04-18-09 02:25 PM
685 ... 1314151617 ...
tools
  1. TwinsX2Dad's Avatar
    If it wasn't for the fact you spell well, I'd swear you were a ricanmedic alias.

    Neither of you makes any sense, nor puts up any validation to what you say.

    All bluster, no sense. Are you the favorite janitor in your clinic? Nah, don't answer that - I have another entry on my ignore list now, because the things you say are pretty much without worth.

    For the future, learn that circular logic only makes intelligent people snicker at your far too young self.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Last edited by TwinsX2Dad; 02-25-09 at 10:38 PM.
    02-25-09 10:36 PM
  2. Sign543's Avatar
    If it wasn't for the fact you spell well, I'd swear you were a ricanmedic alias.
    Yeah, that's a relevant point in this discussion. *laughs*

    Neither of you makes any sense, nor puts up any validation to what you say.
    And yet, you failed to adequately demonstrate how what I said made no sense. Instead, you went off on a tangent about "racism" when that was clearly *not* the point of my analogy.

    Oh, and the pedant in me can't help myself: it's "validation FOR what you say"...not "validation TO what you say." The use of TO in that context makes no sense.

    Are you the favorite janitor in your clinic?
    The hospital doesn't have "janitors", it has an environmental safety team that cleans up messes. And, no, I'm not on that team. But, thanks for asking. And thank you for more of your petulance.

    Nah, don't answer that - I have another entry on my ignore list now, because the things you say are pretty much without worth.
    In the 12+ years I have been online debating politics, religion, etc, I've never put anyone on ignore. I find the whole, "I'm taking my marbles and going home!" tactic to be pretty much infantile and goofy.

    But, that's just me.

    For the future, learn that circular logic only makes intelligent people snicker at your far too young self.
    How young is "far too" young? And exactly what about what I said is...circular? You DO know what a circular argument is......right??

    And to offer my own advice to you...for the future, allow less of your emotion to dictate your responses in a debate. Your soul will thank you. That's for free. Most of my group sessions at work go for a much higher price.
    02-25-09 11:21 PM
  3. Sign543's Avatar
    RicanMedic78, do you know how flattering it is for me...to be accused of being one of your aliases? How many do you have, by the way??
    02-25-09 11:27 PM
  4. RicanMedic78's Avatar
    RicanMedic78, do you know how flattering it is for me...to be accused of being one of your aliases? How many do you have, by the way??
    Twins caught me! I keep aliases with avatars of all races!
    Last edited by RicanMedic78; 02-26-09 at 12:51 AM.
    02-26-09 12:42 AM
  5. EnergyPlus's Avatar
    I don't understand how so many could feel "duped" about their GPS. VZW never advertised it, do not state it as a "feature" on their website, post no signs about it in the stores, and if asked, I'm sure the reps are trained to say "no, it does not have that."

    This seems like a "no win" argument here, I've seen the exact same thing on other websites for photography and other tech gear. So many want to excuse their own due diligence about researching a product and service before buying.

    This is my first BB and I knew before buying that it would not have active GPS on 3rd party apps. I learned this by doing a few searchs for reviews and many complained about it!

    Superfluous lawsuits only cost all of us money. Let's all start smoking and then sue the cigarette manufacturers!
    02-26-09 12:54 AM
  6. MangoGT's Avatar
    I was the Class Representative in the actual Verizon Wireless GPS lawsuit (Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP).

    The effort failed for a couple of reasons. Partially due to a precedent case making these types of class actions very difficult, and also due to Verizon essentially enabling GPS ability (thus, no false advertisement) in BB Maps.
    02-26-09 12:58 AM
  7. Sign543's Avatar
    Twins caught me! I keep aliases with avatars of all races!
    Well, I'm the whitest man in america...so, that's one down! *grin*
    02-26-09 01:01 AM
  8. RicanMedic78's Avatar
    I don't understand how so many could feel "duped" about their GPS. VZW never advertised it, do not state it as a "feature" on their website, post no signs about it in the stores, and if asked, I'm sure the reps are trained to say "no, it does not have that."

    This seems like a "no win" argument here, I've seen the exact same thing on other websites for photography and other tech gear. So many want to excuse their own due diligence about researching a product and service before buying.

    This is my first BB and I knew before buying that it would not have active GPS on 3rd party apps. I learned this by doing a few searchs for reviews and many complained about it!

    Superfluous lawsuits only cost all of us money. Let's all start smoking and then sue the cigarette manufacturers!

    Verizon doesn't advertise that you get an address book right? Or Brickbreaker... a calculator...a password keeper... alarm... right? So just imagine that the calculator feature (for example) is blocked and the only way to use one is to purchase it "ONLY" from verizon wireless... Then imagine if you will, that there are plenty of 3rd party calculator apps that you can use, but verizon blocks all of those and says "no, you can only buy our calculator app!" Wouldn't you be upset??? I know I would! And this isn't even a simple calculator! The benefits of GPS are much farther reaching than that! However, its the same analogy! So whether it is advertised or not makes zero difference...

    And as far as suing... The same can be said for companies like verizon in reverse. Why waist tax payer money in forcing me to sue you when you can just operate in a "JUST" mannor from the start! If no one sued big business, can you imagine where we'd be today? Don't put the blame on customers (it always starts from our end since we're the little guy), just because we have a right to be treated fairly. If it wasn't for the court of law, we'd be angry about a lot more than GPS... Think about that!

    Well, I'm the whitest man in america...so, that's one down! *grin*
    wait till I bring in my other aliases with asian avatars! Those guys can kick some serious forum ****!
    Last edited by RicanMedic78; 02-26-09 at 07:52 AM.
    02-26-09 07:40 AM
  9. Lowsol94's Avatar
    Verizon doesn't advertise that you get an address book right? Or Brickbreaker... a calculator...a password keeper... alarm... right? So just imagine that the calculator feature (for example) is blocked and the only way to use one is to purchase it "ONLY" from verizon wireless... Then imagine if you will, that there are plenty of 3rd party calculator apps that you can use, but verizon blocks all of those and says "no, you can only buy our calculator app!" Wouldn't you be upset??? I know I would! And this isn't even a simple calculator! The benefits of GPS are much farther reaching than that! However, its the same analogy! So whether it is advertised or not makes zero difference...

    And as far as suing... The same can be said for companies like verizon in reverse. Why waist tax payer money in forcing me to sue you when you can just operate in a "JUST" mannor from the start! If no one sued big business, can you imagine where we'd be today? Don't put the blame on customers (it always starts from our end since we're the little guy), just because we have a right to be treated fairly. If it wasn't for the court of law, we'd be angry about a lot more than GPS... Think about that!
    In your logic you should sue the phone company for making you pay for making phone calls.
    02-26-09 08:22 AM
  10. jrd231psu's Avatar
    I stopped reading after this absurd blanket statement. You are in no position to know of or speak for "people as a whole".
    Well then let me rephrase. People who want to sue Verizon so they can have free GPS are the kind of people who want everything for free. It's simple. People want free GPS and Verizon makes you pay for it. So, they idea is to try to force Verizon to give it to them for free while hiding behind "false adverstising" claims that have no merit. Verizon has a network and GPS uses those network resources no matter which third party application you use. It's up to Verizon to decide what network traffic they permit and what fee, if any, customers need to pay to access additional bandwidth on their network. People love to accuse Verizon of locking this feature and claim it would have no bearing on their business if it were unlocked when it would. People only say this to justify their position of wanting something for free.

