[slagman5]

No but an android

Think this thread is about AT&T blocking specifically the DTEK60 from using their mobile hotspot.

Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10

[Joearroyo]

Filing this right now at the FCC:

AT&T is intentionally discriminating against those who buy phones they do not sell. I have tethering on my plan (confirmed with a rep and in addition it works on a BlackBerry Priv); when I insert the SIM into my new BlackBerry DTEK60, tethering is unavailable despite both of them being on the same Android operating system (Marshmallow 6.0.1.) I am not alone in this; multiple other people have had the same result with the same device, and after multiple inquiries the claim has been made that AT&T will not "provision" tethering on a device they do not sell.

This appears to be an attempt to tie sales; this is not a device with a questionable history or technical incapacity and AT&T has sold and sells other BlackBerry devices. They just don't sell *THIS* model, and their refusal to allow that which I have available on my account to be used because I did not purchase a device they sell, and thus they got a margin and/or kickback on, appears to be an attempt to restrain trade through forcing a tied sale for a product I do not want. Comparable devices made by other manufacturers they DO sell are both network locked (which I do not want) *and* are more expensive (by a very material amount; the Samsung S7, for example, costs 40% more than the BlackBerry DTEK60, some of which I'm sure AT&T pockets.)

This appears to implicate not only FCC policy but anti-trust law regarding tied sale behavior as it cannot be justified on a "rule of reason" basis.

Site to file your own is at: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us

Dude, you're awesome. I used most of your language, modified it to my specific unit and filed a complaint yesterday. Today the FCC confirmed they have forwarded the complaint to AT&T and that they have 30 days to respond.

I think if all affected unite and follow through, we can really be lobbying towards the benefit of many that have not noticed this discriminating practice.

Let's go people!

[slagman5]

Dude, you're awesome. I used most of your language, modified it to my specific unit and filed a complaint yesterday. Today the FCC confirmed they have forwarded the complaint to AT&T and that they have 30 days to respond.

I think if all affected unite and follow through, we can really be lobbying towards the benefit of many that have not noticed this discriminating practice.

Let's go people!

It's the only way, the squeaky wheel gets the oil as the saying goes...

Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10

[deebo550]

Just posting as well to confirm my priv had Hotspot turned on but my dtek60 does not. My visual Voicemail seems to work though. I'm on an att business account.

[kewlgirl73]

I spent 2.5 hours on the phone with ATT and BlackBerry support. BlackBerry support tells me that the December update will fix the issue but when I inquired as the what caused the issue in the first place, I was told that they did not know. They are going to contact me Monday with a answer, or so they say.

ATT was finally able to get my Visual Voice Mail working after 40 minutes on the phone with them. Needed to add APN settings and that did the trick.

[nbaliga]

I spent 2.5 hours on the phone with ATT and BlackBerry support. BlackBerry support tells me that the December update will fix the issue but when I inquired as the what caused the issue in the first place, I was told that they did not know. They are going to contact me Monday with a answer, or so they say.

ATT was finally able to get my Visual Voice Mail working after 40 minutes on the phone with them. Needed to add APN settings and that did the trick.

If it is an IMEI issue, I can't see how a SW update fixes it. Perhaps the Dec update includes some flag that ATT will detect it other than the IMEI mask alone. Of course it could just be the support tech trying to get you to hang up the phone, it's been known to happen.

[kewlgirl73]

I'll know more if they indeed call me back on Monday. I'm not holding my breath though.

[tickerguy]

I spent 2.5 hours on the phone with ATT and BlackBerry support. BlackBerry support tells me that the December update will fix the issue but when I inquired as the what caused the issue in the first place, I was told that they did not know. They are going to contact me Monday with a answer, or so they say.

ATT was finally able to get my Visual Voice Mail working after 40 minutes on the phone with them. Needed to add APN settings and that did the trick.

What APN settings were missing if you don't mind me asking?

[kewlgirl73]

Mine only shows ATT Phone. We added the NxtGenPhone via APN settings and that got my VVM to work at least.

