
Verizon Is Blocking Google Wallet Anti-Competitively - mtgx
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Its-Clear-Verizon-Is-Blocking-Google-Wallet-AntiCompetitively-122513
======
richardjordan
First Google voice, now this. Le sigh...

I was in the business of mobile applications pre-iPhone, the era of phone
companies picking winners or trying to do things themselves and the net result
was that most mobile functionality beyond the basics was garbage. Not just the
devices but the poor choices mediocre people at some high-mid level in the
phone companies would make on all kinds of weak decision making criteria led
to bad poorly thought out software choices, both on the consumer side and the
enterprise side.

Of course carriers thought it was in their best interests and that they could
beat market based product discovery. Neither was really true as the explosion
of innovation caused by the iPhone and the cadre of early post-iPhone mobile
app developers demonstrated.

This kind of move by Verizon is a misguided step back to that world. It's
frustrating and stupid and in the long run unlikely to be a win for Verizon,
despite any short term gain for some internal project or other built by a
second rate team put together to defend someone's budget allocation.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Why the mention of Google Voice? I've never had an issue using Google Voice w/
Verizon, all the way back to Droid OG days.

~~~
richardjordan
I moved to Verizon on my birthday on the 8th of this month. Finally ditched
T-mobile to get an iPhone. I have been using Google Voice as my sole number
for years now. It's very important to me. I even explained this when buying.
Turns out that unannounced Verizon has started blocking Google Voice verifying
your number do I cannot use it. At first I thought it was a blip but lots of
Googling has discovered this appears to be a change as it's hitting everyone.
If anyone can show me a fix and where I'm wrong I will happily stand
corrected. But to this date every attempt to get my phone added to Google
Voice has failed and blocking appears to be going on. I would not be surprised
if existing iPhone Google Voice users are fine if they've already verified
their number. I have no idea.

~~~
w1ntermute
> Turns out that unannounced Verizon has started blocking Google Voice
> verifying your number do I cannot use it.

How exactly do they block it? According to the verification instructions[0],
Google Voice calls you and asks you to enter a verification code. How can this
be blocked? It would be like any other DTMF service. Also, isn't it illegal to
block this?

0:
[http://support.google.com/voice/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answ...](http://support.google.com/voice/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=144586)

~~~
richardjordan
Oh, I know how it works :-) ...it just doesn't any more. I don't know of any
legality blocking such a call but I can assure you no matter how many times I
trigger the verification process I get nothing but an error message and no
call or text from Mr Google.

~~~
ropiku
I successfully verified my new Verizon number last month

~~~
richardjordan
Right. So I understand. People seem to have started reporting issues since
early December. I know you COULD do it on Verizon ...I wouldn't have
considered them otherwise. It's just disappointing that they appear to have
made a recent decision to change that.

------
Cherian_Abraham
Somewhat my area of focus.

The SE Isis uses is on the SIM, the SE GoogleWallet uses is Embedded on chip.
Two different types, chosen primarily around distribution mechanisms each
could protect. Google felt if it were embedded, its relationships with OEM's
would primarily help its case. Carriers went the SIM route primarily due to
them being the only distribution channel that matters in the US for phones.

Google Wallet can potentially work off of a SIM based SE. But this would mean
that Google will have to work with in the parameters of Carrier's Isis
framework. Isis framework is different in that it has no visibility in to the
transaction data. Google will have to opt in to this approach (Banks require
it because they fear Google). Google wants data and will never agree. Yada
Yada Yada.

Verizon did block Google because of its stake in Isis. And because Banks would
have explicitly sought out Carriers to block GoogleWallet on Carrier phones.
Google could work with Isis with in its own framework, but it never will.
Competing interests, revenue models and goals.

~~~
mtgx
That still doesn't make it right, though, and it's still anti-competitive. I
mean who is Verizon to say that a company can't run a certain type of app on
"their" phones, because they are not even their phones. They are their
customers' phones.

