Complying with Carriers' Terms of Service for Wireless Data

[Raphael Salgado]

If you own a Pocket PC Phone and a wireless data plan, you've probably been given the fine print in your contract or in a brochure on how you can use that data connection. While each carrier differs in their Terms of Service, here's what Verizon Wireless has to say in regards to their unlimited data plans:<br /><br /><i>"Unlimited NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess services cannot be used (1) for uploading, downloading or streaming of movies, music or games, (2) with server devices or with host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, Voice over IP (VoIP), automated machine-to-machine connections, or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, or (3) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections."</i><br /><br />Some individuals, such as the "very casual user" or the "corporate suit," will shrug off the above paragraph as they may simply use their data plan for web browsing and e-mail. But, others will shrug off the same paragraph because they know it's either impossible for them not to violate it, or feel pretty confident that it's not really enforced nor that they'll ever get caught. With the continuing development of Internet and network-ready applications and games for the Windows Mobile platform (i.e. Orb, ComVu PocketCaster, AudioBay, Navizon, Adisasta WinMobile Torrent, LogMeIn, Skype, Resco Radio, and PocketStreamer to name a few), what's your stance on such Terms and Conditions, and should "unlimited" really mean just that?

[GSmith]

I understand and agree completely on the carriers' limitations on host services and web cams. But we're seeing (or will soon see) an explosion of downloading audio and video directly to devices over the carriers' networks.

In my opinion "Unlimited" *should* at a minimum mean unlimited from a client/user perspective and *should* include any and all data that that user would like to download.

There are some limits that are based on carriers' attempts to limit traffic (client services only). There are other limits that are based on attempts to limit their reduction of revenue (music, video, games). Arguably, the limits on music and video could be due to bandwidth restrictions (which could be 5-200 meg per file), but limits on downloading games (which I suspect are 1-5 meg in size) seems like a revenue protection scheme.

Obviously, I'm biased, but it's very interesting to see the various machinations carriers are going through to attempt to protect their revenue. There is a world of legal free audio and video out there that many people do not yet know about. As people slowly learn about podcasting, both audio and video, they will want to download directly to their device over the carriers' networks. With FeederReader (of course!), it is very simple to do.

Carriers will get away with these limits as long as the majority of their customers let them by continuing to purchase their services. There are many people who will be okay with the limits, which will sustain the carriers' revenue until customers start asking for more.

Verizon has been particularly restrictive (first by disabling Bluetooth DUN in their phones, and now by these download restrictions). Increasingly, we should continue to see the carriers retreat of these limits on client downloads.

I suspect we'll see a lawsuit to help the carriers define "unlimited". In my opinion, it is brashly misleading and insensitive for Verizon to label their service "unlimited".

Greg Smith
Author, FeederReader - Pocket PC *direct* RSS text, audio, video, podcasts
www.FeederReader.com - Download on the Road

[ADBrown]

Uh, I'm confident that it's impossible for almost anyone to comply with that TOS. Not use it as a backup to private lines or dedicated data connections? So if somebody is using it as a second internet connection, that's against the TOS? If their home internet goes out, they're not supposed to use the EVDO as a backup? How do you define that? How do you enforce it?

I have a slightly unique perspective on this. Since I'm too far out in the country to get DSL or cable, I have to rely on satellite for my internet connection, specifically DirecWay. Now, when they originally started selling these systems, they were all over the place with the use of the word "unlimited." Unlimited internet, they said.

As it turns out, their definition of "unlimited internet" was that you could stay connected 24/7 if you wanted. But you couldn't download more than 169 MB in a period of four hours or so. If you did, you would be subject to the "Fair Access Policy," or FAP. That was if the system was in a good mood. Sometimes, as little as 100 MB could trigger it. Getting fapped, as it became known, meant that your internet connection basically ceased to function. You would get about 1 KB/second. Add to this the fact that they DIDN'T TELL YOU about the FAP. Not in the TOS, not on the site, not even if you called them up. They had to be sued before they would release the information about it.

(To add salt to the wound, DirecWay's TOS specifically says that in return for your money, they don't have to let you do anything. It actually says that they do not guarantee that you'll even have service, period, let alone a certain quality of service or percentage of uptime. And it's a good thing for them that they worded it this way, because their service goes up and down more than a manic-depressive on a roller coaster.)

