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

[antonindvorak]

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)?

[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.

[antonindvorak]

Of course, if I had su, I would be able to make phone calls, but verizon has made this unnecessarily difficult.

[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.

[rcschnoor]

antonindvorak wrote:

What is verizon's reason for violating the FCC regulations

Obviously you and Verizon have differing opinions of what "handset" means. If you want Verizon to change their view on this, you should be aiming your complaints at the FCC, not Verizon.

If what you claim is true, that Verizon is violating FCC regulations, the FCC can enforce those regulations OR Verizon could lose their license to use regulated airwaves. If the FCC does nothing, they may not have the same view on the matter which you have.

[Weth]

In their most recent deals, those networks also gained the ability to provide access to home-market games in 2014 on devices other than televisions, but not smartphones. The NFL carved away the right to sell broadcast rights on smartphones to an official wireless provider, allowing the current and upcoming deals with Verizon.

Verizon Wireless Pads NFL Deal - WSJ

[antonindvorak]

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. 

[Ann154]

That is a tablet not a phone.

[antonindvorak]

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.

[rcschnoor]

antonindvorak wrote:

It doesn't matter if it is called a tablet or a phone.

According to you, that is. Since you have been attempting to get this capability on your sch-i925 tablet for over 3 yrs now, it appears the FCC and Verizon may have a different opinion on this matter.

antonindvorak wrote:

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.

And yet the device id/serial # would still designate it as a cellular "handset".

antonindvorak wrote:

If I dissamble my sch-i925 and put it's hardware(minus the display) in a smaller device, then it will be a phone?

No, because the device id/serial # would still designate it as a tablet.

[antonindvorak]

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.

[rcschnoor]

antonindvorak wrote:

I am aghast at the numbers of people who are buying into this simply because verizon says it's so.

No, because in the 3 years you have been complaining about this, the FCC apparently agrees since they have done absolutely nothing about it. The FCC has the power to rectify this if they agreed with you.

[antonindvorak]

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.

[Weth]

antonindvorak wrote:

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 does matter and it is not just because Verizon says so - you are putting those words out, not us.

You are misinformed about the NFL Mobile with the designation between tablet and phone. NFL Mobile for video of live games is not available on tablets, only phones. NFL Mobile app supports tablets and phones, but if you want live video of games, the NFL will only allow Verizon to show those on a phone. So there is precedent of making a defining difference. I am sure if one would have access to the Verizon - NFL contract for NFL Mobile live games there is a strict definition and it is based on screen size. In fact I did see this published way back when Verizon started showing NFL games live. It was somewhere between 6.5 and 7 inches diagonal.

I get it, you have an unlimited data plan, they raised the rates by $20, and you want one large device as a phone and as a tablet so you can absorb the $20 increase.  In this world, definitions do matter, from legal aspects, and it doesn't matter if technically 2 things can do the same thing if one is called a phone and one just happens to be called a tablet. If Verizon succumbed to your FCC threatened action, at the very minimum Verizon would break the NFL contract and I am sure the NFL would go after them for showing games on screens larger than the defined phone.

Finally, your experience with VOIP solutions is not very typical. Most have an excellent experience with VOIP.

[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.