It's especially troublesome when Verizon is creating a competing app, and they
are just giving a more or less "reasonable" excuse to completely take out
their competitor from the market, much like Apple is doing with the browsers
on iOS. The difference here is that these carriers almost completely own the
US market, and them joining together like this to stop Google from putting the
app on their phones is kind of a cartel movement, isn't it?

At the very least, I think this is worth an investigation from FCC and FTC.

~~~
loceng
The billions of dollars that could be used to lobby special interests into law
is who's trying to say they can't run it on 'their' phones..

------
rsingel
Actually, it's not just anti-competitive, it's plainly illegal for Verizon to
be messing with Google Wallet or Voice on any of its 4G phones.

Verizon licensed the C Block in 2008, which come with rules that REQUIRE it to
allow any phone to run any app. Unfortunately the FCC has been gutless about
enforcing the rule. It took the agency 10 months to force Verizon to allow
tethering apps in Google App store. If they'd had any guts, they would have
banned Verizon from selling the 4G iPhone which, as a locked down phone, is
arguably illegal under the rules.

In fact, Google argued that it would be illegal for Verizon to sell a locked
down phone on that spectrum, but then once it started to need Verizon, it
refuses to stand by its earlier rules.

And these rules matter a lot, because come spring, a federal court will rule
that the FCC's net neutrality rules have no legal basis and the ONLY net
neutrality rules left standing will be the ones on Verizon's C Block.

~~~
Steko
"allow any phone to run any app"

The ability to run the app =/= which default apps are on the device.

~~~
patrickod
AFAIK they block installation from the Play store.

~~~
Steko
My bad, looks like this is the case. TFA linked to [1] which seemed to only
indicate that VZW wasn't allowing it as a default app. But [2] and elsewhere
indicated VZW had also asked Google to not allow the app on Verizon devices.

[1] [http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Were-Blocking-
Goo...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Were-Blocking-Google-
Wallet-for-Good-Reason-Honest-122415)

[2] [http://www.droid-life.com/2012/12/10/verizon-responds-to-
fcc...](http://www.droid-life.com/2012/12/10/verizon-responds-to-fcc-
complaint-over-blocking-of-google-wallet-says-google-needs-to-change-the-app/)

------
FreeKill
I think the biggest detriment to the adoption of these mobile payment
platforms is going to be trust. There is no way I'd trust a platform like the
Isis one that was mentioned in the article to act as my mobile middle man for
transactions. Many of those companies have a less than stellar reputation with
customers that tends to lean toward the "necessary evil" side of things.

The last thing I'd want to do is give them more personal info, more of my
money, and give them more control. I'm probably the minority though.

How is it done in Asia where this is already much more popular? Who controls
the payment platforms the banks? the mobile carriers?

~~~
w1ntermute
> How is it done in Asia where this is already much more popular?

In Japan, Osaifu Keitai[0] is a partnership between the major carriers (NTT
DoCoMo, au, and SoftBank) that uses technology developed by Sony.

0: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaifu-Keitai>

------
guard-of-terra
You get the phone subsidised from the retail price of $600 to $100, and your
carrier gets you to drop your pants.

You should totally find a way to reduce carrier to a dumb pipe. Everything
carriers (or ISPs) try to add to the service is awful, harmful and anti-
market. Make them just provide the connectivity and shut up.

~~~
mtgx
You say that as if the carrier is "eating the price of the phone" or
something, and even if you didn't mean it like that, I think that's how most
people see it. When in fact it's not anything more than sending them payments
for the phone every month, instead of paying for it all upfront. And I mean
that on top of the price you pay for Voice and text. If anything, they even
make a nice profit on those payments for the phone - probably a lot more than
a bank gets on a credit.

