Comment by like_any_other
Comment by like_any_other 2 days ago
I wouldn't mind your servile attitude so much if it wasn't dragging the rest of us down with you. A key part of "may your chains set lightly upon you" was "go home from us".
Comment by like_any_other 2 days ago
I wouldn't mind your servile attitude so much if it wasn't dragging the rest of us down with you. A key part of "may your chains set lightly upon you" was "go home from us".
Stop pretending Google was legally compelled to do this. So far not a single law against VoLTE has been cited.
Google did this because otherwise carriers would refuse access to Google Pixel phones entirely on their networks. Carriers are legally allowed to refuse access to devices they deem faulty on their networks.
No one said it was the “law” the carriers have certification requirements
I don't follow - you'll have to hold my hand through your argument. You said the airwaves are a "shared service license" to the carriers, and so the carriers "have certification requirements".
If by that you mean the carrier has to be certified by the government for access to the airwaves, then that's just "the law" with extra steps. Nobody has cited a law or regulation that would demand carriers block any device that an end-user can modify to enable VoLTE.
If you mean that the carriers require certain certifications for the devices on their network, and these certifications have no basis in law (i.e. they are permitted to allow VoLTE-capable devices on their network, they just choose not to), then this is just mega-corporations colluding to sabotage consumers.
No one is “colluding” certification means that your phone has to support all of the necessary industry standards. The phone manufacturers certify their phones meet those standards. There is nothing to be gained monetarily by keeping phones off their network.
Just like with any device on any network an out of spec device can cause issues.
Please avoid this type of maximalist rhetoric. There is clearly a public good to be served by making sure it's not easy to disrupt radio communications, especially by accident. Since any antenna, if not carefully controlled, can cause significant disruption in radio communication around it, it follows that it's a good thing, in principle, that users can't easily misuse their radio emitters to cause disruptions for others. I would say that this is all fairly uncontroversial, outside some extreme libertarian "my property woo!" positions.
Now, while in this particular case, the "vulnerability" that Google patched wasn't affecting the actual radio components, it may have still caused disruptions to the 4G/5G software - it's not very clear to me. It's also very possible that it didn't, and it was just allowing users to circumvent some market segmentation BS that some carrier marketing invented. In that case, I'm all for using our political power to prevent such BS.
But this is still a completely different argument than claiming that you should be allowed to do anything with your phone because you bought it (at least allowed by the design, even if it would be illegal). This is simply not a real right that anyone recognizes, or even desires - again, beyond some extremist libertarians.
I am not objecting to it not being allowed to jam radio/disrupt communications. I am objecting to corporations one-sidedly policing us, using said disruption as a mere excuse (or not even an excuse in this case - Google secretly patched this, without disclosing it in the patch notes).
Is it really an "extremist libertarian" position that corporations shouldn't abuse their backdoor access to our devices to enforce their whims? Or even that our property shouldn't enforce laws against us? Like mandating all cars come with a remote shutoff that police can use. It sounds like a totalitarian dystopia to me.
The point is that, according to the law a sit stands, a device manufacturer that knowingly ships a device that can be used to accidentally jam communications is breaking the law. Not only is the device manufacturer allowed to modify the device to prevent this, they are compelled by the law to take reasonable steps to do so. Automatic updates are such a reasonable step (and note, you can refuse to install updates on your Android phone - of course, you'll miss out on security updates as well, and may not be able to run certain apps if you're too far out of date). The exact same thing is true of cars.
If a car manufacturer realized that they accidentally left a button in your car that allows you to leak oil, they would have to issue a recall, and any service shop that worked on your car would be obligated to remove said button to make your car work - at the auto maker's expense, of course. The service checkup is the equivalent of the online update on your phone: you're not forced to do it, but many things will stop working if you do, and illegal features will be removed from your car at the checkup.
Of course, I agree that the patch here is not at the same level as an easy way to accidentally jam nearby radios. However, the general legal principle is the same: the argument "Google can't legally modify my property in ways I don't want when I install an update" isn't true, because they can and should have this power in certain cases. That the particular case of enabling VoLTE despite the carrier settings disallowing it doesn't warrant this power simply means that this case should be fought by different arguments, not by a general principle that simply doesn't exist in law.
Because the airwaves are a shared service license to the carriers. Like someone posted about Australia, there were laws made that if a phone couldn’t make emergency calls. It can’t be used.
There is no monetary reason for Google to forbid a service that could increase its addressable market