antonindvorak's Posts

pherson wrote: What exactly was the point of this post? The voice capabilities are not there. Discussion over. This discussion and all other discussions regarding the ways in which Verizon is misinforming their customers need to be continued. I'm going to assume that since "The voice capabilities are not there" is a false statement, then "Discussion over." is a false statement as well.

I guess I'll just have to "the part of a plant that attaches it to the ground or to a support, typically underground, conveying water and nourishment to the rest of the plant via numerous branches and fibers." my device.

Of course you could care less.  I wouldn't expect otherwise. I do think anyone who uses or who is planning to use verizon's services should be aware of every instance in which verizon tries to swindle their customers through misinformation via published materials, customer support, and/or corporate and retail locations.  I'm throwing another straw on the pile.  Eventually,  the camel's back breaks.

You clearly do not understand what I am talking about with respect to SMS/voice calls.  I am well aware of the message+ application offered by verizon.  I am also well aware of VOIP calling.  Please research the difference between SMS and texting via Message+.  Also, research the difference between voicecalls over GSM/CDMA versus VOIP. 

From 47 CFR 27.16 Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks. In December, I will be in an area where GSM voice/SMS is the fastest available network. Verizon has configured my handset to prevent it from being used on this "other providers' network".  My device has the capability to be used on this other provider's network, but it is verizon's locked bootloader/firmware/software that disables access to the features built into the device that I would otherwise be able to use on this other provider's network. Weth wrote: I have never ever used a voip app on a sc-i925, but if I did and it was a terrible experience, I would likely call the sch-i925 a piece of junk. Now you are onto something....sort of.  It is not the sch-i925 that is the problem.  I have a friend in Iceland who has a "modified"(in a way verizon doesn't like) sch-i925, which, in addition to regular voice/SMS, does VOIP quite reliably, so the sch-i925 is quite capable.  It is verizon that has crippled the device with firmware/software that is junk. *Edited to remove disallowed terminology.

The FCC language under 47 CFR 27.16 refers to "handsets" and "devices", not "phones", "tablets", nor "phablets".  With respect to FCC regulations regarding 700MHz licensing, it is irrelevant if verizon's contract with the nfl defines phones and tablets based on screen dimensions. If verizon's contract with the nfl defined "handsets" as a mobile device within certain physical dimensions, this is not a precedent and has no bearing on the FCC regulations. It is up to the FCC to determine the definition of a "handset" with respect to the C block rules. Since I cannot find the FCC's definition of a "handset" online, I will have to wait for the FCC response to my inquiry.  If tablets, as provided by manufacturers, never previously had the capability of voice calls over CDMA, GSM, etc, then I would not have much of a case; however, since other tablets, including the previously existing model on which the sch-i925 was built(and the sch-i925 itself), were designed and manufactured with voice calls over GSM, CDMA, etc. capability then a precedent has been set for this capability on tablets. Please read 47 CFR 27.16, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/27.16 Have you ever used a VOIP app on a Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 sch-i925 running Android 4.1.2?  If not, how would you know what is a typical experience for this setup?  When I connect my PC to my tablet's wifi hotspot, VOIP on my computer is great.  The wifi hotspot is one of the few things that is fast and reliable on my tablet. Now that I have written that, how long before I can expect verizon to try to push through an OTA that will cripple the speed and reliability of the sch-i925's wifi hotspot feature?

I have not been complaining about it for three years.  I made the complaint three years ago, it was ignored, I guess with the hopes that it would stay swept under the rug.  Verizon recently increaseed the cost of grandfathered plans.  This recent price hike has motivated me to bring up the issue again.

rcschnoor wrote: No, because the device id/serial # would still designate it as a tablet. That is arbitrarily naming of a device due to physical dimensions rather than, more importanly, built-in hardware capability.  I am aghast at the numbers of people who are buying into this simply because verizon says it's so.

It doesn't matter if it is called a tablet or a phone.  The device is built with the necessary hardware for GSM, CDMA, etc voice calls.  I could disassemble an S7 and put it in a salami sandwich and it would still be a mobile device with the hardware to make voice calls. If I dissamble my sch-i925 and put it's hardware(minus the display) in a smaller device, then it will be a phone?   Why does nobody understand that, with respect to telephony, the size and shape of the device doesn't matter.  It is the hardware that dictates what the device can and cannot do.

I don't have a Wall Street Journal subscription,  so I can't read the entire article.  It seems that both phones and tablets are supported: Devices Supported – NFL Digital Care   It appears that phones and tablets are supported, but I still have not found a defintion of what qualifies as a handset.  Giving verizon the ability to define what is and isn't a handset with respect to government regulations essentially makes the regulation pointless.   Verizon could say that handsets look like this: and therefore, they (verizon) need not comply with any FCC regulation regarding handsets. Also, verizon disabling the phone feature seems to be in violation of 9-1-1 mobile regulations. I plan to file another complaint with the FCC, but I also posted here to be sure that the verizon community is aware of yet another thing verizon does to misinform their customers. 

