File Complaint with FTC against Verizon for locking GPS on Omina (& other phones)

[sofladavid]

So what about all of the other advertised features that a blind person could not use?

The flashlight, video player, widgets, Picture and Video Messaging, Bubble Breaker Game, Finger Mouse?

A blind person would not be able to use many or all of those "advertised features".

So why would verizon be forced to make the GPS available to blind people, but not the other stuff?

If your argument is indeed true, then if they cannot make these other features available to the blind (how would you make video messaging available to a blind person?) then they might just have to remove these other "features" from our phones so they would be fair and in compliance with your interpretation of the FCC code.

Not trying to be negative, just trying to think this through. What are your thoughts?

[tk4223]

You omitted one important part of fcc section 255. The technology must be readily available. This means that the technology must have already been developed or not costly to research and develop. Let's face it, how many people with a vision impairment, we have to be politically correct, have a legitimate need for turn by turn traffic direction. I say that because this complaint is about locking the gps so that third party applications, that are intended for turn by turn directions, are blocked on the stock rom.

[LittleBreezes]

Sorry, but you don't have any clue what the real situation is. The technology for turn by turn directions for the blind already exists. It is called Mobile Geo (http://codefactory.es) and is used by thousands of blind folks every day on Windows Mobile devices with unlocked GPS. In fact that is the program I us almost on a daily basis to navigate to work, school and other places. Yes, in case you are wondering I am totally blind myself, not visually impaired as you bemused, that is a different thing. The very reason I have to carry my older 8925 Tilt is the the GPS is unlocked and I can run my GPS software (Mobile Geo) and make use of the turn by turn directions. If VZ ever unlocked the GPs in my Touch Pro I could toss the Tilt on the trash heap and just install Mobile Geo on the Touch Pro. Instead VZ persists in marketing a product that openly violates section 255 because as you state the technology must already exist, which it does, in the form of GPS guidance software for the blind. This is why the items mentioned by the previous poster (video messageing, flashlite) would not be a factor in this line of reasoning because those technologies do not currently exist for the blind; as opposed technologies that do like Bubblebreaker style games and of course the GPS we are speaking about. I am really very shocked that you aren't aware that many blind folks use GPS on Windows Mobile devices every day since the technology is actually perfectly suited for the blind. With good satelite accuracy GPS can actually guide a blind person right up to their house. To break this down to its core element. A sighted person has the option of using VZ's GPS software on their phones. A sighted person is precluded from doing this even though GPS software for the blind exists and is in common use and the legal precedents have pointed to this being a violation of section 255. So no I didn't forget about the portion of section 255 that mentions the qualifier of the technology already existing but in the case of GPS it certainly does exist.
See this link:
http://www.codefactory.es/en/products.asp?id=273
Regards,
Frankie

Originally Posted by tk4223

You omitted one important part of fcc section 255. The technology must be readily available. This means that the technology must have already been developed or not costly to research and develop. Let's face it, how many people with a vision impairment, we have to be politically correct, have a legitimate need for turn by turn traffic direction. I say that because this complaint is about locking the gps so that third party applications, that are intended for turn by turn directions, are blocked on the stock rom.

[pdub73]

Originally Posted by Adrynalyne

You do know carriers do not make money off the devices, right?

I'm guessing you don't know that.

Exactly...Hence the additional fees for additional features...its like going to the movies...the theatre doesn't make money on the admission fee...which is why a hot dog is 5.50, and popcorn is 7.50 and a soda is 5.00

[Dr.8820]

this is my favorite thread right now!

