Is Verizon Breaking FCC Regulations With Locked Bootloaders? 143
First time accepted submitter PcItalian writes with an excerpt from an interesting editorial on XDA Developers: "The open access provision requires Verizon to '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.' It goes on to say, 'The potential for excessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network.' Verizon bought Block C and tried to have the provisions removed. They failed. ... That means if a device uses the Block C frequencies, Verizon cannot insist what apps or firmware it runs. ... So the question is, do any devices use Block C frequencies? Yes. Some are called Hotspots. Others are called the HTC Thunderbolt... [Hotspots] comply with FCC regulations as far as I'm aware. The HTC Thunderbolt, on the other hand, does not. In the list of rules and exceptions for the Block C license, it says this: 'Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section'...'"
Great (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
No... you go to the FCC and let them know, and they fine Verizon... and then Verizon raises its rates to cover the losses and then.... fuck.
The cycle continues (Score:4, Interesting)
Normally I dont agree with that kind of defeatism, but Verizon keeps doing this at every turn: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/solved-verizon-to-pay-25-million-fine-over-mystery-fees.ars [arstechnica.com]. They are just up to the same old unethical behavior as before. Add uninstallable bloatware nagging you to buy things or use in app billing, they are really biting the hand that feeds them. Android phones are their bread and butter, making them cash hand over fist. Add insane data charges and it's really obvious how badly distorted the wireless market is. The ironic part? Google is who bid the c-block up to the open-access provision level. Forcing the winner to accept open access.
Re:The cycle continues (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
that's not a bad idea.
my idea is to have the CEOs of such companies in violation wear a chicken suit in public for 30 days. (the other exec staff don't have to go as chickens but they do have to dress up as some kind of fowl.)
that would bring corporate abuse down to zero faster than you can say 'kernel [sic] sanders'.
or, is that just a crock pot idea?
Re: (Score:3)
Never devise punishments on an empty stomach.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Chicken tastes like.....chicken.
Re: (Score:2)
Pay me what the CEOs are making, and I'll wear a chicken suit for 30 days. These fuckers can take a little humiliation, it doesn't change their bottom line.
These fuckers need to be hit where it hurts the most; the wallet. And I'm not talking about the companies wallet, I mean the HMFIC's personal bank accounts.
Also, convict a company of wrong doing? Did the HMFIC know about it? Since the HMFIC represents the company and the company is a 'person' make the company do the prison time, is the form of the HMF
Re: (Score:2)
highest mother fucker in charge?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But I tend to get rather vindictive towards those that act with impunity simply because they think they can get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The cycle continues (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the way to fix this is to seize all profits made as a result of the violation, and then add a fine on top of that.
In this case, it would be every HTC Thunderbolt Verizon sold (or rather, the profit made therein).
Fines will just be considered a business cost until they actually hurt. $100,000 isn't shit when you've sold $10,000,000* worth of phones in a month.
* Info from the Department of Pulling Numbers from my Ass for the Purpose of an Analogy.
Violate license...lose it (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the way to fix this is to seize all profits made as a result of the violation, and then add a fine on top of that.
The 'fine' should be loss of the license. They appear to have broken the license deliberately to make more money so they should have to repay the money and then lose the license for having proven themselves untrustworthy to have it. This would certainly be disruptive to customers but if governments behaved this way you'd soon see companies taking their responsibilities a lot more seriously and there there would be less need for such forceful action.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go a little farther. Take away the ill gotten gains and fine them. Seize the spectrum and open it. Consumer devices will still work.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh no, no they won't. Without regulation, that particular type of spectrum use won't work, because you'll have would-be players stepping on one another's use. Licensing spectrum is one of the few legitimate purposes for the FCC.
Mind you, other consumer devices could be made to work on that spectrum if we weren't using it for same, but everyone using it now would be ass out.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't hurt the customer so much if they weren't monopolies. If one grocery store lost their license to sell food due to an FDA violation, customers would go to another store. This is handled in the banking industry by requiring insolvent banks to sell to another bank. That way customers can keep their accounts, just with another bank. You you can't mandate that Verizon sell the company and accounts because there are only 4 providers in the country and Verizon is already the largest. If there were
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? How would Intel pull something like that with GCC - next to impossible.
Also the stated "crippling" you talk about would make the P4 look significantly WORSE than the P3, not better. The P4 is the first chip in which x87 instructions got crippled in favor of using SSE. (In the P4, the recommended method for floating point was SSE - even for non-SIMD work.)
Re: (Score:2)
RICO prosecution (Score:2)
Why not a RICO prosecution?
It's clearly a conspiracy on the part of executives to break the law and obtain illegal profits.
Let's seize all the personal assets of these executives, fine them a few million dollars personally and throw them in jail.
When "aggressive billing practices" starts becoming a significant risk of loss of personal fortunes and extensive jail time, then you'll see greater caution.
Re: (Score:2)
> Info from the Department of Pulling Numbers from my Ass for the Purpose of an Analogy.
I bow to you, sir. Obviously, you have escaped beheading at the king's order by teaching the donkey to talk. And even done extra credit by teaching it statistics and numerical analysis.
Re: (Score:1)
In this bullshit version of real-world capitalism, Verizon increases the price and then the competition does as well, simply because they can get away with it. The alternative is that very few people can move carrier because of prohibitive consumer contracts, by the t
Re: (Score:2)
The issue here isn't capitalism, it's failing to heed the warnings of Adam Smith, if you don't have sufficient regulation, this is exactly the kind of bitch slap you get from the invisible hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the prices we paid in the fully-regulated days before the Ma Bell breakup, I'm not sure that regulation would do much to lower prices. Making all companies operate on the same spectrum would help, though.
I recall some pretty high per-minute long distance charges back in the 1970s that's for sure.
However I recall a bit of info from Consumer Reports back in the late 1990s that was interesting. It was a graph of the cost of phone service and airline travel and one some other industry I cannot recall, plotted against time. For each industry, there was a fairly linear drop in pricing up until the date when the industry was "deregulated", and at that date, there was a deflection point followed by a new linear dec
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing was that the rate of price decrease before the deregulation date was greater than after deregulation.
I would suggest, though of course I can't prove, that the deregulation allowed all sorts of inefficiencies to be wrung out of the system at once. Once all the low-hanging fruit are gone, though, it's a lot harder to keep increasing efficiency at the same rate forever.
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing was that the rate of price decrease before the deregulation date was greater than after deregulation.
I would suggest, though of course I can't prove, that the deregulation allowed all sorts of inefficiencies to be wrung out of the system at once. Once all the low-hanging fruit are gone, though, it's a lot harder to keep increasing efficiency at the same rate forever.
Sure, that would be a good story if there was a fast drop at deregulation followed at some later time by a slower drop - but these graphs did not show that. The graphs showed relatively steep drops before dereg, and shallower ones after, with no particular big dips or drops in the time around deregulation.
Now my memory of a graph in a consumer mag from more than a decade ago is not particularly convincing - it would be nice if we could find some more reliable data.
Re: (Score:3)
And nationalization is even worse. Why does it appeal so much to you? Is there some special expertise in government that makes running a phone company a good idea? It's not like the post office, which at least has the noble concept of providing all citizens access to certain basic communication at a low price via a mechanism that the governme
Re: (Score:2)
To further your point, Do we really want a national wireless provider that would invariably have a total monopoly on wireless service and is run like the Post Office? Judging on how horribly the Post Office is run, I'd say not.
If anything, we have too MUCH regulation in place. The biggest one being the ability of wireless carriers to "buy" blocks of spectrum, thus locking out all other players. It's just another form of corporatism (Fascism without genocide) that our go
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And nationalization is even worse. Why does it appeal so much to you?
Because I've been through privatization of both a national phone service, national electricity service and national train service. In all cases, the privatization made service quality go straight down, and prices straight up. Exactly the opposite of what the uninformed right thinks will happen.
Is there some special expertise in government that makes running a phone company a good idea?
Yes, there is. The expertise in keeping the money local. They are not out to rip you off or make their CEO or investors richer.
The government won't sell you cheap Chinese equipment at a twelve time markup because t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if you don't have sufficient regulation...
I think the problem is not so much insufficient regulation so much as ineffectual regulation. If the consequence of violating the regulations is a 'tut, tut' and (possibly) confiscating their pocket change is it any wonder that they flout the rules?
Re: (Score:2)
Sufficient regulation implies that it's effectual.
Re: (Score:2)
No the issue here is as usual to much regulation, and overly centralized regulation rather than two little. The regulation has created the entry barriers and made the market to little to function properly. Spectrum allocation should be in that hands of state and local municipalities, NOT the federal government.
Downside its likely nation wide cellular service with a single handset would be difficult, up side the customer would have a much more competitive market and lower costs for service around their hom
Re: (Score:2)
That's bullshit, the real barrier to entry is that it's extremely expensive to put up your own network and there's scarcity issue with spectrum. Without FCC regulation the barriers to entry would be even more significant as you'd not only have to build the infrastructure, but you'd also have a race to install the most powerful equipment possible to blast over everybody elses equipment.
