What is Digg?114 Comments
- Celeron, on 10/10/2007, -4/+76***** Telcos.
- Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -0/+58I don't understand why Verizon is being such an A-hole about this. Anyone who uses the network will still have to pay the owner a monthly fee for usage. The only requirement of the 'Open Access' is that customers can use any lawful device. Verizon should be cheering about this since they normally lose money on selling the phones anyway. It seems like letting people use their own devices would save Verizon money. Are they really just huge control freaks?
- gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+50People who use verizon know why they are bitching about this. It would prevent them from extorting their customers with every device they sell, for features that are already on their phones, as they do now. That means they'd have to enable the GPS on my blackberry and I wouldn't have to pay for their ***** vz navigator program, for example. And I won't have to pay extra to use my phone as a modem on the road.
Screw verizon, I hope the Appeals court tells them to bite their collective bag, and go bid if you want to bid. Otherwise STFU, so everyone can switch to whoever wins. - jbohlinger, on 10/10/2007, -3/+52I hope they bring in someone from EFF to speak on behalf of open access.
Then again with the current state of Net Neutrality in America, this might be a lost cause. I think the best that can be hoped for is that Google wins.
Go Google Go! - fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -2/+50In my opinion, Verizon can kindly go ***** itself.
- duncandog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+45I believe the appropriate FCC response would be to mandate open accesson existing 800/1900 frequencies - but that willnever happen.
- chrisinsocalif, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28Verizon sues everyone, they want a monopoly. They sue vonage because they use a phone system that can take away their subscribers, when you install fios, they rip out your copper lines so if you cancel you will have to pay a lot of money to get another phone company, they sold locked phones that didnt allow song uploads so you have to buy theirs. The list goes on. This is why you dont see an advance of technology, cause companies like Verizon sue if it infringes on their customer base, even if its better for the consumer.
- r2pro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26austin63 pretty much nailed it right on the head. ISP's are unhapy with the current situation with wored based Internet Access. They basically are able to do nothing more than to charge for access of raw bandwidth. They are determined to not let the same situation develop with wireless. Which is why Google and other higher layer Internet services (yahoo, skype, etc) are interested in the spectrum space. They do not want the ISP to control who can use and you can use the network, because that type of system can cut them out of the picture.
This is very much tied to the Net Neutrality issues, it's just another battlefront in the same war.
Don't you wish you're wireless access was setup the same as your wired? It'll never happen. You'll never see a flat rate for all services. The telco's will nickel and dime you to death over something that is much cheaper to run than a wired infrastructure. Even Apple could not get a flat rate for all wireless services with their iPhone. Hell, they had to agree to a five year exclusive contract with AT&T just to get them to charge $20 for "unlimited" Internet Access. But text messaging? Nope, that's extra cause it's the biggest money maker for wireless providers. - GinaJuice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26"Are they really just control freaks?"
Have you seen their [in]famous "Red" UI? Grab a verizon phone, use for a while, and you'll see. - gn0stik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23I bet every judge in there uses a cell phone, and are sick of being nickle and dimed to death.
- TonightTonight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23So much good comes from this if Google or a company like it that derives money from consumers using the Internet rather than from selling access to the Internet wins in the bidding. The mobile firms should be terrified, you can't compete with a company that has such different goals than you and doesn't have the pretension of your old and tired industry. Google would charge as minimal as possible for 700MHz Net access; since, they want you to be on it to use their ad-based services, and we want to be on it. Consumers and a company's goals align. If Google keeps it up, they might just destroy the Comcasts and AT&Ts of our world.
- PhillyMJS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22Are you kidding? You're talking about the company that disables features on their phones (e.g. Bluetooth OBEX File Transfer) to force you to use their services at added cost. That's most likely why they passed on the iPhone-- Apple wouldn't give up the control of the device so Verizon could disable all the features and then sell them back to the users.
- austin63, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Have you seen how much they charge for a wallpaper? They charge you and all of the people who want to put programs, games, etc. Google on the other hand wants access to your phone. It doesnt matter if they win the spectrum. If they win open access they get webapps to all of the phones with mobile ads.
- qwertydvorak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20would be even better if they could exclude verizon altogether after this stunt.
- Jerky1312, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17Verizon should be blocked from bidding if they are so unhappy.
- AtHomeBoy2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16"Imposing any such requirements in the competitive wireless market would reduce the revenue the government will receive from the spectrum auction and limit the introduction of new and innovative wireless services,"
Let me translate...
"Imposing any such requirements in the competitive wireless market would reduce the revenue the telecom companies will receive from over priced serive and apps and limit the introduction of new way to rip off custmers for services," - todfather, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19In case anyone was wondering the Verizon Lawyer info is:
John T Scott, III
202-589-3740 - lieutenantmudd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17At least they are suing before the auction. Before the rules for this auction were set, I remember reading an article about the MO of telecoms and the FCC. Basically it goes something like this, telecoms bid on spectrum that has restrictions, win, and than either sue the FCC saying they shouldn't have to follow the restrictions or they pretend they have interference that requires the FCC sweeten their deals.
- mavantix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15This is why we broke up the Bell's back in the day. First they sue Vonage, now they sue our own government. ***** Verizon!
- CLShortFuse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Wow! Nobody ever gets badmouthed by Google. Way to go Verizon!
I also noticed (from another article of the same topic) that AT&T is now supporting open-access (didn't know that) - johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14i am guessing you don't live in an area where there is only one option for cable TV? they are supposed to lease the lines to other cable companies.... but it somehow doesn't always happen. same basic idea.
