Verizon to stop blocking tethering apps, settles with FCC

[Zappy]

I'm thinking this calls for swift, decisive action. There are some email addresses in the document . . .

I doubt the FCC would find that an extra $20 fee on unlimited accounts equates to limiting or restricting. For $30 a customer gets unlimited data on a single device or for $50 they get unlimited data on the primary and tethered devices. Compare that to usage based plans and its a much better deal. IMO charging $60 for 2GB severely limits what a customer can do with their device but the FCC doesn't control pricing.

I'm guessing the decree was the result of many months of negotiating between the FCC and VZW. IMO VZW was the winner here. They had already decided to include tethering as a free feature on usage based accounts (Share Everything), they didn't have to refund previously collected MBC fees from usage based accounts, and unlimited accounts still pay an extra fee for tethering.

[Sam73065]

I doubt the FCC would find that an extra $20 fee on unlimited accounts equates to limiting or restricting. For $30 a customer gets unlimited data on a single device or for $50 they get unlimited data on the primary and tethered devices. Compare that to usage based plans and its a much better deal. IMO charging $60 for 2GB severely limits what a customer can do with their device but the FCC doesn't control pricing.

I'm guessing the decree was the result of many months of negotiating between the FCC and VZW. IMO VZW was the winner here. They had already decided to include tethering as a free feature on usage based accounts (Share Everything), they didn't have to refund previously collected MBC fees from usage based accounts, and unlimited accounts still pay an extra fee for tethering.

Zappy, you're wasting your keystrokes. He only acknowledges the facts which he feels support his own preconceptions of how reality should be. For everything else he creates nonsensical and often circular arguments with very little fact. Obviously I'd love to have unlimited data w/free unlimited tethering. Actually I wouldn't mind if VZW would just comp me $200-300 month and seeing as my bill is about $116, they could just mail me the difference. But to continue to beat this dead horse while we wait to see VZW's implementation of the FCC order is well beyond senseless. At this point, we simply need to wait out the implementation and then afterwards anyone who disagrees with that implementation, has the right to appeal to the FCC. Meanwhile we're just watching the town drunk on his stool, drooling down his shirt incomprehensibly while ranting about the wrongs of the world. And pointing out to him that it's closing time and to go home until the taps reopen isn't seeming to do any good....

[TC_Mits]

@Zappy & Sam

Read my sig. I've conceded that the conglomerate oligarchy bought the US government a couple of years ago. I'm a bit more the realist than you credit me for. What the zdnet blog says vzw is doing is in clear violation of the explicit text of the regs -- no interpretation required. But I'm not so naïve as to believe it can't possibly get away with it.

In fact, **IF** the $20 -- STAYS $20, and -- buys me vzw-certified *unthrottled* unlimited LTE tethering then it's not a bad deal at all. And it should be unthrottled anyway since charging for that is also illegal as hell.

Yes, I think we should fight it, but more because it's wrong than because it's so horribly onerous. It is not a dead horse, and more battles in war have been lost by 'waiting it out' than probably any other single strategic error.

Zappy, I agree 100%: "IMO VZW was the winner here."

Btw, Sam, your ad hominem is WAY over-the-top. You should put yourself on report, lol.


newyork?


Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]

[justalurker]

There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking going on ... and yes, I too wish that the consent decree required Verizon to allow tethering on unlimited accounts. But the decree does not allow that. If your data is unlimited you are not allowed to tether without paying an additional fee.

It does not matter which tethering app you use (the consent decree allows use of alternative apps). Nothing in the consent decree requires Verizon to not charge unlimited data customers for tethering. Only usage based customers get to use data freely.

[veriztd]

If your data is unlimited you are not allowed to tether without paying an additional fee.

It does not matter which tethering app you use (the consent decree allows use of alternative apps). Nothing in the consent decree requires Verizon to not charge unlimited data customers for tethering. Only usage based customers get to use data freely.

I just started doing so with an application called FoxFi without any difficulty or additional tethering feature required. I have the $30 unlimited data feature on my Motorola Droid Razr in an LTE market.

Are you absolutely certain about your statement ??

