Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / General / General Topics / April 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Verizon not really planning on opening their network

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Steve Sobol - 07 Apr 2008 20:29 GMT
Not fully, anyhow.

Larry is right:

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9912122-7.html?tag=nefd.lede

Signature

Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA     PGP:0xE3AE35ED  www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Larry - 08 Apr 2008 01:17 GMT
> http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9912122-7.html?tag=nefd.lede

""We don't want to be a barrier to entry," Lowell McAdam, CEO of Verizon
Wireless, said at the developer conference where the specifications for
the new program were revealed last month. "But as all of you can
appreciate with 65 million customers and billions of dollars of
investment in our network, we need to protect our customers and our
assets.""

Many old farts, like me, will remember this same line of complete
bullshit from the Bell Telephone Company about connecting consumer owned
equipment DIRECTLY to the Bell Telephone Network WITHOUT buying a very
expensive "coupler" that was supposed to "protect the system from harm",
but was, in fact, a scam to make it too expensive for consumers to
attach their own phones to the same place as they plugged in the RENTED
BELL TELEPHONE PHONE they were paying for every month.

We hams got in hot water by ordering telephone lines for our remote
repeater sites and connecting some really nice radio interconnect
equipment between our FM VHF/UHF repeater systems...and the phone line
our ham clubs were paying commercial rates (another scam) for.  One of
the local hams where I lived worked for $outhern Bell, in operations.  
He made our connection legal by bringing us the "coupler" for the
repeater system the big Bells were trying to prevent from bypassing
their payphones across the country.  He nearly got fired over that
damned coupler after 20 years of loyal service when some bureaucrat
found out about it.  The only thing that saved him and his job was the
local newspaper touting the emergency communications aspect of our ham
radio system, now with all underground telephone interconnect that could
be used in times of emergency by the hams in the county.

$outhern Bell, and all the other Bells, did everything it could to
prevent customer-owned anything from being connected to the Bell System
for years and years....dragging its bureaucratic feet for years and
years after the FCC FORCED it upon them.

This is EXACTLY what Verizon Wireless, and the other carriers, are doing
using the same old scare tactics of system destruction and interruption
from CPE (customer provided equipment).

They'll fight it to their dying breath, no matter what the propaganda
arm of this toad is printing.....
Steve Sobol - 08 Apr 2008 15:24 GMT
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.]

>> http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9912122-7.html?tag=nefd.lede
>
> ""We don't want to be a barrier to entry," Lowell McAdam, CEO of Verizon

What saddened me is that Sprint is also screwing around, and they
traditionally have had some of the best plans in the universe for data users.

But am I surprised? Nope.

When cellular airtime went from being a luxury to a commodity -- even
prepaid is cheap, as one of the local Kroger grocery chains is now
selling $5 per month/10c per minute prepaid palns -- that's when this all
started...

Signature

Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA     PGP:0xE3AE35ED  www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Larry - 08 Apr 2008 17:52 GMT
> What saddened me is that Sprint is also screwing around, and they
> traditionally have had some of the best plans in the universe for data
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> selling $5 per month/10c per minute prepaid palns -- that's when this
> all started...

Sprint is bankrupt.  Anyone calling for tech support can easily see why.  
Nextel, especially, is DOOMED.

The biggest sellphone manufacturer on the block has just jumped into
WiMax with both feet, even coming out with a new N810 WiMax internet
device to put on Sprint's so-far-doomed Xohm system in the USA.  Notice
Nokia has already spent money on its first WiMax device, even before the
system has really started, a commitment at first.

40.1% of sellphone sales are now Nokia, across the planet.  Samsung is a
far distant 2nd to Nokia's massive lead.  This is not a bankrupt
manufacturer and major communications giant.

When Nokia went to Navicore for commercial mapping software for its N800
Linux tablet "Navigation Kit", Navicore tried to screw customers with
high prices and only a tiny fraction of the maps (1/2 the continental
USA for US customers)....all locked up on a small Navicore-only SD card
we had to install to get this proprietary bullshit to run...dongle style
of old.  Dispite Nokia's advantages, Navicore balked.

