4 ms·
There are a lot of pretty unpleasant things that Verizon are doing that one could make a compelling argument for being violations of the upper C-block agreement
by jwise0 13y ago
There are a lot of pretty unpleasant things that Verizon are doing that one could make a compelling argument for being violations of the upper C-block agreement. But, this really isn't one of them.
For instance, selling phones with features stripped from them (bootloader unlock capabilities on HTC One, for instance), is really not brilliant, and may well be a violation of the intent of the terms, if not the letter. The same might be the case for stripping tethering services from devices. (They certainly did get nailed once for asking Google to block a tethering app on their behalf; I think they caved before the FCC intervened. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; the details on that one are hazy in my head.)
But, there's nothing that says they have to sell you service (or sell you a SIM card). If you have one, you can attach it... but there's nothing that says they have to give you one for that purpose.
The "protection of the licensee's network" clause is a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, by the way. They can set up as onerous of a certification process as they (reasonably) want, and indeed, they have in the past -- the intent of the regulation is just that they have to apply it fairly. The reason why these rules are there are that cell networks are incredibly fragile, and very sensitive to antenna calibration; especially on CDMA networks, the near-far problem[1] can be pretty lethal to service for everyone on the tower if just one device is miscalibrated. It wouldn't at all surprise me if they had similar extensive calibration requirements for their LTE network, and they'd be well within their rights to do that sort of thing.
I'm as much of an unhappy Verizon customer as the next fellow, but whining that you can't just go transmit on their frequencies with devices that they haven't tested is not really conducive to the cause of folks who would say that Verizon's upper C-block management is behaving in a fashion that limits customer freedom.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-far_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-far_problem
- girvo 13y agoIs it a CDMA thing? Because for literally the last decade and a bit, I've been taking whatever phone I want and putting it on whatever network I want here in Australia, no "carrier certification" needed...
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoYup.
- yareally 13y agoEven with the device provisioning and tower handoffs now being done within the SIM card in LTE enabled devices on Verizon, they still require consent to get any sort of CDMA signal (which until VoLTE rolls out, includes making phone calls). At least with LTE and SIMs finally on Verizon since 2010, you can activate any device by simply popping in your SIM card, though only if the device already is allowed on their network, since it does checks to verify the MEI[1] number. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Equipment_Identifier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Equipment_Identifier
- yareally 13y ago> For instance, selling phones with features stripped from them (bootloader unlock capabilities on HTC One, for instance) Every phone from the Galaxy S3 onward on Verizon has had a bootloader unable to be unlocked per Verizon's request to the OEM. Galaxy S3 on Verizon was also the only S3 to have a bootloader that could not be unlocked the day of release (it could be later on through various hacks). They have no phones I find interesting unfortunately and I'll be leaving them I think once my contract runs out or my Galaxy Nexus gets too old. Plus, if I want to keep my unlimited data in the case they do happen to get the next Nexus, I would have to pay a 150% or so markup buying it off contract versus buying the GSM version from Google and using T-Mobile.