Related
Is there currently any way to unlock a VZW GS3 so I could use a local sim internationally? I'm going to Spain at the end of August and need a data connection while away from the hotel. Verizon offers 100MB for $25, while Vodafone offers locally a pre paid sim with 1GB of data for around $23 USD. So obviously I want to use a Vodafone sim. I called both Samsung and Verizon who said each other were the ones responsible for globally unlocking the phone. So I was wondering if the Dev community has already found a solution or is currently working on a solution for this problem. Otherwise I will have to use an AT&T Blackberry Bold while there -shutter-
ahanecurren said:
Is there currently any way to unlock a VZW GS3 so I could use a local sim internationally? I'm going to Spain at the end of August and need a data connection while away from the hotel. Verizon offers 100MB for $25, while Vodafone offers locally a pre paid sim with 1GB of data for around $23 USD. So obviously I want to use a Vodafone sim. I called both Samsung and Verizon who said each other were the ones responsible for globally unlocking the phone. So I was wondering if the Dev community has already found a solution or is currently working on a solution for this problem. Otherwise I will have to use an AT&T Blackberry Bold while there -shutter-
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have a legitimate complaint to file with the FCC. On behalf of all those who own an S3, please contact them.
Wait... What? This is so completely and utterly off-base, you're not even on the same field.
Verizon has stated that this phone's global GSM capabilities will be unlocked at a future time, just not right now.
There is no expectation from the FCC's viewpoint that a phone on a CDMA network should automatically be able to connect to GSM networks out of the box.
OP - There is a thread in development with some information that might be helpful.
Currently, the phone is not unlocked officially, but it will work with foreign SIM cards. As of right now, testing is pretty limited, as the APN configuration is not very easily edited on ICS.
AlexDeGruven said:
Wait... What? This is so completely and utterly off-base, you're not even on the same field.
Verizon has stated that this phone's global GSM capabilities will be unlocked at a future time, just not right now.
There is no expectation from the FCC's viewpoint that a phone on a CDMA network should automatically be able to connect to GSM networks out of the box.
OP - There is a thread in development with some information that might be helpful.
Currently, the phone is not unlocked officially, but it will work with foreign SIM cards. As of right now, testing is pretty limited, as the APN configuration is not very easily edited on ICS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you by chance read the law?
You don't actually believe the "future update" crap do you?
ancashion said:
Have you by chance read the law?
You don't actually believe the "future update" crap do you?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If they have said they will send out the update and they don't within the reasonable lifetime of the phone (2 years) then there would be an FCC case. But to state that right now is just plain "Oh man, look! Verizon is screwing us AGAIN" propaganda bs like 1/2 of everything else on this forum.
Edit: Even if you're in the "Screw Verizon" crowd, there is much more incentive for them to unlock the GSM capabilities than to not. It would allow them to say "Hey look! We have the best coverage in the US, AND you can use it all over the world!", which is fantastic marketing.
For them to say they're going to unlock that and to not do it is marketing suicide. And if Verizon does one thing right, it's their marketing.
ancashion said:
You have a legitimate complaint to file with the FCC. On behalf of all those who own an S3, please contact them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Legitimate complaint??
Are you kidding me, where do people come up with this BS??
AlexDeGruven said:
If they have said they will send out the update and they don't within the reasonable lifetime of the phone (2 years) then there would be an FCC case. But to state that right now is just plain "Oh man, look! Verizon is screwing us AGAIN" propaganda bs like 1/2 of everything else on this forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon IS screwing us though, again! Look at our bootloader and everyone else's, the rest of the world. And if this phone is a world phone with gsm capabilities, why lock it to begin with then promise to unlock it soon "in the future"? Do you actually believe that crap?
