There have been several stories recently (Wi-Fi backpack, mobile PSP
gaming) where people have used the $700 Junxion Box to take Verizon
EVDO broadband service and create a hotspot. According to a New York
Times (via Gizmodo) piece exploring the box, Verizon isn't
pleased. "The premise is one person buys an air card and one person
uses the service, not an entire neighborhood," says a Verizon wireless
exec. "Giving things away for free doesn't work anymore. It never
did."
Over the weekend, I found a discussion thread on this very topic in
other forum. Here are some replies from readers in that forum:
Re: How is this different than...?
How is this different than sticking an EVDO card in my laptop and
sharing it via WiFi?
I can just see the Verizon guys sitting in an
exec conference room and giving themselves a big "DO!" and a slap to the
forehead.
Lamont The Goldfish
DaSneaky1
Re: How is this different than...?
said by Blasterbator :
> How is this different than sticking an EVDO card in my laptop
> and sharing it via WiFi?
> I can just see the Verizon guys sitting in an
> exec conference room and giving themselves a big "DO!" and a slap to the
> forehead.
It isn't. That's the point of this news story,
Verizon execs don't like people doing that.
voiplover
Re: How is this different than...?
So ... where is the best deal on junxion boxes anyway?
evdo to voip (Unregistered)
I think the bigger concern should be an $80
unlimited plain providing VOIP instad of people paying some of the highest
cellular phone bills in the industry! Plus no taxes and fees
Semper Vigilantis
DaDogs
Re: How is this different than...?
... worse Verizon is backhauling cellular at
~915 MHz in our area. Yep, that's right kiddies your nice encrypted digital
cellular calls are being dropped to 915 analog in the clear and broadcast
all over eastern Virginia.
Gawd, the shit Verizon pulls is limitless.
Sure it is protected, but does it have to be in the ISM bands where Mabel
with her baby monitor can pick it up?
Re: How is this different than...?
I think you have your information wrong, they can't and will not go to
analog. The FCC is putting an end to ALL analog cellular service in a
couple years. Meaning anyone with and old analog phone theyve kept for
years because they can't get anything else, will not work anymore.
Semper Vigilantis
DaDogs
Re: How is this different than...?
said by cerus98 :
> I think you have your information wrong, they can't and will not go
> to analog. The FCC is putting an end to ALL analog cellular service
> in a couple years. Meaning anyone with and old analog phone theyve
> kept for years because they can't get anything else, will not work
> anymore.
That is exactly what I thought myself, but in deploying 900 MHz Canopy
hardware I am seeing what most certainly looks like cellular between
911 and 916. It definately touches wire line which means it is
protected and it definately belongs to Verizon.
It could be a beat frequency happening in the IFs but I don't think
that is what it is and it can't be a harmonic. It is strong enough to
break squelch even with the antenna off of the scanner.
Hence my guess that it is a point-to-point link between two towers.
================
Verizon just doesn't get it.
The Verizon exec is almost as dumb as the **AA exec. "Giving it away
for free". Please explain where the 'free' part is? Someone is paying
for the wireless access card, thus, Verizon is getting paid for the
access. What that person chooses to do with their LEGALLY PAID FOR
access point is up to the person, not Verizon.
If you take away the Verizon doublespeak, what the executive meant to
say was ... "We aren't raping everyone we can for all the money we
can".
Verizon can put "Terms of Service" and rules for any way they
want. However, I the end user, can choose to ignore those terms of
service at my own risk. Now, since Verizon is classified as a 'common
carrier', they cannot legally monitor what I am doing, so their
ability to 'catch me' is severely limited. All they can do is spout
out empty threats really, cause proving it would be very hard to do,
and at the profit margins they make, just not fiscally viable.
Why is this such an issue? Because it shows that Verizon is selling a
product, with certain capabilities, that they don't want the user to
use. (i.e. the user is paying for 500kb download over EVDO, and if the
person chooses to use all 500kb, verizon can't support it). Guess
what, it's not the USERS problem.
For those who don't get it, it's would be like Ford selling me a car
that can only carry one passenger. Even though I don't currently
carpool today, if my situation changed, and I had to, yet was unable
to, I'd be pissed. Ford sold me a product, I can do what I want with
the product, as long as I follow the law (not Ford's terms of service,
the LAW, they ARE different you know), and in many cases, even if I
don't follow the law.
So, Verizon, if you want to limit it, then by all means put on a byte
cap. Oh, wait, you don't want to do that, because your studies have
shown that the sales you would loose to your competitors would be
greater than the savings you would make. Cause if I were your
competitor, I sure as hell would take out full page ads spreading FUD
about your product, and it would work too...
--
Grand Poobah
Re: Verizon just doesn't get it.
I doubt that Verizon's status as a common carrier applies to the EVDO
data service. They should be able to monitor usage to ensure compliance
with the TOS and cut off non-compliant users. Same as any other ISP.