    Verizon's network = Verizon can charge you to access it. It's not the same as a calculator application on the phone. A calculator doesn't use network resources like the GPS would in the Curve. Twins has already explained, in detail, why Verizon can't just unlock the GPS on the Curve like other phones can. Do a simple search on the forums and you'll understand why it isn't as simple as just giving you access to GPS so you can use a third party application. Everybody just wants Verizon to foot the bill for their GPS use on their network, which isn't fair.
    Last edited by jrd231psu; 02-26-09 at 08:36 AM.
    02-26-09 08:33 AM
  11. RicanMedic78's Avatar
    In your logic you should sue the phone company for making you pay for making phone calls.
    nope! reread and repost an adequate response if you wish
    02-26-09 08:40 AM
  12. RicanMedic78's Avatar
    Well then let me rephrase. People who want to sue Verizon so they can have free GPS are the kind of people who want everything for free. It's simple. People want free GPS and Verizon makes you pay for it. So, they idea is to try to force Verizon to give it to them for free while hiding behind "false adverstising" claims that have no merit. Verizon has a network and GPS uses those network resources no matter which third party application you use. It's up to Verizon to decide what network traffic they permit and what fee, if any, customers need to pay to access additional bandwidth on their network. People love to accuse Verizon of locking this feature and claim it would have no bearing on their business if it were unlocked when it would. People only say this to justify their position of wanting something for free.

    Verizon's network = Verizon can charge you to access it. It's not the same as a calculator application on the phone. A calculator doesn't use network resources like the GPS would in the Curve. Twins has already explained, in detail, why Verizon can't just unlock the GPS on the Curve like other phones can. Do a simple search on the forums and you'll understand why it isn't as simple as just giving you access to GPS so you can use a third party application. Everybody just wants Verizon to foot the bill for their GPS use on their network, which isn't fair.
    I want a free alarm clock! You know why? Because RIM placed an alarm clock on my phone! If verizon blocks that alarm clock and makes me pay for their alarm clock only, on a monthly basis, I will be upset! They didn't advertise that my blackberry will come with an alarm clock feature, but it came with the device when RIM made it, and I expect my phone carrier to have good enough ethics to make money in legitamate ways and allow me to use my alarm clock in peace! Same goes for my GPS!
    02-26-09 08:44 AM
  13. jrd231psu's Avatar
    I want a free alarm clock! You know why? Because RIM placed an alarm clock on my phone! If verizon blocks that alarm clock and makes me pay for their alarm clock only, on a monthly basis, I will be upset! They didn't advertise that my blackberry will come with an alarm clock feature, but it came with the device when RIM made it, and I expect my phone carrier to have good enough ethics to make money in legitamate ways and allow me to use my alarm clock in peace! Same goes for my GPS!
    :sigh: You're still not listening. You have to use an analogy that fits. The alarm clock doesn't use network bandwidth. There isn't an additional cost to VZW to use the alarm. I've read some of your posts and you are definitely intelligent enough to understand the difference between the alarm clock feature and the GPS feature and that it will have to access the Verizon Network. It's not as simple as you explain it. Bandwidth is a limited resource on any network. It's finite. The alarm clock is infinite and impacts nobody else, especially VZW if you set three thousand alarms. Using the GPS on the Curve or other phones, regardless of third party apps, impacts VZW network bandwidth, which you have to pay for.

    If the GPS in a Curve didn't have to use Network bandwidth to work I would agree that VZW should allow access to it. However, the fact remains that it does affect Verizon's operating costs, and has to be paid for the same way other data services incur additional costs.
    02-26-09 08:54 AM
  14. jrd231psu's Avatar
    I want a free alarm clock! You know why? Because RIM placed an alarm clock on my phone!
    To further illustrate my point, RIM also includes a CDMA chip in the phone, but I don't see you advocating bringing a lawsuit against VZW for blocking access to their network from your phone unless you pay for a voice package. You're not advocating that because you know it's absurd. RIM can include whatever they want in their phone, they're a separate company and VZW has no authority over what they include. Just because RIM includes it doesn't mean VZW has to allow it's use on their network. It's a faulty and absurd argument that because a separate manufacturer includes capabilities or hardware in a phone that another company like VZW should allow it's use when they had no input into whether it should be included in the first place.
    02-26-09 09:04 AM
  15. RicanMedic78's Avatar
    :sigh: You're still not listening. You have to use an analogy that fits. The alarm clock doesn't use network bandwidth. There isn't an additional cost to VZW to use the alarm. I've read some of your posts and you are definitely intelligent enough to understand the difference between the alarm clock feature and the GPS feature and that it will have to access the Verizon Network. It's not as simple as you explain it. Bandwidth is a limited resource on any network. It's finite. The alarm clock is infinite and impacts nobody else, especially VZW if you set three thousand alarms. Using the GPS on the Curve or other phones, regardless of third party apps, impacts VZW network bandwidth, which you have to pay for.