So, problem solved.  Nokia simply swallowed Navicore and came out with
Wayfinder for tablet owners who bought the GPS tablets or external GPS
receiver Navigation kits users can now install on their OWN large SD or
microSD cards, directly...no dongle funny business.  Wayfinder comes
INCLUDED on all new N810 GPS-equipped tablets.  I got a nice email and
web address to download new maps for my old Navicore/Wayfinder of the
whole North American continent, if I wanted them and had the memory card
space.  Having two 16GB memory cards, I installed it on the internal
16GB card, maps and all.

Now, here's Sprint in financial trouble, a target for takeover in
Corporate America.  Nokia has swallowed many companies it wanted, like
Navicore.  Nokia wants a WiMax footprint in America.  Sprint has towers,
WiMax and Xohm.  It makes me wonder if Sprint tries to sh.t on the WiMax
Xohm customers if Nokia will do what it has done in the past....and
simply swallow them whole, which, I think, would be a fantastic thing
for sellphone customers, nationwide.  It would give the manufacturer of
open source Symbian (and Maemo Linux) phones TOTAL CONTROL of a whole
system and stop this disabling/reselling bullshit we've all come to
hate....with a WiMax offering that would simply make sellphones
obsolete, a serious threat that will be resisted at all costs.  Can you
see where that would sell LOTS of "Nokia Cellular" equipment?

It's gonna be fun to watch the next few years....especially at the FCC.

Verizon will never be an open company.....They think they're omnipotent!
Steve Sobol - 08 Apr 2008 23:12 GMT
> Sprint is bankrupt.  Anyone calling for tech support can easily see why.  

That's another rant for another day. Their customer service, post merger,
sucked a.s. It was a crying shame. That doesn't mean their network and
services were bad; in fact, having been a customer at that time, I think both
were outstanding in my neck of the woods.

CS is their #1 problem, hands down.

> Now, here's Sprint in financial trouble, a target for takeover in
> Corporate America.  Nokia has swallowed many companies it wanted, like
> Navicore.  Nokia wants a WiMax footprint in America.  Sprint has towers,
> WiMax and Xohm.  It makes me wonder if Sprint tries to sh.t on the WiMax
> Xohm customers if Nokia will do what it has done in the past...

I like to call Nokia the "Microsoft of the wireless industry." In many ways,
the name is accurate. I only recently returned to Nokia after a beyond-horrid
experience with Motorola's repair department and my beloved PEBL.

> It's gonna be fun to watch the next few years....especially at the FCC.

Yeah, I don't think so. It'll be same-old...

Signature

Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA     PGP:0xE3AE35ED  www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Cubit - 08 Apr 2008 18:25 GMT
>> http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9912122-7.html?tag=nefd.lede
>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> They'll fight it to their dying breath, no matter what the propaganda
> arm of this toad is printing.....

Having standards for devices on the Verizon network makes sense.  Hopefully,
the standards and certification are reasonable.

The old Bell System just said no to anything.  The FCC established standards
so folks could connect CPE.

In the mid to late 1970s I connected an answering machine to my line and
called the phone company with the FCC registration number.  The phone
company billed me for the wiring of the connection of the machine, even
though I did the work myself.  They were quite insistent.
Larry - 08 Apr 2008 18:47 GMT
> They were quite insistent.

Lily Tomlin has made quite a career out of their "insistence"....(c;

"Mr Veedle", her customer victim is everyman in America...
Strongbox - 09 Apr 2008 17:01 GMT
> Many old farts, like me, will remember this same line of complete
> bullshit from the Bell Telephone Company about connecting consumer owned
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> attach their own phones to the same place as they plugged in the RENTED
> BELL TELEPHONE PHONE they were paying for every month.

When I was a high school student then I ran 30 gauge wire through the cracks
in the wood planking and connected the wires by soldering them to the phone
line (then twisted pair) under the nails holding the line to the planks so I
could have a "hidden" phone patch setup on my ham radio system.  I did a lot
of patching for overseas military people to their families here in the
states.
Larry - 09 Apr 2008 20:51 GMT
> When I was a high school student then I ran 30 gauge wire through the
> cracks in the wood planking and connected the wires by soldering them
> to the phone line (then twisted pair) under the nails holding the line
> to the planks so I could have a "hidden" phone patch setup on my ham
> radio system.  I did a lot of patching for overseas military people to
> their families here in the states.

