[sspediacci]

Based on the recent FCC announcement regarding their enforcement of the 'C Block' rules, I believe the Verizon Android community should come together and start filing complaints based on the rules Verizon promised to adhere to when they won the 'C Block' auction for the 700 Mhz band.

I honestly didn't think the FCC had teeth to bite back at Verizon, but they made clear that we have a government organization that is willing to work for consumers rights in regards to this issue. Stupid online petitions aren't going to work and neither is calling Verizon directly. Don't let it stop at this one decision.

Verizon agreed to these rules when they sign up to use 'C Block' so make sure they know they can't refuse us the right to use our phones as we want. It's our right as a consumer to use any application I want on the 700 Mhz band and that includes Cyanogen and Google Wallet.

While I admit that the case of unlocked Bootloaders will be a tough battle, there is now an obvious precedent set by the FCC that we need to push for.

Please visit FCC.gov and file a complaint under Net Neutrality with your complaint in regards to Verizon not allowing us to use our phones as we want on a public spectrum sold to a private company that agreed to an open system.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Android Central Forums

[Prozak]

Maybe a dumb question, but is there anything that says they have to give us an unlocked bootloader?

In understand the block C ruling, but that doesn't remove hardware requirements, it just says people can use the data as they like.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Android Central Forums

[frankspin]

Maybe a dumb question, but is there anything that says they have to give us an unlocked bootloader?

In understand the block C ruling, but that doesn't remove hardware requirements, it just says people can use the data as they like.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Android Central Forums

I gotta say this is my feelings as well.

[Dave4321]

The C block requirements prevent Verizon from blocking or hindering any software.Kernals and ROMs are software.

[liteon163]

And considering Verizon is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, I never understood the hypocrisy of locking down their phones more than any other wireless provider in America.

Sure, they subsidized the cost of the phone... But it's still MY phone.

Sent from my Blue 32 Verizon SGSIII using Tapatalk 2

[dj hidroid]

And considering Verizon is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, I never understood the hypocrisy of locking down their phones more than any other wireless provider in America.

Sure, they subsidized the cost of the phone... But it's still MY phone.

Sent from my Blue 32 Verizon SGSIII using Tapatalk 2

I didn't get a subsidized price and although Samsung is releasing a Developer edition to be sold for $599 with an unlocked bootloader it will only be available in blue whenever it's actually available.

[dmcman73]

The only thing I can see that could really get pushed through is the fight to allow Google wallet. Since Google wallet is on other carriers we all know it works, it is anti competitive for Verizon to block that service to only allow their services that competes against Google wallet. This is the same thing they did when Blackberries had GPS antennas in them, they only allowed their software access to the antenna so you had to use their pay for service and you couldn't use any other GPS software.

[PJnc284]

Since Google wallet is on other carriers we all know it works, it is anti competitive for Verizon to block that service to only allow their services that competes against Google wallet.

Sprint is the only one that outright supports Google Wallet.

[sspediacci]

Sprint is the only one that outright supports Google Wallet.

Yeah, but carriers don't need to "support" it because it's just an app that
runs on your phone and uses the hardware on your phone. They just block it to be anti-competitive.

I gotta say this is my feelings as well.

Well technically Cyanogen and kernels are a type of software. Since they lock the phone on a software level, they are blocking my right to use a piece of software on Block C

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Android Central Forums

[jaj6503]

These boards are a tough place to bring stuff like this up. The kids on XDA are already rallying around this

Sent from my rooted/stock Samsung Galaxy S3 using Android Central Forums

[PJnc284]

Yeah, but carriers don't need to "support" it because it's just an app that runs on your phone and uses the hardware on your phone. They just block it to be anti-competitive.

Can't disagree there. There's no need for carrier intervention on the Play Store PERIOD especially with the app being provided by the very company that develops the OS.

[Motoslave]

Here's a recent blog about Verizon blocking google wallet

[snookiesnoo]

The FCC did not take up the complaint on their own. Google pushed them to do it. Don't worry, the FCC are still lapdogs.

Based on the recent FCC announcement regarding their enforcement of the 'C Block' rules, I believe the Verizon Android community should come together and start filing complaints based on the rules Verizon promised to adhere to when they won the 'C Block' auction for the 700 Mhz band.

I honestly didn't think the FCC had teeth to bite back at Verizon, but they made clear that we have a government organization that is willing to work for consumers rights in regards to this issue. Stupid online petitions aren't going to work and neither is calling Verizon directly. Don't let it stop at this one decision.

