One might also need to check all the relevant court findings, and how the courts might have interpreted the regs. That's called "case law", and can be just as binding.Originally Posted by taoman54
|
|
|
|
|
I've got more phones than fingers
You snooze, you lose. Lol.
Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]
Learning Android root on my SGSIII while waiting for Ubuntu Phone OS.
The Borg has assimilated US: Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending ~ "Resistance is futile."
Perspective instantiates reality.
I have a blue tooth
One might also need to check all the relevant court findings, and how the courts might have interpreted the regs. That's called "case law", and can be just as binding.
I've climbed a cellphone tower
I think you were asking how best to donate all of your earnings to Verizon.OP here....
After the first two pages of replies, I got lost... what the heck did I ask originally?
I've got more phones than fingers
Precisely. The broader language in legal documents is applied to specific instances and 'cases' through the legal interpretation inherent in the trial process; the outcome is then is codified as 'case law'.
Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]
Last edited by TC_Mits; 07-27-2012 at 06:58 PM.
I've got more phones than fingers
Did you forget this is Hofo.OP here....
After the first two pages of replies, I got lost... what the heck did I ask originally?
I usually support government regulation, but It is unfortunate that the government over-regulated and killed the AT&T/ T-Mobile Merger
The best explanation of the pricing nutiness in the industry.
Why Sprint and T-Mo will always suck.
The only way to end the pricing insanity is to eliminate contracts and subsidies.
I want Wifi calling on AT&T.
If you text while driving, you're an idiot. End of story.
Radiation is good
Why do many readers think the FCC rules may prevent throttling? There must be a source or rumor that started this belief because the rules don't appear to address the issue. Where did the original idea come from?
Throttling has been around for years and VZW is upfront that they may throttle 4G in the future.
I've got more phones than fingers
From this thread on July 13:
[~#159]
Reply: [~#161]
From the linked A-P article:
"(eg. they can't throttle you)"
Zappy, you're going around in circles now. This is old ground.
Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]
Last edited by TC_Mits; 07-28-2012 at 06:40 PM.
I've got more phones than fingers
Tethering is now legal on vzw! It appears that the FCC 700C regs do, indeed and after all, prevent Vzw from doing some things that are not specifically referred to by name. Specifically due to those FCC regs, it can't block or charge extra for tethering -- in fact it paid a settlement of a paltry $1.25M for pressuring Google to remove tethering apps from the PlayPlace.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/...harge-fee-fcc/
PdaNet should be back in stock by now for download.
Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]
I've climbed a cellphone tower
After having read the order from the FCC, I disagree with the journalist/blogger's interpretation, that VZW must allow free tethering. The actual order states that VZW cannot block 3rd party tethering apps and various other 3rd party apps. It does not state that VZW must allow tethering for free.
I've got more phones than fingers
OK. But it can't charge you to use a third party app, and it would have to alter its current plan structure to add a blanket tethering charge, which could happen down the road, I suppose. So, for the moment at least, tethering with 3d party apps is free and legal -- courtesy of the FCC 700C regs (even though they don't include anywhere the word "tether" ).
"There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth . . ."
Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]
I've got more phones than fingers
Right. It is OK with any metered plan. They can still go after it on the unlimited plans, probably because of a clause about "damage to the network" or "interference of services" or something along those lines.
I've got more phones than fingers
Did the FCC review or comment on that distinction?
And on what basis does vzw claim the right to discriminate in that way?
*IF* it is invoking the TOS, what language is said to apply and how is it unique to unlimited data without applying to tiered plans eqially?
Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]
Last edited by TC_Mits; 08-05-2012 at 03:47 PM.
I've climbed a cellphone tower
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...-12-1228A1.pdf
I've got more phones than fingers
That's a 12 page document. Would you care to be more specific?
OK. I've gone through it quickly a cupla times. I noted nothing specifically excluding unlimited plans from the terms of the decree. Much general language upholding the broad validity of the 700C regs -- beyond tethering merely. Don't see anything in the specific text of the FCC document Sam linked to that bolsters or validates GSM's claim that unlimited data plans are not able to tether on exactly the same basis as tiered plans.
The language GSMinCT refers to above is very likely discriminatorily inapplicable since it could only be invoked on the basis of the potential volume of data such a tethered LTE device could process.
Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]
Last edited by TC_Mits; 08-05-2012 at 04:49 PM.
I've climbed a cellphone tower
Quite specifically, the only mention of tethering in the decree, is that VZW cannot block 3rd party tethering apps. It does not prohibit VZW from charging for tethering, only from blocking those apps. There is also a mention of VZW allowing customers on usage based plans (tiered data?) to drop their subscription to VZW Mobile Connect without penalty. But nowhere in that document does it state "VZW must allow free tethering."
Can you use the Nexus One on the Unlimited plan for $79/month?
Bookmarks