dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-11-07 10:47:52: Opinion: Whether it's their treatment of Google Wallet, the Nexus 7 or the Nexus 5, Verizon Wireless is increasingly making it clear that they're using their position as gatekeeper to engage in anti-competitive behavior -- with few properly calling t.. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next
Jerrell

join:2001-06-22
Kansas City, MO

I Agree...

We've been talking the same language for years, lets see if any of our "protectors" will do anything about it. Tom Wheeler has plenty of opportunities to prove he's here to protect consumers and REAL competition; his very first move (whatever that is) while in office will be exactly what you can expect from him going forward for the rest of his tenure.

Zenit

join:2012-05-07
N. VA, USA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon Online DSL

Verizon is also an ass in Wireline

VZ is just a terrible company. Your lucky if you get modern fiber to the home (typically people with FIOS will be the people praising VZ as the best telco ever), otherwise they don't care, and allow the existing infrastructure to literally fall apart.

If anyone can give a case of a Baby Bell gone rouge, VZ is the one to pick.

They want LTE to be the home solution for people who can only get DSL even in large towns and small cities, its rather ridiculous. Cable thanks them for giving up.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Re: Verizon is also an ass in Wireline

We just started to turn up lots of managed circuits in Verizon territory. I thought that at&t was difficult to deal with and it couldn't be any more frustrating. Boy was I wrong.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:8

Re: Verizon is also an ass in Wireline

Nice to see nothing has changed here either. It took us over a year to get a DS3 installed 5+ years ago. There was over a month of back and forth about the address.

Contrast with our recent Earthlink metro-e (at&t fiber)... one conference call, two engineering visits. In a single month we had the engineering documents of what they were to do and what we needed to do to get there. (i.e. conduit and pull tape) [we reused the conduit and fiber from a vacant office above us. except the demo cut the ends off the cable... so it was the pull string for 150ft of new fiber. Interesting that their techs cannot do SM splicing, despite knowing it would have to be done.)

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

Re: Verizon is also an ass in Wireline

I used to coordinate with them the installation of frame relay T1 circuits nationwide at various branch offices and I swear to god, nine times out of ten they'd leave with more things broken than when they arrived. Especially in NYC.
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:8

1 recommendation

Don't forget the concessions they received for stringing fiber: exempt from open access rules (they don't have to share it with anyone.) From all the reports I've read, they remove the old copper infrastructure anywhere they install FiOS; completely removing any avenue for competition.

LTE (wireless) is the same way. They can allow whomever they want access (MVNO) and charge whatever they want, and layer on whatever restrictions they wish.

cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27

1 recommendation

Don't forget FiOS...

As reliable as it is, Verizon has been "discriminatory" in its deployment.

And the paywalls...

And the horrible billing service/support (tech support has been fine, but billing...)

I find irony in how such a big company, that specializes in communication, fails to have 24hr billing support (typically 8-5pm). You get a billing error, you have to call M-F between 8-5pm and deal with the "Katie" bot and other issues.

I still get invoices sent home...but they won't bill me at home (demand CC)...but I still get a monthly billing statement. What?
--
Splat
cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:8

Re: Don't forget FiOS...

Their billing has been this way forever. Remember GTE or 360? Same people, same problems.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1

3 recommendations

The best revenge is not being a customer.

Honestly, if a company doesn't act like they respect you as a customer and appreciate your business, don't give it to them… no matter what. I don't understand what this obsession is with Verizon if you're not happy. It's become like being in an abusive relationship and making excuses….

- "If only I didn't want to use my own device/feature, Verizon would change."
- None of the other carriers have coverage, etc.

The best revenge is not being a customer. Period.
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army

MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1

Re: The best revenge is not being a customer.

I agree wholeheartedly, thought I have the luxury of of having excellent Verizon, AT&T and T-mobile coverage in my area.

For many the Verizon has the best coverage is an excuse for the carrier's practices, which verizon encourages. AT&T coverage is usually at least an option for most people, which isn't quite as bad.

