Law Professor Attacks Verizon's War on Tethering AppsJoins Free Press Argument That It Violates Spectrum ConditionsBack in 2007 when AT&T, Verizon and others lobbied for valuable 700MHz spectrum, Google successfully lobbied to attach "open access" provisions prohibiting the blocking of services. At the time, you'll also recall that if you actually bothered to look at the conditions once crafted by the FCC, they were so packed with loopholes as to be rather useless. Free Press has been arguing that Verizon's decision to block tethering apps from the Android marketplace (and crippling mobile hotspot functionality on smartphones in order to get users to pay for expensive tethering plans violates these rules. Verizon has insisted on playing rather dumb about the whole affair, semantically arguing that it wasn't they who blocked the apps -- even though they pressured Google to ensure the Google TOS did. Free Press has been trying to ratchet up pressure on Verizon, sending a letter to the FCC and writing to key DC politicians looking for support. Stanford Law Professor Barbara van Schewick has joined Free Press's effort, sending a letter to the FCC (pdf) this week, reminding the FCC Verizon's actions have significant repercussions:
Verizon Wireless’s practice and Free Press’s complaint raise fundamental issues of Internet openness policy. While only two parties are named in the complaint proceeding, the outcome of the proceeding will have a far-reaching impact on many businesses, innovators, and users in the Internet ecosystem. Verizon Wireless is the largest provider of wireless broadband services and Android is the most popular wireless operating system, so this practice has a significant market impact and will affect a large number of users and applications-innovators. Allowing network providers to pick winners and losers online — whether by actively blocking particular applications or simply by making them more difficult to use — harms application-level innovation.
van Schewick also reminds the FCC that part of the reason that the FCC didn't impose real neutrality rules on wireless networks was in part due to these conditions. Again however, Verizon would never have agreed to the conditions had they been egregious -- and in this case all Verizon lawyers have to do is argue that unofficial tethering harms the network -- whether it's true or not. There's little doubt current regulators will accept such an argument, even without proof.
Say it isn't so! (/sarcasm)
--
Splat
@itpro1998: Sadly I see things getting worse once AT&T gobbles up T-Mobile next spring. With Sprint being a minor player, we are going to wind up looking like Canada with their Rogers/Bell duopoly (I guess you can throw Telus in there too). BTW, I saw your location and I had to stop and think why it looked so familiar. Then I recalled the large rest stop with the tourist building, complete with Canadian flag, on the Thruway. Nice place to stretch the legs between Buffalo and the Weedsport exit.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
said by Hasher: This is no different.. VZW or AT&T or whoever is not providing me with any software or hardware that I feel I should have to pay them an additional amount to be able to attach and view data on an alternate device.
I agree the free market does not really apply in this case due to the unholy relationship between government subsidies and VZW/AT&T. However, the problem I see with your argument is it is your "feeling" that you should not have to pay more. VZW/AT&T would simply respond they "feel" you have to. I feel I should not have to pay more than $2.759 gallon for a gallon of gasoline but I cannot make a concrete argument that would make my argument stick.An argument based upon facts such VZW/AT&T could be "double dipping" or engaged in unfair trade practices would carry more weight. Regulators tend throw away arguments based on feelings and stick to the facts presented. One just needs to read various reports and orders from government agencies to see feelings never come into play. They always list out all the factual arguments provided, both pro and con, that lead them to decide what they did.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
said by lawguru: With Verizon adopting usage based data plans, I believe that tethering restrictions will die as soon as the grandfathered unlimited plans are forced to convert to a usage based plan. At that point it will be in Verizon's best interest to encourage tethering so that it can reap greater monthly overage fees.
Of note, AT&T also charges $20 for tethering, though they give you an extra 2 GB for the cost. Tethering is not available for people with grandfathered unlimited plans though. If what you said was going to happen, then AT&T would already offer "free" tethering to all their non-unlimited data customers.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired.
Pretty sure that me using my laptop for stuff I would normally do with it is going eat up a hell of a lot more data. said by epicmelon: Pretty sure that me using my laptop for stuff I would normally do with it is going eat up a hell of a lot more data.
While it is a hard sell amongst forum readers, MOST data consumption volumes are way below cap levels, and Cellco intends to keep it that way. Overage charges induce churn; Cellco just wants the highest possible minimum rents with the least usage, and Mom approves.
While tethering would, indeed, use substantially more of your potential allocation, a vast majority of tetherers would still keep their usage below cap levels - while taxing the network. The Tethering fee prevents most of that casual consumption, and thus, allows more subscribers to share scarce spectrum - at a lower cost.
Yes, they're putting up another barrier to keep you from using the full 5GB you think you're entitled to
All bits are not equal.
Source : CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment