Law Professor Attacks Verizon's War on Tethering Apps Joins Free Press Argument That It Violates Spectrum Conditions Back 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.
|
 | | FCC useless? Say it isn't so!
(/sarcasm)
--
Splat | |
|  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | Free Market Normally I would side with the free market and say it is a business decision and should be left up to the market to work this out. HOWEVER, VZW, AT&T and all the other telecoms feed at the public trough through various handouts so to me that changes the equation. If you are a company that decides to take public handouts then you should be subject to enhanced scrutiny. In addition, the Congress for some reason has pretty much decided that Internet access is a civil right (similar to what the UN has recently declared). As such, this also requires additional scrutiny on business practices that effect public access to this resource. I do not agree that you have a right to "free" Internet access, save for going to the public library to use public computers, but the government has spoken otherwise and that is the rule.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|  | | | Re: Free Market If the issue involved the "free marketplace" it would be wrong to interfere. This isn't just about the US Congress either. It is about monopoly power and it's abuse.
Verizon controls the majority of the US market for smart phones and has been able to use this control to force it's biggest operating system supplier (Google) to hobble the handsets native tethering and internet capabilities and to remove tethering apps from the Android marketplace.
Verizon also recently disabled user's tethering software that had been purchased and installed prior to the decision to offer a "Hotspot" plan on their newest handsets.
This action has directly harmed me and all other users of the paid app "PDA-net" that was a popular wired tethering app. The official response that I got from Verizon was that they were now offering hotspot and tethering only using the Verizon system and that I, and any other users would have to buy a new phone to use the service. | |
| | | n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | Re: Free Market @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. | |
|
| Hasher
join:2000-06-19
Rocky River, OH | I understand free market. But tethering in this case is a function the phone I purchased can do. I also already pay for a data plan and therefore should be able to use that data plan as I see fit. Whether I peruse a website on my phone or from a tablet or from my laptop tethered to my phone, I am using the data plan as I already paid for it.
We already went through this same argument with the ISP providers and the cable companies when they tried to charge us for using our own routers and equipment to attach multiple devices to the internet in our homes. They were shot down and thus I do not pay extra for "tethering" multiple devices to my one data connection that I pay for in my home. 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. $30 is just outlandish for this. They tried to state the same thing with gps chips in phones early on stating it would harm the network and they lost that as well.
The bottom line is this. I paid for my phone outright yes over $500.. That device is mine. It has a built in capability to allow tethering. I am not using any tech or software from VZW. Therefore I take no shame in saying I will tether with software that I use and I pay my data plan each month and will therefore use my data as I see fit. Be it on the phone .. or passing said data on to another device via tethering, I refuse to give more money when they are continuously finding ways to increase what I pay and offer less and less service. | |
| | | n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | Re: Free Market 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. | |
| | | | Hasher
join:2000-06-19
Rocky River, OH | Re: Free Market Then all feelings aside the fact of the matter is as I stated that Internet providers be they cable companies or telcos have already lost the battle to charge for "tethering" as such since they were not allowed to charge a customer for using a home router to add more computers to their "data plan". Tethering is not a service but the ability of software on the phone that makes the phone act like a router. Therefore I contend this falls in that same category. | |
| | | | | | But the gas station cannot charge you extra per gallon if you are also filling up your boat. | |
|
| | Tethering will be allowed eventually anyway.. 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. | |
| | | | Re: Tethering will be allowed eventually anyway.. Creepy. I think we posted this simultaneously. | |
| |  MoracCat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
 ·Comcast
| 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.
I doubt this will ever occur. Why would Verizon offer "free" tethering when they can charge $20 for it (and people pay it)?
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. | |
|
| |  With usage caps, wouldn't SPs *want* tethering?
| |
| | | | Re: With usage caps, wouldn't SPs *want* tethering? Well yeah but why not charge you $10-$30 more per month as well as get overages from you. | |
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | 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.
No, you fundamentally or intentionally misunderstand the purpose of caps. They are designed to retard consumption via meter-anxiety, not generate overage charges
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. | |
|
| |
|
|
