Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: The Enforcement Bureau has dismissed Nguyen v Verizon

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,477
    Feedback Score
    0

    The Enforcement Bureau has dismissed Nguyen v Verizon


    Just a snippet

    Complainant Alex Nguyen (Nguyen) filed a formal complaint under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),1 alleging that Verizon Wireless (Verizon) violated the Act, and various Commission rules and orders, by: (a) unlawfully interfering with customers’ ability to use devices or applications of their choice on Verizon’s network; (b) interfering with edge providers’ ability to develop devices and applications of their choice; and (c) failing to adequately disclose its network management practices. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny Nguyen’s Complaint for failure to satisfy its burden of proving by competent evidence that Verizon violated the Act or the Commission’s rules or orders. Rather than support its claims with sworn affidavits from witnesses with personal knowledge of the facts, the Nguyen Complaint rests almost entirely on unverified news reports and blog posts.

    https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-674A1.pdf

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    337
    Feedback Score
    0
    The FCC, under control of Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, ruled in favor of Verizon? That's shocking. Just shocking.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    2,470
    Device(s)
    Sonim XP8, iPhone XS, Pixel 3 XL
    Carrier(s)
    SouthernLINC, T-Mobile, Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by D.Pham00 View Post
    The FCC, under control of Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, ruled in favor of Verizon? That's shocking. Just shocking.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Hmm. The complaint was filed under the PREVIOUS administration and never went anywhere at all. The same administration who also allowed states to deregulate important telco wireline service .

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,945
    Device(s)
    Motorola MOTO X4, Iphone 6S On VZW (Wife's)
    Carrier(s)
    GoPhone, Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Where are the two posters who used to argue about this ad nauseam last year? Jet somebody and I can't remember the other name. Chris something maybe?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,031
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dust N Bones View Post
    Where are the two posters who used to argue about this ad nauseam last year? Jet somebody and I can't remember the other name. Chris something maybe?
    Cat n hat....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    449
    Device(s)
    iPhone 8 Plus
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CircuitSwitched View Post
    Hmm. The complaint was filed under the PREVIOUS administration and never went anywhere at all. The same administration who also allowed states to deregulate important telco wireline service .
    I hate how politics keep getting dragged into everything and love to blame the new administration for no reason at all. Maybe the suit got dropped case their was no merit at all for it.


    Sent from my iPhone using HoFo

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,547
    Device(s)
    iPhone SE
    Carrier(s)
    Starting to think they all suck
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post

    Just a snippet

    Complainant Alex Nguyen (Nguyen) filed a formal complaint under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),1 alleging that Verizon Wireless (Verizon) violated the Act, and various Commission rules and orders, by: (a) unlawfully interfering with customers’ ability to use devices or applications of their choice on Verizon’s network; (b) interfering with edge providers’ ability to develop devices and applications of their choice; and (c) failing to adequately disclose its network management practices. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny Nguyen’s Complaint for failure to satisfy its burden of proving by competent evidence that Verizon violated the Act or the Commission’s rules or orders. Rather than support its claims with sworn affidavits from witnesses with personal knowledge of the facts, the Nguyen Complaint rests almost entirely on unverified news reports and blog posts.

    https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-674A1.pdf
    Leave it to a shill to laugh at VZW basically escaping their responsibility to honor specific guidelines tied to their LICENSURE, not OWNERSHIP, of public airwaves.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using HoFo mobile app

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,547
    Device(s)
    iPhone SE
    Carrier(s)
    Starting to think they all suck
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CircuitSwitched View Post
    Hmm. The complaint was filed under the PREVIOUS administration and never went anywhere at all. The same administration who also allowed states to deregulate important telco wireline service .
    100% true, there was no excuse for then previous administration to lack any haste on ruling, but with the current one you cannot really expect a different outcome.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using HoFo mobile app

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,547
    Device(s)
    iPhone SE
    Carrier(s)
    Starting to think they all suck
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeInPa View Post
    I hate how politics keep getting dragged into everything and love to blame the new administration for no reason at all. Maybe the suit got dropped case their was no merit at all for it.


    Sent from my iPhone using HoFo
    Well, the new administration allowed VZW to skirt Block C rules and impose a 60-day device lock EVEN WHEN PURCHASED AT FULL RETAIL so if that isn't some political sh** I don't know what is.

    If VZW would just get out of the handset game, a place they have no reason to be in the first place, this wouldn't even be necessary.

    All the shills (sorry there isn't a better term) tell me that VZW and every other carrier make no money on EIPs bc they buy equipment at MSRP, so if they're losing money to fraud, salaries, and real estate (stores) why wouldn't they get out of the retail business?

    If they're bleeding money on all of this, and people can simply get their phones at BB, Target, Amazon, Walmart, etc on credit, why doesn't VZW do everyone, like shareholders, customers, etc a favor and close retail to maximize profits?

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using HoFo mobile app

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,816
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11 Pro 256 GB Midnight Green
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Mobility
    Feedback Score
    0
    Carriers make money selling devices at MSRP. Even under MSRP. Only a fool would thing that the big 4 are paying for these devices at that price. As someone who worked closely with a MetroPCS store owner and also is a manager of a small business regarding cellphones, I have never heard of a company paying full MSRP for a phone. For example, we’d by LG K10 phones from Metro at $55 (not exactly that, but you get the idea) and flip them for $120 or so. And I’m sure Metro got them either at that price or even a bit cheaper.


    Sent from my iPhone using HoFo

    Chicago, IL
    2+46+46+46+4

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,477
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by baaadandy View Post
    Leave it to a shill to laugh at VZW basically escaping their responsibility to honor specific guidelines tied to their LICENSURE, not OWNERSHIP, of public airwaves.

    Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using HoFo mobile app
    and reported for trolling. So "Disagree with you=shill". That is an attitude someone with a severe case of narcissism would have. Not saying you are a narcissist. You just have a symptom of one

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,477
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jakeuten View Post
    Carriers make money selling devices at MSRP. Even under MSRP. Only a fool would thing that the big 4 are paying for these devices at that price. As someone who worked closely with a MetroPCS store owner and also is a manager of a small business regarding cellphones, I have never heard of a company paying full MSRP for a phone. For example, we’d by LG K10 phones from Metro at $55 (not exactly that, but you get the idea) and flip them for $120 or so. And I’m sure Metro got them either at that price or even a bit cheaper.


    Sent from my iPhone using HoFo
    wrong. they do pay MSRP, Because Apple and Samsung is going to give ANYONE a discount.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    60
    Feedback Score
    0
    The "enforcement bureau"... Who might they be?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    293
    Device(s)
    Apple iPhone
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless
    Feedback Score
    0
    Some people seem to think that if you repeat something that's wrong over and over again, it will somehow become true.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    18,522
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Please keep politics out of this discussion or this thread will be closed and offending posts deleted. Please stick to the thread tile/subject.
    Don't make me turn this car around.....

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 06:07 PM
  2. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-08-2004, 07:55 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2002, 05:08 PM
  4. Replies: 58
    Last Post: 09-13-2002, 05:44 PM
  5. v60g ring tone - how can i enter the # 4 ?? it has no 4 only 3
    By weiweiwei in forum Rogers/Fido/Chat-r
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-19-2002, 11:56 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks