. Be upset about that, but you signed up for what you signed up for man... Very transparent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was gonna just give the f**k up and leave you be, cause Im tired of arguing and I figured youd come to a consensus, and I was even agreeing with many of your points, up until I read the last paragraph.
scryan said:
The fact that its mean kind does not mean a damn thing. Its a deal YOU already agreed was fair, and VZ has your signature to prove it. If it wasn't fair, why didn't you sign up for the better option?
You were presented with, in writing, the fact that you would not be allowed to modify your phone if you asked VZ for help with the price. If you didn't read your contact, or didn't believe they would hold you to it... I don't know what to tell you.
And honestly that is what it comes down to more then ANYTHING.
MAN THE **** UP. You knew VZ locks phones from the get go. They don't hide it. Even if it was unlocked you agreed contractuatlly that you should not be able to modify the phone.
The real difference is that we haven't been able to beat them yet. Be upset about that, but you signed up for what you signed up for man... Very transparent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First off. Verizon does not state that the software cannot be modified. They state that if you do modify the phone, you cannot ask for help fixing the phone or applying further modifications to it with support from Verizon. They will not help you. If they said you cannot root the phone, than a LOT of people would be facing court sessions.
Secondly. Man the f**k up? What made you think I was any bit upset with what Verizon does?
I sure as hell accept it. And I sure as hell cant do anything about it. Thats not the problem here. I was merely telling the other guy that HE is also going to have to "man the f**k up" and deal with it.
Third. VZW just recently started locking phones. And it was not publicized. They dont just up and go "HEY GUYS, WE LOCK PHONES NOW. KTHXBAI." Also, if it was unlocked, then why make an agreement that Im not going to unlock it? Thats right, there was no agreement.
We have beaten them, several times. Not yet for the S4, but we are oh so close. Im not upset about that, far from it, my friend. Im ecstatic. I only wish I could contribute somehow myself.
I signed up for a high end phone on the nations most reliable cellphone network. Any caveats therein are to be dealt with as met.
Fourth. Verizon locking the bootloader when one of the key features of the KNOX bootloader is staying secure while also letting you run proprietary customized ROMs and software IS NOT A SELLING POINT. I dont know WHAT made you think LACK of features was a selling point.
A phone that keeps ONLY THE DATA THEY WANT, to be encrypted, encrypted, while keeping everything else normal, is the best phone.
Most corporate companies are purchasing T-Mobile or AT&T phones, even, because they are more lenient with letting the business customize the phone to their individual needs. Not everyone wants what Verizon wants.
Im done with you. You can type me up another nice long reply and tell me again how wrong I am. I dont care. You believe what you want to believe, and Ill believe what I want to believe. This all started because you misinterpreted my words, anyway. So, please, lets drop this.
It's worth a shot and i applaud u for exercising your 1st amendment and looking out for consumer rights. I'll definitely sign that petition. In addition, I wonder if this also applies to carrier"blacklisting/blocking" equipment imei from being used due to unpaid accounts. I would think that it's common sense and good business to blacklist/block the account holder who has delinquent or unpaid equipment bills instead of blocking the phone from being activated on another account.
////ANDY