![[FSF Associate Member]](http://www.notsosoft.net/images/getButton){kind=small}
Verizon Wireless, Free the Network!
Just to follow up from yesterday, below is a message I have just sent to Verizon Wireless via their “Contact Us” form on verizonwireless.com. I strongly urge all of my fellow customers to encourage Verizon Wireless to free the network so that we may have greater choice and freedom.
I’m contacting you today to ask why Verizon Wireless filed an appeal on Monday against the FCC’s ruling that the 700MHz spectrum is to remain an open network. As a long-time customer of yours, myself and my family have had nothing but trouble with the locked-down devices that Verizon Wireless has to offer. We like your service and your network, but the fact that everything is locked down–yet somehow we actually own it–has been a constant cause for concern.
I applaud the FCC’s ruling that the 700MHz spectrum is to remain open, and I encourage Verizon Wireless to respect freedom, privacy, and consumer choice and allow the 700MHz to remain open.
I also encourage Verizon Wireless to reconsider their current tactics of locking customers down to only a select few devices and software choices. While I was in Europe I noticed a great many devices that were far superior to the Palm Treo 700p that I so proudly carried with me. I was surprised to be humbled by the plethora of more advanced devices at much cheaper prices that I found when I got there.
Verizon Wireless, I am opposed to your tactics of locking down consumers. I have been a customer since 2004, and if these tactics do not change then I will continue to publicize how harmful they are to the general public, and I will continue to inform Verizon Wireless of my disapproval of the restrictions. Your devices are defective by design and I strongly disagree with your assertion that it is your right to lock devices that I own.
Please become a market leader for freedom and unlock the network.
Popularity: 18%
This entry was posted
on Friday, September 14th, 2007 at 09:24 and is filed under Free Software.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Stumble it!
Nicely Written, Bravo.
I can buy a cell phone from a phone shop and use that phone with the provider I chose. I do not understand the locked down devices, here we have 3 cell phone network providers and we just had to get a subscription with one of them and we can use any phone with only one restriction, the device must be bought legally. The network providers do not care about what device we use, they only keep a central database of stolen and illegal (smugled) IMEI numbers thats it…
I hope you’ll have that freedom soon.
Thanks for the support. I don’t know why the United States–the country that tries to cram the “we’re a free country” down everybody’s throat–tolerates such repression and restriction.
You’re saying that as if
1. Consumers ever had a choice in the big picture
2. Corporations ever cared about their customers
They did. When mobile phones first appeared on the market, consumers had the choice to reject the restrictions. We could have just not bought the phones. Now the mobile phone industry has decided that we must be okay with it because the silly things are flying off the shelves.
I don’t think corporations ever cared about their consumers, but I do think that they want consumers to believe that they do care so that they can use that in marketing.
I’m also not just pointing out that they don’t care about the consumer, I’m pointing out that their greed has led them to restrict freedom, and limit the control that the consumer has over their own property. This is common also in the software and computer industry.
Of course greed leads to restrictions of freedom, but only with your (barely existent) consent! Who says you can’t live without a cellphone?
But I agree that there’s much more than just it being property, like a car, it becomes a vehicle and means, not something that can be thrown away easily.
This goes back again, to the idea that markets should be more free, not less. Why haven’t competitors come out to replace and correct this greed-led-disaster? Could it be the legal and bureacratic anti-competition environment?
Actually, I think it’s just more of the same crap that keeps proprietary and restrictive software and media going. The mentality of our country.
In my endeavors as a Free Software activist I have noticed that there is a mentality that is quite alien to my way of thinking, and that is that if I make something and market it, I should be able to restrict it so that I’m the only one who gets to control how it is used and marketed.
I understand that it’s hard to make money in media and software these days outside of this mentality, but that doesn’t make it any less wrong.
I honestly don’t think the market will free itself. I think that the FCC is right to dictate that the 700MHz spectrum be open, and I sincerely hope that they stick to their guns.
well, despite blatantly plagiarizing your letter to them … i sent a very similar letter as a potential future verizon wireless customer. maybe the more people that let them know how they feel, the less likely they’ll push forward with their plan.
Be careful advocating FCC rules, it can work against you someday. I don’t think it’s wrong to restrict your product or creation as intellectual property or copyrighted material, patented invention. BUT, it IS wrong if you’ve released it out, let people have it, and want to get those rights back.
