You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought: Verizon Breaks Phones; Turns Off Feature

from the how-nice-of-them dept

Tue, Jul 12th 2011 10:00am — Mike Masnick

Yet another reminder that, in this day and age, you often don't actually own the products that you've purchased. The latest to make this point is Verizon, who has begun remotely crippling Android smartphones, turning off a feature that let people use the phones as mobile hotspots. The reason? Well, to make you pay more to re-enable the feature you used to have:

Verizon this week began pushing smartphone updates that cripple some devices' innate ability to be used as a mobile hotspot -- for free. Specifically, Verizon pushed an update to the HTC Thunderbolt that blocked the devices embedded hotspot functionality, making the device less valuable and less useful to consumers. Why? Verizon wants to ensure that users have to pay an additional $20 a month mobile hotspot fee.

The company has also received some help from Google, getting the Android maker to remove any tethering apps from the Google marketplace, thereby making it (somewhat) more difficult to workaround this feature-kill. As Karl Bode notes in the post linked above, this seems the opposite of "open", which both Verizon and Google have been pushing when it comes to Android.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: android, freedom to tinker, phones, tethering
Companies: google, verizon

116 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Gwiz (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:08am

....this seems the opposite of "open", which both Verizon and Google have been pushing when it comes to Android.

No, no, we just misunderstood when Verizon was talking about "open". They meant "open" as in "open your wallet".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:48am
  
  Re:
  I'd be opening my wallet to another carrier in this case. Open is indeed relative.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re:
  don't buy any of their shit, see what happens then.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:05pm
  
  Re:
  Verizon didn't just "talk" about 'Open'. It is a required condition of the 700MHz spectrum license that Verizon has from the FCC. The Thunderbolt is a LTE device that uses that 700MHz spectrum. This is a possible violation of Verizon's spectrum license terms, and should be taken up with the FCC.
  
  The irony is that Google, partly complicit here, was the instigator of the 'open' requirement in the 700MHz auction terms.
  
  see: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2254770,00.asp
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 12 Jul 2011 @ 5:46pm
    
    Re: This is a possible violation of Verizon's spectrum license terms...
    Pray tell, in what way?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Brendan (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:23pm
      
      Re: Re: This is a possible violation of Verizon's spectrum license terms...
      By blocking particular applications from running to suit their business model. That pretty much the opposite behaviour those rukes were supposed to encourage.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Derek Kerton (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:55pm
      
      Re: Re: This is a possible violation of Verizon's spectrum license terms...
      umm...see the hyperlinked reference story in my comment. That's a citation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 13 Jul 2011 @ 7:34pm
        
        Re: This is a possible violation of Verizon's spectrum license terms...
        I did. All it says is that the 700MHz block is �guaranteed to have open-access requirements�, which would seem to be the opposite of what you claimed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Derek Kerton (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 12:04am
        
        Re: Re: This is a possible violation of Verizon's spectrum license terms...
        Nope. "Open access requirements" means that they must operate that network as a dumb pipe, willing to accept any and all lawful devices and applications that users bring to it. I guess I'm a little confused at how you are interpreting the first link I posted: What do you think it means?
        
        Anyhow, see the first sentence of the second paragraph of this 3 year old article:
        http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/09/verizon-unhappy-with-700mhz-open-access-re quirements-sues-fcc.ars
        
        also good:
        http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/01/31/700mhz.open.access.bid/
        
        The Ars Technica article, written before the auction, goes on to explain how Verizon lobbied against "open access", saying that the FCC (Treasury) would get less revenue from an auction if they encumbered the spectrum with that requirement. The FCC responded by saying if they did not get $4.6 billion in bids, they would remove the requirement and re-auction. If you suspect that VZW might have been disingenuous in their lobbying, you won't be surprised that later, Verizon helped bid the auction up to a record-breaking $19 Billion.
        
        "Open access" was hoped to be like a wireless Carterphone, if you are familiar with that landmark case. By blocking tethering, it seems that Verizon is not on board. Carterphone was about people being able to add independently purchased wired telephones to their home line without paying Bell any more, tethering seems to be pretty similar.
        