Like I said, this is the kind of bitch slap you get when there's insufficient regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
There would be two different issues at hand here, where local governments certainly could be used (and IMHO ought to be used) for determining who could be issued individual licenses to operate within certain frequencies and established technical standards for those using those frequencies. This could including anything from licensing local television and radio stations to approving cell phone towers... not just the building permits but also the "right" to use certain frequencies in the local area.
This said
Re: (Score:2)
More like you can tell the FCC and then they might get around to eventually filing a official complain with Verizon and years pass and nothing comes of it.
Re: (Score:2)
With continued abuse, they are in violation of agreement and they lose the right to use Block C frequencies. Would anyone in the FCC stand to keep their job after resorting to such a response to repeated abuse? After all, there's abuse by mistake and there's wilful abuse. After being informed of the problem by the FCC, they are responsible not only to pay any fines, but also for correcting the problem. Failure to correct the problem and to continue the abuse then becomes wilful. They paid a lot of money
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they'd probably just pay the fines and go about business as usual. It's not like the FCC would do anything about it.
It might get somewhere if somebody in Congress notices it and runs out of things to complain about while trying to not fix the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Class action, maybe?
Mandatory arbitration clause.
Or FCC fines, that'd probably more effective.
They'd just pay the fines and pass on the cost to the consumer, or donate to a few Congressional campaigns to get the oversight committees to yell at the FCC if the fines were actually relative to the resources Verizon has. It'd be far more effective for the FCC to go to court to get an injunction, but that kind of thing would just get Verizon to donate to a few Congressional campaigns....
Re: (Score:2)
Mandatory arbitration clauses might not stick up in court. Regardless, come to think of it class action probably wouldn't be appropriate anyways (they haven't harmed the consumer, they violated FCC regulations.)
Also, fines might have been the wrong word. What I meant was the FCC can tell Verizon "stop using Block C or stop locking down bootloaders." Verizon wouldn't like doing the first (although they wouldn't like the second, either).
The fines are just icing on the cake, although I agree they'll probably
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, come to think of it class action probably wouldn't be appropriate anyways (they haven't harmed the consumer, they violated FCC regulations.)
Class action on behalf of the American people?
Since government doesn't seem to be able/willing to hold corporate interests accountable to itself, is there any way for the people at large to force the issue?
Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)
Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like Verizon would let a silly little thing like laws get in their way...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>Like Verizon would let a silly little thing like laws get in their way...
I'd donate money to anyone suing them to stop them from doing this sort of shit.
I don't want to look at "Need for Speed" or "Madden" or a dozen other trial apps that I can't fucking remove every time I pull up my applications list on my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/07/19-11 [commondreams.org]
Free Press is suing Verizon over the exclusion of tethering apps in the market. This has to do with the c-block terms, and could mean much more if it is won.
Fuck Verizon (Score:1)
I will revert to smoke signals before I use their "services" ever again.
And I speak from experience, having been abused by them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And this children, is known as the "tu quoque" fallacy. See also "...and the Democrats/Republicans/Invading Alien Armada are better ... how?" It is a logical fallacy employed by those who have nothing meaningful to say in making their point, so they just point fingers in the other direction as if it were a relevant response to the previous speaker. Many of them actually believe this passes for logical argument.
Re: (Score:2)
An old slogan, paraphrased. (Score:4, Insightful)
Verizon: we keep working you like a whore.
Re:An old slogan, paraphrased. (Score:4, Funny)
Verizon: we keep working you like a whore.
or the newer slogan: can you feel me now?
Re: (Score:2)
Land lines (Score:2)
oh i can buy other phones, but there is no signal at my house for anyone but verizon
Not even a land line? I thought that's what the universal service fee was for: to get land-line coverage up to 100%.
Re: (Score:3)
oh i can buy other phones, but there is no signal at my house for anyone but verizon
Not even a land line? I thought that's what the universal service fee was for: to get land-line coverage up to 100%.
Where I live, the land line choices are Verizon... and Verizon. There was even an article in the local paper [hamptonroads.com] today about how Verizon is letting its copper infrastructure go to waste, so if you live in a place that doesn't have FTTx, you're definitely screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even a land line?.
Who do you think owns the landlines?
Depending on where you live, you either get AT&T, Centurylink (formerly Qwest, and USWest before that), or Verizon.
here's a map [porticus.org]. A bit old, so the names are wrong, but the areas are still accurate.
USWest is now CenturyLink, Pacific Telesis, Southwestern Bell, Bellsouth, and Ameritech are now the new AT&T, and Bell Atlantic and NYNEX formed Verizon.