[Centerman66]

So strange. Mine says att phone and my vvm works just fine.

[00stryder]

Same.

[tickerguy]

Mine only shows ATT Phone. We added the NxtGenPhone via APN settings and that got my VVM to work at least.

I added that one a while back and it didn't help with VVM. I also tried clearing the data on the VVM app and re-setting it up -- it gets triggered by the message in the text side but it appears it can't talk to the server on AT&T's end.

[kewlgirl73]

I added that one a while back and it didn't help with VVM. I also tried clearing the data on the VVM app and re-setting it up -- it gets triggered by the message in the text side but it appears it can't talk to the server on AT&T's end.

The tech also unregistered my phone on their network and the added it back. We did a series of shutdowns and then VVM started working.

[tickerguy]

Ah... I suspect it was that rather than the APN....

[HondaS2K]

Just spent an hour on the phone with an advanced AT&T support tech who went through reviewing and adding APN settings and several restarts of my DTEK60 and AT&T's back-end system and the "Tethering & Mobile Hotspot" feature still doesn't work as it is grayed out on my settings tab. The last ditch step, according to her, would be to back-up the device and perform a factory hard reset. If that were unsuccessful then even if the phone is capable of using this feature it may still not be provisioned to use that feature on the AT&T system as not all non-AT&T branded phones are able to do so.

Incidentally, the phone is provisioned correctly on AT&T's system as it indicates that the phone is a BBA100-1 therefore not a "backend" issue.

My wife has a DTEK50 also on an AT&T pre-paid plan, identical to mine, and her device is set up for the "Tethering & Mobile Hotspot" feature. Go figure!

Neither the DTEK50 or DTEK60 are capable of WiFi calling on an AT&T pre-paid plan but according to the tech support rep it is available for post-paid plans.

Lastly my VVM is working just fine on AT&T.

[leicamshooter]

How would we go about setting up wifi calling on a postpaid plan? I see the recent iphone and a few druids are provisioned for wifi-calling on the ATT site.

[00stryder]

Just spent an hour on the phone with an advanced AT&T support tech who went through reviewing and adding APN settings and several restarts of my DTEK60 and AT&T's back-end system and the "Tethering & Mobile Hotspot" feature still doesn't work as it is grayed out on my settings tab. The last ditch step, according to her, would be to back-up the device and perform a factory hard reset. If that were unsuccessful then even if the phone is capable of using this feature it may still not be provisioned to use that feature on the AT&T system as not all non-AT&T branded phones are able to do so.

Incidentally, the phone is provisioned correctly on AT&T's system as it indicates that the phone is a BBA100-1 therefore not a "backend" issue.

My wife has a DTEK50 also on an AT&T pre-paid plan, identical to mine, and her device is set up for the "Tethering & Mobile Hotspot" feature. Go figure!

Neither the DTEK50 or DTEK60 are capable of WiFi calling on an AT&T pre-paid plan but according to the tech support rep it is available for post-paid plans.

Lastly my VVM is working just fine on AT&T.

Unfortunately, you probably wasted your time. Mobile Hotspot won't work until AT&T admits they're actually blocking it on the DTEK60. WiFi calling, though capable on the DTEK60, is also blocked by AT&T on certain Android devices (i.e. those that they don't directly sell, although some Pixel users have it working). Visual Voice-mail, fortunately, does work for some (myself included) but not all.

Apparently BlackBerry is working on a fix to be released next month with the next security update though so hopefully it gets fixed soon.

[wryberry]

I reluctantly sent my DTEK60 back to Blackberry because they couldn't assure me the ATT hotspot issue would be fixed. Although ATT had been communicating with me, they have dropped off the edge and I can't get them to respond to my emails. Complaint is still in with the FCC. I've reverted to my DTEK50 because the ATT hotspot works just fine on it - go figure. A real shame as I really liked the DTEK60 - excellent battery life and a little more screen real estate than the DTEK50...