        If you fancy slightly more detail, see this:
        http://www.dailywireless.org/2007/07/31/fcc-limited-open-access-no-wholesale-requirement-for- 700-mhz/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 14 Jul 2011 @ 3:24am
        
        Re: This is a possible violation of Verizon's spectrum license terms...
        First you were saying that Verizon�s licence terms means they must prohibit certain perfectly �lawful� devices from accessing their network, but now here you are saying the opposite. So which is it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Derek Kerton (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 3:43am
        
        Re: Re: This is a possible violation of Verizon's spectrum license terms...
        "First you were saying that Verizon�s licence terms means they must prohibit certain perfectly �lawful� devices from accessing their network"
        
        Huh? "must prohibit?" Where do you think I said that?
        
        Was it when I started out with: "Verizon didn't just "talk" about 'Open'. It is a required condition..." You do know what 'open' means, right? It's kinda the opposite of 'prohibit'.
        
        I see two possibilities here:
        1) you are rather dense, OR
        2) you just need to go back and do a little re-read of what I actually wrote.
        
        I'm actually guessing it's the latter.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 14 Jul 2011 @ 5:44pm
        
        Re: This is a possible violation of Verizon's spectrum license terms...
        Is use of these �lawful� devices a �possible violation of Verizon's spectrum license terms�, or not? Yes or no?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Derek Kerton (profile), 14 Jul 2011 @ 6:29pm
        
        Re: Re: This is a possible violation of Verizon's spectrum license terms...
        No, for crying out loud!! You keep reading the opposite of what I write.
        
        And now I see where you misunderstand. You have misinterpreted the use of the word "this" in my original comment. By "this" I meant 'VZW blocking tethering', you thought "this" was 'customers using tethering'. Since my original doesn't mention tethering, and the subject is Verizon's license requirements, and the subject of Masnick's article is "Verizon turns off features", it is pretty dense to interpret it as you did...and drag me through three follow-up clarifications before you get it - or before I get precisely where you don't get it.
        
        Verizon's spectrum license terms stipulate that they MUST allow these lawful devices.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:10am

Another reason I do not own a data phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris-Mouse (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:11am

It will be interesting to see what Verizon does if Sony loses that lawsuit over remkving functionality from the PS3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Incoherent One (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:27am
  
  Re:
  I don't believe that this is very likely. It has been widely known (I thought) that the mobile hotspot feature of many android phones was an additional fee. Sprint, Verizon, and At&t (I do not know about T-Mobile) that they have a specific app and fee structure built in to enable that app for being a mobile hotspot. Some 3rd party apps have been used as a work around to that and unlocking the hotspot ability. In other cases like the iPhone the function was un-locked by jail breaking the phone.
  
  http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-1120193.html
  
  You can still get a tether program from the Amazon App Store.
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Mobile-Stream-EasyTether/dp/B004JJR2K4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=mobi le-apps&qid=1310491605&sr=1-1
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Designerfx (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    it's not a matter of cost - it's a matter of the phone being capable and them preventing it.
    
    This has been widely discussed and believe it or not, it violates the 4g spectrum rules about open access which verizon is a part of.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nick (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, wireless tether has been built into android's code since 2.2, carriers remove the feature cause they want you to pay more. Then people make apps, and now verizon is trying to break the phones again.
    
    http://androidandme.com/2010/05/news/native-tethering-spotted-in-android-2-2-froyo/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 15 Jul 2011 @ 5:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Glad I'm in the UK where as usual we have much better service. My T-Mobile Android HTC can happily Wi-Fi hotspot FOR FREE as a pre-loaded app and use my nice 'unlimited' data plan (unlimited web/base data,1 GB 'specific downloads'). What are these 'fees' you talk of? :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ComputerAddict (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:31am
  
  Re:
  While I think it will lead to lawsuits against Verizon if Sony loses (although the lawsuits are probably already being filed) Verizon at least did not advertise this feature, which will make it a little different from the Sony case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:14am

Break the Contract!?
Is this not grounds to break a contract if you have one? It sounds an awful lot like extortion... They offer a service, then take it away once you sign up only to offer it back if you pay more....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:18am
  
  Re: Break the Contract!?
  Then get users to start reporting Verizon to the BBB, Stop buying their crap and Cancel your contract for breach on their part.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:42am
    
    Re: Re: Break the Contract!?
    Then get users to start reporting Verizon to the BBB, Stop buying their crap and Cancel your contract for breach on their part.
    
    i haven't been to the BBB website in a long time, but when i did, all of the mobile carriers were already badly scored there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:19am
  
  Re: Break the Contract!?
  it is actually called bait and switch
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AJ, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:22am
    
    Re: Re: Break the Contract!?
    That was the term I was looking for Coward.. thanks,
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ComputerAddict (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:32am
  
  Re: Break the Contract!?
  In your contract it probably explicitly states that hotspots / tethering are not included in the base plan.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Designerfx (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:16am
    
    Re: Re: Break the Contract!?
    except that it's not a "Service", in that verizon doesn't provide it, you do. They are just a dumb data transport service.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:54am
    
    Re: Re: Break the Contract!?
    I use the freakin feature to get my notebook online when I need. I paid for the freakin data (2Gb) so what does it matter where I use them? If I wanna use the full thing pinging sites using my phone as a usb modem then it's up to me.
    
