Verizon to end tethering app blockage following $1.25M FCC settlement
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday said Verizon will pay out a $1.25 million settlement for unlawfully blocking customers' access to its network using so-called "tethering apps."
The agreement affects owners of devices running Google's Android operating system and stops Verizon from blocking tethering apps and charging a $20 fee for such access to tiered data subscribers, reports The Washington Post.
During a ten-month investigation, the FCC discovered Verizon requested that Google remove 11 apps from its Android Marketplace which allowed users to bypass the carrier's own built-in tethering functionality that carries a $20 charge. The nation's largest wireless carrier by subscribership apparently promised the FCC it would allow the use of any software on its network, thus asking Google to remove the apps constitutes an unlawful act.
?The massive innovation and investment fueled by the Internet have been driven by consumer choice in both devices and applications,? FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said. ?The steps taken today will not only protect consumer choice, but defend certainty for innovators to continue to deliver new services and apps without fear of being blocked.?
At issue are rules and regulations regarding C-Block spectrum, including the 700 MHz band Verizon purchased in 2008 for $9.63 billion and on which the company launched its 4G LTE network in 2010. The associated rules state "[?] licensees shall not deny, limit or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and Applications of their choice on the licensee?s C-Block network, with certain exceptions."
Tuesday's ruling only affects Android users since Apple's iPhone does not yet operate on 4G networks and customers weren't being charged for use of the third-generation iPad's mobile hot spot feature.
As with a similar case reported today regarding Google's alleged sidestepping of Safari privacy settings, the FCC adopted a "consent decree" which allows Verizon to make a voluntary payment without admitting liability.
In a statement issued by Verizon, the company said the consent decree "puts behind us concerns related to employee?s communications with an app store operator about tethering applications, and allows us to focus on serving our customers."
The agreement affects owners of devices running Google's Android operating system and stops Verizon from blocking tethering apps and charging a $20 fee for such access to tiered data subscribers, reports The Washington Post.
During a ten-month investigation, the FCC discovered Verizon requested that Google remove 11 apps from its Android Marketplace which allowed users to bypass the carrier's own built-in tethering functionality that carries a $20 charge. The nation's largest wireless carrier by subscribership apparently promised the FCC it would allow the use of any software on its network, thus asking Google to remove the apps constitutes an unlawful act.
?The massive innovation and investment fueled by the Internet have been driven by consumer choice in both devices and applications,? FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said. ?The steps taken today will not only protect consumer choice, but defend certainty for innovators to continue to deliver new services and apps without fear of being blocked.?
At issue are rules and regulations regarding C-Block spectrum, including the 700 MHz band Verizon purchased in 2008 for $9.63 billion and on which the company launched its 4G LTE network in 2010. The associated rules state "[?] licensees shall not deny, limit or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and Applications of their choice on the licensee?s C-Block network, with certain exceptions."
Tuesday's ruling only affects Android users since Apple's iPhone does not yet operate on 4G networks and customers weren't being charged for use of the third-generation iPad's mobile hot spot feature.
As with a similar case reported today regarding Google's alleged sidestepping of Safari privacy settings, the FCC adopted a "consent decree" which allows Verizon to make a voluntary payment without admitting liability.
In a statement issued by Verizon, the company said the consent decree "puts behind us concerns related to employee?s communications with an app store operator about tethering applications, and allows us to focus on serving our customers."
Comments
I love the last line in the story.
"In a statement issued by Verizon, the company said the consent decree "puts behind us concerns related to employee’s communications with an app store operator about tethering applications, and allows us to focus on serving our customers."
Yeah, right! If they had focused on their customers they would have never blocked tethering to begin with.
Now where is the investigation into SMS costs?
This is a big deal. I hope other cases come up and all blockages and restrictions are removed. Data is data no matter what form it takes as it floats through the airwaves and fiber optic cables.
This also makes Android more attractive than iOS for now. It could save a lot of money for all of the users.
It might all be 1's and 0's if it's digital but there are distinct differences in cost for various data types and transmission methods that make the "data is data" comment axiomatically inaccurate.
Hopefully this is a sign of the times. It does look like AT&T is slowly moving in this direction any ways. The sooner carriers embrace the concept that data is data and chage for bits transmitted the better off we will all be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That's funny because both ATT and Sprint block FoxFi from the Google Play store while VZW does not. I guess the difference is the LTE network and the C block spectrum it uses.