Put in an AT&T or T-Mobile sim in your phone first BEFORE rooting, it'll ask you for a sim unlock code, enter 000000 or 123456, that should unlock it. If it doesn't ask for a code, don't worry about it, root the phone (at your own risk) using the "Root66" method on this forum. Then go to this thread, whether you were able to unlock it with those generic codes or not.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1775566
Read all the instructions. You should be able to get voice and SMS working for any gsm carrier, and you should be able to get 2G (maybe also 3G and HSPA+ on some gsm carriers) working, you'll have to find their APN settings and manually switch to those using the instruction in the linked page though. 2G has been confirmed working on AT&T and t-mobile, no one has been able to test 3G and HSPA+ on AT&T yet. Good luck.
AlexDeGruven said:
If they have said they will send out the update and they don't within the reasonable lifetime of the phone (2 years) then there would be an FCC case. But to state that right now is just plain "Oh man, look! Verizon is screwing us AGAIN" propaganda bs like 1/2 of everything else on this forum.
Edit: Even if you're in the "Screw Verizon" crowd, there is much more incentive for them to unlock the GSM capabilities than to not. It would allow them to say "Hey look! We have the best coverage in the US, AND you can use it all over the world!", which is fantastic marketing.
For them to say they're going to unlock that and to not do it is marketing suicide. And if Verizon does one thing right, it's their marketing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
jmorton10 said:
Legitimate complaint??
Are you kidding me, where do people come up with this BS??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AlexDeGruven said:
Wait... What? This is so completely and utterly off-base, you're not even on the same field.
Verizon has stated that this phone's global GSM capabilities will be unlocked at a future time, just not right now.
There is no expectation from the FCC's viewpoint that a phone on a CDMA network should automatically be able to connect to GSM networks out of the box.
OP - There is a thread in development with some information that might be helpful.
Currently, the phone is not unlocked officially, but it will work with foreign SIM cards. As of right now, testing is pretty limited, as the APN configuration is not very easily edited on ICS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BS, you say? Off base, you say?
Here's the regulations regarding any device sold by Verizon as a "4g capable" phone...
§ 27.16 Network access requirements for Block C in the 746-757 and 776-787
MHz bands.
(a) Applicability. This section shall apply only to the authorizations
for Block C in the 746-757 and 776-787 MHz bands assigned and only if
the results of the first auction in which licenses for such
authorizations are offered satisfied the applicable reserve price.
(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on
spectrum subject to this section shall not deny, limit, or restrict the
ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their
choice on the licensee's C Block network, except:
(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical
standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the
licensee's network, or
(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government
regulation.
(c) Technical standards. For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section:
(1) Standards shall include technical requirements reasonably necessary
for third parties to access a licensee's network via devices or
applications without causing objectionable interference to other
spectrum users or jeopardizing network security. The potential for
excessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for
denying, limiting or restricting access to the network.
(2) To the extent a licensee relies on standards established by an
independent standards-setting body which is open to participation by
representatives of service providers, equipment manufacturers,
application developers, consumer organizations, and other interested
parties, the standards will carry a presumption of reasonableness.
(3) A licensee shall publish its technical standards, which shall be
non-proprietary, no later than the time at which it makes such
standards available to any preferred vendors, so that the standards are
readily available to customers, equipment manufacturers, application
developers, and other parties interested in using or developing
products for use on a licensee's networks.
(d) Access requests. (1) Licensees shall establish and publish clear
and reasonable procedures for parties to seek approval to use devices
or applications on the licensees' networks. A licensee must also
provide to potential customers notice of the customers' rights to
request the attachment of a device or application to the licensee's
network, and notice of the licensee's process for customers to make
such requests, including the relevant network criteria.
(2) If a licensee determines that a request for access would violate
its technical standards or regulatory requirements, the licensee shall
expeditiously provide a written response to the requester specifying
the basis for denying access and providing an opportunity for the
requester to modify its request to satisfy the licensee's concerns.
(e) 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.