I ran phone patches for years for soldiers, sailors and Marines.  
Sometimes it would run all night.  Southern Bell busted me for it back
when they used to SCAN THE LINES looking for extra loads, other than the
number of ringers you were RENTING from them.  Remember that?  I didn't
have a "coupler" either....too expensive!

The cure was to capacitively couple a high impedance phone patch to the
line so it presented no measurable load to the enforcement bureaucrats.  
The phone patch only needed to present audio to the network so you could
acoustically couple it to the ham set or do it the hard way trying not
to make a ringer load for them to detect and bust...(c;

I sure appreciate your phone patches, too!  I was WB4THE/MM aboard USS
Everglades (AD-24), running phone patches for the crew and my captain
back to Charleston, SC, when we were at sea.  Rig was a Heath HW-101
into a home brew linear running four 813's in parallel.  (graphite
plated 813's had Navy stock numbers...(c;)

The comm officer hated my guts.  It was all my captain's fault.  He'd
show up in Radio Central demanding to talk to Charleston.  The comm
officer would always tell him they couldn't talk to Charleston with the
millions of dollars in equipment installed, amusing my captain
tremendously.  "That's Bullshit!", he'd exclaim, "I was just talking to
my wife on ET1 Butler's little Heathkit ham radio back in the cal lab!"  
We'd be somewhere across the Atlantic at the time, or in the Med.  He
used to ask me, "How much did this radio cost you?"...."Er, ah, $239,
sir.  It was a kit I built."  I had 4 inverted V's (80/40/20/15) strung
from the after king post (mast about 75' high).  Any interference
complaints from Radio while the captain was talking to his wife were met
with a stare that could melt thick steel deck plates...(c;

I also ran a lot of RTTY from the ship and published Reuters news off
10.945 FSK posted on the mess decks.  I rebuilt a Kleinschmidt machine I
found at the salvage yard.  Ship had a full teletype repair shop manned
by machine experts.  1500 watts of RTTY on 14.080 had no problems
reaching out and touching someone....even some painters that got too
close...(c;

What's your call?

73 DE W4CharlestonSouthCarolina

Fess up....Ever build a Blue Box?....(c;
Mike Gorman - 09 Apr 2008 10:59 GMT
Go and read the requirements for the Open Device Initiative, not some
reporter's take on it.  It's true that the there are some certification
rules, but they are not onerous by any stretch, and really do just protect
the network.  The analogy of a mobile phone system with the Internet is
bogus.  They have some similarities, but it is their differences that are
very important in this model, and some of the same ones that make mobile
different from landline.

What do you want from "Open Network"?  Should the network support TDMA?
Analog?  If it locks up the access channel on a cell site and no one else in
the cell can use the service, does the carrier just have to go, "Oh well,
the network is 'Open'"?

Yes, I work for Verizon Wireless, but please, go and read the documentation,
freely available on the web, and then argue with the real facts.

Mike Gorman

> Not fully, anyhow.
>
> Larry is right:
>
> http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9912122-7.html?tag=nefd.lede
Larry - 09 Apr 2008 15:26 GMT
> If it locks up the access channel on a cell site and no one else in
> the cell can use the service, does the carrier just have to go, "Oh
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> documentation, freely available on the web, and then argue with the
> real facts.

Sounds just like Ma Bell just before FCC forced them to let me have my own
phone plugged into the line.....not renting a phone from Ma Bell.

We both know the access channel has a timeout timer, right??
Mike Gorman - 10 Apr 2008 10:21 GMT
>> If it locks up the access channel on a cell site and no one else in
>> the cell can use the service, does the carrier just have to go, "Oh
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> We both know the access channel has a timeout timer, right??

If the mobile keeps transmitting, it can hold the access channel from anyone
else using it, regardless of what the cell does, it's happened, but that's
not the point.  Ma Bell didn't share the same kind of airlink resources that
the wireless carriers do, when you have wired connections, you can disable a
line, or disconnect it, wireless can't.

Regardless, it's just an example from the past.  Check out the ODI
documentation, and let's wait and see what comes in time.
Steve Sobol - 10 Apr 2008 18:58 GMT
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.]

>> We both know the access channel has a timeout timer, right??
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> the wireless carriers do, when you have wired connections, you can disable a
> line, or disconnect it, wireless can't.

What do you think about my comment?

I agree with Verizon's ads, where they make the claims of "best network." I
found that to be true in most of the areas I frequented when I was a Verizon
Wireless customer between 2000 and 2004. My main problem with VZW, and I think
also one of Larry's main problems, is they use that as leverage. "Ha. Half
the features are disabled on this phone, and it's pissing off our customers?
Our coverage is twice as good as anyone else's. What are they gonna do, churn
to some other carrier and not be able to make calls?"

I expect that they will pretend to be compliant, while in reality still not
allowing many handsets on their network besides the ones they sell. After all,
they don't have to be competitive, right? They have a much bigger network
than the other guys do. (BTW, this isn't as true these days as it was five or
six years ago.)

Signature

Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA     PGP:0xE3AE35ED  www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Todd Allcock - 10 Apr 2008 19:22 GMT
> I expect that they will pretend to be compliant, while in reality still
> not
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> or
> six years ago.)

Am I the only one who saw no coincidence between the recent Broadband Access
5GB limit (with per MB overage charges) following relatively quickly after
the "open network" announcement?  I think Verizon's network will be fully
open to any internet usage- with what they're charging for overages, I
suspect they'll be inviting heavy usage!  VoIP, Bittorrent, whatever you
want- at $0.49/MB Verizon can afford to be "open"!

It's like AT&T's ToS- notice that they prohibit tethering on "unlimited"
data-on-phone plans, but have no problem with tethering on any $X for Y MB
plans.  As long as you're getting charged per MB, carriers don't seem to
care WHAT you do with a mobile internet connection... ;-)
Larry - 10 Apr 2008 20:07 GMT
> VoIP, Bittorrent, whatever you
> want- at $0.49/MB Verizon can afford to be "open"!
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> carriers don't seem to care WHAT you do with a mobile internet
> connection... ;-)

50c/MB is a ripoff no matter what side you're on.

But, that's not the biggest ripoff in cellular, SMS is.

156 bytes per message for 20c.  So, 1,000,000/156 = 6410 sms messages
per megabyte X 20c = $1,282/MB!

Is it any wonder they don't want to have users paying $60/mo mucking up
the REAL profits downloading MP3s off Usenet?!

SMS is the next biggest ripoff on the planet after Neulasta.

http://www.drugstore.com/pharmacy/prices/drugprice.asp?ndc=55513019001
&trx=1Z5006
Neulasta - 6mg/0.6ml Solution 0.6ml Syringe
Quantity     Our Price
1 syringe     $3,265.88 - save 13% ($508.02)
2 syringes     $6,343.06 - save 16% ($1,204.74)
3 syringes     $9,514.58 - save 16% ($1,807.12)
4 syringes     $12,686.11 - save 16% ($2,409.49)
5 syringes     $15,857.64 - save 16% ($3,011.86)
6 syringes     $19,029.17 - save 16% ($3,614.23)

A gallon is 3800 ml.  3800ml/.6ml = 6333.33 injections per gallon x the
discounted $3265.85/injection = $20,683,716 per gallon, the most
valuable liquid on the planet.

Buy some today!  Goddamned medical thieves.
....and they call the drug lords criminals....

Bad day, here.  I just got my first Socialist Security payment last
month.  I'm sending my first THREE Socialist Security payments straight
to the IRS on April 15th....It isn't fair.....

.....GO WIMAX GO!.....
The Bob - 10 Apr 2008 23:00 GMT
>> VoIP, Bittorrent, whatever you
>> want- at $0.49/MB Verizon can afford to be "open"!
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> 156 bytes per message for 20c.  So, 1,000,000/156 = 6410 sms messages
> per megabyte X 20c = $1,282/MB!

