[Dunbar42]

The full statement is quoted from above

What happened on June 28th? hmm.....

My quote is the last sentence on the press release. It does not mention 6/28 and I don't think it's true that Verizon lets you use any app to tether on Share Everything plans (you would just use the built-in hotspot option in settings since tethering is free.)

[PJnc284]

My quote is the last sentence on the press release. It does not mention 6/28 and I don't think it's true that Verizon lets you use any app to tether on Share Everything plans (you would just use the built-in tethering option in settings.)

The quote from the press release is a trimmed down version of the full statement that's in the decree linked above. Why would Verizon care what app you use if it's included? They haven't stated that you MUST use the built-in tethering feature. Tethering is tethering regardless of app.

I would ask again, wouldn't/shouldn't this also preclude them from blocking Google Wallet? Although it's an NFC technology, in the case of Verizon's 4G phones, it's also a C-Block issue.

Good question. Blocking the app seems like it would go against the clause to not deny the ability to download any application.

[Dunbar42]

They haven't stated that you MUST use the built-in tethering feature. Tethering is tethering regardless of app.

So you think the FCC would go to the effort of issuing to a press release to say that consumers still have to pay $20 a month to tether on Verizon but they can use any app they want to do it? How is that a win for consumers and why would they even bother? Share Everything plans include tethering for free so they clearly were not a factor in this case.

[Kalnel]

So you think the FCC would go to the effort of issuing to a press release to say that consumers still have to pay $20 a month to tether on Verizon but they can use any app they want to do it? How is that a win for consumers and why would they even bother? Share Everything plans include tethering for free so they clearly were not a factor in this case.

I think the reference to usage customers in the press release is misleading, and it has caused a lot of people (and media) to misunderstand the decree. The decree simply says that Verizon can't block apps, must establish a compliance management process, and must pay $1.25 million as penalties.

It says NOTHING about whether Verizon can charge people who tether, whether they have unlimited or usage plans. If you look at the rules, they only say Verizon can't block people from using whatever apps or devices they want. That doesn't mean it can't charge them to do whatever they want.

[Dunbar42]

It's all speculation at this point. I don't think the FCC would brag about this in a press release (that got picked up by all of the tech media) if all the agreement does is remove a ban on 3rd party tethering apps but still allows them to charge for tethering. The decree was dealing with a very specific issue/ojection filed with the FCC so tethering pricing may not of fallen into the scope of this complaint but may have been part of the agreement reached. I guess we'll find out who is right in the near future.

[bplewis24]

Ha..................Glad to hear! But it should be noted:

Customers on older unlimited plans must still pay the tethering fee, though Verizon will presumably no longer block tethering apps on the Play Store for those persons. [HL]The caveat likely being, of course, that if Verizon catches you tethering without a plan, they'll "help you" (force you to) switch to one of the new Share Everything plans.[/HL]

Not sure how they will enforce or even if they can?

Just more of the same FUD that was popular last year and even more popular two years ago.

[Kalnel]

It's all speculation at this point. I don't think the FCC would brag about this in a press release (that got picked up by all of the tech media) if all the agreement does is remove a ban on 3rd party tethering apps but still allows them to charge for tethering. The decree was dealing with a very specific issue/ojection filed with the FCC so tethering pricing may not of fallen into the scope of this complaint but may have been part of the agreement reached. I guess we'll find out who is right in the near future.

There's no speculation to it -- read the consent decree. There is NO reference to charges or pricing for tethering ANYWHERE in the decree. The decree spells out specifically what Verizon must do to remedy the situation, and it says nothing about charging for tethering.

The idea that the FCC is "bragging" is an incorrect assumption on your part.

The fact that the media covered the press release -- and got it wrong -- should be of no surprise to anyone. It happens all the time.

Free Press, the organization that brought the complaints about Verizon to the FCC, Notice that they refer ONLY to Verizon's actions in trying to block the applications, not the fact that it charges for tethering.

[Dunbar42]

There's no speculation to it -- read the consent decree. There is NO reference to charges or pricing for tethering ANYWHERE in the decree. The decree spells out specifically what Verizon must do to remedy the situation, and it says nothing about charging for tethering.

We are speculating about whether tethering will be free or not using a 3rd party app. The decree addresses a very specific issue which was the result of a complaint. I don't think the FCC has the regulatory authority to tell Verizon how much to charge for their service which is why it is not mentioned in the decree. But that doesn't that a "gentleman's agreement" wasn't reached between the FCC and Verizon about them not charging for tethering with a 3rd party app. Otherwise, this whole exercise was a big waste of time and effort IMHO.

[sspediacci]

I just created a new thread on this, but I think we should file petitions against Verizon to allow us to use Google Wallet and as an added bonus, unlock our bootloaders. Cyanogen in itself is a program that I want to use on the 700 Mhz band that is regulated by these rules, but verizon locked down our phones to keep us from using it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Android Central Forums

[bplewis24]

We are speculating about whether tethering will be free or not using a 3rd party app. The decree addresses a very specific issue which was the result of a complaint. I don't think the FCC has the regulatory authority to tell Verizon how much to charge for their service

Of course they don't. The two subjects (Verizon blocking apps from the market on OUR phones vs Verizon charging for tethering) are pretty unrelated. They can't block the apps, but they can't be told which services they can and cannot charge for (at least not under this governing FCC spectrum compliance).

Basically Verizon will just continue trying to install software in our kernels that will notice if we are tethering (which still violates our ToS if we haven't paid for it) and redirect us to their tethering plan sign-up page.

THAT is why it is so important to have unlockable phones: we need the ability to hack into the kernels and bootloaders in order to defend against this crap.

[duanedude1]

With Share Everything the plan they are pushing, and it including free tethering, would it be worth their while to even bother trying to find out who is tethering any more? Why waste the time, money, & effort for the few who have grandfathered unlimited data?

[frankspin]

With Share Everything the plan they are pushing, and it including free tethering, would it be worth their while to even bother trying to find out who is tethering any more? Why waste the time, money, & effort for the few who have grandfathered unlimited data?

Because if someone is using 10,20,30+GB a month wouldn't you want to find out who and get them to a plan that benefits you, the provider?

[PJnc284]

Sure verizon would love to get guy off unlimited.