I use T-mobile as I want to vote with my wallet and support the carrier that is challenging Verizon and AT&T's higher priced service.
But I acknowledge that I can do that only because of location, in NJ T-mobile is just as good as AT&T or Verizon for me, and in most locations actually faster with lower ping times

plus one

@comcast.net
said by IPPlanMan:

The best revenge is not being a customer. Period.

Best advice to follow. I quit Verizon years ago because of their contempt for the customer. There is competition in wireless in most areas of the US. I used Sprint and then went to AT&T. This dropped my price each time. Don't like Verizon, then leave. Sooner or later they will finally "get it" that people don't like their policies.

StuckwithV

@verizon.net
Some of us don't have any other option. For me its either Verizon DSL or no broadband, so I have to spend hours demanding they maintain the connect that at best is 2.8 on its best day.

David_299

@rr.com
The funny thing is a 100,000,000 plus customers don't seem to have you guys' issues or else the product they do provide is far superior because it's sure not the least expensive. What do you think they build their superior network with? Free money? It costs billions.
JoelC707
Premium
join:2002-07-09
Lanett, AL
kudos:5
I agree with you in part. Really the only part I don't agree with is your coverage comment. Until other carriers get the coverage of Verizon, you're going to have people that are FORCED to stay with them just to get the coverage they need. That's not an excuse, that's a cold hard fact. I'd LOVE to go to AT&T or Sprint because they have Nexus devices Verizon doesn't but I can't afford the coverage losses. If you have a suggestion to get around that without calling it an "excuse" I'm all ears. And an MVNO like Page Plus is not it, not until they can access the LTE network.

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
Reviews:
·TracFone Wireless
·CenturyLink
There is always a last laugh. TracFone has more members than any single provider in North America. I left the Vulture for this product. It works just as well or better where I live than the old provider does today.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside

zzzzzzzz1

@rr.com
Exellent Karl!!!

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

Free Market

Verizon has competition. As the article noted, T-Mobile is beginning to make a dent in the wireless market. If Verizon keeps acting like it does, then it will ultimately start to feel the pressure of market forces. If not, then it is what their customers want (or expect) and should be prepared with lube to take it up the you know what. The FCC will never truly come up with consumer friendly rules but competitive pressures might.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.
jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA

Re: Free Market

I know I left Vz for T-Mobile and my service has been better overall ( Could be going from that Thunderbolt to a new Samsung phone).

Simon707

@184.151.127.x
n2jtx, I think you're living in that old trusty plato cavern of illusions mate. Praying to the god of free market and preaching the good news.

Time to wake up, there ain't no such thing as "freedom" within any market. For an exchange to happen, you must pay. In other words, you are coerced to pay. A market where everything is regulated by this rule for a 2 way exchange, where you are coerced to give something for anything in return can never be, by definition "free". Markets are based on coercion and promote coercion, hence the lobbying, hence the anti competitive behavior, hence the monopolies/oligopolies we witness today in this giant monopoly endgame and every other "evils" associated with it.

Sorry to kill your god, thank me later.
navyson

join:2011-07-15
Upper Marlboro, MD

1 recommendation

I totally agree

Verizon deliberately sabotages certain carriers and HTC is not one of its preferred carrier.
1. Verizon deliberately delayed the HTC One on its network. It wasn’t available until August while it became available on Sprint, AT & T and T-mobile in March.
2. Verizon forced HTC to take out the “Power Save” button on the Verizon version of the phone. Also, Verizon deliberately only got the “silver” version of the phone while other carriers have both the silver and black.
3. Verizon had limited advertisement for the phone unlike others.

I can’t wait to “stick it” to Verizon and jump over to T-mobile.

tmh

@comcastbusiness.net

The T-1000 reassembles!

Just over 30 years ago, the govt broke up the old Bell system and AT&T. Now all the myriad baby bells have reformed back into Verizon and have the FCC neutered.

Time to bring out the molten iron vat.

TheHumanFlaw

@myvzw.com

Re: The T-1000 reassembles!

