Verizon FCC violation: Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 SCH-i925 Call and SMS

The thread here http://community.verizonwireless.com/thread/802440 was never resolved.

This issue has still not been resolved by Samsung nor by Verizon despite phone calls to customer service of both companies.

I am still waiting for Verizon to comply with FCC regulations, specifically by addressing the issues I raised in the linked thread regarding Verizon's disabling of features of the then flagship device which I purchased at the time of its release.

In addition to the initial crippling of the device by Verizon's disabling features of the device. Verizon has further crippled my device with the 4.1.2 "update"

Will Verizon voluntarily comply with FCC regulations by restoring access to built-in features of Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (sch-i925)?

Accepted answers

antonindvorak

Hmm

rcschnoor wrote:
antonindvorak wrote:
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.

This was the solution! After uncrippling my device, it could make CDMA phone calls and send texts using any SMS texting app compatible with my OS. Thanks to Samsung for including all of the necessary hardware. Absolutely no thanks (plus a big rotten tomato) to verizon for making it quite difficult to access the hardware within the device.

All comments

Weth

Yawn. It's a tablet. Suppose that doesn't meet definition of "handset" and as Verizon doesn't support SMS or calling on tablets I see status quo in your future.

antonindvorak

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"?

Weth

Show me where it says a phone plan must be honored on a tablet? You can put that SIM in, but an appropriate plan for the device can be assigned. Tablet plans do not include text or voice.

The FCC doesn't define handset, which gives Verizon the opportunity to define it.

Few things making this an uphill battle for you - you first complained in 2013 and nothing has changed, and I doubt very many people are clamoring the FCC to get phone and text access on his or her tablet.

antonindvorak

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.

Weth

If the FCC has not determined what a handset is, and Verizon determines anything above 6.5 inches is not a handset but a tablet, then size matters. There is precedence to this, look at the Verizon contracts with the NFL for NFL mobile. Strict definition of handset linked to screen size that Verizon can show NFL games on.

Do you know if the handset features have passed compatibility testing on Verizon's network - that is another clause Verizon can use.

You have determined FCC regulations have been not followed. I don't see it that way at all. I don't think anyone else that really matters has determined it breaks FCC regulations at this time.

I don't condone complacency, but I do believe you shouldn't be forced to bend over backwards for every atypical request.

There are other ways to get voice and text communication on a tablet if it is really that important to you. Or if you want to be the guy or gal that tries to drive this through the FCC and change the world for the 5 others that care about this, go ahead.

antonindvorak

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.

antonindvorak

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?

Weth

It seems Verizon has given the device if your choice Block C data network access to your device and is not preventing you from getting any app from Google Play designed for the US market. There is no CDMA based version in the world that carries voice calls. And if it did, voice calls would be carried over CDMA in this era device and those are not covered by block C.

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.

Best of luck to you, but it is a losing battle trying to get a 3 year tablet native cellular calling capabilities designed for the US market. I hope you have a plan B.

antonindvorak

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.

Weth

Keep reaching. Good luck. While I stand by my arguments and think your arguments do not pass muster and will go no where with the FCC, I really could care less if you get your tablet a voice calling capability. You are using arguments for C block that were not as intended and not what the FCC will agree or enforce.