Did Google pre-emptively block a 4g iphone on Verizon?

If this rule was actually enforced, it would also preclude the ability for VZW to offer WebOS, Windows 7, or Android devices, as all apps for those devices require the same signing that Apple iOS apps require, just little to no DRM.

TEG
 
I would guess that won't be an issue. Verizon wouldn't have wasted their time on a one generation device, which is what this would be if AT&T went 4g and VZW didn't.
 
I did not realize this until I read the article. Wow, Google did screw Verizon if the FCC upholds the ruling as Google intends.

Apple won't be happy about it and may well through at Verizon the watered down version of the iPhone and AT&T may get the full blown, as intended design. After all, thats how it is currently.

Verizon didn't get the full iPhone, they got a version that works on their network minus some of the features the iPhone has championed.
 
Non issue.

It clearly says it applies to the "C Block licensee."

That's Verizon. That means they can't allow Face-Time but then block Skype video chat. They'd be able to get away with blocking ALL video chat since they could argue they have to, but they couldn't play favorites with some apps over others.

Anyway, the point is that it refers to the licensee which is NOT Apple. They can allow or block whatever they want on their devices. The law refers to the network access, not the hardware.

I'm no lawyer but I feel the author made a HUGE leap of logic without any justification. You know how I feel safe saying that? Because he put a question mark on the title. Sounds like he already knows it's a stretch, doesn't it?
 
Small White Car said:
Non issue.

It clearly says it applies to the "C Block licensee."

That's Verizon. That means they can't allow Face-Time but then block Skype video chat. They'd be able to get away with blocking ALL video chat since they could argue they have to, but they couldn't play favorites with some apps over others.

Anyway, the point is that it refers to the licensee which is NOT Apple. They can allow or block whatever they want on their devices. The law refers to the network access, not the hardware.

I'm no lawyer but I feel the author made a HUGE leap of logic without any justification. You know how I feel safe saying that? Because he put a question mark on the title. Sounds like he already knows it's a stretch, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but he did mention that it pertains down to the phone level. The licensee has to allow any and all apps that don't harm the network on any device. That means, even if Apple has rules in place, Verizon is bounded by law to allow the non-Apple sanctioned ones as long as no network damage is made.

Apple may have made the device, but it runs on Block C which has rules. It's like saying I buy a Ford Focus that has a manufacturer limitation of 60 Mi/Hr for State A; however, if a rule in State B's road speed laws make the dealer remove the limitation to allow a higher 70 Mi/Hr, then the dealer has to abide, even if the car came at a lower setting.
 
jav6454 said:
Maybe so, but he did mention that it pertains down to the phone level. The licensee has to allow any and all apps that don't harm the network on any device. That means, even if Apple has rules in place, Verizon is bounded by law to allow the non-Apple sanctioned ones as long as no network damage is made..
Click to expand...

Exactly

And re-read what you just wrote. There is nothing in your post that says Apple can't block stuff. Only that Verizon can't then block additional stuff afterwards.

So, like how Apple has Face-Time but AT&T blocks it? That'd be a no-no. But Apple pulling an app for some reason? Not a problem...they're not the liscensee!

Again...I'm not saying I know what I'm talking about, but it's interesting that your post doesn't contradict mine. So you haven't actually disagreed with me yet. That's a good sign.
 
The rule isn't there to block phones... the rule is there to enforce a modicum of neutrality.

Apple has deep pockets. So does Microsoft. Looking at the Microsoft-search-on-Verizon-Android-devices debacle, it is not so far-fetched to think that Apple or Microsoft might throw some cash Verizon's way to only allow certain phones to video chat or stream Netflix movies, etc.

Google requested the rule to make sure that Verizon cannot subjectively block certain services or functions from a phone for purely licensing/financial reasons. Its a way of making sure that the carriers don't start trying to manipulate handset sales (and screw over phone makers who don't want to give them $weetheart deals) by suddenly banning google voice or google maps on certain phones.
 
Tarzanman said:
The rule isn't there to block phones... the rule is there to enforce a modicum of neutrality.

Apple has deep pockets. So does Microsoft. Looking at the Microsoft-search-on-Verizon-Android-devices debacle, it is not so far-fetched to think that Apple or Microsoft might throw some cash Verizon's way to only allow certain phones to video chat or stream Netflix movies, etc.

Google requested the rule to make sure that Verizon cannot subjectively block certain services or functions from a phone for purely licensing/financial reasons. Its a way of making sure that the carriers don't start trying to manipulate handset sales (and screw over phone makers who don't want to give them $weetheart deals) by suddenly banning google voice or google maps on certain phones.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, thank you.
 
And depending upon how you interpret the rules, which Verizon fought in court before the auction, they also required that the wireless carrier only offer devices that are open and able to run any app.
Click to expand...

So yes, a LTE iPhone could not be offered.
 
Small White Car said:
Exactly

And re-read what you just wrote. There is nothing in your post that says Apple can't block stuff. Only that Verizon can't then block additional stuff afterwards.

