

Verizon, caught red-handed - r0h1n
http://buzzmachine.com/2013/09/17/verizon-caught-red-handed/

======
runjake
I just got a new Nexus 7, went into a Verizon Wireless store with it and asked
for an LTE SIM. They briefly looked at my account and gave me a SIM card and I
plugged it into the Nexus 7 and was on my way.

This Jarvis guy is talking about how Verizon tried looking up his device's
ESN/MEID which is a CDMA thing. The Nexus 7 doesn't have CDMA. This makes me
think that both he and the reps he's been working with didn't understand how
CDMA and LTE provisioning works.

Edit: clarification.

~~~
anthonyb
From the article:

    
    
      Some also caution that on the Verizon network, my 
      Nexus 7 will connect only if LTE is available; it 
      will not be able to fail down to slower speeds 
      as it could on other networks. True; that is how 
      my Chromebook Pixel works and I am willing to live
      with the limitation for the price.

~~~
runjake
I don't understand your point of quoting the article. Does it not hash with
what I said above?

~~~
r0h1n
I don't think it's a rehash. Your original comment makes it seem as though
Jarvis was expecting LTE plus CDMA fallback, but the quoted portion from his
post says he understands there is no fallback and that he only wants LTE.

Yes, but that still leaves the issue of why Verizon would issue you a Nexus 7
SIM while denying officially they can do so, multiple times:

"We apologize for any inconvenience; however, it can not be activated." \-
[https://twitter.com/VZWSupport/statuses/380081363166048256](https://twitter.com/VZWSupport/statuses/380081363166048256)

"I'm excited you got your Nexus 7 but not all LTE tablets are created equal.
It's not part of our line up & can't be activated" \-
[https://twitter.com/VZWSupport/statuses/379946773730443264](https://twitter.com/VZWSupport/statuses/379946773730443264)

"This is not yet a device that is Verizon 4G LTE certified. We’ll let folks
know when it's certified." \- [Edited and corrected the URL]
[http://www.androidcentral.com/verizon-responds-inqury-
about-...](http://www.androidcentral.com/verizon-responds-inqury-about-lte-
enabled-nexus-7-activation-issues)

------
jwise0
There are a lot of pretty unpleasant things that Verizon are doing that one
could make a compelling argument for being violations of the upper C-block
agreement. But, this really isn't one of them.

For instance, selling phones with features stripped from them (bootloader
unlock capabilities on HTC One, for instance), is really not brilliant, and
may well be a violation of the intent of the terms, if not the letter. The
same might be the case for stripping tethering services from devices. (They
certainly did get nailed once for asking Google to block a tethering app on
their behalf; I think they caved before the FCC intervened. Please feel free
to correct me if I'm wrong; the details on that one are hazy in my head.)

But, there's nothing that says they have to sell you service (or sell you a
SIM card). If you have one, you can attach it... but there's nothing that says
they have to give you one for that purpose.

The "protection of the licensee's network" clause is a loophole big enough to
drive a truck through, by the way. They can set up as onerous of a
certification process as they (reasonably) want, and indeed, they have in the
past -- the intent of the regulation is just that they have to apply it
fairly. The reason why these rules are there are that cell networks are
incredibly fragile, and very sensitive to antenna calibration; especially on
CDMA networks, the near-far problem[1] can be pretty lethal to service for
_everyone_ on the tower if just _one_ device is miscalibrated. It wouldn't at
all surprise me if they had similar extensive calibration requirements for
their LTE network, and they'd be well within their rights to do that sort of
thing.

I'm as much of an unhappy Verizon customer as the next fellow, but whining
that you can't just go transmit on their frequencies with devices that they
haven't tested is not really conducive to the cause of folks who would say
that Verizon's upper C-block management is behaving in a fashion that limits
customer freedom.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-
far_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-far_problem)

~~~
girvo
Is it a CDMA thing? Because for literally the last decade and a bit, I've been
taking whatever phone I want and putting it on whatever network I want here in
Australia, no "carrier certification" needed...

~~~
yareally
Even with the device provisioning and tower handoffs now being done within the
SIM card in LTE enabled devices on Verizon, they still require consent to get
any sort of CDMA signal (which until VoLTE rolls out, includes making phone
calls). At least with LTE and SIMs finally on Verizon since 2010, you can
activate any device by simply popping in your SIM card, though only if the
device already is allowed on their network, since it does checks to verify the
MEI[1] number.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Equipment_Identifier](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Equipment_Identifier)

------
ak217
A comment on the article reads: "They are already flat out violating the same
lease obligations by blocking Google Wallet".

I'm wondering - if the allegations are true, why doesn't Google sue? Are they
trying to preserve some kind of relationship with Verizon?

~~~
cbsmith
Because it wouldn't accomplish much. Verizon has been on a bandwidth buying
spree and it is speculated that they are gearing up to sell off their 700MHz
band, and the obligations that come with it.

So, legal action at this point would accomplish little more than rack up legal
bills while Verizon stalls long enough to make the point moot.

~~~
JoshGlazebrook
This comment makes no sense at all. They would never throw away their lte
network they JUST finished building over the past 3 years. They are just
starting to roll out their 2nd layer of lte on their aws spectrum.

~~~
cbsmith
> This comment makes no sense at all.

Ah. So we're talking about phone companies!

> They would never throw away their lte network they JUST finished building
> over the past 3 years.

Whoa! No one said anything about throwing away their LTE network.

They are probably going to have to update that network in a few years anyway,
particularly as VoLTE picks up. Keep in mind I'm not talking about them
ditching it overnight, but rather over several years as lawsuits drag out.

> They are just starting to roll out their 2nd layer of lte on their aws
> spectrum.

