Skip to comments.(Soros funded ----->Groups fight Verizon to use smartphones as modems
Posted on 07/07/2011 4:16:38 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
A standoff between public interest groups and Verizon Wireless could determine whether many consumers can use their smartphone as a modem for a laptop or tablet or whether theyll have to pony up for an aircard or separate wireless plan instead.
Consumer advocates say Verizon has violated its license agreement to operate over a valuable chunk of public airwaves known as the C-Block. According to (soros funded)Free Press and (soros funded)Public Knowledge, Verizon has asked Google to block third-party applications on Android phones that allow tethering, or using a smartphone to connect to the Internet on another device such as a laptop.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I don’t see why I should have to pay for a whole extra plan to tether my laptop on a data plan I already pay for. Just because a Soros group agrees with that doesn’t mean I’m about to change my opinion on it.
While they’re at it, how about we shine some light on the ridiculous policy of charging per text message? That’s like your ISP charging you for every email you send.
You pay for your data. What business is it of Verizon’s as long as it doesn’t harm the network? What’s the difference to Verizon between watching a YouTube video on your 3G tablet and watching the same one on a non-3G tablet tethered to a 3G phone? It’s all data you are paying for.
Note C-block. Verizon got that spectrum under the express condition that it not “deny, limit or restrict the ability of [its] customers to use the devices and applications of their choice.” Verizon is trying to do an end-run around those conditions by asking Google to remove those apps that allow it from the Market.
They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Is it not possible that this is, perhaps, a blind-pig-finds-an-acorn moment?
I have a nice Motorola phone which has this ability to act as a wireless hotspot. In fact, many newer smartphones do. It is a handy tool if needed. The data speed is quite slow, but if you are in a pinch, it will do.
Verizon, OTOH, is famous for loading the phones you purchase from them with what many refer to as ‘crippleware’ or, software which turns off features native to your phone, then charges you to turn them back on, generally in a limited fashion. This “tethering” ability is one such example of crippleware.
Heap calumny upon me, but this is, to me, an instance of “stopped clock syndrome” because these guys are, as I read it, correct in this instance.
Just sell your VZW shares ...
Every time you turn around, these people are in bed with George Soros. According to Politico:
===========Free Press and Public Knowledge are promoting a letter from Barbara van Schewick, director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, to the FCC urging it to invite public scrutiny of the matter.====================
Who is Barbara Van Schewick? One of the primary speakers at a big internet event at the New America Foundation.
What is the New America Foundation?
One of the co founders is the progressive CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt.
One of the primary people on the leadership council of this foundation is George Soros’ son, Johnathan Soros.
Oh, and when Schwick was at the internet conference, she spoke directly to Free Press and Public Knowledge.
————————I dont see why I should have to pay for a whole extra plan to tether my laptop on a data plan I already pay for.——————
You shouldn’t have to.
-———————Just because a Soros group agrees with that doesnt mean Im about to change my opinion on it.-——————
At least be willing enough to wonder what their real agenda is.
Soros cares nothing for your measly 30 dollars per month extra you’re paying.
But he cares a great deal about consolidating power.
-—————While theyre at it, how about we shine some light on the ridiculous policy of charging per text message?———————
Fine by me.
——————What business is it of Verizons as long as it doesnt harm the network? Whats the difference to Verizon between watching a YouTube video on your 3G tablet and watching the same one on a non-3G tablet tethered to a 3G phone? Its all data you are paying for.-———————
I really could care less about any of these questions. Because:
It’s bad customer service to double charge your customers, I’m sure you’ll agree with this.
What I want to know is what’s in it for the Soros groups. How does this help them consolidate power, and infringe upon our rights?
-—————Note C-block. Verizon got that spectrum——————
What exactly is this spectrum?
-———————Is it not possible that this is, perhaps, a blind-pig-finds-an-acorn moment?———————
That’s entirely possible, but not in this instance.
I can smell the stench of Soros a mile away when it comes to these foundations. That they’re all *once again* moving in a lock step direction should be enough to send up a red flag to any freeper that something stinks here.
Something stinks very very badly here.
—————Heap calumny upon me, but this is, to me, an instance of stopped clock syndrome because these guys are, as I read it, correct in this instance.———————
There will be no calumny heaped upon you. Not from me.