    It's astonishing how most companies have become inhuman to the point they couldn't care less about screwing their customers, human beings, and using Chinese slaves to make their goods.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Break the Contract!?
      You forgot the 'killing babies and feeding them to people as pie' part.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Break the Contract!?
        Mmmmmmm....sweet, sweet, tasty babies! Tastes like chicken! Slathered in BBQ sauce and served on a nice brioche roll, and with a side of slaw - now that's lunch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 4:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Break the Contract!?
        http://video.adultswim.com/sealab-2021/hesh-wants-some-sex.html
        
        Skip forward to the 50 second mark...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2012 @ 7:27am
    
    Re: Re: Break the Contract!?
    What would be a fair price 4 verizon tethering?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:03am
  
  Re: Break the Contract!?
  probably not. as far back as i can remember both sprint and verizon have been pretty clear that you have to pay more for 'phone as modem' access. what they are actually doing is just making sure that people are paying for something that has always carried a charge.
  
  i could see how some may have moved from a dumb phone to an android and are thinking that they are removing services that were already there... but thats not actually what it is.
  
  the real question is why are they charging as much as they are for data in the first place.... fix that and this is even less than a non-issue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:30am
    
    Re: Re: Break the Contract!?
    Yeah, and maybe next they'll disable the Facebook app, or Gmail. You can have them back for an extra $50 a month.
    
    It's no different: a mobile hotspot is a function on your phone, making use of the exact same bandwidth you are already paying for. There is no excuse for disabling it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RichS (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:32am
  
  Re: Break the Contract!?
  They actually said when the phone was released, that they were only allowing the free hotspot feature for a limited time. I think it sucks, but there was no lying or bait and switch on Verizon's part in this case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:47am
    
    Re: Re: Break the Contract!?
    They actually said when the phone was released, that they were only allowing the free hotspot feature for a limited time.
    
    Citation, please.
    
    Besides, they certainly didn't tell me that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:15am

not that i agree
not that i agree with verizon charging more for the hotspot capabilities on their phones, but they did say that the free hotspot on the thunderbolt was a limited time feature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:42am
  
  Re: not that i agree
  You're correct. This time it is not a case of changing the agreement. It was widely known that the free hotspot was only going to be available for a short time to get people interested in 4G coverage.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:05am
  
  Re: not that i agree
  This nonsense is only tolerated in the U.S.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:09am
    
    Re: Re: not that i agree
    (at least almost only, though I think you'll be hard pressed to cite an example of it occurring elsewhere. The U.S. is practically the only nation where businesses treat their regular customers worse than their new customers).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chargone (profile), 13 Jul 2011 @ 5:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: not that i agree
      well, if by 'worse' you allow 'new shiny deal that you only get if you sign up as a new customer' that's better than the current contract, or 'if you sign up now you get this shiny thing free for X time' when already existing customers don't get it, there's a fair bit of that here. but only that sort of thing. (and i seem to recall they've got to be a bit careful about exactly how they do That, too.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Agreed, 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:15am
    
    Re: Re: not that i agree
    +1
    
    Here here! Glad I don't live there!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:13pm
  
  Re: not that i agree
  Exactly, Verizon always stated that the free hotspot use was a limited time offer and they actually extended the offer (twice if iirc).
  
  The bigger question should be if Verizon charging for tethering on it's LTE network violates the open access rules that were placed on the 700Mhz spectrum they purchased. I believe Verizon charging for a feature that is built into the phone os does violate the open access provisions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Matt H (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:52pm
    
    Re: Re: not that i agree
    I haven't done a lot of research into this recently, but I did follow the topic during the FCC sale of the C-block bandwidth to Verizon.
    
    My understanding of the rules is that they have to allow any device to access their network as long as it goes through a technical review/certification and doesn't damage the network.
    
    What is less clear is whether or not Verizon could charge whatever they please for any given network access. So if you buy a VZW LTE-enabled digital camera, they would have to allow it to access the network, but could charge you some dollar amount for doing so. The same for any other device on your plan.
    