Whos fault? HTC or Verizon? (Score:1)
Now this is all assuming Verizon isn't lying to me. It could very well be all false. But it
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats one hell of an end run around the requirement for the spectrum. They are still knowingly selling a non compliant phone would seem reasonable they would need to stop selling defective phones and replace the ones they sold.
Re: (Score:2)
Motorola just claimed with the new 'RAZR' that it was specifically Verizon that is causing the bootloader to be locked, on Verizon's version of the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Moto is just trying to find an excuse...
They want people to blame someone other than them, when it is CLEARLY *their* fault.
Just look at it this way:
Samsung - no locked bootloaders on any carrier (The Tab 10.1 is semi-locked, but that's even the wifi-only versions - and it's pretty light locking.)
HTC - Heavy bootloader locking only recently, and across all carriers. The Thunderbolt is just a bit higher profile, as it was the first one.
Motorola - All locked, all the time, with very rare exceptions, on all c
Re: (Score:2)
Wait what? Having a locked (but exploitable) bootloader is a lot different than what Motorola does. If you load an unsigned rom you will brick your phone.
Why would we talk about suing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-compliance by Verizon is cause for the FCC's termination of Verizon's licenses of C-Block bands. At that point, the FCC should reclaim the licenses and re-auction them to parties who would know that they can sub-lease them to a Verizon that they have by the balls.
The move here is to petition the executive branch to actually do its fucking job, which may mean firing the entire Genachowski FCC and starting over.
Installing a new OS on my Windows machine doesn't void the warranty, and neither should installing a new build of Android on an Android device. There should be a golden bootloader that is locked that then allows the installation of any operating system software. Then you can make a relatively unbrickable device that gives people complete choice. TPM for the DRM dicks if you really think you have to, bud I'd rather that we, as a people, decide to stop stabbing ourselves in the face.
Verizon shouldn't be allowed any end-runs, nor should, frankly, anyone else. So the FCC didn't man up and actually give us network and device neutrality that makes sense. That's not the end of the world if they actually enforce C-Block restrictions effectively.
Probably (Score:2)
and this is not the first time the question has been raised -- see also: potential future 4G iPhone (which will be very interesting)
With regards to the Thunderbolt, however, the bootloader is easily unlocked so it doesn't seem to be the best case to get upset about.
Not a violation (Score:2)
The requirement doesn't mean they have to hook up only unlocked phones. Just like the requirement decades ago wasn't that AT&T stop renting hardwired phones. The requirement is that if I buy any random device capable of talking on their network, they must allow me to use it on their network... even if that device does things with their network they'd rather it not.
Re: (Score:3)
You wouldn't happen to have a list of C-Band devices would you?
Re: (Score:2)
I do not, but I would venture to guess that most devices sold by Verizon at their stores can be purchased as unlocked phones ready to be hooked up to a carrier via other channels.
Unacceptable (Score:2)
Block C should never have been sold. They should have charged for permission to build devices that communicate over 700hz and left the connectivity and use up to the public. Allowing ONE company to control a frequency is completely unacceptable!
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting view that may hold water.
However, the position becomes weak when there IS a security issue and Verizon fails to patch it within minutes of a fix being available. Or as WinMo 6 users like to call it, "The Windows Update feature that Wasn't."
Re: (Score:2)
http://allthingsd.com/20110523/exclusive-france-telecom-ceo-on-apple-android-and-how-you-can-kiss-your-unlimited-plan-goodbye/ [allthingsd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HTC doesn't just lock phones that go to Verizon; they lock all of the phones they sell. You are buying a phone from HTC that HTC locks. Verizon can't tell you what you can or can't put on that phone, but by buying into HTC's walled garden, HTC can tell you what you will or won't put on that phone.
I RTFA. You made a false statement. You're now saying that Verizon couldn't tell them to do something because it's against the law. Good call. Verizon couldn't possibly tell another company to break the law, because it breaks the law. In fact, nobody can break the law. I bet you've never gone above the speed limit, because it's against the law. There was no price collusion in the memory market for years, because it was against the law. Intel didn't shit on AMD at OEM's, because it was agains the la
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get it.
Verizon dictates, htc produces, verizon sells and operates. verizon is largely at fault.
Re: (Score:2)
The day Verizon allows customers to walk into a Verizon store and buy a R-UIM card that will allow them to use any physically-compatible phone on Verizon, you might have a point. However, in the real world, Verizon and Sprint dictate the phones available for use on their networks, and have more or less complete veto power (the sole real-world exception being that Verizon will grudgingly allow you to use a Sprint twin of a Verizon phone that's been reflashed to Verizon firmware, but AFAIK nobody has EVER got
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon in fact can't even tell HTC to unlock their phone (not that they would want to) because they aren't allowed to tell the manufacturer how to make their phone.
