3 ms·
It's not entirely clear whether they blocked it from being installed on their carrier locked phones, or if they blocked it from communicating with Google server
by nickysielicki 9y ago
It's not entirely clear whether they blocked it from being installed on their carrier locked phones, or if they blocked it from communicating with Google servers at the network level. Back in 2011 it was relatively uncommon to buy unlocked phones, particularly for use on CDMA networks. It sounds to me like they just blocked the phone from installing the application, rather than anything that net neutrality would prevent.
There's no legal reason that a carrier has to allow you to use an unlocked phone on their networks. My cable ISP doesn't allow me to bring my own modem, for example. From what I can tell, the net neutrality rules wouldn't have changed this situation at all.
edit: This article[1] is extremely informative; Verizon was not blocking anything at a network level, they were disabling the OS from accessing the necessary "secure element" (TrustZone) in some of their carrier locked phones, which made the Android APIs that Google Wallet relied on cease to function. Due to this, Google chose to not show the app on the Play Store to customers on Verizon because they didn't want people to try the app and have it fail.
So in conclusion, this "blocking" (if you can even call it that) is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand about net neutrality.
[1]: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/05/01/a-brief-history-of-verizon-and-google-wallet-and-why-the-carrier-is-still-allowed-to-block-it/ http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/05/01/a-brief-history-of-v...
- jrnichols 9y agoyet that is one big example that even the ACLU has been spreading around. No wonder people have been confused.
- freedomben 9y agoThe level of disinformation with NN is staggering. The perils and draw of confirmation bias does not discriminate based on political orientation.