    I agree that it's fair to charge a per-device access fee *if the device connects directly to the network*! However, attaching a secondary device to your phone, hotspot, tablet, or whatever should be covered under the price (extortion) you already pay for that device. Just like you do with your landline ISP.
    
    Can you imagine the outrage if landline ISPs started charging per-device?? I don't understand why there isn't similar outrage occurring over *increasing* mobile network charges! The price of bandwidth isn't going up anywhere near that degree...
    
    So, all that to say...I think the mobile industry needs to get in big trouble.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:15am

Not Unexpected
Verizon is a terrible company. I just wish their network weren't so damn good so I could stop being their bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:18am
  
  Re: Not Unexpected
  Seconded
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Freedom, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:54am
  
  Re: Not Unexpected
  True dat! -- I love Verizon's network, but absolutely hate everything else about them. Sort of like Ron Paul, just not a complete package!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Djorra (profile), 17 Jul 2011 @ 10:42pm
  
  Re: Not Unexpected
  I know, it's why people still shop at WalMart and why the IMF works.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:16am

Well, I knew that wouldn't last very long. I just saw a TV commercial the other day advertising this exact "feature." Which makes me wonder, is Verizon now guilty of false advertising, or is HTC? (I can't remember for whom the commercial was made.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Incoherent One (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:44am
  
  Re:
  How old is the commercial? It would not be the first time which a TV station aired the wrong commercial past its date. I recently saw a Ford commercial (the nationwide one with Mike Rowe) talking about a memorial day sale, It was nearly July 4th when I saw it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kasey Krehbiel, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:16am

They did this to the Droid X long ago
When the Droid X got its Gingerbread update a few months ago, it included this same functionality killer (Why wasn't it a story back then?!) Fortunately, Google is shaking Verizon's hand with one hand while holding a dagger in the other. The newest beta version of their Wireless Tether app defeats Verizon's blocks.

You can find it here:
http://code.google.com/p/android-wifi-tether/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:20am
  
  Re: They did this to the Droid X long ago
  Great app, but it's not made by Google.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kasey Krehbiel (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:21am
    
    Re: Re: They did this to the Droid X long ago
    Oops. Thought it was. Either way it's on Google's code server, and I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon. :-D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:21am
  
  Re: They did this to the Droid X long ago
  or you can just flash a custom rom, most come with the wireless tether app by default. default verizon roms suck ass anyway, do a little reading, learn something new and fun and start flashing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:29am
    
    Re: Re: They did this to the Droid X long ago
    learn something new and fun and start flashing
    
    I tried that. The cops weren't happy about it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 1:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: They did this to the Droid X long ago
      OH, sorry, I tethered you identity. That was my fault.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kasey Krehbiel (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:36am
    
    Re: Re: They did this to the Droid X long ago
    First of all, most GB ROMs don't have wireless tethering enabled by default. Verizon's "blocks" put a stop to that, if a temporary one. Second,
    
    http://www.droidforums.net/forum/liberty-rom-dx/157745-liberty-2-0-1-stock-apex-cm7-etc-a ny-rom-liberty-gb.html
    
    Written by yours truly. G'day.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - el_segfaulto (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 2:32pm
    
    Re: Re: They did this to the Droid X long ago
    Seconded! If it weren't for Cyanogen I don't think I'd have had the patience to stick with Android.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:56am
  
  Re: They did this to the Droid X long ago
  Droid X never had free mobile wi-fi hotspot functionality. it has the functionality, but any device connected to it could only bring up one webpage talking about buying the additional service from Verizon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kasey Krehbiel (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:34am
    
    Re: Re: They did this to the Droid X long ago
    That's not true at all. It is entirely possible (it was a lot easier with FroYo) to use your Droid X as a tethering device.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sondun2001 (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:38am
  
  Re: They did this to the Droid X long ago
  The program is hosted on Google's code servers, but it is not developed by Google
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:21am

Mike, you've again shown "free" to be a mere TRICK.
Besides that one simply can't trust corporations to do anything except transfer numbers from your account to theirs. With all the weight of evidence going one way, how can anyone believe in "capitalism"? -- What you want, and HAD in the not too distant past, is a REGULATED MARKET.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: Mike, you've again shown "free" to be a mere TRICK.
  With all the weight of evidence going one way, how can anyone believe in "capitalism"?
  
  I'd like to actually see a capitalist system first. Right now we have a crony corporatism, which is not the same thing at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - out_of_the_blue, 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:22am
    
    Re: Re: Mike, you've again shown "free" to be a mere TRICK.
    "I'd like to actually see a capitalist system first. Right now we have a crony corporatism, which is not the same thing at all."
    
    Oh, YES IT IS! If you're maintaining that "capitalism" is an "unknown ideal", it's simply overlooking the fundamentals of /capital/: those who have it make the rules. The "crony" version is just the modern form of a few families owning everything, shutting out the rest.
    
    I'm stuck with the term. But you don't actually want to see "capitalism" in practice, and better be glad that you haven't: for it in historical terms, look up what capitalists did opposing unions and the 40-hour week, "trusts", or further back, under "feudalism", where those with "capital" owned everything including the serfs.
    
    We live in a /unique/ and vanishing bubble from the Enlightenment in a New World that led to brief freedom from The Rich in the Americas. The inheriting of unlimited /capital/ is same as feudal entitlements, and the system is reverting to that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bjupton, 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:21am
  
  Re: Mike, you've again shown "free" to be a mere TRICK.
  We have a regulated market. Very well regulated.
  
  We have the very obvious next step, where the regulatory agencies are run by the companies they are supposed to be regulating.
  
  I'm not sure where these magic regulators are going to come from
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CommonSense (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:41am
  
  Re: Mike, you've again shown "free" to be a mere TRICK.
  "With all the weight of evidence going one way, how can anyone believe in "capitalism"?"
  
  That's an easy one, we're not dealing with true capitalism here. If we were, Verizon would have been put in check a long while ago, and they likely wouldn't have so much money with which to abuse their position.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:59am
    
    Re: Re: Mike, you've again shown "free" to be a mere TRICK.
    That's an easy one, we're not dealing with true capitalism here. If we were, Verizon would have been put in check a long while ago, and they likely wouldn't have so much money with which to abuse their position.
    
    I think you may be confusing capitalism with free markets. They are not the same thing. In fact, capitalists try to lockup and corner markets and eliminate competition in order increase profits. They are for their own freedom in the market, but not anybody else's.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:22am

The tethering apps have stealth mode
I have PDANet for my Motorola Droid X and it has a stealth mode to hide the fact that it is tethering. I am not entirely sure how stealthy it is, but I hope it is stealthy enough.

As for removing the tethering apps from the market, you can still get them directly from the developers websites by turning on side loading of apps.

I wish to hell that someone would startup a wireless company with reasonable fees. Why is it, we have the most expensive broadband and wireless plans of any developed nation and many less developed nations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:24am
  
  Re: The tethering apps have stealth mode
  "Why is it, we have the most expensive broadband and wireless plans of any developed nation and many less developed nations?"
  
  Simple: There's no competition:
  
  http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blam e-the-governme/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:57am
  
  Re: The tethering apps have stealth mode
  Metropcs 4G with the indulge has a very reasonable price for unlimited everything. It's what I have.
  
  You still have to root to get tethering though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris, 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:38pm
  
  Re: The tethering apps have stealth mode
  Check out CREDO mobile. Wireless with ethics:
  http://www.credomobile.com/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:20pm
  
  Re: The tethering apps have stealth mode
  You just don't understand that anyone who would want to take on AT&T and Verizon will be crushed by their lobbying efforts. They are expensive because there are crazy barriers to entry in the US.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:23am

Well done Verizon, giving your customers yet another reason to root their Android phones, the software is either in the market, and if they've nixed that too, a custom rom is easy enough installed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:23am

This wasn't really researched well was it? From day one of offering free 4G mobile tethering promo on the Thunderbolt, Verizon made it clear that it was an incentive, and a temporary one. In fact, they were supposed to cut it off mid-June, but waited until the unlimited data plans died off and killed it on July 7.

I'm assuming the idea was to get users used to the feature and speed so that when the trial ended people would shell out for it. Oh, and 3G tethering is $20 with an extra 2GB, whereas 4G tethering is $30 but I'm not sure if it is for the same extra 2GB or "unlimited".

So, no, Verizon didn't remove or change any features, they flipped the switch from free to paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- taoareyou (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:30am
  
  Re:
  If they block features that by default come with the hardware that you purchase, then alter the programming on the hardware to support their business model AND go to Google and get them to remove existing apps that would work around their new fence, I think that's more than "flipping a switch".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    Absolutely no features were removed or altered. You can still tether with the Thunderbolt. This is like the get Stars and HBO free for three months. It was a Verizon sanctioned promo that ended. The software update simply stopped the free tethering promo. Just like every other Android you can still use third party tethering apps instead of the built in hotspot you have to pay the carrier for.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Derek Kerton (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Absolutely no features were removed or altered."
      
      That is incorrect. My Nexus One phone, with the stock Android OS, has tethering built-into the OS.
      
      That is the tethering that was available on the Thuderbolt. Verizon pushed an update to their "altered" version of Android, and it removed this feature. This practice is not unique to Verizon - AT&T iPhones don't have a tether option visible to the users, but unlocked iPhones have it as part of the iOS. It is fairly standard for handset vendors to modify/limit...er...cripple devices at the behest of carriers. That's because carriers are their most important volume customer, not you or me.
      
      So, yes, the OS was altered with the VZW "skin", and in particular, the tether feature was removed.
      
      Previously, there were also tethering apps available in the Android Marketplace. To satisfy carrier partners, Google has made it harder to find those.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcel de Jong (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm so glad that none of the providers in Europe have this kind of power. Yes, they will complain to their customers if they use the tethering, and ask you to buy a more expensive plan or risk a month (or more) of low-bandwidth, but they don't remove the feature from the handset.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Derek Kerton (profile), 13 Jul 2011 @ 4:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah. I like Belgium, where it is illegal for carriers to SIM lock a phone to their network.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ComputerAddict (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Altering the programming on the hardware to support their business
    
    "Cell companies do this to EVERY phone, Especially Verizon, all the way down to feature phones.. where you have to buy their games, from their store, for their price... This has been standard practice for 15 years."
    
    "AND go to Google and get them to remove existing apps that would work around their new fence"
    
    They've been doing this since Verizon's second Android phone. (DRIOD 1 had completely unaltered Android OS) So they've been doing this for about 2-3 years.
    
    It's less "flipping a switch" and more "Standard Operating Procedure"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Right, pressuring Google to remove tethering apps from the market wasn't a Verizon thing as much as it was a ALL carriers thing. Of course, you don't need Android market, just a .apk.
      
      "The latest to make this point is Verizon, who has begun remotely crippling Android smartphones, turning off a feature that let people use the phones as mobile hotspots."
      
      This is just blatantly false. Like I said, the update stopped the free promo. It was sold and marketed as a promo. One that was supposed to only last 1 month but went almost 3. Thunderbolts can still be used as mobile hotspots, but just like every other carrier, using the built in hotspot feature requires payment.
      
      I typically like a lot of TechDirt's articles, but this seemed like one of the occasional "rabble" rousings.
      
      The more appropriate PS3 analogy would be having PSN for free then having to pay monthly for PSN.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, Verizon is obligated not to bock tethering apps for 4g devices; under the deal they signed when they bought the 4g spectrum they agreed not to block functionality or remove apps from phones, and guess what they are doing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Derek Kerton (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't care about the promo, or whether it was advertised as temporary. That might apply to a SERVICE or RATE PLAN that Verizon offers, but this is different. This is them reaching into what is now YOUR phone, and crippling a feature that was part of the phone OS when you bought it.
        
        The point here is that they are not just ending a promotional service that they offer, but crippling a phone that is yours.
        
        Verizon has a long history of crippling phones. Bluetooth originally scared them, so they had it removed from their phones. Then years ago they allowed it, but removed the DUN capability that -surprise- allowed tethering. Then they were the last carrier to get on board with Wi-Fi, removing it from their phones until they could be certain that it would not cannibalize mobile data revenue. OK, bad enough, but at least in those cases, they sold the devices limited as such. They did not retroactively de-activate bluetooth or WiFi.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bushi, 12 Jul 2011 @ 2:13pm
  
  Phone vs network
  This is a function of the phone. The phone can leverage whatever network it's able to to. But they are directly charging you for something your phone dose all on it's own. So you bought a piece of hardware... say a toaster. But Now V wants to charge you for making more then one kind of toast.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:31am

soon you will have to pay more to use more than 1 PC on your home network, keeping in mind that ...