    If the GPS in a Curve didn't have to use Network bandwidth to work I would agree that VZW should allow access to it. However, the fact remains that it does affect Verizon's operating costs, and has to be paid for the same way other data services incur additional costs.

    If the only issue is the nature of the GPS chipset and its network assist feature (aGPS), then that is fine, we can address this issue. The question then becomes, how much bandwith is being used.... considering the fact that we pay $9.99 for that "extra" GPS bandwith. Not to mention the unlimited data we are entitled to on our devices!

    But wait, we're not paying $9.99 to unlock and use that extra bandwith (which some ppl can actually live with althought thats wrong as well)! We're paying $9.99 "just" for VZ Nav right???
    02-26-09 09:07 AM
  16. jrd231psu's Avatar
    If the only issue is the nature of the GPS chipset and its network assist feature (aGPS), then that is fine, we can address this issue. The question then becomes, how much bandwith is being used.... considering the fact that we pay $9.99 for that "extra" GPS bandwith. Not to mention the unlimited data we are entitled to on our devices!

    But wait, we're not paying $9.99 to unlock and use that extra bandwith (which some ppl can actually live with althought thats wrong as well)! We're paying $9.99 "just" for VZ Nav right???
    Right, you're paying to use GPS through VZNav. But, it is VZW bandwidth, and they have a right to restrict access to it any way they want. They can allow or restrict any applications they want on their network. I'm not against calling out a company, but only when it's warranted. A lawsuit against VZW in this instance just isn't warranted. You may not like the fact that VZW restricts access to their bandwidth, regardless of how much bandwidth it is because it's still bandwidth, but it's their network and their right to do so. It's not a customers right to have access to their network, which is what a class action lawsuit would be saying. I would love to have unrestricted GPS access from my Curve, but I'm not upset that I don't have it because it's up to VZW since it's their network.
    02-26-09 09:20 AM
  17. Lowsol94's Avatar
    Right, you're paying to use GPS through VZNav. But, it is VZW bandwidth, and they have a right to restrict access to it any way they want. They can allow or restrict any applications they want on their network. I'm not against calling out a company, but only when it's warranted. A lawsuit against VZW in this instance just isn't warranted. You may not like the fact that VZW restricts access to their bandwidth, regardless of how much bandwidth it is because it's still bandwidth, but it's their network and their right to do so. It's not a customers right to have access to their network, which is what a class action lawsuit would be saying. I would love to have unrestricted GPS access from my Curve, but I'm not upset that I don't have it because it's up to VZW since it's their network.
    And their Blackberry's purchased from RIM. That are sold to you. If you want a black berry with GPS buy one strait from RIM.
    Last edited by Lowsol94; 02-26-09 at 09:28 AM.
    02-26-09 09:24 AM
  18. jrd231psu's Avatar
    And their Blackberry's purchased from RIM. That are sold to you. If you want a black berry with GPS buy one strait from BB.
    I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this.
    02-26-09 09:27 AM
  19. RicanMedic78's Avatar
    but on the note of network usage...

    ponder this...

    If the GPS is locked down 100%, then there would be no issue and your reasoning would be sound in that "its their network!"