[Vatothe0]

I just started doing so with an application called FoxFi without any difficulty or additional tethering feature required. I have the $30 unlimited data feature on my Motorola Droid Razr in an LTE market.

Are you absolutely certain about your statement ??

I just drove my car 130 mph, are you sure that's not allowed?

[TC_Mits]

Everything posted in this thread *after* August 4 that suggests a difficulty with free 4G LTE tethering on vzw directly contradicts the professional legal opinions posted here before August 4 that carefully and fully explain the issues involved. None of these later posts both demonstrate adequate understanding of the attorney's analyses and explicitly take them into account.

The overall effect of these later poorly thought out and often simplistic opinions tends toward inducing fear in folks with unlimited data in a way that would seem to accord well with the economic best interest of Verizon Wireless.


Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]

[veriztd]

I just drove my car 130 mph, are you sure that's not allowed?

What does that statement have to do with the topic discussion? I offered a direct contradiction to a prior statement (not even yours) and that's the best you can come up with ??? Pathetic !!

[taoman54]

I just drove my car 130 mph, are you sure that's not allowed?

Your gratuitous post is a rather ludicrous analogy. Speed limit signs are clearly posted so there is no ambiguity. After the FCC's Consent Decree regarding tethering on the 700Mhz C-Block and based on the myriad different opinions on the subject in this and other threads it is clear there are legitimate questions as to exactly what is and is not allowed regarding tethering in the C-block.

[Zappy]

I would suggest the the ambiguity lies with those that believe that unlimited data is protected under the 700 regs. This is not the case.

[TC_Mits]

Does anyone believe the 700 MHz C-band FCC regulations protect the unlimited data plan/feature itself? That's protected only by contract and industry practice. The regs apply to how it can be used by those who have it.

As for the ambiguities we must contend with in trying to understand how UL data can legitimately be used, I think the biggest trap would be to falsely assume that the vzw interpretation must necessarily correctly reflect the law as it applies to our usage of our UL data lines.

It will remain possible that vzw's policies and applicable law are at odds. The simple existence of the consent decree is proof positive of that


Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]

[Zappy]

VZW allows unlimited accounts to use data anyway they want. They simply charge an extra $30 for tethering. Fairly straight forward and within the FCC rules which do not regulate pricing. To my reading this was confirmed with the recent FCC publications.

[ShortSxit]

Your gratuitous post is a rather ludicrous analogy. Speed limit signs are clearly posted so there is no ambiguity. After the FCC's Consent Decree regarding tethering on the 700Mhz C-Block and based on the myriad different opinions on the subject in this and other threads it is clear there are legitimate questions as to exactly what is and is not allowed regarding tethering in the C-block.

The analogy is actually spot on. Just because Verizon doesn't enforce a rule (or at the very least, doesn't catch everybody) doesn't mean that the rule doesn't exist.

[TC_Mits]

VZW allows unlimited accounts to use data anyway they want. They simply charge an extra $30 for tethering. Fairly straight forward and within the FCC rules which do not regulate pricing. To my reading this was confirmed with the recent FCC publications.

Zappy, you have repeated your reading on multiple threads and approaching ad nauseam times. You could be right and I have allowed for that possibility even as I post that I believe you are more likely wrong. Does your repeated need to repeat your understanding all over mean that you are completely certain that you're right and you expect everyone to acknowledge your prescience?

.

. . .
It will remain possible that vzw's policies and applicable law are at odds. The simple existence of the consent decree is proof positive of that.

Are you claiming to have sure and certain knowledge that what I state as no more than a possibilty is in fact and with no doubt whatsoever totally impossible?


Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]

[newyork4me]

Zappy, you have repeated your reading on multiple threads and approaching ad nauseam times. You could be right and I have allowed for that possibility even as I post that I believe you are more likely wrong. Does your repeated need to repeat your understanding all over mean that you are completely certain that you're right and you expect everyone to acknowledge your prescience?

.

Are you claiming to have sure and certain knowledge that what I state as no more than a possibilty is in fact and with no doubt whatsoever totally impossible?


Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]

I'm glad that this has been a busy month for me at work so I didn't get sucked into this.

FWIW, though, I believe TC_Mits is 100% correct and has done a great job explaining why.