They are sneaky though. The reason they get you to think that is by keeping
the plans prices the same, even if you come with your own phone. In Europe, if
you use your own phone, the plan is significantly cheaper than when getting it
with a phone, especially if it's a pretty high-end phone.

~~~
guard-of-terra
The problem is that they're not just "eat the price of the phone by making
plans fatter". They're "eat the price of the phone by making plans fatter AND
your phone dumber, less useful, less secure and less predictable".

------
alexqgb
In there any electrical customer anywhere who wants the utility to say what
they can and plug into the wall sockets based on whether or not the utility
also sells competing products? ("Sorry, but your fancy new toaster doesn't
come from Pacific Gas & Electric. Here, buy our crappy overpriced version
instead.")

By the same token, is there any data provider model that (a) customers want
and (b) works the same way? The idea that buying a phone from Verizon makes it
"their" phone, which they can then control in whatever way benefits them the
most is just anathema. It's like an ISP saying you can't use your Mac because
they have a deal with Microsoft, and if you want to get online, you need to
buy Windows 8. On a machine bought from them.

Virtually EVERYBODY wants a dumb pipe delivering commodified data. People will
pay for bandwidth (high or low) and latency (short or long). The market can
price each according to demand and the constraints of available technology.
And providers, being utilities, should be able to count on a low but rock
solid margin of profit.

And if you're in the data access business, you should absolutely barred from
any other line of commerce on the grounds that it will represent a conflict of
interest. To the extent that data service (esp. wireless) depends on a public
resource (spectrum), there should be no question here.

I mean, data is a utility. Like water, like gas, like electricity. Just add a
meter, deliver the goods, and get the hell out of the way.

~~~
46Bit
> Virtually EVERYBODY wants a dumb pipe delivering commodified data. People
> will pay for bandwidth (high or low) and latency (short or long). The market
> can price each according to demand and the constraints of available
> technology. And providers, being utilities, should be able to count on a low
> but rock solid margin of profit.

True on the logical level, false on the human level.

If carriers became just & only that, providing dumb pipe service for a flat
monthly rate, things might well be better overall.

Unfortunately it's hard to lobby the public on a coherent dream. Sure, many
people who think much about the market may agree, but all the staff at all the
carrier phone shops, and their families, will campaign against you. As will
all the bribery dollars of the telecoms companies.

You'd be shot down in flames for trying to regulate this. Congressman in
narrow districts would get warned off by angry potential voters, the mass
public would be advertised into uncertainty, etc.

------
jug6ernaut
One thing not commented on in this article is that AT&T and T-Mobile are doing
the exact same thing. Of the big 4 US carriers the only one not explicitly
blocking Google Wallet is Sprint.

~~~
natrius
I use Google Wallet on my Galaxy Nexus using T-Mobile. (Or at least I _did_
use it until my free $10 ran out. I don't get how it's supposed to be more
convenient than swiping a card.)

Verizon won't let phones access their network if Google Wallet can be
installed. That is significantly different from every other network.

~~~
eco
> Verizon won't let phones access their network if Google Wallet can be
> installed. That is significantly different from every other network.

That's not true. I use a sideloaded Google Wallet on a Verizon Galaxy Nexus
just fine.

~~~
natrius
Google Wallet is in Google Play on my phone. It isn't on Verizon phones. There
is a distinction.

------
majorlazer
Semi-related question:

How difficult would it be to disrupt the cell phone market? I used AT&T for a
few years and now I have been using Verizon for 2 years, in my dealings with
these companies I have found them to be much more scummier than almost any
other industry out there. They have the most complicated policies where even
if you try to do everything right, you will still get dinged with fees every
now and then.

Are these companies really scummy or is it just the nature of the business? I
know certain industries are very difficult to operate due to specific issues
like scammers and online payments (I believe PayPal were the first ones to get
it right and they are one of the most hated companies).

Is it possible for a company, let's say Google, to provide an unlimited
data/calling plan for a reasonable cost without all of the hidden fees and
charges?

~~~
pavel_lishin
> How difficult would it be to disrupt the cell phone market?

Well, to start you'd have to do is build a couple of hundred thousand
cellphone towers, at a couple of hundred thousand dollars apiece.

~~~
pyre
You're leaving out the part where you purchase a swatch of spectrum for
billions of dollars from the US government.

------
killermonkeys
I can't help but think that NFC and the technical implementation differences
between Isis and Wallet are a total red herring as far as consumers are
concerned. Isis have already stolen the momentum but have wasted it with
inaction. Non-NFC fully-online payment systems (square, Starbucks) have
meanwhile grown successfully.

Google pushed hard for adoption from terminal providers and retailers while
Isis have done very little to develop a real platform until very recently. The
result, frankly, is that you aren't likely to need to tap your phone to
conduct business, instead you'll press a button on your phone. And no consumer
will care.

So Verizon ultimately loses out on a massive transaction market by trying to
fight Google.

------
mtgx
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "secure element" is ARM's TrustZone [1], that
is found on every ARM Cortex-based device out there, right? Or is there
anything special they are adding to some of the latest ARM SoC's in phones? If
it's TrustZone, then Verizon has been lying about this from the very
beginning.

[1]
[http://www.arm.com/products/processors/technologies/trustzon...](http://www.arm.com/products/processors/technologies/trustzone.php)

Application Examples for TrustZone:

• Secured PIN entry for enhanced user authentication in mobile payments &
banking

• Anti-malware that is protected from software attack

• Digital Right Management

• Software license management

• Loyalty-based applications

• Access control of cloud-based documents

• e-Ticketing Mobile TV

~~~
jrockway
The secure element is typically on the NFC chip.

~~~
18pfsmt
Actually, this is untrue, and I know of no NFC ASIC with an integrated secure
element (not NXP, nor Sony); the ASICs are typically just transceivers (the
exception being an NXP ASIC with embedded MiFare). The SIM has been identified
for a long time as the probable security element for NFC. However, this has
long been a point of contention, and Gemalto (the largest SIM provider in the
world) has been playing both sides quite evenly.

~~~
jrockway
Hmm, I had this in mind:

[http://www.nxp.com/news/press-releases/2011/11/nxp-nfc-
solut...](http://www.nxp.com/news/press-releases/2011/11/nxp-nfc-solution-
implemented-in-galaxy-nexus-from-google.html)

"Featuring a NFC radio controller and an embedded Secure Element, the PN65N is
also fully validated and integrated on the latest release of Android™ 4.0."

~~~
18pfsmt
Admittedly, my knowledge is a little bit out of date, but that is one chip out
of several that I know over the last 7 years. You used the word "typically,"
and as you can imagine, the telcos have a preference for treating the SIM as
the secure element because they control it; in the US the telcos dirve the
majority of mobile sales.

This is a slightly sore subject as I worked for a startup that is now a
zombie, having attempted to wait out the fight over who would control NFC
payments (telco vs. credit card company).

Look at the just announced chip from Broadcom which supports "multiple secure
elements to ensure all payment business models are supported for today's
market.": [http://seekingalpha.com/news-article/5050981-broadcom-
launch...](http://seekingalpha.com/news-article/5050981-broadcom-launches-
industry-s-first-certified-nfc-quad-combo-wireless-connectivity-solution)

------
hadem
Can you use Google Wallet on a rooted phone?

~~~
lbredeso
If you are using Verizon, no. I have a rooted Galaxy Nexus Prime running
CyanogenMod 10, and the Play Store has always said, "Your device isn't
compatible with this version." when attempting to install/upgrade Google
Wallet.

When I first got this phone, before rooting it, I had found a "sideloaded" apk
of the app which worked for awhile, but I was unable to upgrade to newer
versions of the app easily.

~~~
chimeracoder
> If you are using Verizon, no. I have a rooted Galaxy Nexus Prime running
> CyanogenMod 10, and the Play Store has always said, "Your device isn't
> compatible with this version."

I'm assuming you were running a pre-release build; Google Play/Google Wallet
payments have always had a spotty track record on non-stable releases of CM. I
was able to run Google Wallet just fine when I was running an older version of
CM (rooted).

But you don't need to root to sideload it, either, even if you're on Verizon.

~~~
lbredeso
My only successful Google Wallet experience was before both rooting and
installing CM, with a sideloaded apk, using the build that shipped with the
phone.

------
hippich
Hm.. All this sounds really wrong (as well as having 4 major
internet/cell/phone/tv providers for the whole USA)

May be something like internet/infrastructure regulation similar to Israel
could help to solve this problem. <http://www.iasps.org/bezekisp.htm>