    As for verizon, the problem comes to play in that .... the GPS feature is still accessible by a program that is developed by the provider itself, closing the door to the competition. If bandwith was an issue, then verizon can just charge a fee to unlock its GPS. But bandwith cant be an issue since VZ nav can still access it and use that very "bandwith that you continue to mention!" Follow me.....?

    So if the GPS was unlocked with a nominal fee, then it can still be just! Expensive... but none the less, JUST!

    So the fact that its not a blanket policy is what makes all the difference here. To make this right, Verizon needs to change its policy to unlocking the GPS for $9.99 (and that might not even be feasable but thats another story)

    Closing the door to the competition and saying "u can only have access thru our program" I believe would violate federal law. I am not a lawyer of any form (I work in healthcare). However, I have heard the outcomes to cases including most recently the microsoft suit and it all falls along the same lines. I also think this is a big reason why after contracts are becoming a thing of the past, as carriers are now allowing month to month service without contracts. When you lock anything to one network solely (or one provider), it violates the law. However, for the contracts for wireless service, they are providing u with a cell phone at discount which allows them to contract you to pay for that discount you received and agreed to. But after your 2 years, future contracts are illegal and providers are seeing that and changing their policy before official rulings even come out.

    So back to GPS... Verizon is locking it and then allowing only 1 program to access it which is where the problem lies as far as using the "assisted" GPS argument. If it was "ACROSS THE BOARD" then they can use the bandwith argument
    Last edited by RicanMedic78; 02-26-09 at 10:06 AM.
    02-26-09 09:30 AM
  20. ScottRPriester's Avatar
    I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this.
    I think I can sum up............

    What a waste of 25 pages of discussion.

    You are all crying about a company who is charging for a service it offers. Very very typical of business.

    In other words........STFU
    02-26-09 09:41 AM
  21. jrd231psu's Avatar
    but on the note of network usage...

    ponder this...

    If the GPS is locked down 100%, then there would be no issue and your reasoning would be sound in that "its their network!"

    Just like if I have a business for example, and I don't want to sell to customers and close shop! Now of course no business would want to do this so for the purpose of explaining my point, lets use the idea that I do not want to sell products in my business till 9am.... not 8am! (point is that its a blanket policy)

    As for verizon, the problem comes to play in that .... the GPS feature is still accessible by a program that is developed by the provider itself, closing the door to the competition. If bandwith was an issue, then verizon can just charge a fee to unlock its GPS. But bandwith cant be an issue since VZ nav can still access it and use "bandwith!" Follow me.....?

    So if the GPS was unlocked with a nominal fee, then it can still be just! Expensive... but none the less, JUST!

    So the fact that its not a blanket policy is what makes all the difference here. To make this right, Verizon needs to change its policy to unlocking the GPS for $9.99
    I think that would be a great alternative. However, different applications can utilize more or less bandwidth. What's to say that a third party app doesn't need to utilize three times as much bandwidth as VZNav? In that case, $9.99 wouldn't be enough. Those are all fine points, but none of them changes the fact that it's VZW's network and they have the right to restrict any applications they want on it. You might not like their business practice of restricting their network to VZW approved applications, but it still doesn't warrant a lawsuit, which is the underlying argument of this thread. There is plenty of competition in the mobile market as well. If customers don't like the restrictions that VZW has every right to implement, they can choose another carrier, instead of trying to force VZW to bend to their will.
    02-26-09 09:41 AM
  22. Lowsol94's Avatar
    I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this.
    The blackberries in question are in fact purchased by Verizon Wireless from RIM. The argument I see is that the blackberry has GPS capabilities but Verizon is locking it out.

    So essentially they are Verizon's Blackberries until they are sold to the consumer. Which makes the blackberry the end users that was sold by Verizon to use in contact on the Verizon network.

    If you want a Blackberry that doesn't have Verizon's limitations then buy one with out Verizon's software or service on them. IE Strait from RIM. Which would technically make a useless phone but does have full capabilities that RIM provided but lacks the network behind it to support the rest of the functions.