Speaking of the world: other "models" of this tablet around the world allow access to the phone capabilities.   For one example, see this page of the manual of the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 GT-N8020. Communication; Calling - Samsung GT-N8020 User Manual [Page 80]  The hardware of the sch-i925 is basically the same as the GT-N8020 with verizon's shackles applied.  Mine is not an atypical request.  Clearly there is a demand for voice calls on tablet-sized handsets. Why else would Samsung release a tablet with voice call capability if their research had not discovered a market for it?  What is verizon's reason for violating the FCC regulations by disabling built-in features and offering a dumbed-downed version of Samsung's device even though verizon's network is perfectly capable of handling voice/SMS and data from a single device?   Verizon had to put in extra effort to make it difficult/impossible for me to make calls from my sch-i925.  The sch-i925 is built on a device that is already fitted with the hardware necessary and the software already available to make voice calls over GSM, CDMA, etc.  Why did they go through the extra trouble?  It seems the "bending over backwards", to disable existing features, was done preemptively,  prior to the release of the sch-i925.  Imagine buying a car with a v-six engine that's been on the market elsewhere for a year.  You are visiting a friend, and she lets you borrow her car for a week, and you find that it would be an economical purchase that would suit your needs if only you could get it locally.  Of course you are thrilled when a year later you find that it is available locally. Unfortunately,  the local dealership sells it as a v-six but with two cylinders disabled, while not being transparent about this, with a lock on the hood preventing you from undoing the disabling of the 2 other cylinders.  Now, after having paid for the v-six, you are hauling around a six cylinder engine running on only four cylinders.  Not only that, you also discover that a government agency has imposed regulations on the car dealership to prevent them from disabling these built-in features. Before purchasing,  I did my research on the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1, reading online and calling verizon.  I was assured that, in addition to LTE, it supported GSM, CDMA, etc. I was told that the features of my my grandfathered verizon plan would work with the device and that I need only insert my SIM and power on the device to connect to verizon's network. I had already experienced making voice calls on a friend's Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 in Europe in speaker mode and with a Native Union retro phone earpiece/mic.  I had no reason to think that verizon would be so driven to further line their pockets to go to the extra effort necessary to cripple a basic feature of this mobile device. Yes, I am sometimes able to make "voice" calls over data via google hangouts which is nearly useless(connects to calls in approximately 1 in 40 attempts) under the 4.1.2 update on the sch-i925. I can text via the verizon Message+ app, but it doesn't reliably receive texts.  Why should I need to resort to these unreliable work-arounds when my device is perfectly capable of utilizing the reliable, established "status quo" methods of cellular voice calls and SMS? Please provide link and/or cite the text of verizon's contracts with the nfl regarding nfl mobile.  I cannot seem to find the contracts online.

You are ignoring that my sch-i925 is just a physically larger mobile device, and since it has the necessary hardware for calls/SMS (the device is capable of GSM, UMTS, LTE, CDMA, EVDO),  other than its physical dimensions, it is no different than other "handsets" released at around the same time.  The "appropriate" plan for the device is whatever plan will support the devices capabilities.   If I had one of verizon's current tablet plans, I could put that SIM into a Galaxy S7, but of course I would only expect the data-related features of the phone to work.  I could put a phone/SMS/data SIM in a Jetpack or MiFi, but of course I would not expect the jetpack/MiFi to be able to make voice calls.  According to the FCC regulations, verizon may not disable features of my "handset".  They have clearly disabled the phone and SMS capabilities of my sch-i925.  My sch-i925 actually has phone.apk on the device, but due to the way verizon has crippled the device via firmware/OS, I cannot use the phone/dialer. My plan remains the same regardless of which device I put it in.  I have a device that, had it not impaired by verizon's violation of FCC regulations, supports phone/SMS, and I have a plan that includes data and phone/SMS. How many individual complainants are required before FCC violations are addressed?  The attitude that you suggest, that one should just roll over and let verizon do what they will, is disappointing.  Complacency does not bring change.

Your response does not resolve the issue, shows that you are unfamiliar with the capabilities of the sch-i925, and indicates that you are not familiar with all of the possible grandfathered plans that exist on verizon.  My plan (and FCC regulations) allow me to use my plan/SIM with my tablet.  My plan has phone/SMS and data, the sch-i925 is capable of phone/SMS and data, but verizon/samsung has blocked me, via OS and/or firmware, from accessing the phone/SMS features built into the sch-i925. Could you please post a link citing the FCC's definition of a "handset" with respect to the FCC regulations imposed on 700MHz license holders?  I can hold my tablet in my hand, and it's built-in hardware has the phone/SMS capabilities of physically smaller devices.  The size of the device does not define it's capabilities.   Could you please tell me the arbitrary cutoff for physical dimensions of a "handset"?