1. dridas's Avatar
    I have been somewhat perplexed by VZW's lack of support or statements about Samsung Pay. When I watched the unpackaging event, I was really excited about Samsung Pay. I've read just about every article on here about the reviews on Samsung Pay, and I'm stoked about it's release. EXCEPT, that I'm with Verizon.

    Some have suggested filing a complain with the BBB. I started researching Net Neutrality Laws, and came across the 700 MHz auction, Google's play in that auction, and found that Net Neutrality may indeed apply to VZW and this spectrum. It seems to indicate that VZW is not allowed to block applications or access to applications, and therefore the appropriate course of action is to file a complaint against VZW on the FCC website for violation of Net Neutrality laws, and there blocking of Samsung Pay.

    I'm hoping to get a little discussion going, and determine if Net Neutrality does in fact apply to this, and if so, perhaps when Samsung Pay is released on 28 Sept, have a following that files the complaints with the FCC- if that is in deed the case.
    09-24-2015 09:31 AM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    Verizon is allowed to restrict access to apps that can compromise the security of their devices/network. They have previously simply not approved apps or waited to approve apps that they are reviewing. So if they block it and cannot justify it, then yes, the FCC can get involved. If they simply haven't approved it yet on the 28th it probably won't be a thing with the FCC. That doesn't mean you shouldn't complain, it just means the FCC may not have teeth immediately.
    09-24-2015 09:52 AM
  3. maf113's Avatar
    I would agree with you, and have stated this on the Verizon Customer forum and in this forum in other threads.

    1. Some have argued that Verizon is not in violating Net Neutrality in that Samsung Pay does not use the internet when making payments. I am not sure if that is true, but I do know that you need internet access to set-up your cards with Samsung Pay and to keep that application up to date as well as any data being provided by Samsung. As an ISP Verizon is violating the rule by denying access to Samsung Pay.

    2. Verizon is allowing Android Pay, a competing payment system, to operate on their network but as of now not Samsung Pay. If Verizon continues to block Samsung Pay and allow Android Pay than that would be another violation of Net Neutrality.

    Wireless service has changed over the years. Companies like Verizon are now ISPs. We now have to pay full price for our phones as the companies are no longer subsidizing them. As such the old ways no longer apply. Verizon and others should not be dictating what we can and cannot use on their network. If the phone is FCC compliant and does not interfere with operation of the network than Verizon and other companies should have no say in the matter. We are paying them for a service that includes internet access. Comcast and other ISPs do not dictate what you can use on their network why should Verizon. I have Comcast as my ISP. I can hook up any equipment that is FCC compliant for network access. I have multiple devices connected and none of them required Comcast’s blessing and this includes my Dish Network box that uses the internet to download movies, run Netflix and several other applications that access the internet. Comcast did not remove any features from my Dell computer. Comcast was not able to load up my computer with useless apps (I could download those apps if I want, but they are not preinstalled). Comcast did not cripple my computer or other devices as Verizon does to our phones. That is I can use the service to my full benefit. In return I pay Comcast ,dearly, for this privilege.

    Verizon and the other wireless carriers need to be brought into the new century. The only way to do this is by complaining to the FCC and FTC that Verizon is blocking access to the internet and is blocking fair trade in that they are not allowing competing products on their system or at least making it extremely difficult for their customers to do so.

    Please note, I am fully aware that one item may not in itself be a valid argument. It is the totality of Verizon’s actions that make the case. Issues that may not apply directly do apply when taken with all the other actions Verizon has taken to block fair use. If Verizon continues to block Samsung Pay after the launch date then they could be considered to be in violation. The fact that all the other carriers have blessed S-Pay, will make it hard for Verizon to justify their continued blockage of application and service. We will just have to wait and see what happens next week.
    dridas likes this.
    09-24-2015 10:08 AM
  4. dridas's Avatar
    I think I may have read your post on VZW community forums, and have replied to a few others as well. It may have been your post that made me start researching net neutrality. It would seem that even the lawsuits from VZW to the FCC were dropped because it wasn't a worthwhile endeavor. As is the case, they tried to sue the FCC for upholding the google rules on the 700 MHz spectrum, and those rules are what made the blocking of applications, and tiered/preferential bandwidth a violation of net neutrality.