    Again companies do provide devices that utilize free GPS service. But Verizon would rather see you use VZ Nav which does in fact use quite a bit of bandwidth not just for the GPS but for all the other functions offered. IE traffic, local searches, movie listings, turn by turn (not bandwidth but programmed), gas prices, messaging, and the ability to save favorites and recent searches. Functions that 3rd party apps might not provide and which could leave others to state WHY CAN"T I GET THESE FEATURES FOR FREE!!!

    And the $29.99 or more you are paying for "Unlimited Data" is actually advertised as "Unlimited E-Mail and Web". Web doesn't not specifically mean data.
    Last edited by Lowsol94; 02-26-09 at 09:56 AM.
    02-26-09 09:48 AM
  23. RicanMedic78's Avatar
    I think that would be a great alternative. However, different applications can utilize more or less bandwidth. What's to say that a third party app doesn't need to utilize three times as much bandwidth as VZNav? In that case, $9.99 wouldn't be enough. Those are all fine points, but none of them changes the fact that it's VZW's network and they have the right to restrict any applications they want on it. You might not like their business practice of restricting their network to VZW approved applications, but it still doesn't warrant a lawsuit, which is the underlying argument of this thread. There is plenty of competition in the mobile market as well. If customers don't like the restrictions that VZW has every right to implement, they can choose another carrier, instead of trying to force VZW to bend to their will.

    restrict yes! But once they provide one of their own, thats when they lose the option to restrict. As for certifying applications for use to their network, that argument would never fly since apps that do not use GPS and still use heavy bandwith (slacker radio comes to mind) are not certified by verizon. And if every blackberry app had to be certified by verizon first, then that would cripple the meaning of blackberry service within their network (I don't think verizon wants to be the lone apple and open that kind of dilemma)

    Thats like your wireless providor (say roadrunner) certifying everything that you use in your computer just because it might operate at a higher network bandwith. Its not even a plausable idea. Different apps use different amounts of data. That is the nature of a blackberry and the reason you have unlimited data on the device

    and for rules to change simply for GPS, you have to show me a plausable reason why GPS uses a higher bandwith than say a program like "slacker radio" or "VZ Nav" to justify a sharp change in policy and strict restrictions to follow that policy. But hey... there is none!
    Last edited by RicanMedic78; 02-26-09 at 10:22 AM.
    02-26-09 10:07 AM
  24. jrd231psu's Avatar
    restrict yes! But once they provide one of their own, thats when they lose the option to restrict. As for certifying applications for use to their network, that argument would never fly since apps that do not use GPS and still use heavy bandwith (slacker radio comes to mind) are not certified by verizon. And if every blackberry app had to be certified by verizon first, then that would cripple the meaning of blackberry service within their network (I don't think verizon wants to be the lone apple and open that kind of dilemma)

    Thats like your wireless providor (say roadrunner) certifying everything that you use in your computer just because it might operate at a higher network bandwith.
    I'm not talking about certified, I'm talking about approved, as in they allow it to use their network. They never lose the option to restrict, even if they introduce their own app. It's their network, it's their right. Like I said, you might not agree with their business plan, but it doesn't warrant a lawsuit, it will lose. For some reason people confuse rights with wants. Just because you want something doesn't mean you have the right to have it.
    02-26-09 10:15 AM
  25. RicanMedic78's Avatar
    I want firefox! Is it my right to have it? Can microsoft develope a version of its operating system that monopolizes and allows IE to be the sole provider to internet browsing? The law says its my right to have and use firefox and microsoft, despite being the sole maker of its OS must provide access to allow for fair competition

    bandwith excuse holds no water once you allow 1 sole program access to its network, especially when that program is its own with its own service fee
    Last edited by RicanMedic78; 02-26-09 at 10:27 AM.
    02-26-09 10:24 AM
685 ... 1314151617 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD