Verizon, caught red-handed
buzzmachine.com
buzzmachine.com
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.
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.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
"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
"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-...
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] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Equipment_Identifier
Every phone from the Galaxy S3 onward on Verizon has had a bootloader unable to be unlocked per Verizon's request to the OEM. Galaxy S3 on Verizon was also the only S3 to have a bootloader that could not be unlocked the day of release (it could be later on through various hacks). They have no phones I find interesting unfortunately and I'll be leaving them I think once my contract runs out or my Galaxy Nexus gets too old. Plus, if I want to keep my unlimited data in the case they do happen to get the next Nexus, I would have to pay a 150% or so markup buying it off contract versus buying the GSM version from Google and using T-Mobile.
I'm wondering - if the allegations are true, why doesn't Google sue? Are they trying to preserve some kind of relationship with Verizon?
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.
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...) 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.
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.
"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.
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.
They are doing all three. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
The complete culture-incompatibility the two companies have would destroy the value of any purchase.
Not so perfect, really.
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.
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... 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."
What kind of game are they trying to play here, that probably involves Google, the creator of the device ?
Either way the OP with "caught red-handed" made it seem like a conspiracy
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
What makes you believe that? Others have reported simply buying an activated SIM and putting it in there, so I can't understand what would make you believe that they have to update their POS systems?