All I ask is that you wonder what the price is. What’s the price?
I mean that in the context of these soros groups. Every time Soros initiatives reach fruition, the cost is our freedom in some way or another.
Even if you can’t answer the question as to what the price will be in terms of your freedom, then at least ask the question “Am I willing to pay that price”.
Freedom has greater value than any economics.
I was able to tether my laptop to my phone no problem when I was with Alltel. Then Verizon bought them out, suddenly they're asking me for another $30 per month to do what I was doing for free.
I already PAY for an unlimited data plan - but they want to screw me with another one.
F*** Verizon. They suck.
I once had a conversation with a liberal who pointed out that Hamas is a charitable organization. While it is technically true that they have provided charitable services in the past we know this is nothing more than an attempt to burnish their image. Soros has been getting a bit of bad press lately. It would come as no surprise that he would like some good pr so people like you cannot get a free pass when they say his groups exists only for radical political purposes. I think this is the intention here.
Verzion just wants to block it so the can sell you more...fine block it.... The problem is an Android phone can be rooted by hack and “hotspot” turned on.... so Verzion wants Google to block the hotspot app ...stupid Verzion
See http://www.xda-developers.com/ for all the stupid phone tricks
I switched to T-Mobile. What a great company. I sure hope AT&T doesn't ruin it. Tethering comes with their phones, if not it's an easy app to download.
Looks like a good work-around.
Thank you for that.
You know I don't play conspiracy theory. If our agendas match on this, then I don't look the gift horse in the mouth. I don't question that the Catholic church also opposes abortion, I don't question when Kucinich tries to hold Obama accountable for his illegal actions in Libya. I recognize the benefit of having them fight on my side for once. I can still oppose them on other issues.
What exactly is this spectrum?
A part of the 700 MHz band freed up with the digital television transition. Bidding for licenses came with conditions, such as a requirements to build-out services (no squatting on the spectrum) and device and protocol neutrality.
Maybe Soros thinks free communications destabilizes governments, as it did in the communist countries he helped overthrow. So he keeps pushing for free communications, not realizing that it only makes our type of government stronger.
I just can’t do this black/white thing. Should I have supported communism because Soros fought against it? Should I have supported apartheid just because Soros funded black students at the University of Cape Town?
———————I once had a conversation with a liberal who pointed out that Hamas is a charitable organization. While it is technically true that they have provided charitable services in the past we know this is nothing more than an attempt to burnish their image. Soros has been getting a bit of bad press lately. It would come as no surprise that he would like some good pr so people like you cannot get a free pass when they say his groups exists only for radical political purposes. I think this is the intention here.-———————
That is a most excellent and astute observation! (or, recollection of a past discussion)
Though, I’m sure this would apply to someone more high profile like Limbaugh and Beck, as opposed to some guy in a forum somewhere like you and I.
But that certainly fits the Soros agenda. Alinsky’s 13th rule is “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”
They can’t do that to us if they don’t have “pure” actions in their own past so as to diffuse all criticisms of their own progressive agenda.
——————You know I don’t play conspiracy theory.-—————
You know I don’t either. I could easily go to theblaze.com and pick up at a minimum 5 well documented articles about Soros. And that’s just the blaze. I could get more by going to foxnews. Even more if I went to the myriad of other well known and trustworthy sources of information. Townhall, American thinker, Malkin’s sites, etc.
Soros is not a conspiracy theory. Soros conspires. In Soros own words, he conspires. Which is why you won’t argue otherwise. Here’s his own words. VIDEO
But I’m sure you will once again claim this mythical mantle of ‘I don’t do conspiracy theories’ and act as if nothing is provable. As if this video didn’t exist. As if Soros didn’t really say these things.
-—————I just cant do this black/white thing. Should I have supported communism because Soros fought against it?-——————
This is why it’s important to understand your enemy. Soros didn’t fight against communism. He was playing god. He writes this in his own books. And he’s on video saying that.(same video as above)
He was having fun with these subversive activities, and experimenting.
——————Should I have supported apartheid just because Soros funded black students at the University of Cape Town?——————
Answer C. You should’ve opposed Soros because his real agenda is building his “open society”. Which is just a nice sounding way to sell globalism.