Ummm.... ATT is actually swallowing themselves back up. VZW is buying their extra spectrum that the FCC says they must sell.
tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2

Nope

I'm not defendnig Verizon or their actions but this article is simply incorrect in respects to what it claims of Verizon's statement abotu Google Wallet. So much so that it appears that the author simply does not know what he/she is talking about.

Verizon never claimed that Google Wallet, "needs to be integrated into a new, secure and proprietary hardware element in our phones". What Google stated to the FCC was that Android takes over the Secure Element (of the manufacture's/Verizon's/End user's) phone and does not allow anyone else to use it/access it. So really, _Google_ is taking control over a piece of hardware that they have _nothing_ to do with! People simply don't want to acknowledge this as it's easier to jump on the Verizon hate machine and it's not popular to knock Google at this time.

The "discussion" the article propbably refers to is Verizon's offer to allow Wallet if Google removed 100% control over the phone's Secure Element. Google never did this so Verizon's offer went no where (until Kit Kat... we will see what happens).

Nexus 5 and Nexus 7: Since when is any company require to sell another companies products? I did not know you could blame a company for not selling someone else's products. Google is a phone company... do they sell Samsungs? By the same terms, I guess Google must also be anti-competative.

There are a _lot_ of bad thing to be said about Verizon. There are a lot of things that they do wrong. But lets at least get the facts straight and not make crap up.

mack1951
Universal Soldier

join:2000-04-18
Bayonne, NJ
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Nope

Don't know anything about Google Wallet so can't comment but with the Nexus 7 and Nexus 5 it is not a question of selling the product but allowing the devices to operate on their network.
--
THE ROAD: Romans 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, 10:9
tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2

Re: Nope

On the Nexus's I'm just going by what the article states, "the most recent Nexus 5 isn't being carried by Verizon at all". Carried would usuallu mean that it's not sold by. I don't see that a carrier would have much control over what devices are used on their network. People buy devices from other sources all of the time and use them on carrier's networks that don't sell the devices. It appears from the BBR aticle linked to that this is correct... that Verizon refused to _sell_ the Nexus's.

aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

1 edit

Re: Nope

said by tcope:

On the Nexus's I'm just going by what the article states, "the most recent Nexus 5 isn't being carried by Verizon at all". Carried would usuallu mean that it's not sold by. I don't see that a carrier would have much control over what devices are used on their network. People buy devices from other sources all of the time and use them on carrier's networks that don't sell the devices. It appears from the BBR aticle linked to that this is correct... that Verizon refused to _sell_ the Nexus's.

Why would the Nexus 5 be carried by Verizon? It doesn't have all the channels available that Verizon uses.
Foxbat121

join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
CDMA carriers do have absolute control over what devices can be used on their network because if your device's ESN is not in their database, you won't connect. Period.
Sprint this time surprised me with accepting Google Nexus 5 sold unlocked by Google. They are getting all the ESNs into their system although the 32GB version had a few days of delay for activation.
tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2

Re: Nope

said by Foxbat121:

CDMA carriers do have absolute control over what devices can be used on their network because if your device's ESN is not in their database, you won't connect. Period.

Understood... while this kind of goes to my point, that is a different matter. I don't want to confuse the issue as then people are going to jump at that and complain that Verizon does not have a right to block Google Wallet... and why they are doing it, if it's right or wrong, etc. is not important here.

But.... to that effect, Verizon is arguing something different then you mentioned. They are arguing that they don't know what's going on in the Secure Element and it's be locked down by Android/Google so they can't/won't allow the app to run. Again, I'm not saying that they are not just using this as a smoke screen or not. They may be. But the important part of this is that Google _is_ blocking anyone else from using the phone's secure element. Google has nothing to do with the hardware. So what right does Google have to tell anyone that they can't use their own phone's secure element. They should have no right to do this. If you really want people to hate you, try explaining that in a Google based form, such as Google Plus! You'd think you just killed someone's baby. It's basically using those people's own arguement against Verizon, against Google. All of a sudden people vanish, vear off to another point and/or just ignore that statement completly (or you get called a Google Hater/Verizon employee, etc. (thanks for seeing through that, Plus One)).