Oh, is it so [htcdev.com]?
HTC is committed to assisting customers in unlocking bootloaders for HTC devices. However, certain models may not be unlockable due to operator restrictions. We continue to work with our partners on this, check back often for ongoing updates about unlockable devices.
Granted, nowhere is Verizon mentioned explicitly in regards with the unlockable devices... but neither can be said that Verizon cannot ask HTC to unlock their phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon can't tell the OEM's what to do with their phones. If you buy a phone that is locked, that is your choice.
Verizon can't tell an OEM what to do with their phone, however Verizon CAN tell an OEM what to do with their phone if they want Verizon to carry it. This means that if said OEM doesn't comply they loose a HUGE retail opportunity. Most OEMs would rather let the carrier dictate terms than loose the carrier as a sales channel.
What you're saying would likely be true in one of 2 worlds:
1) A world where handsets are sold separately from service contracts (much of the world, but not North America)
2) A small enough
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon can't tell an OEM what to do with their phone, however Verizon CAN tell an OEM what to do with their phone if they want Verizon to carry it. This means that if said OEM doesn't comply they loose a HUGE retail opportunity. Most OEMs would rather let the carrier dictate terms than loose the carrier as a sales channel.
Hmm....No, not exactly.
On the C block, they can force Verizon to activate the phone for subscribers who request it. But the question ends up being: Is this profitable for the OEM? When an
Re: (Score:2)
That's because in North America phones are tied to contracts. Sure I can bring any phone I want and activate it on my current provider, but then I have to spend several hundred dollars on a phone. The carrier is willing to give me their phone for "free" if I sign a 3 year term. Now in an ideal world they'd give me a discount if I brought my own, but they don't, so I pay for that "free" phone whether I take it or not, I might as well take it. How many OEMs are willing to risk going up against free with a sev
Re: (Score:2)
On the C block, they can force Verizon to activate the phone for subscribers who request it. But the question ends up being: Is this profitable for the OEM?
'Course it is!!! "You brick the phone by ROM modding, you're outside of warranty... I sympathize with you; here, let me sell you my new model; you get a 10% discount for your 3days old brick".
Re:The handset in question is locked by HTC (Score:4, Interesting)
Google meant to change this situation with Android. Make a phone that consumers wanted, Create a market where consumers bought a phone made for end users, and then allow the carriers to complete for service. This plan, unfortunately, did not work. One reason is that Google was actually not going to service the Google phone, but rather allow the carriers to do incur those costs while Google made a huge profit on each phone. Obviously end users were not wild about paying a company for a product that denied the product was even made by them, and carriers were not wild about providing service for which they would not be paid.
In any case, everyone has basically blinked and phones are once again made, at least in part, for the carriers. This will happen until we have an old-ATT style breakup in which the governement tells everyone that they have to play nice.
Re: (Score:3)
In the US at leaset, carriers are the customer, not the end user. The carriers determine which features are required and how much money will be spent by the end user and how much support is required from the carrier.
The C block is an exception. Read the links provided in the summary. Verizon isn't allowed to dictate features or limits to devices that make use of the C block.
Re: (Score:2)
If your point stands, why is my Sprint Samsung Epic 4g locked??
You still don't get it. The litle pieces and crappy assemblies of ideas you keep pushing about this topic is comedy at its best. Its fun watching you eat your foot evry step of the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget Heimdall for Mac/Linux users. Heck - I know a lot of ROM devs use it on Windows too because it's just plain more consistent.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, it isn't?
The most bootloader "locking" I've seen with Samsungs is the "custom binary count" counter/warning in newer phones. It'll rat on you that you flashed a custom kernel via ODIN, but it will happily boot it.
This goes for every GalaxyS variant (including the Epic 4G) - although most of these don't have the "new" custom binary count feature, all interim devices (like the Infuse and Droid Charge), and all GS2 variants (which all have CBC counters - but happily boot custom kernels.)
So if anyone is ea
Re:To quote GWB (Score:5, Informative)
Bush never actually said that, by the way.
http://factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/ [factcheck.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon will do what they will, because the penalties for not complying with regulations are infinitesimal compared to the profits from nickel-and-diming customers.
Exactly. The penalties should be more significant, like fix it in 30 days or lose the spectrum, no fees refunded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The big issue is we have multiple incompatible networks unlike the eu. Some of those networks even had innovative tech. Nextels 2way service that even worked handset to handset when out of range of towers, Sprint bought them out and killed it. Granted with software radio's that we use now it would not seem to hard to make a universal phone in the US.
Re: (Score:2)