Verizon to stop blocking tethering apps, settles with FCC

[ShortSxit]

You guys really want to continue this?

That paragraph has been repeatedly misquoted out of context. It does not apply to third-party apps. That is well explained in this thread and the one linked to in post #247, I think.

Would you like a multi-paragraph long-winded analysis or is this 'word to the wise . . . sufficient'?

Like I asked before, do you think that if you keep repeating yourself by claiming that you already proved something earlier in this thread or in a different thread, that it somehow becomes true?

You can keep claiming that it was "well explained" already, but you conveniently never manage to bring up that proof again. Going back to read the thread that you linked to, it was no different than this thread: you calling your opinions "proof." As soon as somebody disagrees with you, you resort to making accusations.

As somebody that has followed both threads, not stated an opinion on the matter, and is impartial as this doesn't affect me, all I have seen is:

-You ignore proof
-You claim that everybody elses' proof doesn't count, is taken out of context, or is wrong
-You claim that a lack of evidence is evidence in itself to prove your argument
-You repeatedly say that you've already proved your argument or that the proof to your argument has already been posted. Despite the fact that you make that claim at least half a dozen times, you refuse to repost whatever proof you have.
-Some of what you do claim as proof is nothing more than the same argument that has gone in circles at least a dozen times between the two threads.
-You claim that Zappy (and others) are repetitive, yet you've beaten the horse back to life, then to death again.
-Anybody or any post that doesn't agree with you is an ad-hominem. (Was that a word-of-the-day in a calender or something? All of a sudden, you've started using it in almost every post.)
-Anybody or any post that doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion is wrong, no matter what amount of proof they have.
-You don't post any sources. Apparently you don't need sources as you keep stating your opinion as fact.
-You completely refuse to answer anybody's questions regarding how you came to your conclusion, other than saying that it was "earlier in the post."
-You completely refuse to answer anybody's questions regarding what proof you have or what sources you're citing, other than saying that it was "earlier in the post."
-You like to type "ad-hominem"
-You probably have a thesaurus on your desk.

[justalurker]

It might save time and reduce eyestrain if folks want to check out this link from early in this thread:
http://www.howardforums.com/showthre...ctions-already

An interesting thread, with opinions posted by some people that I respect. But before you get too hog wild on "liberally quoting" that thread look for sources. Do you have any authoritative Verizon Wireless or FCC sources to point to that back up the opinions expressed in that thread?

Quoting a Howard Forums poster's opinion previously posted is not an authoritative statement from Verizon Wireless or the FCC.

[TC_Mits]

I'll take that a a request for more repetitive verbiage -- from the documents, mostly.

Going to bed now. But I'll get to it soon.

Truly, it seems like overkill to me.
We certainly have our "avalanche of dense vetbiage".

[Zappy]

That paragraph has been repeatedly misquoted out of context. It does not apply to third-party apps. That is well explained in this thread and the one linked to in post #247, I think.

1 - Has the FCC or VZW have made a statement or taken an action that confirms your belief that the statement has been taken out of context?

2 - Think about this for a minute. The updated post FCC Decree VZW customer agreement has new language which directly contradicts your belief, yet you continue to state that 3rd party apps are excluded, even though the new language explicitly includes a fee for running 3rd party tethering apps.

3 - Your belief is that he FCC made the decision to restrict VZW's right to charge an extra fee for an exponential increase in data usage. What motive would the FCC have to do that?

[TC_Mits]

1-The FCC is not going to parse its documents for us. Vzw obviously is not an impartial source of anything in all this.

2. I have posted above that I am not yet convinced of whether or not that change means what you say it means.

3. Vzw does not feel it must charge extra to UL users moving from 3g to LTE. Why should it be so important to charge extra for tethering. The increase in data use is analogous.
The FCC's motive is -- clear, obvious, self-evident, not in need of explanation . . . C''mon, Zappy, the motive question is inane.

[htcgoogle]

Like I asked before, do you think that if you keep repeating yourself by claiming that you already proved something earlier in this thread or in a different thread, that it somehow becomes true?

You can keep claiming that it was "well explained" already, but you conveniently never manage to bring up that proof again. Going back to read the thread that you linked to, it was no different than this thread: you calling your opinions "proof." As soon as somebody disagrees with you, you resort to making accusations.

As somebody that has followed both threads, not stated an opinion on the matter, and is impartial as this doesn't affect me, all I have seen is:

-You ignore proof
-You claim that everybody elses' proof doesn't count, is taken out of context, or is wrong
-You claim that a lack of evidence is evidence in itself to prove your argument
-You repeatedly say that you've already proved your argument or that the proof to your argument has already been posted. Despite the fact that you make that claim at least half a dozen times, you refuse to repost whatever proof you have.
-Some of what you do claim as proof is nothing more than the same argument that has gone in circles at least a dozen times between the two threads.
-You claim that Zappy (and others) are repetitive, yet you've beaten the horse back to life, then to death again.
-Anybody or any post that doesn't agree with you is an ad-hominem. (Was that a word-of-the-day in a calender or something? All of a sudden, you've started using it in almost every post.)
-Anybody or any post that doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion is wrong, no matter what amount of proof they have.
-You don't post any sources. Apparently you don't need sources as you keep stating your opinion as fact.
-You completely refuse to answer anybody's questions regarding how you came to your conclusion, other than saying that it was "earlier in the post."
-You completely refuse to answer anybody's questions regarding what proof you have or what sources you're citing, other than saying that it was "earlier in the post."
-You like to type "ad-hominem"
-You probably have a thesaurus on your desk.

That's the American way. Dont like America then goto China

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[TC_Mits]

This should be helpful to those seeking simply to understand. It it the first quoting of the passage in question and one attorney's understanding of it.

I recognize, however, that this will be as water off a duck's back to most of those now posting here. Therefore, I don't repost these points as "proof" of anything. If anyone is so inclined they are, of course, free to go back to the text -- as advised --- and see for themselves what is "quite clear" and what is not.

#21 on Aug. 1

Look like this doesn't apply to unlimited data plans. Got this quote from the FCC ruling.

"Verizon Wireless customers on usage-based plans who subscribe to Mobile Broadband Connect for tethering may terminate their subscription to that service without penalty."

#22 on Aug. 1

Read the whole order. It is quite clear that the reference to Mobile Broadband Connect was for Verizon's own tethering solution--carrier provided. That they cannot block or limit 3rd party Apps (FoxFi, PDAnet, etc.) from providing tethering for free applies to ALL customers who can access the C-block spectrum.

I predict that some of these here combatants will find it 'clear as mud', so to speak, and so the avalanche will continue.
(See #247.)

[Zappy]

2. I have posted above that I am not yet convinced of whether or not that change means what you say it means.

In that case you must have an alternate interpretation of this language -

You may use Mobile Hotspot or any other Wi-Fi hotspot or tethering service to use your smartphone or basic phone as a Wi-Fi hotspot or to tether it to your computer or tablet. If you subscribe to a data plan or package with an unlimited data allowance, there is an additional monthly fee to do so.

3. Vzw does not feel it must charge extra to UL users moving from 3g to LTE. Why should it be so important to charge extra for tethering. The increase in data use is analogous.

For most users there is little if any additional data usage when they move from 3G to 4G. OTOH, there is huge data increase when an UL account moves from providing data to a smartphone to tethering 5 laptops.

The FCC's motive is -- clear, obvious, self-evident, not in need of explanation . . .

I agree. The motive was to ivestigate VZW compliance with the 700 rules, which VZW has complied with by the change in the agreement above and restoration of tethering apps in the app store. The FCC had no motive to change VZW UL business model.

Read the whole order. It is quite clear that the reference to Mobile Broadband Connect was for Verizon's own tethering solution--carrier provided. That they cannot block or limit 3rd party Apps (FoxFi, PDAnet, etc.) from providing tethering for free applies to ALL customers who can access the C-block spectrum.

Where in the FCC Decree is Mobile Broadband Connect defined solely as VZW's own tethering solution? Where in the FCC Decree does it say that VZW must allow 3rd Party tethering on ALL account types for free?

[TC_Mits]

In that case you must have an alternate interpretation of this language -
. . .

OK. This is a good example of you not grasping a previously presented point and proceeding to repost your position as though no tesponse had been made:

. . .
EDIT: rereading, it's not self-evident to me that "other . . . tethering service' is a reference to third-party apps. Not altogether certain what it refers to. . . maybe if I saw it in a larger context.

.

. . .
For most users there is little if any additional data usage when they move from 3G to 4G. . . .

In the intro address at the RAZR HD /M announcement event just past Dennis Woodside, Moto CEO, stated categorically that in the *typical* case of a user moving from 3g to LTE data use increases by an order of magnitude -- ten times! You have a source, I presume, to send him along with your note advising that he fire that research team for incompetence?

.

. . .
Where in the FCC Decree is Mobile Broadband Connect defined solely as VZW's own tethering solution? Where in the FCC Decree does it say that VZW must allow 3rd Party tethering on ALL account types for free?

Clear as mud, huh?

[Zappy]

OK. This is a good example of you not grasping a previously presented point and proceeding to repost your position as though no tesponse had been made.

Link to the prior post where you presented the alternate interpretation of the new language?

To support your 10x multiple statement the averages would have to jump to 10 to 20 GB per user.

http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Bus...NIBrd_ST_U.htm

Verizon said the average customer data usage per smartphone is between 1 GB and 2 GB per month.

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/...w-2/2012-08-24

According to the new data, first reported by Tech News Daily, the vast majority of smartphone subscribers at Verizon Wireless (NYSE:VZ), AT&T Mobility (NYSE:T), Sprint Nextel (NYSE:S) and T-Mobile USA do not use more than 2 GB of data per month, which is the base tier for most usage-based smartphone data plans (Sprint still offers unlimited smartphone data).

Here is another quote from the VZW website regarding tethering.

Data packages may not be used to tether your Smartphone or basic phone to a computer or tablet, or as a Wi-Fi® hotspot, unless you subscribe to Mobile Hotspot or Mobile Broadband Connect.

That language makes it clear that tethering without paying for MHS/MBC was never allowed.

[ShortSxit]

This should be helpful to those seeking simply to understand. It it the first quoting of the passage in question and one attorney's understanding of it.

I recognize, however, that this will be as water off a duck's back to most of those now posting here. Therefore, I don't repost these points as "proof" of anything. If anyone is so inclined they are, of course, free to go back to the text -- as advised --- and see for themselves what is "quite clear" and what is not.

#21 on Aug. 1


#22 on Aug. 1


I predict that some of these here combatants will find it 'clear as mud', so to speak, and so the avalanche will continue.
(See #247.)

The avalanche continues as you refuse to answer a single question. Your "evidence" is your ability to keep repeating that you have evidence and that we just need to keep re-reading it. Oh, and a quote from a fellow HoFo member.

Evidence that goes against your stance (i.e. quotes posted from VZW, the FCC, and contract language) "doesn't count," as it's taken out of context. It seems anything that goes against your view "doesn't count" or is "taken out of context," but for some reason a post from another HoFo member that kind of agrees with you proves your case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Are you going to keep repeating that all the evidence needed is buried somewhere in this thread, or are you going to post it? You keep claiming that you will re-post it, yet here we are with you posting the same thing you've posted over the last dozen pages.

[Zappy]

Here is an easy to understand summary of the FCC Decree.

[Sam73065]

Here is an easy to understand summary of the FCC Decree.

Zappy it is time that you quit offering proof and sources of the information on which your opinions are based. However if you wish, you may refer to my posts and offer vague references to my opinions. As soon as I get my blog up and running, you can refer to me as a reliable bloggist or something equally bloated sounding.

[TC_Mits]

WHOA!

I haven't bothered to read anything else. Where did I make a statement about 10x the data?

I made no such statement. I don't need to support it. I'm sure you can find the video, if you care to watch it. But if you need a link I'll be happy to provide one.

If that's the depth of comprehension here -- asking me to support a statement made by the Moto CEO --- then it's no wonder y'all can't grasp the gist of the consent decree.

[Zappy]

Where did I make a statement about 10x the data?

You used the Moto statement and the added emphasis on the 10x! to validate your prior statement -

Vzw does not feel it must charge extra to UL users moving from 3g to LTE. Why should it be so important to charge extra for tethering. The increase in data use is analogous.