Which carrier is charging by the byte?
Larry - 11 Apr 2008 13:45 GMT
> Which carrier is charging by the byte?

All of them!  An SMS is 156 bytes for 20c or 15c.
The Bob - 12 Apr 2008 04:01 GMT
>> Which carrier is charging by the byte?
>
> All of them!  An SMS is 156 bytes for 20c or 15c.

Last time I checked, they charged by the message.  

So once again, who is charging by the byte?
Larry - 12 Apr 2008 17:14 GMT
> Last time I checked, they charged by the message.  
>
> So once again, who is charging by the byte?

sh.t you ARE stupid.

1 - A message is only 156 bytes, max.

2 - "they charge by the message", your words.

3 - They charge 20c for a 156 byte message.

So, stupid, they are charging 20c for 156 bytes of data.  Is that too much
rocket science for you to understand?

156 bytes for 20c is what I originally quoted per megabyte of data.  I know
it's hard but it's called "arithmetic", in English.
The Bob - 12 Apr 2008 21:08 GMT
>> Last time I checked, they charged by the message.  
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> 156 bytes for 20c is what I originally quoted per megabyte of data.  I
> know it's hard but it's called "arithmetic", in English.

Show me any cellular bill from any carrier that breaks the charge down by
the byte.  If  you can't, then shut the hell up and go away.  

As you can see, I'm not the stupid one here
Larry - 13 Apr 2008 05:10 GMT
> Show me any cellular bill from any carrier that breaks the charge down
> by the byte.  If  you can't, then shut the hell up and go away.  
>
> As you can see, I'm not the stupid one here

Nice try.  One thing about math....it's absolute.
The Bob - 13 Apr 2008 15:25 GMT
>> Show me any cellular bill from any carrier that breaks the charge down
>> by the byte.  If  you can't, then shut the hell up and go away.  
>>
>> As you can see, I'm not the stupid one here
>
> Nice try.  One thing about math....it's absolute.

One other thing about math- those that don't understand how to use it
properly are morons, moron.

Your stupid crusade to show the world the "inequity" of the pricing
structure would be laughable if it weren't so moronic.  Just another case
of sour grapes.  I don't see you applying the same principle to anything
else.  In your world, all software shoudl be sold by the byte and at a
price only you deem to be practical.  Ears of corn priced by the number of
kernels on the ear.

You need to get on medication- your view of reality is severely flawed.
Mike Gorman - 11 Apr 2008 10:30 GMT
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.]
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> or
> six years ago.)

I think you have an odd idea of competitive.  Remember, this is a business,
and the goal is to make the most money, and grow, to make more money.  While
there are certainly some people who are upset by the limitations placed on
devices, etc., the fact is, the majority of retail users will pay for it,
and if they wouldn't, the model would change. As long as revenue and
suscriber growth remain high, why would you change?  And, isn't the Open
Device Initiative exactly that?  If you want to use our services, here are
some devices we stand behind 100%.  If you want to use different feature
sets, and can find them on the market, you can use our network, and their
device.

I can also say that I believe you are wrong about the Open Device
Initiative, and that there will be a substantial number of offerings from
outside vendors, if the developers find a business model that works for
them.  I understand you doubt it, but no one will know anything until
sometime next year, really, so all we can do it wait it out.
Steve Sobol - 11 Apr 2008 15:01 GMT
> I think you have an odd idea of competitive.  Remember, this is a business

Verizon could do just fine if they actually do what they claim they're going
to.

> suscriber growth remain high, why would you change?  And, isn't the Open
> Device Initiative exactly that?  If you want to use our services, here are
> some devices we stand behind 100%.  If you want to use different feature
> sets, and can find them on the market, you can use our network, and their
> device.

That's not what I read in the news.com article I originally cited. Granted,
it IS my interpretation.

> I can also say that I believe you are wrong about the Open Device
> Initiative, and that there will be a substantial number of offerings from
> outside vendors, if the developers find a business model that works for
> them.  I understand you doubt it, but no one will know anything until
> sometime next year, really, so all we can do it wait it out.