So, like how Apple has Face-Time but AT&T blocks it? That'd be a no-no. But Apple pulling an app for some reason? Not a problem...they're not the liscensee!

Again...I'm not saying I know what I'm talking about, but it's interesting that your post doesn't contradict mine. So you haven't actually disagreed with me yet. That's a good sign.
Click to expand...

True, but would Apple be happy about letting Verizon after sanction apps after they have into their precious device? Me thinks not.
 
tigress666 said:
Anyways, I'm curious what you guys have to say about this article.
Click to expand...

Bluntly put, it's a ridiculous article based on a really specious interpretation.

“Specifically, a C Block licensee may not block, degrade, or interfere with the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the licensee’s C Block network, subject to reasonable network management." - FCC

The ruling only means that the carrier cannot block a user from downloading legal apps designed for their phone that don't screw up the network.

Even if you added a stretched interpretation that it applies to hardware as well, it would still only mean that they couldn't offer an iPhone that couldn't run all legal iPhone apps.
 
Last edited:
kdarling said:
Bluntly put, it's a ridiculous article based on a really specious interpretation.

“Specifically, a C Block licensee may not block, degrade, or interfere with the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the licensee’s C Block network, subject to reasonable network management." - FCC

The ruling only means that the carrier cannot block a user from downloading legal apps designed for their phone that don't screw up the network.

Even if you added a stretched interpretation that it applies to hardware as well, it would still only mean that they couldn't offer an iPhone that couldn't run all legal iPhone apps.
Click to expand...

And since Apple won't allow it, buh-bye Verizon iPhone... no, it's not a ridiculous article. Just because it states an opinion different from yours doesn't give you the right to call it out in such way. You know what would be a better solution? You not responding to it, at all...
 
jav6454 said:
And since Apple won't allow it, buh-bye Verizon iPhone...
Click to expand...

Since Apple won't allow what? As long as Verizon doesn't block the download of any legal apps that don't harm the network, it meets the FCC neutrality rules. How would that stop them selling an LTE iPhone?

Just because it states an opinion different from yours doesn't give you the right to call it out in such way.
Click to expand...

It gives anyone the right when an article is that ridiculously wrong. They're no different than all those tech reporters who wrote an "opinion" that such and such patent gave someone full ownership of multitouch. Wrong is wrong. No opinion needed.

Fifteen years ago I was the head of a major carrier's lab working on broadband devices that required meeting very similar rules. I gained extensive experience in network neutrality and the FCC.
 
kdarling said:
Since Apple won't allow what? As long as Verizon doesn't block the download of any legal apps that don't harm the network, it meets the FCC neutrality rules. How would that stop them selling an LTE iPhone?
Click to expand...

Well, when Apple does block them, and Verizon has to authorize them, then there is a problem.

Say Apple doesn't want an eBook application from Google to go live, by Block C rules, it has to be allowed by Verizon.

Hence, Apple won't be happy to play in this field.


Your definition of wrong is different from mine in this respect, and your experience means squat to me as you can well be someone else pretending.
 
jav6454 said:
Say Apple doesn't want an eBook application from Google to go live, by Block C rules, it has to be allowed by Verizon.
Click to expand...

You mean, a Google eBook app that Apple rejected?

Using that logic, Verizon would have to allow any and all apps, by anyone, that were ever rejected by Apple.

The ruling says Verizon "may not block, degrade, or interfere (with downloading a legal app)". It does NOT say that Verizon "must force app stores to approve all apps". That's a HUGE difference.

So if an app is not available from the Apple App Store (which it wouldn't be in that case, since Apple did not approve it), then Verizon is not required to force Apple make it available.

Likewise, if someone wanted to download an app from Cydia to their jailbroken iPhone, Verizon can't stop it. Not that ATT or any iPhone carrier has ever done so anyway. So Google could put their app there.
 
kdarling said:
You mean, a Google eBook app that Apple rejected?

Using that logic, Verizon would have to allow any and all apps, by anyone, that were ever rejected by Apple.

The ruling says Verizon "may not block, degrade, or interfere (with downloading a legal app)". It does NOT say that Verizon "must force app stores to approve all apps". That's a HUGE difference.

So if an app is not available from the Apple App Store (which it wouldn't be in that case, since Apple did not approve it), then Verizon is not required to force Apple make it available.

Likewise, if someone wanted to download an app from Cydia to their jailbroken iPhone, Verizon can't stop it. Not that ATT or any iPhone carrier has ever done so anyway. So Google could put their app there.
Click to expand...

The example was a hypothetical one to begin with. It could well have been a Google application to look up shoes and their prices, etc.

Taking that into account, Verizon can't block or allow blocking such apps. Yet the application has to be available on the device. In other words, Verizon has to somehow allow it to happen. Apple may say no, and well within their rights. But as soon as that device hits the Block C, it is bounded to allow any application Apple said no to to be a YES.

Maybe a Verizon store for such applications? I don't know. Point is, Apple won't be happy about someone else allowing such applications on their device. Hence, buh-bye Verizon iPhone.

Google could put their app in the Cydia store, but come now really. When has a company like Google resorted to the Cydia store?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top