They rolled out on the C band. It never touched any of the A & B bands it
picked up, and in fact, they just sold them off
([http://www.androidcentral.com/att-closes-19-billion-deal-
ver...](http://www.androidcentral.com/att-closes-19-billion-deal-
verizon-700mhz-spectrum)) in exchange for more AWS spectrum.

Now, based on what they've said publicly, their plan is to keep the 700MHz
spectrum, and use it for coverage, and then use the AWS spectrums for handling
densely populated areas.

But rumour has it they've been considering the possibility of a broader
divestment, which is partly why they are picking up spectrum all over the
place.

------
pilif
When an agreement has clauses like _reasonably necessary for the management or
protection of the licensee’s network_ , then you have nothing to complain.
Well at least you can't reasonably complain about them violating the
agreement, because a clause like that basically lets them do what they want.

Even if they had to prove that not allowing the Nexus 7 is needed for the
protection of the network, it would be trivial for them to come up with some
reason and all attempts to prove them wrong will end up with "your $REASON is
no valid argument. I can't tell you why though because that's a trade secret".

Whenever you read an exception like this, be assured that the whole agreement
is worthless because _anything_ can be tailored to fit that exception.

------
h4pless
Well to quote the quoted regulation:

"shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability"

They aren't really doing any of that are they? Do they say that LTE will never
be available to you on your device? Or that you can only use it so many hours
per day or only between such and such a time? I believe that is what would be
required for them to violate these regulations. And it appears that they are
acting within their legal rights to postpone their "mandatory inspections to
make sure the devices aren't bugged with something that could disrupt their
networks" or something. Are they doing it to gain a market advantage for a
bit? Sure. Is it immoral? Maybe. But is it against FCC regulation? That's much
harder to prove.

To say they are sidestepping regulation is one thing, or to say that they're
being immoral for their corporate actions. But suggesting that they are
violating FCC regulation is a statement of fact. A statement that could lead
to you being sued with libel.

I'm not saying you are wrong to be upset, I'm just saying: be careful what you
say.

~~~
yareally
> _Well to quote the quoted regulation: "shall not deny, limit, or restrict
> the ability"_

They do make people pay extra to officially be allowed to tether other devices
to their tiered data LTE connection. Those against people tethering used to be
quick to say, "It's to keep people from sucking down 200GB+ a month in
bandwidth when Verizon offered unlimited data."

However, that rational does not exactly work when only a minority still hold
onto their unlimited data almost 2 years after Verizon stopped it for anyone
renewing their contract. Especially not when most users are now limited to
2-4GB a month before overage fees.

------
D9u
Another example of a double standard where the corporation can violate
regulations with impunity yet an individual is imprisoned for an inordinate
term in regards to the act of incrementing a digit within a URL.

------
mingramjr
Why doesn't Google make a bid to take majority control of T-Mobile? It would
seem like the perfect marriage.

~~~
busterarm
Because T-Mobile is a company that actually knows how to handle customer
service and tends to value its customers and employees highly; a practice that
is almost antithetical to TelCo business.

The complete culture-incompatibility the two companies have would destroy the
value of any purchase.

Not so perfect, really.

~~~
stormcrowsx
I agree T-Mobile has stellar customer service, I contacted them about poor
coverage in a new area I moved to. Got a $40 credit on my line, and within a
month a network technician had fixed the issue and brought my coverage up.

It's amazing the difference though, I'd call Verizon and would get a generic
"We'll send someone to check on it" months later nothing would change. It's
nice to be with a company that will actually do something about your problems.

------
caseyf7
I often wonder if Google deciding not to purchase this spectrum was the
biggest mistake they've made.

------
stormcrowsx
Stop bitching about it and get off Verizon's network, enough of you leave and
they'll start to open up. Right now they have no incentive, idiots like this
guy will keep buying shit that locks them in for another 2 years and all he
can do about it is bitch on a blog.

------
brador
What's the optimal response in this situation? Can he sue?

------
GhotiFish
A thought: Maybe try to register the chromebook after switching the SIMs?

------
bsullivan01
from the tweet: "It works w/T-Mobile, A&T & Verizon. Or it's supposed to."

So who's fault is it? I wouldn't put anything pas Verizon (and ATT&T) but
maybe Google didn't certify it or whatever

edit: " [http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/24/4553054/new-nexus-7-lte-
at...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/24/4553054/new-nexus-7-lte-att-verizon-
tmobile-one-device) Update: We've learned from Google that 3G service will
work through HSPA on AT&T and T-Mobile. Verizon users will be left out,
however, as a CDMA radio isn't included — only an LTE one. That shouldn't be a
huge issue for Verizon users though, as the carrier now has LTE coverage in
over 500 markets."

~~~
notatoad
its Verizon's fault. if you put an activated verizon SIM card in it, it works.
Verizon is just refusing to sell you a Sim card if you say it's for a nexus 7.

~~~
bsullivan01
So for Nexus to work, Verizon would have to upgrade their POS (Point of sale)
system? _If_ that's the case, seems like a Google problem, device makers
should work within existing rules, can't count on ATT and Verizon to upgrade
their systems each time a new device comes out.

Either way the OP with "caught red-handed" made it seem like a conspiracy

~~~
notatoad
Its a Verizon problem, because the FCC rules they agreed to when they bought
that spectrum was that they had to allow any device. Not they had to allow
devices that had the right code for their POS terminals. There's no technical
reason that Verizon should have to update their POS system for every new
device, they just need to sell Sims not for use in any specific device.

------
nether
Ugh, more pointless tech drama. Can we agree that this doesn't really matter
and move on?