[LittleBreezes]

While it is true that selling handsets is not where carriers make their money, the perceived falacy is that they loose money by subsidizing handsets. The word subsidizing (which was popularized by the cell industry) suggests that they actually pay for a portion of your handset, again not true. For those of you that have worked in retail electronics you know that the retail markup is between forty and fifty percent. So when you buy a widget from the corner Big Bobs Electronics for $100, good old big Bob paid around $55 for that widget from his wholesaler. Now the whoesaler has a markup of around half of that. So Bob's wholesaler paid around $44 for that widget from the company that build the widget. Now since cell carriers are by far the largest retailers of handsets (in the U.S.) they can bypass a regional distributer/wholesaler and by directly from the handset manufacturers, at a wholesale or subwholesale price. So a handset with a retail cost of, lets say, $500 should have a wholesale (carrier) cost of around $200. The deal you make with the carriers, when you sign a contract, is that they pass along a large portion of that discount to you in return for you signing your life to them for a specified period; but they do not in any way pay for a portion of your handset. That is why I cringe when I hear the term subsidizing being used as it really implies the wrong thing.
Frankie

[phullofphil]

I agree that if any thing will be done it wil have to do with saftey. for one thing an unlocked gps probbley could have saved lots of people lost in the somewhare on accident. like That guy from cnet that died in my area of the states well close. I just last night went out and tried to use my gps out wher i get no cell survice. It picked me up every where and had roades that i did not even know where there. You can even text message your exact location to sombody when you find service. It could save people. Besides my electrical system going out and staying out till this morning long story but i was surprised how well it worked but. Gps should be onlocked but verizon is a business and they have to make money. If they start losing money or give stuff away ther just is going to be another way to charge you for somthing else. The people that make the decisions reall just want to make a proffit but that just so happens to include making costimers happy. It will happen. Thats the trend of things and verizon dont want to lose market share over that. Nobody really has a good enough reason to patition and i reall wont back any thing i do not believ in. The handicap is a joke. Thats like using a handicap sticker to get a good parking spot. To the person thats is blind and needs it. that is good for you butr i dont feel right getting benifit from somthing like that. Its moraly wrong. I would say that if it happens great but dont expect them to spend millions of dollars to completly change one phons softwere. Oh but wait they are and they are testing it. If they were that greedy maybe they would have thrown it out at said good luck. We have what we want whats the big deal any way. I heard it was a samsung releas any way.

[Adrynalyne]

I heard it was a samsung releas any way.

Samsung does not independently release any rom for the VZW i910. The leaked rom was built provisioned for Verizon, with Verizon software in it. That does not happen without their involvement.

[krushr]

Originally Posted by sofladavid

So what about all of the other advertised features that a blind person could not use?

The flashlight, video player, widgets, Picture and Video Messaging, Bubble Breaker Game, Finger Mouse?

A blind person would not be able to use many or all of those "advertised features".

So why would verizon be forced to make the GPS available to blind people, but not the other stuff?

If your argument is indeed true, then if they cannot make these other features available to the blind (how would you make video messaging available to a blind person?) then they might just have to remove these other "features" from our phones so they would be fair and in compliance with your interpretation of the FCC code.

Not trying to be negative, just trying to think this through. What are your thoughts?

These are completely invalid points. Why would a blind person care about a flashlight?

You're talking what they CAN'T use vs. what they COULD use. They certainly COULD use a working GPS system. Verizon could most CERTAINLY make it available to blind persons, by unlocking the chipset for use. If you're on an unlimited data plan, who cares if its TomTom, GoogleMaps or VZW Navigator running the chipset?


Oh, that's right. VZW does, because they want to gorp you for yet another monthly fee. No thanks, I'm already paying $140/month for all of our phones, and I've been on for three years.

[phullofphil]

http://www.phonearena.com/htmls/Veri...le-a_5359.html

You can be wasting your time any way. verizon can tell fcc that they are working on it and i bet they will agree that proper testing is a good idea since that is what they like to see. Also if you check above page from phonearena you can see that they are releasing number two of three phones that they said they would unlock the gps in. When i talked to a tech guy a a month ago he never mentioned GPS but said samsung was coming out with a upgrade for "greatly improving screen performance" and other bug fixes software upgrades and battory performance. I promise this is my last responce to this thread and i hope it just goes away