dslreports logo

story category
Verizon: 'Systems Issue' Holding Up Nexus 7 Certification
by Karl Bode 08:35AM Thursday Nov 07 2013
While Google's Nexus 7 tablet will work on other carriers and has for some time, Nexus 7 remains stuck in some kind of approval purgatory at Verizon. Users who have taken the tablet to Verizon expecting it to work have been rejected, even though you can take a SIM from another Verizon approved tablet (like an iPad), plug it into the Nexus 7, and use it on Verizon's network with no problem.

After a few weeks of silence, Verizon has issued a new statement blaming Google for additional delays. Sort of:
During the certification process for the Nexus 7, Google, Asus and Verizon uncovered a systems issue that required Google and Asus to undertake additional work with the Jelly Bean OS running on the device. Since Google was about to launch its new Kit Kat OS, rather than undertake this work, Google and Asus asked Verizon to suspend its certification process until Google's new OS was available on the Nexus 7.
Verizon hasn't bothered to specify exactly what "systems issue" held up approval. You can, conveniently enough, now purchase Verizon's own 7 inch tablet directly from Verizon.

topics flat nest 

Wakefield, MA
·Verizon FiOS

It's obvious...

The big issue was it was android , and there was no way to stick Verizon bloat ware on it. If they can't get a little extra kick back they will leave it sit idle in favor of those that do provide the kick back.
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!"

Karl Bode
News Guy

3 recommendations

Re: It's obvious...

You can't have the Nexus 7, but here's our bloatware-riddled 7 inch Verizon tablet!

You can't have the Nexus 5, but here's our bloatware-riddled Droid!

You can't use Google Wallet, but here's our own mobile payment service Isis!

The pattern is rather clear at this point, with the tactic buried under a layer of faux-technical justifications each time. We're anti-competitive -- for the safety of the network!



Re: It's obvious...

"for the safety of the network!"

Some how they can twist that into "It's for kid's safety!"


Glen Head, NY

Re: It's obvious...

said by battleop:

"for the safety of the network!"

Which is why I always wondered if the CDMA2000 carriers had inferior technology compared to GSM/UMTS. The GSM/UMTS system has always given the customer the freedom to install their SIM in a compatible device. When I was on T-Mobile, I used all sorts of GSM devices that I had without a peep from T-Mobile. Sprint and Verizon always required you to register your ESN with them in order to activate your device thus giving them the ability to say "hell no" and that was that. It is for this reason a Sprint iPhone, if it was fully unlocked, would work on Sprint, T-Mobile and AT&T but not Verizon because Verizon will not let it on its network (the same applies for a Verizon iPhone that Sprint will not allow on its network).

So it if is true it is because of network safety and integrity, perhaps CDMA2000 wasn't so great after all.
I support the right to keep and arm bears.

Snohomish, WA
said by Karl Bode:

The pattern is rather clear at this point, with the tactic buried under a layer of faux-technical justifications each time. We're anti-competitive -- for the safety of the network!

While there COULD be issues/potential issues that MIGHT effect the network/system on their end, even if it appears to function well to a typical user, I agree that Verizon's Abundance of Caution is becoming a Objection of Convenience (their convenience, not users)
I can understand why they might not publicly reveal a detailed description for security reason but perhaps it is time, that if not approved after x amount of time someone technical at the FCC( could be anyone willing to be bound by confidentiality agreements, but answerable to the public, not the company)) should be given all the details for technical evaluation and a binding opinion letter of the validity of the problem(s) be publicly issued.

Hilton, NY
said by Karl Bode:

for the safety of the network!

Hmmm sounds just like Ma bell before the breakup.

Fremont, OH
You can get the boaltware, just uninstall it. But with their own device, you can't easily remove it.



Uh oh!

Jeff Jarvis ain't gonna like this!

This is what happened when he was asked if he was happy with the Nexus 7 LTE!

August 28.


September 18:


Germantown, OH

Other carriers ?

Odd that this "system issue" didn't impact the other carriers....

Valrico, FL

Re: Other carriers ?

said by Hall:

Odd that this "system issue" didn't impact the other carriers....

Or any users that use their tables without being "certified" first. (put a SIM card from another device)

We the people
Brewster, WA

Verizon vs. AT&T

Maybe the issue is that Verizon goes about collection of data different than AT&T since Verizon has a more locked down network that requires more effort to change phones?

So AT&T historically has been "GSM" so you just bring your own device and pop in the card which makes consistent snooping more difficult on the device itself. Verizon isn't (or wasn't) that way so maybe their devices have a little built in snooping... which if my memory serves me correctly they were the ones that got caught with something of this sort on their phones once.

Just speculation but in the age of NSA and government sponsored corporate espionage, there's a great chance that anything that makes an extra buck will exists if it's possible in some way.
Say no to astroturfing. go to their profile, start ignoring posts and ignoring what's not true.
Dallas, TX

Re: Verizon vs. AT&T

I sounds like you are talking about CarrierIQ? I don't believe VZW installed CIQ on any of their devices. It was AT&T and I believe T-Mobile, and a few others... I believe Verizon did go with another. The software is installed directly on the device and not on the SIM.

CIQ, and similar software, was intended to be used for device side diagnostics; however, it wasn't implemented properly and it gave WAY too much access. As for the intent, that's an entirely different argument.

Verizon is simply being anti-competitive in whatever way they are able to be. This is nothing new for them.