    I just hope VZW does the right thing next week, and I agree with everything you've said.
    09-24-2015 10:45 AM
  5. r56mcs's Avatar
    I weighed verizon unlimited data vs Samsung pay at T-mobile with 10gb per month. In the end I left verizon and gave up my unlimited data. I don't think I would go back even if verizon joined Samsung pay.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-24-2015 11:01 AM
  6. dridas's Avatar
    Verizon is allowed to restrict access to apps that can compromise the security of their devices/network. They have previously simply not approved apps or waited to approve apps that they are reviewing. So if they block it and cannot justify it, then yes, the FCC can get involved. If they simply haven't approved it yet on the 28th it probably won't be a thing with the FCC. That doesn't mean you shouldn't complain, it just means the FCC may not have teeth immediately.
    A little Net Neutrality history-
    VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hotspots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

    Just months after it got busted blocking applications in the Android Market, Verizon Wireless confirmed it is restricting consumers’ ability to download and use Google Wallet — the search giant’s new mobile payment app — on the new flagship Galaxy Nexus phone.

    By so casually abusing its gatekeeper position to block applications that compete with its own offerings, Verizon’s move sent a message to all entrepreneurs and developers: If you come up with an interesting, disruptive new application, Verizon just may block it and promote its own version instead.
    I think they might be able to make the argument about blocking because they haven't tested it against their network, but the devices are not there's- they belong to those who purchase. Devices are no longer subsidized by them, nor are they leased - its just like buying a car with a loan and lien. While they could make the argument, the bigger argument is that they blocked it because the chose to support Android Pay, since they were stakeholders in Softcard which would up being sold to Google. This may be a violation under the FTC and the FCC. In the end, I think Verizon will have no choice but to allow the application, they are just going to delay it to determine how Android Pay works out.

    The thing about Android Pay though- if you didn't use Google Wallet for transactions, the likelihood of utilizing Android Pay is a tossup. I don't see people flocking to Android Pay today because it has a new name. I do see great reviews on Samsung Pay, and I think more and more people will recognize that it (in my opinion) has a superior place among the Apple and Google pay applications. Those that utilized LoopPay before it was bought up by Samsung have the same positive outlook. Although, LoopPay is available for your Samsung device on the Verizon Wireless Network. The only difference is that the LoopPay ancillary device is incorporated in to the Note 5, S6E+, and S6, and does not require a bluetooth connection to make it work. Samsung Pay has a different front-end/application than LoopPay, but the similarities are evident.
    09-24-2015 11:20 AM
  7. metropolitim's Avatar
    Net neutrality is in the realm of ISPs blocking access or throttling download speeds to specific sites. It first came up when Comcast was found to be slowing down downloads for Bit Torrent clients. When the FCC fined Comcast, the fine was overturned on appeal, on the basis that the FCC had no authority to impose a fine because there was no actual law requiring net neutrality.

    The FCC/Verizon/tethering issue from 2012 is different. That's "open access" under FCC rules that mobile providers "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."

    But it doesn't work as well as it sounds like it ought to. For example, even though Verizon has to allow competing tethering apps, they DON'T have to do this if you have an unlimited data plan.

    re: Google Wallet in particular, it was introduced in 2011, but Verizon didn't support it in any meaningful way until earlier this year -- four years later. For that matter, Verizon didn't support iPhones until 2011, once again, four years after Apple introduced them in 2007.

    On the Apple side, they only started supporting Google Wallet a couple of days ago, but only for peer-to-peer. No support for tap to pay. I doubt there ever will be, because Apple has its own proprietary technology for that.

    Just like Verizon does with Android Pay. Not proprietary per se, but Verizon does have a financial stake in Android Pay via Google's Softcard acquisition. They don't have a stake in Samsung Pay, which competes with the platform they helped create. As much as I hate to say it as a Verizon customer who hates them and who'd love to have Samasung Pay, I'm not sure how fair it is to ask them to undercut their own ability to make money from their investments.

    I've been a Verizon customer since the Bell Atlantic days in the late 80s, when cell phones were the size of your shoe. I've been hating them almost the entire time. But after 25 years, I can say with confidence that this is just Verizon being Verizon. Everything comes slowly. Some things never come at all. Subscribe for the network. Forget the rest.

