Verizon's open door policy all hype, no change?

[huntm856]

Perhaps not yet, and not to that degree, but if the year goes by without much on that front, after the big deal VZW (themselves) made about it late last year and early this year, then someone will be on the case, perhaps a bit at first, but over time there will be someone.

You are forgetting that the entire thing was begun and the publicity was kept up during the runup to the 700 MHz auction, when Google was and others were agitating for open access on the new spectrum, etc.

It was basically all 'us too' PR.

[C DM]

You are forgetting that the entire thing was begun and the publicity was kept up during the runup to the 700 MHz auction, when Google was and others were agitating for open access on the new spectrum, etc.

It was basically all 'us too' PR.

Sure, but that doesn't get them off the hook, or at least shouldn't.

[samab]

Sure, but that doesn't get them off the hook, or at least shouldn't.

The only thing you can do ---- is try to stop the Alltel merger.

I don't see how wnrussell can wait until next year --- you either do it now or forever hold your peace. You have to stop the merger before the pro-business Bush administration leaves office.

The deployment for the 700 MHz spectrum under the FCC rules --- may be still years away. Meanwhile, there is nothing for wnrussell to sue for --- Verizon is under no legal obligation to provide what their press release announced on time. Next wnrussell is going to start a class action lawsuit against Microsoft because they didn't ship Vista on time (and with less features than originally announced).

[huntm856]

No, it shouldn't, hence this thread. But it will. Open access in wireless is something only a few geeks at places like this care about. Just like everything else, all anyone seems to really care about is shiny hyped-up toys and the horse race of who's winning and losing.

The most successful network in the US is the most closed.

The most successful single product -- the iPhone -- is far and away the most closed, locked-down product in US wireless history.

[wnrussell]

I don't see how wnrussell can wait until next year --- you either do it now or forever hold your peace.

PREAMBLE

(a) WHEREAS, Defendant Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless"), is a partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey, Defendant Verizon Wireless Messaging Services is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas, and Defendant Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware.

Blah, blah, blah, Samab!

Remember Cellco Partnership, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 237806 (the "Action"), in which they seek to represent an alleged class of all persons who activated Verizon Wireless cellular services for a Motorola V710 telephone which you thought would not succeed?

[samab]

The settlement hasn't produced much --- a small $25 coupon for most people.

It hasn't stop companies like Apple/AT&T to advertise the iphone as bluetooth 2.0 + EDR --- yet cripples the A2DP and tethering.

Wow --- what a earthshaking class action lawsuit settlement.

[wnrussell]

Wow --- what a earthshaking class action lawsuit settlement.

You must have not seen the 28 page SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT dated July 2005. Most of the people who were actively persuing it received new phones.

[samab]

You must have not seen the 28 page SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT dated July 2005. Most of the people who were actively persuing it received new phones.

They have an option to receive credit to buy a new phone (which you have to send in the old phone) --- doesn't mean that most people didn't take the easy route and just get the $25.

No admission of any wrong doing on Verizon's part.

The most exciting part of the settlement agreement is how the class action lawyers get paid.

[wnrussell]

The most exciting part of the settlement agreement is how the class action lawyers get paid.

Yes. I was so tempted to post it, but there was a confidentiality agreement.

[huntm856]

The points people bring up about class actions -- miniscule awards, no admission of wrongdoing by the defendants, about the only ones who really make out being the lawyers -- are all valid.

But I'm pretty sure VZW would rather have not had to deal with the entire issue at all, and I am pretty sure that even if the plaintiffs only got peanuts, the entire business *still* cost VZW a good deal of money they would prefer to not have spent.

And though they didn't admit any wrongdoing, they *did* change their business practices, didn't they?

Class-action lawsuits may suck in a lot of ways, but I believe that they do have some demonstrable effect on businesses in terms of redress and even more importantly perhaps in terms of deterrence. When contemplating courses of action that may be legally questionable, companies have to consider the possibility of dealing with tort actions in their cost/benefit analyses.

They are a pretty poor tool, but I am strongly of the opinion that we as consumers would be worse off without them.

[samab]

It hasn't changed much.

Just look at Apple --- their computers have bluetooth and their OS X has the capabilities to synch with cell phone wirelessly. But they won't allow you to do that with the iphone.

Apple basically crippled all the bluetooth profiles in the iphone.

[lunar]

bluetooth sync on iphone is obsolete - it constantlys push syncs over the phone network.

[huntm856]

It hasn't changed much.

Just look at Apple --- their computers have bluetooth and their OS X has the capabilities to synch with cell phone wirelessly. But they won't allow you to do that with the iphone.

Apple basically crippled all the bluetooth profiles in the iphone.

Can't argue with you about one thing: Apple's specs. do not clearly spell out what profiles the device supports, at least not that I could see on their specs. page for the iPhone.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a lawsuit filed on this.

Still, two things:

(1) The iPhone's pathetic BT support has been well-publicized; one of the consequences of the VZW case is that this sort of information gets disseminated about devices now as a matter of course.

(2) It isn't true that Apple 'crippled' bluetooth on the device, at least not in the way VZW did on their version of the Moto V710.

The issue with VZW, as I recall--correct me if I'm wrong--is that the device *as produced by the manufacturer* had multiple profile support. VZW had it crippled in their version, did not (sufficiently?) publicize the fact that the VZW version of the device was crippled in comparison to other versions.

The argument by the plaintiffs was that given the fact that the V710 had already been publicized by Moto and others as having mult-profile BT support, VZW's failure to make note of the fact that they crippled features present in the V710 as designed was what amounted to deception.

The situation with the iPhone is not analogous, as there is only one version of the iPhone, sold for use on only one carrier.

ATTM doesn't sell a crippled version of an otherwise more fully featured iPhone; there is only one crippled version of the iPhone available.

[huntm856]

bluetooth sync on iphone is obsolete - it constantlys push syncs over the phone network.

The iPhone push syncs *what* OTA? Are you talking about MobileMe? That sort of syncing has very little to do with the sorts of things you can do with BT OBEX.

[Vatothe0]

Can't argue with you about one thing: Apple's specs. do not clearly spell out what profiles the device supports, at least not that I could see on their specs. page for the iPhone.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a lawsuit filed on this.

Still, two things:

(1) The iPhone's pathetic BT support has been well-publicized; one of the consequences of the VZW case is that this sort of information gets disseminated about devices now as a matter of course.

(2) It isn't true that Apple 'crippled' bluetooth on the device, at least not in the way VZW did on their version of the Moto V710.

The issue with VZW, as I recall--correct me if I'm wrong--is that the device *as produced by the manufacturer* had multiple profile support. VZW had it crippled in their version, did not (sufficiently?) publicize the fact that the VZW version of the device was crippled in comparison to other versions.

The argument by the plaintiffs was that given the fact that the V710 had already been publicized by Moto and others as having mult-profile BT support, VZW's failure to make note of the fact that they crippled features present in the V710 as designed was what amounted to deception.

The situation with the iPhone is not analogous, as there is only one version of the iPhone, sold for use on only one carrier.

ATTM doesn't sell a crippled version of an otherwise more fully featured iPhone; there is only one crippled version of the iPhone available.

So the handsets that are exclusive to VZW like the EnV don't have "crippled" bluetooth? Your argument doesn't make much sense.