Do you see the difference? You can keep things private in the beginning if it’s going to allow choice and hurts nobody but your own profits, but if you’ve released it into the wild, you’ve allowed it to grow beyond your intentions (and your intentions may in part be to make it public), by that time, it’s no longer your property.
tj: Don’t worry, I put it up here so that other folks might be inspired to send some requests to Verizon Wireless.
Josh: I do see something wrong with restricting someone else’s property. If you sold something to somebody, it ceases to be your work and becomes their property. Sure we can keep the trademarks in place so that consumers don’t get confused, but once they purchase it they should be able to do anything with it. There is no excuse for restricting freedom for the sake of profit, and that is exactly what locked networks and locked phones are all about.
This FCC rule I advocate because it is one that is for the people, and it serves the best interests of the people. Future rules I’ll have to think about when we get there.
Yes, as long as it’s not coming for you, who cares.
You’re confusing property as an object and property (specifically intellectual)as a means communication.
You didn’t BUY the rights to anything in Verizon, only to use it the way they allow you to. The same way you don’t own your paper money bills and coins, you’re only authorized to use it in ways they allow it. You’ve taken for granted what they’ve given as a service, that’s your misunderstanding of what their terms and conditions are.
If I bought the phone, I own the phone and the rights to anything on it. Anything less than that is an attempt on their part to control me for the sake of their profit.
The service–which is the network–is not in my physical possession. I didn’t pay to purchase it, but I did pay to purchase the phone.
Furthermore, there’s no such thing as “intellectual property.” That term is used to intentionally blur and confuse a series of laws such as copyright laws, patent laws, and trademark laws. These laws have some unjust applications, namely restricting the freedom of people for the sake of profit.
You seem to have no problem with corporations restricting people, but when the government restricts the corporate restrictions you’re up in arms. Maybe you really are a republican.
No, I see corporations just like people. I’d have a problem if corporations restricted people involuntarily as well. No restriction corporations put on their customers can be done legally without their consent, however, very many government restrictions on people and corporations are involuntary.
You may own the phone, but you can’t do much with it other than what the network allows you to, exactly. Or, you can’t use it for purposes other than what they’ve set it up for (ok, unless you’re good at reprogramming).
Maybe I’m too stupid to know the difference between IP and copyright, patent, so you can explain to me, but it can be another discussion for another day.
The phone can be used on other networks, with other software, etc. You could program it yourself, you have a friend program it, you could download or buy software for it. In Europe they have all manner of neat technologies for their mobile phones that we don’t have here.
The T-Mobile hotspot for your home that was recently released in the US has been available in other countries for a while now. Being able to have a more clear signal at home without having to pay for minutes is a great idea.
Copyright laws and patent laws are pretty simple. It’s all based on the mentality that just because someone creates something that society finds useful, they now have the ability to tell everybody else what to and what not to do with it, even after they’ve sold it to someone else.
Yes, you CAN redo the things inside, but what incentive do they get for giving you that freedom? You should know what you want and buy what you want, thus not buy from greedy corporations that don’t give you freedom. You and I at least agree there, consumers have just that much choice.
It’s interesting how you can easily say “there’s no such thing” as “illegal immigrant” and “intellectual property” while you tell me when I say there’s either no such thing as hate crime, or even if there was, it shouldn’t be punished more or less, you say I’m retarded.
Well, you know, protecting freedom is one of the jobs that the government assigned to themselves, isn’t it? That’s why we fought certain wars, that’s why we maintain a military, that’s why we have law enforcement, so I think it’s fair that the government should stop companies from restricting freedom in these ways… just like the FCC is trying to do right now.
If you can point to a legislation that defines something as “intellectual property” or gives someone rights to something named “intellectual property,” you let me know.
As for the hate crime thing, protecting minorities from bigots is in the best interest of freedom. Giving folks stiffer penalties for harming out of hatred makes sense to me, but please do try to stay on topic.
No I disagree, I believe the gov’t is made to protect rights and freedoms, but this means for people AND corporations. Consumers do have the right to refuse doing business with evil companies, the solution is more freedom, more choice, and more competition, not less. When has the government made more choices for us?
Since when was it the right of a company to restrict the freedom of an individual? For that matter, when did it become the right of an individual to restrict the freedom of another individual?
Locking down phones, other devices, media content, and software restricts freedom. People are then not able to use it except how the companies want them to use it.
As for when the government gave us more choices, in 1984 they broke up a little company called AT&T, remember that? Antitrust stuff gives us more choices. It’s not the same thing here, but it does answer your question. Personally, I don’t think these companies would stop doing business or stop competing if the government required them to respect consumer freedom. I do think they would comply though.