You don't see what I've stated mention by many sources as it's not popular to call out Google and look like you support Verizon's point of view (Android Police has a good article on this). I just have a bunch in my undies on this subject so I had to say something.

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

Re: Nope

I think the comment section in David Ruddock's articles from lawyers familiar with the case basically explain the Verizon/Google Wallet fiasco better and fill in what is missing from the Android Police articles I have read. David has claimed to be playing devil's advocate on the issue, so the articles are weighted to support Verizon and are primarily one-sided.

In a nutshell, Verizon has a history of anti-competitive behavior. Perhaps in the situation with Google Wallet, the excuse they used is not quite as absurd as some of their other dick moves they've made. Still, their own ISIS uses Secure Element so they should understand how it works, technical information on exactly how the Secure Element works is available from Google and there are no secrets about it from a development standpoint, and it works perfectly fine on other carriers using similar technology.

The only thing I'm certain of is that offering consumers a choice is not something that Verizon wishes to be a part of whenever they can find a valid way to eliminate it. A solid business plan, but Verizon (and similar mega-corporations with limited competition) always seems to take it much too far.
tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Re: Nope

The issue is not know how the secure element works, the issue as Verizon claims is since it's locked down that they can't know what the app is doing so they need to ban the app. Again I'm not saying this is correct but if Verizon can't know what the app does, how do they know it's not doing something bad. I'm _not_ saying this is not simply a smoke screen but truth is.... Verizon might be somewhat correct. Has Google ever been fined for doing something under handed? YUP!!!! More then a few times! But here is how I look at the matter... if Google blocks part of the phone from the manufacture, carrier and end user... how wrong is it for Verizon to block Google? Fair is fair? As I mentioned before, this is where Google lovers start to disappear and/or completly ignore that question. They don't seem to like when their own argument is used against them.

Here is something else to consider... Verizon allows the Paypal bluetooth app to be used on their network. So how is it that they are monopoliznig the market? You don't really see this mention as it's not cool to point that out. I think the other carriers allow it as well.. and they are not regulated like Verizon.

(I've not checked myself abut Paypal but I read that in a few places)

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

Re: Nope

I was under the impression that Google had explained what the Secure Element was doing and why it was necessary to be locked-down. I have not bothered to follow this too closely, but it would seem that Verizon would know exactly what it was capable of doing and exactly why, as they use it themselves, now.

In the end, this is all just one big, ugly battle to tap into the credit card industry's lucrative customer base. Honesty and scruples need not apply.

Let the battle begin..er..continue!

»blogs.gartner.com/rajesh-kandasw···nd-isis/

••••

rit56

join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
How long have you been working for Verizon?

••••

jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1

2 recommendations

said by tcope:

Google is a phone company... do they sell Samsungs?

Yep!

»www.google.com/intl/ms/chrome/de···ml#ss-cb

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
Reviews:
·Charter
said by tcope:

I'm not defendnig Verizon or their actions but this article is simply incorrect in respects to what it claims of Verizon's statement abotu Google Wallet. So much so that it appears that the author simply does not know what he/she is talking about.

This opinion piece is correct. You are mistaken. I had Verizon and the Galaxy Nexus, so I was very aware that I had to jump through hoops to install Google Wallet and update the app. I've followed the developments on this for years, and I finally voted with my wallet and left Verizon because of their policies that the FCC is too spineless to address.

Verizon still wants to be a monopoly. They should focus on being a dump pipe provider instead of pushing their terrible bloatware and craptastic side ventures on the public.
tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2

Re: Nope

I stand behind what I stated as being correct. I never stated that Verizon was not blocking Wallet (they are but they claim to have a reason that allows them to do this. I neither agree nor disagree with their reasoning as it's not relevant to my statement). You can feel free to go back and read my initial post for clarification but Verizon was not blocking Wallet because Verizon stated it needed to be in a "new" secure element. I think the author confused what he/she read/hear. Android takes over the phones built in Secure Element. It then does not allow anything else to access the SE (i.e. they block it's use... _block_). I'll just say that Verizon had an "issue" with what Android was doing in Verizon's phone (because Verizon owed it before selling it and it was operating under Verizon's network). Verizon told the FCC that they would allow Wallet if Google released the phone's secure element and allowed Verizon to understand what was being done. This is different then claiming Verizon told Google that they had to use a "new and proprietary hardware element". I think what the author did was understand how Google changed things in 4.4 and twisted these two things together. But this also made the claim 100% incorrect.