It’s his own words. He’s working to build open society. No conspiracy theory needed, we have him on video.
Soros is very “black and white”.(in the context you presented) This is why it’s dangerous to play the game ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, because it leaves you blind to what the real agenda is. The real, provable, on video agenda.
Which means I should have opposed blacks going to university, damaging Apartheid. No thanks. I'll gratefully accept Kucinich's hounding Obama about his illegal activities in Libya too.
Soros spends money on a lot of things. Some of those things align with our interests. It's really that simple. He's no super-genius who has a secret plan that can leverage petting puppies into the destruction of the free world.
It looks like you’ll be looking for another plan.
The thing he spent the most money on was electing Democrats. Hence our destroyed economy.
I think that it is fine to be mindful of the totality of this organization’s aims. At the same time, on this single item, they have made the correct call. While saying this, I am also checking the sky to be certain that it is still blue...
At no time will they fool anyone into believing that they have somehow seen the light. They are an enemy organization. There is no other way to look at it. In this particular, singular instance, though, their stated position is parallel to mine and many others.
Once upon a time the Soviets liked good vodka. In this singular instance, we agreed. Other points varied...
Soros’ playing around in US politics is relatively small. He’s spent tens of millions on elections here so far, but he spends hundreds of millions throughout the world every year.
We can’t do what we’ve done in past discussions.
You’ve made it clear you don’t understand revolutionaries, even when presented with their own words. Be it that you don’t take them seriously, or that you think they’re playing, or that they say things so outlandish that it just doesn’t register.
The bottom line is you want to ignore them and their words, and stick with the reality you’re comfortable with.
That’s something I’m not going to do. There is nothing that revolutionaries do that aligns with our interests. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
You're right, we can't start going off on conspiracy theory tangents again. We should stick to the subject at hand, and consider actual and proposed laws, rules and regulations in the discussion so we are talking about known quantities instead of somebody's fantasy.
You remind me of the liberal judges in the recent SCOTUS decision on that Mexican illegal who was executed. They thought they should make a decision on what law may be passed in the future. The conservative side said their job is to rule on the law as it is, not as may be.
The bottom line is you want to ignore them and their words
You don't even want to go with their words. You just accuse them of deception when they say something that doesn't fit your conspiracy theory. What you're saying is that I should only trust your interpretation of their words. Not likely to happen.
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
No, but they can help you achieve desirable results. Imagine WWII if Stalin hadn't jumped in against the Nazis.
-————You’re right, we can’t start going off on conspiracy theory tangents again.-—————
See, this is why.
I prove the things I say. I gave you links. I gave you video.
I knew you’d act as if I didn’t give you links and video.
9/11 truthers give links and video, too, claim they prove their conspiracy theory.
9/11 truthers give links to videos which are propaganda produced by alex jones.
I gave you direct links to videos of Soros in his own words.
That you are equating direct interview footage with propaganda is not my problem.
Words that you've told me to either: a) accept at face value when they support your conspiracy theory, or b) ignore as deceptive lies when they don't support your conspiracy theory.
I have said don’t listen to what they say for public consumption.
And yes, I have also said listen to what they say when they think nobody is looking.
When it comes to Obama, you’re perfectly capable of discerning and knowing the difference. You’ve demonstrated that capability on your own. He’s lying to the public for wide consumption, he’s not lying when he thinks he’s in a friendly crowd and won’t be heard much beyond that.
That Obama is the only radical you’re capable of applying this standard to, isn’t my problem either.
This is the problem with playing the game of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Because you’ve convinced yourself that the radicals pushing net neutrality are on your side, you refuse to look at them as radicals, the same way you look at Obama as a radical.
You're asking me to listen to an interview. This isn't Obama in private with supporters taking about bitter people clinging to their guns and religion. These people said these things with the full knowledge it would become public.
This is the problem with playing the game of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
If they can stop DMCA abuse, if they can stop telcos restricting the Internet, if they can stop patent trolls, if they can stop unconstitutional copyright expansion, then they are being useful to me on these issues and I will do nothing to stop them. I don't see any conservative groups doing those jobs.