TIVO
Any other TV box
Network Storage devices

plus more are PCs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Incoherent One (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:46am
  
  Re:
  [citation needed]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    RCN (at least in lehigh valley) already requires an extra fee to use more than one PC. You need to pay an extra $5 a month to allow a home network. Otherwise, it's written in the contract that only one *device* can connect to the internet. in my opinion, it looks like they didn't realize one can classify the router as an internet device.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - IshmaelDS (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 1:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      or maybe they did and they just are putting in the contract (albeit in a bad way) that you are only going to get one public IP.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:47am

Misunderstood
I think it's either misunderstanding or an act of disingenuous misunderstanding, but no one should be confused about Google's "openess" with Android. Google makes it free to use/ simple to license, but it doesn't mean the OS remains unencumbered once implemented on hardware. People are either intentionally confusing this to dirty up Google, or don't understand how to read. There's no third choice in 2011 since Android has been around three years now.

People are also forgetting that Verizon is an ILEC, and the most successful and vicious child of the AT&T breakup by far. Not too surprising since it was formed out of AT&T's old research region (NY/NJ); this is the company that rolled out CallerID, then anonymous calling,, *then* de-anonymizing CallerID. They created an arms race in their own ecosystem! This is the same company that gladly leases phones to its ratepayers. Who really thinks Verizon and VZW aren't in this *solely* for the money? People, they forgot more about nickel-and-diming than you will ever know.

Hey, when they give back the Spanish-American war tax money, we'll talk again.

-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jsl4980 (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:54am

Chilling Effects?
I'm wondering why Google will put takedown requests on Chilling Effects when they're asked to remove search results. Now when Google removes or blocks apps like hotspots or game emulators from the Android store I don't see the internal takedown requests or documentation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arthur (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:54am

It's MY phone
Verizon can't do anything to my phone, I rooted it. I trust Verizon to do whatever they decide will make them more money and give them more control -- so I shut them out completely.

So I DO own what I bought, Verizon just doesn't know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:07am
  
  Re: It's MY phone
  Damn right, but it's really too bad we're forced into that position.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Arthur (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 2:39pm
    
    Re: It's MY phone
    What's REALLY strange is that companies who are supposed to be providing services (i.e. phone and internet connections) think they have the right to dictate what you may and may not do with your PRIVATE property, your phone -- and that there is a sense that rooting your phone is, somehow, wrong.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lord Bear, 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:37pm
      
      Re: Re: It's MY phone
      It's not your private property if you bought it as part of a service plan with the carrier. Read the fine print.
      
      Many people mistakenly believe that as soon as they hand over some money that they then magically acquire full and irrevocable property rights on the software, hardware, etc., that is involved. Ain't so.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Derek Kerton (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 4:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: It's MY phone
        It IS so.
        
        When your 24 month contract is up, you keep your phone. You don't turn it in.
        
        When you quit your phone service, you keep the phone, AND you pay the ETF (Early Termination Fee) to compensate for the subsidy the carrier invested in the phone. You don't turn in the phone. The carrier doesn't want your used phone back, they want the ETF. You keep your phone.
        
        The phone is yours. What you have is a contractual obligation to retain service for two years.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:37pm
  
  Re: It's MY phone
  Right. This fight maybe doesn't apply directly to you or me. But what about those 95% of people who don't know how to pair Bluetooth, let alone root their phone?
  
  Seriously, people who understand these tech issues need to fight for their rights. That's us.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:55am

Data phone customer = SUCKER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:03am
  
  Re:
  How so? It's a service I want, and I'm willing to pay the price requested for that service.
  
  Although the business side is run by greedy, weaselly pricks, I'm actually very happy with the technical side of Verizon; it's top notch.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    SUCKER!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:04am

Look the mobile phone companies have all done away with flat rate all you can eat data packages, so who give a crap about a hot spot feature? Android, root it and be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DH's Love Child (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:37am
  
  Re:
  Not true. only VZW and AWS have. I believe T-Mo and Sprint still have unlimited data. And I know for a fact that MetroPCS has unlimited data, as that is who I have.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:28pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I've got T-Mobile and found that their "unlimited" data plan, isn't. It's a 7G limit. I still have cyanogen mod on my phone and I still use the wireless tether for my tablet. If they want to get pissed at me and cancel my service, then I can take my $90/m* somewhere else. My contract's up, I'm paying monthly now.
    
    *that's $90 a month for unlimited data (7G max), 500 minutes (free nights and weekends I think), and unlimited txts (probably still limited, but I don't use it enough to find out).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 11:36am

In the U.S., technology moves backwards. At this rate, I'll be confined to a typewriter in no time.