You claim you had to jump through hoops to load Wallet on the Nexus. That is a _result_ of the above situation but a different subject.

What do I think of Verizon? They about as controling and scummy as a company can be. I think the same of AT&T. But if someone likes these companies, I have no problem with that. If they are happy, great! But I'm just a little tired of people thinking Google is not to blame as well. They are... and for the same reasons! Google wants to have a monopoly and control everything they are into as well. I guess that will now make me a "Google Hater" . I actually LOVE Google. But I'll hold them accountable if thats the case.
Keefer21

join:2012-07-06
Hilton, NY

3 recommendations

What a shocker!

Is this really new's to anyone? Ive been boycotting verizon for YEARS for this reason. GREEDY. All companies are in business to make money but verizon just takes it to a disgusting level.

When i was 18 i walked into a verizon store with no credit & verizon wanted 1000$ deposit!!! you kidding me!! everyone else wanted 100-200$

Verizon is an evil company that every single subscriber empowers. Anyone i know with verizon that complains in my company gets shut down quickly because i don't want to hear it & this is why.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Re: What a shocker!

said by Keefer21:

Anyone i know with verizon that complains in my company gets shut down quickly because i don't want to hear it & this is why.

Go to Verizon's coverage page. Enter any city in Upstate New York. Now zoom out. Zoom out some more. Repeat this exercise on T-Mobile and AT&T.

(Sprint is actually comparable, since they roam on VZW, though it's not the same experience when you repeatedly drop calls while your phone dithers between -108dBm of native signal vs. -60dBm of VZW roaming)

Now tell me that the ability to actually USE my phone is worth giving up to take a principled stand against Verizon's business tactics, particularly when said tactics have never directly impacted me. Locked down phones? Yeah, if you use the VZW firmware. Can't remember the last phone I had that kept the VZW software. It was pre-RAZR, even those were flashable to ditch the VZW bloat.

Verizon is the hottest woman in the room and until that changes she'll continue to get away with her behavior. Don't like it? Tell T-Mobile to stop cherry picking the most profitable areas and leaving the rest of us to wither on the vine. While you're at it, ask Karl why T-Mobile is never called out for this behavior while Verizon is mercilessly vilified for doing the same with FIOS.
Keefer21

join:2012-07-06
Hilton, NY

Re: What a shocker!

said by Crookshanks:

Verizon is the hottest woman in the room and until that changes she'll continue to get away with her behavior.

LOL wow i like that. If you dont mind i will be using that!

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Until you throw Apple into the equation

Nobody messes with Apple. PERIOD.

I have my iPhone through Verizon, iPhone 5 with 32 GB of memory and I get my apps through the Apple App Store and my music through the Apple iTunes store.

You want to sell Apple phones, you sell them on Apple's terms. Maybe Google needs to try harder to tighten their grip on Android phones. Maybe if they weren't so open platform like Apple, maybe then they could have more control over their phones and the Android operating system.

It's the Android's openness that allows Verizon to hijack the user experience.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.

••••

michieru
Premium
join:2009-07-25
Miami, FL

...

Verizon can do what they wish. If you don't like it then switch carriers. You let them treat you like that because you choose to continue paying them every month.
TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH

Re: ...

And that's what happens. Everyone claims they have the best network, the best carrier, blah blah blah. But yet have nothing more than anyone else. If nobody is happy with them, then why stay and get raped?

aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

Re: ...

said by TBBroadband:

And that's what happens. Everyone claims they have the best network, the best carrier, blah blah blah. But yet have nothing more than anyone else. If nobody is happy with them, then why stay and get raped?

Only in my area Verizon does have the best coverage. Everyone else I work with will have issues with their cell phones on other carriers. When they can't get a signal, I still have one or two bars of signal strength on my Verizon phone. When they are only getting two or three bars I am getting five bars.