Since Sprint allows truly unlimited data on the phone, you would see people blow through 20 GB and more of data a month. In fact, you already see this with all the rooted Android phones where people tether to computers or tablets against their TOS. They do offer an optional tether plan though but most people just prefer to root or jailbreak to avoid that fee. With all the other carriers now offering shared data plans, Sprint might have to adapt to allow a capped amount of free tethering a month. They do not plan to end unlimited data on phones anytime soon so this might be a good option.
I absolutely hate this mindless concept of "data is data" without any other consideration. What we're talking about here is not all data but general internet traffic.
For this type of metered traffic with this type of transmission method I wholeheartedly agree that charging for the luxury of tethering is extortion. If we're talking about unlimited/unlimited cellular data plans then I see how and why the carriers should not be required to offer tethering.
tether.com - Has worked well for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Hopefully this is a sign of the times. It does look like AT&T is slowly moving in this direction any ways. The sooner carriers embrace the concept that data is data and chage for bits transmitted the better off we will all be.
I'd be willing to pay for more bits when it comes to voice. AT&T voice quality is horrible and has been since they got rid of analog.
I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. In the end data is data or bits are bits as such iit should not really matter how you use your allocation of bits.
Sure different technologies may have different cost profiles for the carriers. One could suggest that LTE might be more expensive than previous technologies. But that doesn't matter as a customer you pay for that access.
On the flip side I see some of the carriers concerns also. Make it too easy to suck out bits and you end up with congestion and unhappy customers.
If you truly believe that in the "data is data" mantra then make an argument that you shouldn't be charged for voice minutes but the data those voice calls use.
Whose fault is those unlimited plans? Frankly for a service derived from a telephone company, (companies used to metered service) it looks like a major mistake as it gives the companies no way to ration usage.
I understand the technical side of the mix, the last thing I would want is my service going to hell because a bunch of guys are streaming porn over the network. The way to deal with that is to make such activity expensive enough that it causes people to pause and consider their balances.
In any event when you look at today's situation where most people pay for a fixed amount of transfer capacity each month I really don't see why charging for a specific type of usage for that capacity is allowed. If AT&T and others thought a bit about this, I thinkmtheynwould realize that they can make more money by freely allowing tethering. It just means that many more customers will be buying additional data allotments. For those with greater discipline they may be able to stick with their basic allotment, if so AT&T isn't impacted negatively.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
If you truly believe that in the "data is data" mantra then make an argument that you shouldn't be charged for voice minutes but the data those voice calls use.
And just like that, you've solved a problem we've had for a century: absolutely inexcusable call audio quality.
If what you've said gets put into effect, telecoms will push FLAC/ALAC audio across the airwaves, and all microphones/speakers in phones will be upgraded to take advantage of it.
Congratulations!
That isn't hard to do. For users of Voice over IP software they effectively do that now. As to cwll phones a and "normal" cell phone calls is that really a bad thing? Effectively being charged by the minute is very similar to charging by the bit anyways if not the same thing.
The big difference is that being charged by the bit scales the charges based on the technology used. That is a voice communications is effectively cheaper than a video transmission for a given length of communications. This is a good thing as people aware of the difference can wisely use their bandwidth based on the price they are willing to pay.
What you state above has nothing to do with the "data is data" concept. What you're referring to is the same data over the same medium being sent to different devices. That is the not the same as referring to voice call data and HTTP traffic as all being the same simply because they are all technically data. It would be liking calling a tree and human and a rock all the same thing because we are all made of elements.
Not necessarily true.
Let's say that you need one set of data in virtually real time where lags of even tens of milliseconds could cause a problem (such as voice calls). Other data is in no hurry and can be delivered in a less urgent matter, but still requires some urgency (such as Internet usage). Other data is such that even a delay of a couple of seconds isn't a big deal (MMS messages).
The cost could easily be different for those three types of data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This should trickle to the other carriers, namely AT&T.
Now where is the investigation into SMS costs?
It won't spread by this decision. This is related to the 700MHz auction from a few years back that only involves Verizon. It's basically against the provisions that the FCC put forth for the spectrum.
I see that but it sets a precedence and since Verizon is still the top carrier it sets one that will be hard for AT&T to ignore. If you can get free tethering with your LTE iPhone on Verizon or have to pay for at least 4GB on AT&T to get it (even though if you do tether you probably want at least 4GB) then AT&T will just look bad in comparison. I'm fully expecting that AT&T follows without any any FCC input on the matter.