[deebo550]

When I try to update my imei on the att business site it says device not recognized and the only blackberry device it would let me pick is the priv

[tickerguy]

AT&T replied to the FCC and basically said "**** off." Here is my response back to the FCC, which will (for now anyway) keep the complaint open:

Gentlemen;

I confirm my conversation with AT&T but find their response unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

1. The other device was not manufactured by AT&T *either* (the one on which the tethering works.) In fact since the complaint was filed I have inserted my SIM into a couple of other devices, also not sold by AT&T but for which very similar devices were sold by AT&T and thus have the same IMEI prefix and tethering functions in all of them.

2. The two devices in direct question are both made by the same manufacturer (BlackBerry)

3. The two devices in direct question are both running the *same* operating system (Android 6.0.1) and *both* have the same feature set available on them, including tethering.

4. The availability of tethering is controlled by the provisioning process which is under the complete control of AT&T, as they send down the feature flags that enable or disable said features (among others, including manual network select, the ability to lock out LTE, the ability to use VoLTE/IMS services and more) when the device's SIM is initialized. AT&T has always intentionally disabled a whole host of features on all handsets, including those they sell, with the most-important being the ability to choose which network technologies the handset will attempt to connect to (e.g. disabling LTE service, which can be very useful when in an area with poor LTE but good HSPA reception as it prevents "tower hopping" and thus extreme battery consumption.)

5. This is not an instance in which a feature (tethering) appears to be available or in fact can be selected but doesn't work correctly. Rather, this is the case of a feature that the device has being intentionally disabled by AT&T at provisioning time; the feature and function is present in the menus but is "grayed out" and cannot be selected on the phone at all, despite being available on my account.

6. While it is certainly understood (and reasonable) that there may be devices on which a feature will not operate because of the lack of ability or feature in the device itself, that is not true in this instance. In this specific instance the device is known to be capable of not only tethering but also manual network selection *and* IMS/VoLTE service, as all three function perfectly well when a T-Mobile SIM is inserted into the phone. These features "disappear" when an AT&T SIM provisions on the device -- they are being intentionally blocked by the carrier.

7. As an Internet network designer and former CEO of an ISP with experience in the industry spanning more than 20 years I can confidently state that AT&T is *lying* about compatibility "concerns" in this case. How and to where data is routed from the terminal device (in this case the phone) once it reaches the phone has nothing to do whatsoever with the cellular network. It is a fact that cellular carriers have intentionally interfered with handset tethering capabilities, including but not limited to provisioning blocks and "deep packet inspection" for more than 10 years.

The principle of network neutrality in the context of a capped data plan is quite simple: I have a quota of data available to me every month through the carrier; in this case 5Gb. How I expend that data quota should be at my discretion without intentional interference by the carrier(s) involved. This decision on my part is being intentionally interfered with by AT&T through their abuse of the provisioning process.

Because AT&T sells devices and in fact earns a profit from said devices this implicates both current network neutrality rules and, in my opinion, 15 United States Code with regard to tied sales. Specifically, I do not want an AT&T-sold device for several reasons, including (1) their materially higher price for the same feature set (40% higher, in fact, for a comparable device) and (2) AT&T's universal inclusion of software on the devices they sell that both damage the user experience ("bloatware") and potentially invade privacy. On AT&T-sold devices said software is built into system software in such a fashion that it cannot be turned off or removed.

For the above reasons I am not satisfied with the response tendered and request that the FCC continue to pursue this matter, leave the complaint open, and take the position that AT&T should be ordered on both net neutrality and tied sale rules to not intentionally block features, including but not limited to tethering, on devices they do not sell.

Sincerely;

[stlabrat]

it smell like early days of iphone vs bb on att: un-compressed iphone data plan benefit to the carrier. the contract assigned by att that required to sell min. qty motivated the sale force. bbm vedio call and wifi ready does not add value to carrier bottom line... as for the hot spot, most likely carrier will have additional test on top of required FCC set of tests. Att could use any of those as reason to block it... sad. (although I ordered dtek60 today as a gift for kid. may have to go to pink shirt guy..who is also not a bb friend according to history... double sad).

[Centerman66]

AT&T replied to the FCC and basically said "**** off." Here is my response back to the FCC, which will (for now anyway) keep the complaint open:

Gentlemen;

I confirm my conversation with AT&T but find their response unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

1. The other device was not manufactured by AT&T *either* (the one on which the tethering works.) In fact since the complaint was filed I have inserted my SIM into a couple of other devices, also not sold by AT&T but for which very similar devices were sold by AT&T and thus have the same IMEI prefix and tethering functions in all of them.

2. The two devices in direct question are both made by the same manufacturer (BlackBerry)

3. The two devices in direct question are both running the *same* operating system (Android 6.0.1) and *both* have the same feature set available on them, including tethering.

4. The availability of tethering is controlled by the provisioning process which is under the complete control of AT&T, as they send down the feature flags that enable or disable said features (among others, including manual network select, the ability to lock out LTE, the ability to use VoLTE/IMS services and more) when the device's SIM is initialized. AT&T has always intentionally disabled a whole host of features on all handsets, including those they sell, with the most-important being the ability to choose which network technologies the handset will attempt to connect to (e.g. disabling LTE service, which can be very useful when in an area with poor LTE but good HSPA reception as it prevents "tower hopping" and thus extreme battery consumption.)

5. This is not an instance in which a feature (tethering) appears to be available or in fact can be selected but doesn't work correctly. Rather, this is the case of a feature that the device has being intentionally disabled by AT&T at provisioning time; the feature and function is present in the menus but is "grayed out" and cannot be selected on the phone at all, despite being available on my account.

6. While it is certainly understood (and reasonable) that there may be devices on which a feature will not operate because of the lack of ability or feature in the device itself, that is not true in this instance. In this specific instance the device is known to be capable of not only tethering but also manual network selection *and* IMS/VoLTE service, as all three function perfectly well when a T-Mobile SIM is inserted into the phone. These features "disappear" when an AT&T SIM provisions on the device -- they are being intentionally blocked by the carrier.

7. As an Internet network designer and former CEO of an ISP with experience in the industry spanning more than 20 years I can confidently state that AT&T is *lying* about compatibility "concerns" in this case. How and to where data is routed from the terminal device (in this case the phone) once it reaches the phone has nothing to do whatsoever with the cellular network. It is a fact that cellular carriers have intentionally interfered with handset tethering capabilities, including but not limited to provisioning blocks and "deep packet inspection" for more than 10 years.

The principle of network neutrality in the context of a capped data plan is quite simple: I have a quota of data available to me every month through the carrier; in this case 5Gb. How I expend that data quota should be at my discretion without intentional interference by the carrier(s) involved. This decision on my part is being intentionally interfered with by AT&T through their abuse of the provisioning process.

Because AT&T sells devices and in fact earns a profit from said devices this implicates both current network neutrality rules and, in my opinion, 15 United States Code with regard to tied sales. Specifically, I do not want an AT&T-sold device for several reasons, including (1) their materially higher price for the same feature set (40% higher, in fact, for a comparable device) and (2) AT&T's universal inclusion of software on the devices they sell that both damage the user experience ("bloatware") and potentially invade privacy. On AT&T-sold devices said software is built into system software in such a fashion that it cannot be turned off or removed.

For the above reasons I am not satisfied with the response tendered and request that the FCC continue to pursue this matter, leave the complaint open, and take the position that AT&T should be ordered on both net neutrality and tied sale rules to not intentionally block features, including but not limited to tethering, on devices they do not sell.

Sincerely;

Brilliant. Hope it works.

[Alain_A]

is the US having a consumer's law stating; if one pay for a service and does not receive such service, a complaint can be made beside the FCC?

[tickerguy]

is the US having a consumer's law stating; if one pay for a service and does not receive such service, a complaint can be made beside the FCC?

That might well implicate state-level consumer fraud laws (and at the FTC, although the FTC appears to spend its time watching porn rather than giving a damn about consumers these days), yes.

[deebo550]

for what its worth - APN and MMS settings

https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/wireless/KB424489?source=redirect