    Or keep fighting in hopes that it'll change Verizon's mind. I admire you. But I think they've done the math. I think they have a good idea EXACTLY how many people will drop them over Samsung Pay, just like they know exactly how many customers they lose on price and other issues. They pay MBAs a fortune to model this data, and Verizon has clearly decided that overall, they're going to do, and not do, things the way they always have: slowly, or not at all, for whatever reasons amuse them.

    I don't want to get too much further in the weeds on net neutrality, but it was only earlier this year that the FCC won the right to have ANY authority over this. To give you an idea of how hard it's going to be to implement, their authority comes under the communications Act of..wait for it...wait for it...1934! It's going to be years with many court battles before anybody can figure how to apply a 1934 law to today's services.....

    ....but only for ISPs. It still won't apply to Verizon as a mobile provider and Samsung Pay as a platform that competes with Android Pay. I'd love to be wrong about this, but I don't think I am.
    09-24-2015 02:34 PM
  8. dridas's Avatar
    The only problem that I have is that the 700mhz block c acquisition was tied to Verizon specifically not being allowed to block application. This was very specific to the 700 mhz auction. Also, the original telecommunications act was 1934, but was updated in 1996, just not sure how it applies.
    09-24-2015 02:41 PM
  9. metropolitim's Avatar
    The only problem that I have is that the 700mhz block c acquisition was tied to Verizon specifically not being allowed to block application. This was very specific to the 700 mhz auction. Also, the original telecommunications act was 1934, but was updated in 1996, just not sure how it applies.
    1996 was forever ago. This issue didn't even exist until this MONTH.

    I'm thinking that nothing about Block C applies here, for two reasons.

    1) It's not a network access issue. It's a software issue. It'd be like reading that Block C rules require open devices, then going to the FCC to argue about locked bootloaders. Not what "open access" is about.

    Samsung Pay is the same deal. It's all local to your phone. Even the vendor verifying your token is using the terrestrial internet, not mobile networks. Nothing about Verizon's action is blocking any kind of access to any service on Block C.

    Contrast this to the wifi hotspot situation. Block C DID apply, because the issue was about what you could do with your Block C bandwidth to provide access to your own devices.

    And do note again, Verizon is STILL allowed to block third-party tethering on unlimited data plans.

    More important:

    2) We don't REALLY know what Block C rules apply to. There's virtually no Block C case law!!!

    Once Verizon got protection for their right to restrict tethering on unlimited data plans, they settled with no admission of guilt, so the extent of the FCC's authority, or of Verizon's responsibilities, has never been tested in court.

    I keep reading articles that get this wrong, so let's be clear: there was no trial (only an informal investigation), Verizon settled with no admission of guilt, and they were never fined. They "voluntarily donated" $1.25 million to the US Treasury -- but that's all!! ONE MILLION DOLLARS and change.

    If you don't believe me, this is from the FCC's press release: "Under the terms of today’s settlement, Verizon Wireless will make a voluntary payment to the Treasury in the amount of $1.25 million." The rest is here.

    I'll give you another example of how the Block C rules have never been tested. The Block C rules say that devices can't be locked -- but locked devices are sold every day! And even unlocked ones have strong restrictions about which networks they can be used on. This practice has never once been challenged, even though it DIRECTLY affects Block C access.

    So, long before the FCC is going to be interested in something that doesn't touch Block C, they MIGHT be interested in something that DOES affect Block C....but so far, they haven't, and neither has any consumer group I'm aware of, even though I think that THAT would catch the Commission's eye a lot more quickly than a non-network app would.

    EVEN IF Verizon feels that they need to open up Samsung Pay, they can do exactly what they're doing. "We're looking into it." They held off the iPhone for FOUR YEARS, just by saying "We're looking into it." They held off the Nexus 7 by saying "We're looking into it."

    And both of those DID have Block C implications. Since Samsung Pay doesn't, Verizon can say "We're looking into it" 'til the cows come home. Or at least for a lot longer.

    Noting again that I'd prefer to be wrong about this. :-)
    09-24-2015 07:07 PM
  10. r56mcs's Avatar
    I would not hold my breath. T mobile may not have as good coverage as verizon but it is a lot cheaper

    Posted via the Android Central App
    09-24-2015 07:35 PM

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-24-2015, 03:29 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-24-2015, 03:16 PM
  3. samsung galaxy s3 not turning on
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-24-2015, 03:13 PM