dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
75
share rss forum feed

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
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


rit56

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


mack1951
Universal Soldier

join:2000-04-18
Bayonne, NJ
I do not now and have never worked for Verizon. Perhaps your comment was meant for the post above mine?
--
THE ROAD: Romans 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, 10:9

tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2
reply to mack1951
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.

tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to rit56
Never and I would _never_ pay them a dime (despite their good data coverage). I've been with T-Mobile for about 10 years now and never had an account with anyone else. I'd also _never_ recommend any get an account with Verizon. I guess this does not make me a shill? Just someone who is stating the facts.


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

2 recommendations

reply to tcope
said by tcope:

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

Yep!

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

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26
Fremont, OH
reply to rit56
So we're back to that game of you must work for XXX because you don't agree with the blog post for the day????? *smh*


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

1 edit
reply to tcope
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.


plus one

@comcast.net
reply to tcope
said by tcope:

Never and I would _never_ pay them a dime (despite their good data coverage). I've been with T-Mobile for about 10 years now and never had an account with anyone else. I'd also _never_ recommend any get an account with Verizon. I guess this does not make me a shill? Just someone who is stating the facts.

+1
The shill accusation is frequently used when the respondent has no argument against the facts stated in a post.


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to tcope
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
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.

Foxbat121

join:2001-04-25
Herndon, VA
reply to tcope
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
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
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

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
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/


jseymour

join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI
said by jmn1207:

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 'em battle. I have absolutely no intention of ever using my "smart"phone as a credit card substitute. I don't trust their security that far. And I certainly trust neither Google nor the likes of Verizon with the info they could snag from that kind of thing.

Jim

tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2
As if a credit card is not 99 % unsecure? In addition to a PIN, mobile payments also have the same protection as the card being used. People were scared of credit cards and ATM machines when they came out as well.


jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
I have no problem handing my credit card to some doofus making $9/hour that spends most of their money on tattoos and pot, so I think that I'm ready for my credit card to be on my mobile devices.

tcope
Premium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:2
Exactly. I just don't think people understand how unsecure a credit card is and that the credit card companeis _want_ it this way. In addition I don't think they understand how the mobile payment system works. So they just jump to the conclusion that anything new/different is not as secure.

I explain it to people as, the mobile payment is 100% more secure the a credit card and just as secure as a person's (true) debit card. Mobile also has all the same protection as a credit card.