I don't follow your Ford analogy. If you need a bigger car, you can
sell the one you have and get a bigger car, but that has no
correlation to a data service. If you like car analogies for the EVDO
TOS, how about you could rent a car and let anyone drive it despite
what the contract says, but when it's wrecked/lost/stolen, or just if
they track the car and find out you've violated the contract, then the
rental company will come after YOU.
===================
I have an EV-DO card and I fully understand why I can't share the
service.
A better analogy than the Ford example you gave is for someone to walk
in to an All-You-Can buffet with a bag full of Tupperware. Since that
person paid their bill, it now entitles them to fill all the
containers and take the food home to feed their entire neighborhood.
When the owner of the restaurant sets the price, he sets it with the
expectation that you won't take every last bit of food in the
place. Verizon had the same expectation and as a user of the service,
you probably agree to this in the TOS (which I don't have here in
front of me.)
JPCass
said by G_Poobah :
For those who don't get it, it's would
be like Ford selling me a car that can only carry one passenger.
I think that's the wrong analogy. It's
more like the local transit authority selling you a bus pass, and then
you using it to get to work, loaning it to co-workers to run errands
while you're at work, going home and loaning it to a friend to get to
get back and forth to his night shift job, and loaning it out on your
days off as well. Or, you might say it's like putting a splitter on
your cable connection, and running wires to your neighbors, and maybe
even to a large screen TV in a public area. Or maybe like sending
identical quintuplets in to eat, one at a time, at an "all you can
eat" buffet.
Internet service providers have gotten
away from early (mostly dial-up) charging based on usage, but their
models are based on presumptions about average use by one
household. If too many individuals push the envelope, their model to
offer affordable service to the average consumer starts to break
down. Metering usage adds costs, and they'd hope to avoid having to
add those costs to mass-market broadband. I think they're in a quandry
that has to be appreciated, and on the other hand they have gone ahead
and advertised things like "unlimited" broadband.
Let's think of it in terms of the large
majority of average users who have moderate needs for broadband at an
affordable price. How do you serve the vast majority of users, without
saddling them with the costs of a small number of users who use
bandwidth approaching one or more magnitudes of order greater than
average, or with costs of metering and monitoring to somehow handle
those exceptional users? Is that more or less unfair in the net than
trying to keep costs down by cracking down on the small number of
people who try to push the envelope on the marketing offer of
"unlimited"?
pinetree
Re: Verizon just doesn't get it.
i agree.
don't advertise "unlimited" if you don't
intend to provide it.
mallyman
Re: Verizon just doesn't get it.
They ARE providing unlimited... FOR YOU
not your friends and their friends and their friends...
the pricing model is built on that and if it was 'buy once,
give to the neighborhood' you would see 500 monthly instead of 80.00
the bus pass analogy fits best here
... you can use your bus pass for your OWN activities... but for
others to 'share' it is not part of the deal ... &raqu; | 2005-09-09
18:51:18 | ·
G_Poobah
My analogy was correct. I purchased a car that CAN carry 8 people, but
according to Fords 'terms of service', only I can use the car by
myself. If I choose to ignore that rule, and carry 8 people means that
Ford lost 7 'potential sales', thus if you make EVERYONE follow Fords
'terms of service', then all 7 of my passengers would need to purchase
their own Ford cars. My bringing them with me (sharing) is causing
lost revenue (lost sales) to Ford.
The tupperware argument has no basis. We are talking about a
'transient service', not a physical good. Every instant in time, it's
either being used or not being used. If it's not being used, then it's
lost forever, that's what 'transient' means. Completely different
concept than physical goods. You can't apply the arguments of
'physical loss' to this, only 'potential loss'. Very well defined in
case law.
The transit authority is a good analogy. If I buy a pass to the Metro
in DC, I can use it all I want. In fact, I can give it out to my
friends, and it's violation of terms of service. But wait, I can't use
the pass when my friend has it, so, am I really in violation? I would
argue no, since I can't physically use the pass while my friend has
it. It's the same with internet access. If my 'friend' is using all
500Kb of download, then guess what, I can't download! It's simple
enough to understand, but is it wrong? no.. I paid for 500kb of
download service. Period.
What people are trying to argue is that it's legally wrong. It's 100%
NOT legally wrong. I paid for the service, I can use the service the
way I SEE FIT, terms of service be damned. PERIOD.
Is it morally wrong? Hmm ... maybe, but maybe not. Morals are very
subjective.
Is it unprofitable for the business that sold me this service?
Absolutely. Will the business use doublespeak and lies to try and
prevent this, and improve their bottom line? I sure hope so, otherwise
I wouldn't want to be a shareholder.
Be sure to separate moral/religious beliefs from legal beliefs. If
they advertise 'unlimited access', then LEGALLY, I can use the
unlimited as unlimited. If they don't like it, then they just need to
remove the words 'unlimited' from their advertising, and clearly
define what I can/cannot do with their service. So pray tell me why
they haven't done that? -- Grand Poobah &raqu; |
Dexter9999
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not that familiar at all with
'Evdo'; are any Digest readers (possibly also Verizon customers)
able to explain it and talk about it here? PAT]
Patrick Townson (ptownson@telecom-digest.org)