Verizon agreed to these rules when they sign up to use 'C Block' so make sure they know they can't refuse us the right to use our phones as we want. It's our right as a consumer to use any application I want on the 700 Mhz band and that includes Cyanogen and Google Wallet.

While I admit that the case of unlocked Bootloaders will be a tough battle, there is now an obvious precedent set by the FCC that we need to push for.

Please visit FCC.gov and file a complaint under Net Neutrality with your complaint in regards to Verizon not allowing us to use our phones as we want on a public spectrum sold to a private company that agreed to an open system.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Android Central Forums

[sspediacci]

Here's a recent blog about Verizon blocking google wallet

Great article find. Droid Life is on to something over here about this question.

The FCC did not take up the complaint on their own. Google pushed them to do it. Don't worry, the FCC are still lapdogs.

I don't doubt it, but according to Motoslave's article it was pushed by someone else.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Android Central Forums

[creccaj1]

The language of the C-Block rules are a little tricky and when you get down to it, Verizon technically has the right to lock the bootloader to their phones. Google Wallet, I see no reason why they block or how they have the legal backing to do so however the bootloader they do have some ground.

Per the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations webpage, the C-Block law states this:

§ 27.16 Network access requirements for Block C in the 746-757 and 776-787 MHz bands.
(a) Applicability. This section shall apply only to the authorizations for Block C in the 746-757 and 776-787 MHz bands assigned and only if the results of the first auction in which licenses for such authorizations are offered satisfied the applicable reserve price.

(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section shall 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, except:

(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network, or

(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government regulation.

(c) Technical standards. For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section:

(1) Standards shall include technical requirements reasonably necessary for third parties to access a licensee's network via devices or applications without causing objectionable interference to other spectrum users or jeopardizing network security. The potential for excessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network.

(2) To the extent a licensee relies on standards established by an independent standards-setting body which is open to participation by representatives of service providers, equipment manufacturers, application developers, consumer organizations, and other interested parties, the standards will carry a presumption of reasonableness.

(3) A licensee shall publish its technical standards, which shall be non-proprietary, no later than the time at which it makes such standards available to any preferred vendors, so that the standards are readily available to customers, equipment manufacturers, application developers, and other parties interested in using or developing products for use on a licensee's networks.

(d) Access requests. (1) Licensees shall establish and publish clear and reasonable procedures for parties to seek approval to use devices or applications on the licensees' networks. A licensee must also provide to potential customers notice of the customers' rights to request the attachment of a device or application to the licensee's network, and notice of the licensee's process for customers to make such requests, including the relevant network criteria.

(2) If a licensee determines that a request for access would violate its technical standards or regulatory requirements, the licensee shall expeditiously provide a written response to the requester specifying the basis for denying access and providing an opportunity for the requester to modify its request to satisfy the licensee's concerns.

(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks.

(f) Burden of proof. Once a complainant sets forth a prima facie case that the C Block licensee has refused to attach a device or application in violation of the requirements adopted in this section, the licensee shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it has adopted reasonable network standards and reasonably applied those standards in the complainant's case. Where the licensee bases its network restrictions on industry-wide consensus standards, such restrictions would be presumed reasonable.

If you look at point e, you will see that Handset locking is prohibited to the extent of paragraph b and to the extent of limited the users use of the providers network. When you go up to point b, it lays out what qualifies as denying services and ability of the users device. The points below b state what the provider may do to protect itself and the first point listed there is the biggest one and probably the only legal ground Verizon may need to claim they have the right to lock the bootloader.

They could claim that having an unlocked bootloader may compromise the ability to provide support for the phone and it could jeopardize the overall network. Now while we all know thats a load of garbage that would almost never happen, they have to cover their own buts. Locking the bootloader does not prohibit the ability for the user to access the providers network nor does it restrict the use of their network. Verizon will argue until they are blue in the face that with a locked bootloader you will have unlimited access to their service provided and with the locked bootloader they can ensure the safety of their network.

If you look at point c(1) however, this could be used to object the bootloader locking. People could in fact claim that CM, or other third party developers are being restricted because they can't use the network to the full potential.

I am not posting this to start and argument, that is not what is intended. I am posting this here so those who are not familiar with the C-Block rules are can interpret this for themselves and take it how they want. I am on your sides, I believe the bootloader should have been unlocked from the start and believe the Google Wallet shouldn't be restricted by any means. From my experience, this is how I am interpret the laws stated.

Do not take my word for the actual meaning, this is just what I am getting out of the laws.

Lets try to keep this civil. Please do not attack people if they interpret this differently. We are a helpful community and we want to keep it that way.