I agree. And I do hope I'm being overly cynical.

Signature

Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA     PGP:0xE3AE35ED  www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Mike Gorman - 14 Apr 2008 11:03 GMT
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.]
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> or
> six years ago.)

I think you have an odd idea of competitive.  Remember, this is a business,
and the goal is to make the most money, and grow, to make more money.  While
there are certainly some people who are upset by the limitations placed on
devices, etc., the fact is, the majority of retail users will pay for it,
and if they wouldn't, the model would change. As long as revenue and
suscriber growth remain high, why would you change?  And, isn't the Open
Device Initiative exactly that?  If you want to use our services, here are
some devices we stand behind 100%.  If you want to use different feature
sets, and can find them on the market, you can use our network, and their
device.

I can also say that I believe you are wrong about the Open Device
Initiative, and that there will be a substantial number of offerings from
outside vendors, if the developers find a business model that works for
them.  I understand you doubt it, but no one will know anything until
sometime next year, really, so all we can do it wait it out.
Mike Gorman - 17 Apr 2008 11:46 GMT
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.]
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> or
> six years ago.)

I think you have an odd idea of competitive.  Remember, this is a business,
and the goal is to make the most money, and grow, to make more money.  While
there are certainly some people who are upset by the limitations placed on
devices, etc., the fact is, the majority of retail users will pay for it,
and if they wouldn't, the model would change. As long as revenue and
suscriber growth remain high, why would you change?  And, isn't the Open
Device Initiative exactly that?  If you want to use our services, here are
some devices we stand behind 100%.  If you want to use different feature
sets, and can find them on the market, you can use our network, and their
device.

I can also say that I believe you are wrong about the Open Device
Initiative, and that there will be a substantial number of offerings from
outside vendors, if the developers find a business model that works for
them.  I understand you doubt it, but no one will know anything until
sometime next year, really, so all we can do it wait it out.
Steve Sobol - 09 Apr 2008 15:29 GMT
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.]

> What do you want from "Open Network"?  Should the network support TDMA?
> Analog?  

Nope, not TDMA, TDMA is a dead standard. Analog you could maybe make a
case for since some rural operators are probably going to be running AMPS
for a while, even though they no longer have to, but I can see no point at all
in including TDMA.

> If it locks up the access channel on a cell site and no one else in
> the cell can use the service, does the carrier just have to go, "Oh well,
> the network is 'Open'"?

No. It's not the certification itself that I have a problem with. I don't
trust Verizon. I could easily see them only certifying a small number of
devices, most or all of which the company itself sells. That's the problem.

I would like very much to be wrong about that.

Signature

Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA     PGP:0xE3AE35ED  www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Larry - 09 Apr 2008 20:30 GMT
> No. It's not the certification itself that I have a problem with. I
> don't trust Verizon. I could easily see them only certifying a small
> number of devices, most or all of which the company itself sells.
> That's the problem.
>
> I would like very much to be wrong about that.

VZW has been total a.ses in the past, so why would anyone think they are
going to have this wonderful corporate turnaround just to satisfy a few FCC
bureaucrats, now?  Oh, they'll mouth the right words and make a few
movements....but, alas, they'll be VERIZON WIRELESS, just like we all know
them....for as long as they can get away with it...

Let's test all this!  We'll get some "approved" Motophones but with
unhobbled Alltel firmware installed in them and no funny business.  Then,
we'll call VZW and have them all put on service with memory cards you don't
need to hack to get the damned pictures onto your PC, MP3 files that play
straight off the cards without hacking or fighting Verizon for access and
NO VCAST or other SELLphone nonsense that obliterates the original Moto
access menus like MOVE or COPY or MAKE RINGTONE or useful, but forbidden,
bluetooth profiles (OPP, OBEX, DUN, FTP, AUDIO REMOTE CONTROL, etc.)

Will they "certify" any device that doesn't conform to the hobbleware
specifications of the company's own Sellphones?  That would be crazy!

I'd like to be wrong about that, too, Steve.  We'll see....(c;
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.