# Verizon fined for blocking wifi tether apps per block C



## SerialTurd (Aug 20, 2011)

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Verizon-Fined-125-Million-for-Blocking-Android-Tethering-Apps-206610/

Can this somehow be used to maybe chain on another lawsuit stating locking the bootloader is also against block C requirements? Any law types in here?


----------



## oddball (Jan 21, 2012)

SerialTurd said:


> http://www.eweek.com...ng-Apps-206610/
> 
> Can this somehow be used to maybe chain on another lawsuit stating locking the bootloader is also against block C requirements? Any law types in here?


It was really a slap on the wrist but I suspect it is going to be used as a start for further fines and rulings. Verizon got into a pissing match with the FCC over net neutrality the same week that they released the GS 3. And less than a month later we have the first ruling AGAINST Verizon in block C EVER from the the FCC. Encrypted bootloaders may or may not violate the free choice rules for block C but I suspect that the FCC is going to be taking a VERY close look at Verizon given the number of complaints they have fielded recently and Verizon's choice to sue the FCC at a time when they are making very anticonsumer choices


----------



## Smiths860 (Nov 25, 2011)

I suspect a lawsuit over forcing existing customers to give up unlimited data to upgrade. Not that I except them to change. Lol

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RootzWiki


----------



## SerialTurd (Aug 20, 2011)

The part that interests me most is this "s_hall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications__ of their choice on the licensee's C-block network"_

To me that's pretty clear cut... no messing with bootloaders.


----------



## mean sixteen (Nov 20, 2011)

Smiths860 said:


> I suspect a lawsuit over forcing existing customers to give up unlimited data to upgrade. Not that I except them to change. Lol
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RootzWiki


There's nothing illegal about this. Not many companies will grandfather in people to a product or service they haven't offered for years.

I will be disappointed when/if I lose my unlimited but pissed off I will not be.

Sent through Mental Telepathy...or my GS3


----------



## oddball (Jan 21, 2012)

SerialTurd said:


> The part that interests me most is this "s_hall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications__ of their choice on the licensee's C-block network"_
> 
> To me that's pretty clear cut... no messing with bootloaders.


They get some exemptions for "network security" that is why they claim it's a security issue any time the do anything


----------



## Nemo aeternamn (Aug 23, 2011)

SerialTurd said:


> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Verizon-Fined-125-Million-for-Blocking-Android-Tethering-Apps-206610/
> 
> Can this somehow be used to maybe chain on another lawsuit stating locking the bootloader is also against block C requirements? Any law types in here?


Not really... And this is because they were blocking access to the block c spectrum they acquired.. for a hefty chunk of change.. so this is only for spectrum c..aka their lte network.... which doesn't really directly deal with the bootloader being locked down.. so I'm going to have to say no this won't really help the bootloader cause.. unless they try to tie it in with something like "they're locking down data and bootloaders.. they should unlock them(for some arbitrary and mitt reason that makes no sense)"

Cellar Door

"Who are you people and where US my house?"


----------



## Nick.Tbolt (Aug 14, 2011)

What I don't understand about the "network security" is that some phones dont have locked bootloaders, so how is it ok for one phone to do that, then be a security risk for another

HTC ThunderBolt running AOSP!


----------



## SerialTurd (Aug 20, 2011)

Nick.Tbolt said:


> What I don't understand about the "network security" is that some phones dont have locked bootloaders, so how is it ok for one phone to do that, then be a security risk for another
> 
> HTC ThunderBolt running AOSP!


I think that's where a court case has to be built. How can the galaxy nexus be allowed but not the sg3.


----------



## oddball (Jan 21, 2012)

Nick.Tbolt said:


> I think that's where a court case has to be built. How can the galaxy nexus be allowed but not the sg3.


It's Verizon it doesn't have to make sense they just never thought that they would get called on their BS. Their timing couldn't have been worse they start a pissing match with the FCC just as they release a phone that is encrypted "for security" while the rest of the world gets a non encrypted model.


----------



## Eom (Nov 5, 2011)

As "a law type" (for the record, being a lawyer isn't really much help here) I would say that the C block language that the FCC slapped Verizon for violating would also apply to bootloaders, However, unlike blocking tethering apps, verizon, by locking the bootloaders isn't [background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]_deny[ing], limit,_[/background]_[ing],_[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]_or restrict _[/background]_[ing],_[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]_the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications_[/background]_ of their choice _what they are technically doing is simply not carrying (many) phone models that have unlocked bootloaders . If you buy a Gnex or the upcoming Samsung Dev edition They'll let you use it on the network. If they refused to allow Samsung Dev edition on their network or were shown to have insisted that Samsung not sell the phone, or if they kicked people off their network who had unlocked their bootloaders themselves then I'd see the situation as analagous.


----------



## oddball (Jan 21, 2012)

Eom said:


> As "a law type" (for the record, being a lawyer isn't really much help here) I would say that the C block language that the FCC slapped Verizon for violating would also apply to bootloaders, However, unlike blocking tethering apps, verizon, by locking the bootloaders isn't [background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]_deny[ing], limit,_[/background]_[ing],_[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]_or restrict _[/background]_[ing],_[background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]_the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications_[/background]_ of their choice _what they are technically doing is simply not carrying (many) phone models that have unlocked bootloaders . If you buy a Gnex or the upcoming Samsung Dev edition They'll let you use it on the network. If they refused to allow Samsung Dev edition on their network or were shown to have insisted that Samsung not sell the phone, or if they kicked people off their network who had unlocked their bootloaders themselves then I'd see the situation as analagous.


It is absolutely denying and restricting my right to use software of my choice. It is going to be an interesting decision either way and Verizon has not been helping themselves by constantly stating that they do not allow unapproved devices on their network. Verizon is and has knowingly violated the charter under which they received the block c license and part of this settlement that isn't being widely recognized is that they are being required to create a group specifically to prevent further abuse by Verizon of their license.


----------