- bigp3rm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12***** Verizon. I had their service a few years ago and it sucked. Their customer service was even worse.
- austin63, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I don't get it, what is the cause of action? Breach of fiduciary duty? To whom? Verizon?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10The minute a good natured telecom plays ball for the people, the duopoly b/s is going down hard and fast.
- pattyman5000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10My Verizon account is up in November. I won't be renewing.
- ScornedPatriot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11***** Verizon. ***** them up their stupid asses.
- BM5k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Dear Verizon. ***** you. Oh, and I love my iPhone. Thx, bye.
- mavantix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9One could only hope Google can prevail. Down with Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, and especially SCO.
- N3M3515, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yeap I deal with these ***** on a day to day basis. welcome to my world.
- shade73, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Verizon Corp: "Well... we could bid on the auction, but that'd cost probably around 4.6 billion. I think it's going to be cheaper just to sue, and if we win, no one will want it. Then we can walk in and buy it for 100,000 and screw over ... err .. I mean offer more services that customers already have!"
Other Verizon Corp : "Brilliant!"
*sigh* - EvilAnimator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I work for Verizon and I walk around with my iPhone proudly. F you, Verizon!
- wakkow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Not exactly. This would force them to open up some of the spectrum for others to use. In other words, it would allow others to come in and provide open service that doesn't lock everything down like Verizon does. In other words, it would require competition. Screw you, Verizon.
- CLShortFuse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7All Verizon Wireless has going for it right now is coverage/call quality. If it wasn't that, people wouldn't use VZW because of the feature stripping and overcharging. If Verizon has to share coverage and call quality with all other competitors (which is what open-access is), competition will solely depend on pricing and features, aspects where VZW ranks miserably. So, of course, the next logical thing is to sue the FCC, the last people you want make your enemy. Just keep digging your own grave, Verizon.
- mihai11, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7People should stay away from Verizon: what is happening now is their true face.
- MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Oh what's that Verizon? Unhappy, are we? Maybe your internet is slow and your phone service is *****, did you forget that? Maybe millions of people are unhappy, did you think of that? *****.
- venom8599, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7From what I read it was because they claim the FCC doesn't have the authority to impose those restrictions for some reason. Sounds like complete ***** to me, but seeing how the courts usually work with these kind of things, you never know how it'll wind up.
- mudgod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Wonder if it were possible for Google and Apple to combine forces to get the spectrum, heck open it up to some sort of contract w/people to sign up for the service now (1-2 year in advance) for significant discounts to raise capital. Subsidiary company / stock of it perhaps? Lots of ways for them to raise significant chunks of capital if they can offer decent speeds and open access with the spectrum on offer.
- thatsiebguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6This is purely for spectrum lockout, nothing more. Verizon wants to buy it all up so they can lock everyone out, then piecemeal it back to them at high rates. If they have such a big problem with making it "open" then don't bid on it, no one is forcing them too. Pulling out a 73 year old Communications Act to overturn the requirement is lame as it can no longer properly pertain to latest technologies. DailyTech had a clearer writeup about the actual lawsuit: http://www.dailytech.com/Verizon+Sues+FCC+Over+Openaccess+700+MHz+Rules/article8875.htm
"In the lawsuit, Verizon Wireless seeks a judicial review of the auction’s open-access guidelines, claiming that the FCC has exceeded the congressional authority granted to them under the Communications Act of 1934. Further, an open access requirement “violates the US Constitution, violates the Administrative Procedures Act, and is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by the substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law.” "
I say the FCC just give it away and leave it all open for anyone to use as they see fit, but won't happen as they know its a free cash-cow. Better off if Google buys it up and sets it free. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I have been using Verizon for almost 4 years and after seeing their behavior i think it's time for me to switch.
I love Verizon's wireless service, never had any problem with my calls. The only problem i have with Verizon is that, they want to suck each and every penny out of your pocket, they disable features which are standard on the same cell phone with other carriers, so that the customer has to pay verizon for the feature which would had been free otherwise. ***** you Verizon. Shut up and for the once in the history of US celluar, let the customer give some choices. - whatisthis8, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7and a big ***** YOU to Verizon.
- AtHomeBoy2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I have no idea who I should choose for a wireless carrier. they all suck. i love verizon's service. I REALLY hope Google and/or Apple bid big on this and win. i want to see somthing differant I'd jump in a heart beat.
- SebHughes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5FCC to Verizon: ***** Off.
- darushin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5In short, Yes they own the last mile from the node to your property.
- Beylan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I just hope those judges have kids that ran up a $1000 cell phone bill by going hog wild with text messages.
- joshuakuhn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4SCO's already dead... One less to worry about!
- sjl127, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Verizon's an evil company. They want to be able to control what we do. Sound familiar?
- superal1394, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I hate that ***** UI
if it wasn't for the fact that their service is amazing, and AT&T's being awful in comparison, I would have an iPhone. - aluminumpork, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'm the ONLY one out of my group of friends that -doesn't- have Verizon. I went for Sprint, which isn't toooo bad. I don't regret signing with them. However, Verizon definitely has the strongest signal and best coverage in my area (Northeast and Mideast MN). At least Sprint gives me my phones original UI (at least at the time I got my phone).
- aluminumpork, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How many people can actually get FIOS? It's like when people asked Verizon what they were doing with all that money that was supposed to lay the infrastructure for high-speed America, they went "Oh *****, forgot about that. Quick, lay some fiber down the street a couple blocks. Yeah, that'll do it!"
- jmkiii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3My wireless contract with them ends in January.
I wish it was sooner. I hate them so much. -
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is