For the most part I have been pleased with my Verizon service. I'm still able to get unlimited data and text along with 450 minutes of talk. Then I get an additional $10 off for combining my cellular bill with my three FiOS services. So my Verizon cellphone only costs me $70 a month after taxes.

Now if/when Verizon kicks me off unlimited data that will be another story. But right now, no other carrier can give me the coverage that Verzion gives me or can give me a price as low as Verizon gives me.

sb999

@beyondbb.com

5 recommendations

Verizon

To all those asking why people stick with Verizon while we bash them incessantly, one word, coverage. It's really hard to go to the competition when you can't get a decent signal in half the areas you are in.

I have always avoided Verizon for all the reason people bitch about here and everywhere else. I had AT&T then Sprint. I have friends that went with T-Mobile. We all had the same problem, poor coverage. When I went from Sprint to Verizon, finally, the difference was night and day in the ability to get a good signal everywhere.

The other providers don't seem willing to invest in the infrastructure to be able to actually compete with Verizon in coverage.

As a company I hate Verizon and wish I could vote with my wallet by going somewhere else. But the "competition" doesn't provide coverage good enough to allow me to do that. I run my business on my cell phone so I am stuck on Verizon until Sprint, AT&T or T-Mobile does a much better job providing coverage.

•••••••

amarryat
Verizon FiOS

join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA

2 recommendations

Network safety - they've used that excuse before

Remember when your Blackberry's couldn't use GPS unless you subscribed to Verizon's navigation? GPS was "locked out" of being used by other applications, and they gave the safety excuse.
elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

1 recommendation

Re: Network safety - they've used that excuse before

Yes. I had to buy a bluetooth GPS receiver to then use my GPS software (which wasn't navigator)... That really got me fired up.

They also disabled data transfer so you couldn't get your own ringtones.

IMHO, this is par for the course for VZ and since this is an open market people can decide, it's not anti-competitive, it's anti-consumer.

So until they start loosing customers (they are not) they are of the mind of controlling aspects that can benefit their ARPU.

I have Verizon and the Mrs for corporate because it's got the best coverage and their business services are the best. As a consumer they treat you like crap, and I would never put a personal phone on VZ network..

With the iphone, Mr Gates set the bar, now it's a matter of GOOG people cramming it down their throats by releasing competitive phones on other vendors...

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
I remember it well. All GPS apps were prohibited from using the device GPS radio, forcing the users to use Verizon's $10 a month (IIRC) GPS app and service. Same thinking, evolved and perpetuated.
Taget

join:2004-07-29

Thank goodness Apple came along.

And I'm saying that as someone who otherwise dislikes Apple, it's iphone, and it's general behavior.

Apple certainly was not the first company that came up with the idea of apps or useful programs one could run on your phone. But before then the carriers generally stripped whatever innovations the manufacters tried to sneak through and replaced them with buggy brew programs (like gps or vcast) you could make a certain numbers extra a month to use.

Apple had the market presense that they could get at least one manufacter (AT&T) to agree to let them do what honestly all cell phone makers had wanted to do for years. Be allowed to bring their innovations to market. And when it caught fire the others had no choice but to allow the likes of Android on their system.

Apple was not the first attempt at a smart phone. But before then the walled garden was so tight that most people did not see much of a point in getting a pda phone. But it was unique circumstances and serendipity why we have things as good as we have them now. And companies like Verizon would love to use the market position they got off buying the competition and milking their landline customers to get control back and stifle the innovation they see as unfairly allowing others besides themselves to make money.

The problem of course is government is a very blunt instrument to use for an often nuanced situation. Which is what makes the FCC's 600 MHz auction so important. The best way to keep the carriers honest is to have at least 4 competitive carriers. And there are carriers (Verizon and AT&T) who have a virtual lock on most of the good low frequency bandwidth. They need to be kept away from it.

•••
VerizonCynic

join:2006-10-25
Lakewood, CA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

market share

we do not have competition in wireless. its "faux" competition. Thank god T mobile was not swallowed up. Can you imagine what a mess we would be in now. Companies that get too powerful in terms of market share just start behaving badly. Corps are run by people. People just start behaving badly when they get power. The problem with "govt regulation" is that most of the regulation hurts small cos and not the big cos that have the money and staff to comply with what ever the govt throws at them. The other problem with regulation is that our govt is led around by the nose (via cash spreading lobbyists) by cos like verizon (lets see who did Obama tap to fix ACA..verizon..wtf?)
--
Lakewood Accountability Action Group | »www.LAAG.us | Demanding action and accountability from local government
kerton

join:2003-05-15
Pleasanton, CA

1 recommendation

Does Verizon Really Block Stuff?

Karl,

I took a quick trip down memory lane, to see if your crazy theory of Verizon blocking apps and services had legs. You just may be right.

Here's VZW on Bluetooth in 2004-2005:
»www.tomshardware.com/forum/32882···pability
»www.engadget.com/2004/08/27/veri···-on-the/

On Wi-Fi in 2008:
»bgr.com/2008/10/31/the-real-reas···d-hsdpa/

On Tethering in 2008-2012:
»gigaom.com/2012/07/31/fcc-tells-···r-1-25m/

On Skype in 2010:
»www.techdirt.com/articles/201004···22.shtml

One very important take-away from the short list above is that, if you look at a Verizon smartphone today, you'll find all of those feared technologies in the phone. i.e. The blocking efforts are, long-term, failures. It's a finger in the dike.

(PS. Always check your spelling when writing "finger in the dike".)

Carriers need to incorporate better responses to trends and technologies that threaten them. Be open, partner, or act faster in areas of strength is what I tend to suggest...but only sometimes does anyone listen.

@derekkerton

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

Re: Does Verizon Really Block Stuff?

Really an excellent point and good historical context. I'd remembered the war on tethering and GPS apps but had forgotten the attack on Bluetooth. Going to write a new concluding paragraph and steal your point. Thanks Derek!
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

Are those "sloppy and clunky" service not failing?

said by Karl Bode:

Normally in a competitive market when your products and services are sloppy, clunky, or otherwise just not very good, you'll simply fail.

The attempted VZ services that you referenced did, or are failing. Seems the competitive marketplace is working just fine.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Why are they not open?

AT&T is open, and they make a crapload of money. You can bring whatever device you want onto their network, and it works just fine.

Paladin
Sage of the light

join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL

Re: Why are they not open?

Yes, but if you buy a device on contract, unlocking it through them is like pulling teeth. That's better than Verizon but unfortunately that isn't saying much.
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Re: Why are they not open?

That's not the point. If you bring an N5 to AT&T, it will work just fine. No need to even tell AT&T what you're doing, you just swap the SIM and go. Verizon is a pseudo-closed network, which is stupid, especially given that practically speaking, you can sort of SIM swap with data-only LTE devices.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

1 edit

And a majority of consumers don't care enough

said by Karl Bode:

In a truly healthy competitive market, that price would be users leaving Verizon and heading to carriers with more open-minded and intelligent executives. But despite claims, this isn't an entirely healthy and competitive wireless market.

VZ, the largest wireless operator in the US, continues to grow wireless subs, which suggests that a majority US consumers don't care enough about VZ's business practices to do anything about them. Given at least a couple of alternative providers in most markets, the demand for VZ's products and services are greater than the tepid desire for "openness".
said by Karl Bode:

In the short term however, without functioning regulators and healthy competition, consumers get to feel the brunt of the stupidity.

Consumer stupidity? Once again, consumers choose their poison. I love how some people continue attempting to displace fault.

momcat1
No Relation To The Bobcat

join:2002-10-21
Wappingers Falls, NY

run and don't look back - you have many other options

This is exactly why I got rid of Verizon Wireless in 2005. We gave them a fair chance to improve, but fair is obviously not part of their vocabulary. I know they don't have to be fair. But I don't need to throw away my hard earned cash to support their nonsense. It IS MY phone, even if I bought it from them. What I do with it is my business.