dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
share rss forum feed
« The T-1000 reassembles!What a shocker! »
This is a sub-selection from Nope

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

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
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
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.