To conclude this rant, my position is simple: if you say unlimited, you better damn well mean unlimited. I don't expect to be able to download 800 GB per month on a $20 cellular data plan, but saying "unlimited" and then adding "except you can't actually use it for anything of substance, ever," is BS. If you don't want to use more advanced applications, and your only need is email and light web browsing, why do you need broadband in the first place? Just get GPRS. It's cheaper. For the rest of us, let's get a real connection going.

[OneAngryDwarf]

Well they will never enforce that because it makes no sense. I mean what good is a fast internet connection if you can't use it for anything fast. I don't need EVDO to check my email, GPRS works just fine for that. The only reason to get EVDO is for all the reasons they say you can't use it for.

[Phoenix]

...should "unlimited" really mean just that?

Yes. It should.

[emuelle1]

Unlimited should mean unlimited. I'm not sure how they could enforce these restrictions, but I would hate to be the person they decide to make an example of when they get around to it.

Obviously, they would be well within their rights to restrict you from running a web server on your Pocket PC phone, but to say you can't use the connection for streaming audio and video? They might as well say you can only download headers when you check your email.

[welovejesus]

The primary reason I don't suscribe is the limitation on VOIP. VOIP users using a GSM/G.723/G.729 codec would not consume that much bandwidth. Too bad Verizon doesn't see it that way (they are likely concerned that VOIP use would divert cell phone minute usage).

[Foxbat121]

Even your home internet ISP have similar restriction. Some are in the form of hidden download/upload caps. But almost all ISPs forbid setting up any kinds of server.

Let's take Cingular for an example, if you have a PDA phone, the official line is that you have to pay more than twice as much for a *PDA* unlimited data plane in stead of regular *phone* umlimited data plan although you don't get better speed of any other improvements. However its CSRs and web site still sell you cheaper regular *phone* data plan. You just never know when the carrier will change its mind and slap you with a huge data bill (it already happened many times). It's worse than the restrictions written in TOS.

[rhelwig]

If they are a "common carrier", then this is obviously unenforceable.

Bits are bits, and if they are restricting the transmission of the bits based on the types of ones or zeros being transmitted then that is obviously absurd.

Of course streaming video/audio should be illegal in any case :wink:

[Mark Kenepp]

I think that some of the reason they include this language in their TOS is for liability.

Verizon is protecting itself against someone using their service for illegal activities.

Also, if someone tries to use their service for any of the high-bandwidth services mentioned and has problems, Verizon doesn't have to spend any technical resources trying to resolve the problem.

Besides, if we didn't have things like this, what would all the lawyers do?

[makic]

"Unlimited NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess services cannot be used (1) for uploading, downloading or streaming of movies, music or games, (2) with server devices or with host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, Voice over IP (VoIP), automated machine-to-machine connections, or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, or (3) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections."

(1) With Verizon, they court the violation of the terms. VCast is specifically designed to download video and music. Get-it-now is designed to download software and games.

(2) I use my PPC to access OWA to check my office email. That is a server activity and I violate the TOS just by checking my mail.

(3) Unless you use some perverse interpretation of the words "substitute or backup," as indicated above, you have to break the TOS by using the data service at all. If I access data via the service, it is being used as a substitute of me going home and using that one.

[whydidnt]

My biggest gripe is that they advertise "unlimited" internet when clearly it is not. I don't understand why some some state's Attorney General that has eyes on being governer hasn't already sued them for false advertising.

The reality is the terms of service are so ridiculious, that I doubt they have a legal leg to stand on if there ever was a court case regarding the use of the service. Most states have some sort of consumer protection laws that protect people from entering into contracts that are clearly one-sided. To follow the strict interpretation of Verizon's TOS, you simply can't use their service for anything but the privelege of paying them to download their overpriced content.

I agree with the other posters - if I can't do any of the stuff they list, why do I need a high speed mobile device? Verizon Wireless biggest problem is they think they are still a landline company with a monopoly and that they get to decide how users uses their service. Unfortunately, the lack of true competition for wireless services in the states allows them to get away with this. Here's to hoping that T-Mobile continues to add spectrum and can soon provide a true national competitor for the likes of VZW and Cingular.

[ADBrown]

My biggest gripe is that they advertise "unlimited" internet when clearly it is not. I don't understand why some some state's Attorney General that has eyes on being governer hasn't already sued them for false advertising.

Say, that's a good idea.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/complaints/html/comp_consumer.html

Even better, he's already running for governor. :devilboy: