Verizon forces data plan for other smartphones

[IOWA]

yep my lack of comprehension is astounding......... lets get off topic and use personal attacks because we are wrong.......... doh

VZW is a business........ if you dont like how they run their business then dont do business with them...... plain and simple

there are plenty of other options out there for you....... without forcing a private business to change because youre whiney

btw......... still cant find anything in re to carter phone...... guess I cant comprehend what it is.......... found plenty on carterfone though... a totally unrelated subject........ yep my comprehension is lacking indeed

This particular device was involved in a landmark United States regulatory decision related to telecommunications. In 1968, the Federal Communications Commission allowed the Carterfone and other devices to be connected directly to the AT&T network, as long as they did not cause harm to the system. This ruling (13 F.C.C.2d 420) created the possibility of selling devices that could connect to the phone system using a protective coupler, and opened the market to customer-owned equipment. The decision is often referred-to as "any lawful device", allowing later innovations like answering machines, fax machines, and modems (which initially used the same type of manual acoustic coupler as the Carterfone) to proliferate.
In February 2007, a petition for rulemaking was filed with the FCC by Skype, requesting the FCC to apply the Carterfone regulations to the wireless industry — which would mean that OEMs, portals and others will be able to offer wireless devices and services without the cellular operators needing to approve the handsets. However, on 1 April 2008 FCC chairman Kevin Martin indicated that he would oppose Skype's request. [1] As of 2009, there is renewed interest due to a new chairman being selected by the Obama administration, and the opposition to the vendor lock-in practices which have limited consumers' freedom of choice in both voice and data services. The FCC has indicated that it is unlikely to take action on Wireless Carterfone beyond a possible rule requiring carriers to unlock handsets at the end of their contract periods.

Way to point out my misspell btw. I never claimed to be the spelling bee champ.

Spelling =/= to comprehension. Just in case you didn't know.

Sure, VZW is a business. Built with taxpayer dollars. Built with public assets. A hence face regulation.

Now enter per byte pricing and now we're on a whole new level of wtf. Why? Because who pays for the overhead? It's also been proven multiple times over the companies can't even keep track of how much data people are using.

AAND. Whenever things are sold in quantity, there needs to be an accurate, user readable scale at all times, none of these requirements which any of the cellular providers have fulfilled.

Verizon Busted Overcharging for Data, Will Refund $90m to Customers - Technabob

? Lawsuit claims AT&T overcharges iPhone data users up to 300%

Is AT&T overcharging iPad, iPhone users for data and making them pay for data not used? – Consumer Talk – Sun-Sentinel

Verizon Wants $500 For 35MB Of Phantom Data Use - The Consumerist

This article has some great oversight.

Mandatory Smartphone Data Plans Seem Hypocritical - If paying for what you use 'is only fair,' why $30 mandatory data plans? | DSLReports.com, ISP Information

Also:

Certain tying arrangements are illegal in the United States under both the Sherman Antitrust Act,[2] and Section 3 of the Clayton Act.[3] A tying arrangement is defined as "an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees he will not purchase the product from any other supplier."[4] Tying may be the action of several companies as well as the work of just one firm. Success on a tying claim typically requires proof of four elements: (1) two separate products or services are involved; (2) the purchase of the tying product is conditioned on the additional purchase of the tied product; (3) the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product; (4) a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product market is affected.[5]

There is plenty of prior art/decisions/case law on what people have said here in this thread.

 

[copestag]

As of 2009, there is renewed interest due to a new chairman being selected by the Obama administration, and the opposition to the vendor lock-in practices which have limited consumers' freedom of choice in both voice and data services. The FCC has indicated that it is unlikely to take action on Wireless Carterfone beyond a possible rule requiring carriers to unlock handsets at the end of their contract periods.

Again speaking of comprehension...... since youve taken the time to quote an article from a present day blog about a ruling from decades ago then goes on to add some insight to the present day status of any FCC thoughts........ and youve taken the time to BOLD what you thought might be relevant....... why not try to comprehend the entire last 2 sentences and see that they are in no way relevant or indicative of any chance that carterfone (not a misspelling on your behalf but a foolish belief that this had something to do with Carter..... must have poor comprehension) will in any way apply here........... since carterphone is a totally unrelated subject and regulatory decision....... ITS ABOUT HARDWARE ACCESS......

did you see anything in the carterfone decision that said that ATT had to provide carterfone with the same features they offer on their phone lines? did you see anything in there about pricing or data AT ALL? ......... NOPE..... carterfone is 100% about hardware access

Ive highlighted the relevant part in your quote for you so that you may have an easier time with understanding it.......... the ONLY contention the FCC has an issue with is carriers locking the devices so they can only be used on their service

 

[IOWA]

Again speaking of comprehension...... since youve taken the time to quote an article from a present day blog about a ruling from decades ago then goes on to add some insight to the present day status of any FCC thoughts........ and youve taken the time to BOLD what you thought might be relevant....... why not try to comprehend the entire last 2 sentences and see that they are in no way relevant or indicative of any chance that carterfone (not a misspelling on your behalf but a foolish belief that this had something to do with Carter..... must have poor comprehension) will in any way apply here........... since carterphone is a totally unrelated subject and regulatory decision....... ITS ABOUT HARDWARE ACCESS......

did you see anything in the carterfone decision that said that ATT had to provide carterfone with the same features they offer on their phone lines? did you see anything in there about pricing or data AT ALL? ......... NOPE..... carterfone is 100% about hardware access

Ive highlighted the relevant part in your quote for you so that you may have an easier time with understanding it.......... the ONLY contention the FCC has an issue with is carriers locking the devices so they can only be used on their service

And suddenly smartphones arent considered hardware? Give me a break.

Your post makes no sense.

Of course the FCC wont do anything until people complain. How do you think carterfone happened in the first place?


And if you cant see the similarities between the landmark carterfone decision and this thread, well thats not really my problem and there's no point in continuing our argument until you do more research.

GG.

 

[dirkbonn]

And suddenly smartphones arent considered hardware? Give me a break.

Your post makes no sense.

Of course the FCC wont do anything until people complain. How do you think carterfone happened in the first place?


And if you cant see the similarities between the landmark carterfone decision and this thread, well thats not really my problem and there's no point in continuing our argument until you do more research.

GG.

Of course smartphones are hardware, but I thought we were discussing madatory data plans? (the title of this thread is Verizon forces data plan for other smartphones ) Data and data plans are definately NOT hardware...

And if I'm mistaken and we're talking about hardware.... uhhh, what's the question again?

"Isn't fun the best thing to have?" Quote by Arthur, from the movie of the same name. (The original, not the remake)