You see that part right there...outside of those provided by the licensee. You see you can use any app you want, but you still have to pay the provider for the service to connect the device.
Let me make this very easy to understand.
LTE has built in pay per use model. It was created to make sure that only provider and very specific services can be run on the phone at the complete control of the service provider. That is what the technology allows.
As for getting round your wording. Three easy things. 1.) A locked boot loader like those seen on current phones, lte is more then capable of doing this. 2.) A completed walled garden in which installing apps outside of the wall is considered a security risk which is provided in the fcc ruling, see apple and V cast for examples. 3. ) and here is the biggie, the fcc does not have the right to control or regulate the wireless industry. Which means it can set guide lines and ideas all day long, but they can never be enforced by laws or regulations. Verizon has said this over and over, again and again.
Now I can tell you want the technology can do, it can do it. I can also show you repeatability where carriers that are supporting lte have supported this model. But I can not tell you want verizon is really going to do. I really dont know. But they seem to like, just like the different app pricing and tethering option, to ignore the fcc every chance they get.
But really, lets ask the players in this what they think.
Verizon on your specific qoute,
Which means they only have to offer phones that are part of the walled garden ideology. Just like your phone roaming problem, verizon just does not have to offer or sell a phone that is not walled in. Which, to me, is what I see them doing. Vcast has launched it's own android market. Sooner or later verizon is just going to consider all phones to be like the iphone, which means no installing anything outside of the wall garden.
Care to guess how the noble and brave FCC answered back to this? You would think they would come out with a clear and complete statement removing all doubt from the subject.
Well that is pretty clear...what?
What the heck is reasonable network management. I mean Verizon cribbled wifi, gps, and bluetooth. Att has throttle, disabled, and out right lied to people. To them, all that is reasonable.
What is reasonable?
Which brings us to the conversation we are currently having. Verizon said nothing about allowing 100% openness, in fact Verizon has made very move to increase apple type walled garden. LTE chips make a locked boot loader lock pathetic.
So we are done to reasonable. Are you willing to bet the verizon and att are going to fall on your side of reasonable or mine?
And if you don't like it, hat are you going to do? Run to att, the other lte provider? You only really have one choice here.
You say that LTE knows when an app connects to the internet, which app is connecting to the internet, and that it can deny that app access, so how is it that right now people on the thunderbolt are using widgets that access the internet and other apps which use background data, surely verizon doesn't have something set up to make sure every widget is acceptable. I would love to see some factual data on how verizon knows which app is asking for data, and how an app like wifi tether apps would show that request for data as any different from say, the browser on the phone when it is switched to desktop mode.
Also I'm not sure what crazy walled garden you live in with this iPhone, but last I checked the iphone/ipod touch on verizon and at&t can be jailbroken, and cydia can be used for non apple approved apps, and there's even installous for the pirates. Apple has no more control than google/phone manufacturers do. Heck Motorola has more lockdown on my droid 2 global than apple does on my ipod. It's not because the bootloader is locked though, but because things are signed, and without the key to that the phoe autobricks when something isn't signed properly. Anyway that walled garden isn't so walled.
What you say is interesting, you show verizon's stance, but offer no facts to show how they can enforce said stance.
As for the network management, I had this same discussion with someone on howard forums a day or two ago and here is what they said in reply
"Here, the FCC defines in-line what they mean with respect to network management; namely, by reasonable network management, the FCC means ensuring no harm is caused to the network. Also, (1) the FCC has specifically said that large increases in bandwidth demand are not a harm to a network, (2) VZW permits tethering if you do it with their app that you must pay extra to use (per GB of usage), and (3) the harm referenced is traditionally thought of as things that cause interference with a network, not things that use a lot of it.
Moreover, the FCC specifically affirmatively grants the carrier the option to throttle or meter usage to manage their network. The only thing they may not do is interfere with (or charge extra for) any usage of any device or app that uses the upper C block spectrum."
Also how has verizon crippled wifi, gps, and bluetooth? I mean last I checked the wifi on any smartphone works just fine, supports b,g, and commonly n. As for gps I'm not sure how they can cripple that. Bluetooth they could maybe make a crappy app for it like they do with gps, but anyone who is a developer can develop and app to use the bluetooth or gps parts in the phone, I am sure the android sdk allows for access to them as there are 3rd party apps for such things.
Lastly at the start of your post, you claim that a 3rd party application, accessing a service that was paid for, mobile data, is somehow a different service that verizon provides called tethering. By that type of logic verizon should charge me to use the gps on my phone because I'm using their data connection and their gps chip in their phone for that. However they can't and don't, a 3rd party app, namely the one built in by google with google navigation is allowed to do all of this for free. Verizon isn't providing any service with an app other than the app itself. The app can come with a fee, verizon is more than welcome to have their tethering application and charge $20 a month for people to use it, but they cannot charge for 3rd party apps. That is why the first part of the sentence you quoted says
"Impose any additional discriminatory charges (one-time or recurring) or conditions on customers who seek to use"
The application itself does not come with any charges, the sentence states that verizon cannot add any charges for the use of any 3rd party application outside of those provided by the licensee(verizon)
I'm not sure where you're getting these confusing ideas from because I am honestly seriously confused by half of what you are saying, and I am sorry if this post is long, but I tried to respond to all of the things you said to provide the information I have and to rebut the arguments you made. Your move.