This is what happens when the government establishes a plethora of unregulated monopolies in almost every industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:13pm

The Result
Google is eventually wind up killing Android if they keep going like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:17pm

ummm... just so everyone knows, the free verizon hotspot deal was a three month gig that expires after 3 months. It was a trial for the customer to try. It was never meant to be free..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re:
  You pay for the cell phone, you pay for the device attached to the cell phone, you pay for the power running the wireless devices, you pay for any and all data transferred threw the phone. Why the hell does it matter how the data is transferred? It's not like Verizon pays more if I download Pioneer One threw the wireless tether as apposed to directly on my phone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:41pm
  
  Re:
  The apps I put on MY phone are not Verizon's to offer as a promo, or to remove. Nor are the features that come with the OS. I don't care that they "offered it as a 3 month promo". It was never theirs to offer in the first place. It is part of the OS.
  
  I suppose I'll agree with you that Verizon was not tricky or misleading. That don't make it right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 1:00pm

Just checked the Android market and the tethering apps are still there. Including the one I use on my Droid. Handy when the DSL craps out at home or the hotel doesn't have WiFi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irving, 12 Jul 2011 @ 1:04pm

The proper analogy:
If Ford were to remove your stereo while they have the car in for scheduled maintenance, how many people would just shrug their shoulders and agree that they have that right?

Would the courts agree that they have that right?

Would Ford's wanting to rent satellite radio to its customers make that right?

Would the only option be to never buy a Ford again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Walter Riker, 12 Jul 2011 @ 2:10pm

Verizon Mobile Hotspot
Yes we knew it was coming but it would have been nice if we were told when not the sneaky way they did it. And while they are updating where is 2.3 that was to be released early this year? That probably gives us too much an advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jesse, 12 Jul 2011 @ 2:37pm

Baaaa Baaaa
Sheep. I first noticed that a large population of sheep were walking around America back in the mid 1970's. I presented a tech paper at a conference, where I detailed how I opened up a computer mainframe, hooked up my measuring equipment and made lengthy performance analysis measurements. The room was aghast, that a young grad student would violate the sanctity of the computer's innards without having the computer company's service rep present! I was aghast that they even thought this way. Thank goodness, I noted a sign at a recent "MakerFaire" stating if you can't open it, you don't own it. Sanity at last. Computers, cellphones, toasters, TV's are all meant to be tweaked. Go for it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:32pm
  
  Re: Baaaa Baaaa
  xkcd
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dave blevins, 12 Jul 2011 @ 4:56pm

Comcast's new DVR UI ...
... does the same thing: takes away functions, e.g. PIP, and adds no new ones (tho they claim the do), just makes it harder to use in most every case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 12 Jul 2011 @ 6:01pm

USians Letting Themselves Be Screwed Again
As I understand it, these restrictions are only possible because you bought the handset from the network provider at a �subsidized� price which ties you to a 2-year (or whatever) contract and agreement to whatever terms & conditions they care to impose on the phone.

If you bought the phone from an independent supplier at a regular price, you would get to enjoy all its functions, nobody can remotely reach out and cut them off.

This is something we take for granted in countries with GSM networks; the only bit of hardware the network provider controls is the SIM card, and switching networks is as easy as swapping SIM cards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chris, 16 Jul 2011 @ 12:39am

This problem wouldn't exist if people demanded full control over the software on their phone. If they did, there would be no way for Verizon to tell the difference between data coming from the phone, or from a hotspot. I want a new phone but I'm tempted to wait until this whole "software as a service" crap ends and the networks start operating as common carriers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Androgynous Cowherd, 17 Jul 2011 @ 12:12pm

Why would Google cooperate in this? It seems to go against "don't be evil" for them to assist another company's anti-consumer behavior.

And the analogy someone raised with having to pay for PSN is completely flawed. Using PSN consumes Sony resources (server bandwidth, etc.) and marginal additional use of PSN causes marginal costs to Sony, so they are well within their rights to charge a fee for PSN. Using a phone as a hotspot, however, only causes marginal costs to the carrier to the extent that the phone is used to relay Internet traffic over the carrier's infrastructure, and for that you are already paying the carrier's probably exorbitant data rates. So they are wanting users to pay them twice for certain kinds of traffic -- that's double-dipping. Actually, it's a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the foot. Free tethering makes it more likely more people will use the feature, and end up using more bandwidth, for which they can charge more. Adding an up-front cost for tethering makes it likely people won't tether, and then the only bandwidth use over their network from that customer will be whatever the user does directly on the phone, which means less revenue for the carrier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]