(f) Burden of proof. Once a complainant sets forth a prima facie case
that the C Block licensee has refused to attach a device or application
in violation of the requirements adopted in this section, the licensee
shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it has adopted
reasonable network standards and reasonably applied those standards in
the complainant's case. Where the licensee bases its network
restrictions on industry-wide consensus standards, such restrictions
would be presumed reasonable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If that's too much to read, or too hard to comprehend, let me point out the specific part of those regulations...
(e) 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.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still too much.. let me make it a little clearer...
nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of
such handsets on other providers' networks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But Verizon says, and admits, no, you cannot have the unlock code to make your device available for use on other networks like they did for the OP.
But Verizon says, and will supposedly, release an "update" to allow this feature. Mind you- a feature it was required by the above regulation to come with out of the box. So exactly when, will Verizon comply with the Regs? When someone complains loudly enough, that's when.
I'm open to discuss this, and it's meaning and how the FCC will interpret it but from where I'm sitting, it's pretty clear. The OP does, infact, have a legitimate complaint. I ain't full of **** nor off base.
How many other devices has Verizon released that do not comply with the above regulations? It isn't just the S3, that's for sure. It won't end here either unless we petition the powers that be to force them to comply, or, give up the block C frequencies for re-auction to a company who will comply.
Frankly, I'm disgusted with the pro-Verizon rhetoric that's invaded XDA recently. Are they astroturfing for Verizon? How does anyone find Verizon's business practices acceptable? I like Verizon for the pipe it offers me, not for meddling with my phones and rendering the software on my phone obsolete because it's locked out third party developers and the powers that be decide it "isn't worth putting the newest OS on" is a good enough excuse to scam you into purchasing a new phone.
newuser134 said:
Put in an AT&T or T-Mobile sim in your phone first BEFORE rooting, it'll ask you for a sim unlock code, enter 000000 or 123456.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If this works, then why aren't folks buying non-VZW phones and putting VZW SIMs in them? That'd circumvent the whole locked bootloader thing, wouldn't it?
roachkv said:
If this works, then why aren't folks buying non-VZW phones and putting VZW SIMs in them? That'd circumvent the whole locked bootloader thing, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesn't work the other way around.
roachkv said:
If this works, then why aren't folks buying non-VZW phones and putting VZW SIMs in them? That'd circumvent the whole locked bootloader thing, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not as simple as just switching the sim card on Verizon. Unlike the GSM networks, Verizon only allows devices that already have their ESN/MEID in the system.
Yes, should be working with proper steps..
ahanecurren said:
Is there currently any way to unlock a VZW GS3 so I could use a local sim internationally? I'm going to Spain at the end of August and need a data connection while away from the hotel. Verizon offers 100MB for $25, while Vodafone offers locally a pre paid sim with 1GB of data for around $23 USD. So obviously I want to use a Vodafone sim. I called both Samsung and Verizon who said each other were the ones responsible for globally unlocking the phone. So I was wondering if the Dev community has already found a solution or is currently working on a solution for this problem. Otherwise I will have to use an AT&T Blackberry Bold while there -shutter-
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This thread: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1775566&page=10 has a lot of information. My post #95 details the steps that I have taken, and I can confirm that I was able to get it to work with a T-Mobile card. I am heading to Russia and will test it there in GSM mode with a local card. I have an HTC Incredible 2 world phone as backup which I know works.
The key is that you must use HiAPN to be able to edit/change the internal APN setting to allow for other Sim cards. ALso load Phone Info to change the radio setting. I've already loaded APN's for three different Russian companies and hope that I can just pop them in, change the APN, change the radio and be good to go.
Hope this helps.
Great Post!
My friend do you hang out in the irc channels too?
I have a question:
I am currently using the verizon samsung galaxy s3 (SCH-I535) and will be moving to Japan in September, what can you recommend me to do? I want to be able of use the s3 with either 3g, LTE oe 2g with any carrier in Japan. I know if I unlock the phone via root and unlock I can use the softbank (japan carrier) for call/text 2g not data plan though. But If that is the only thing I can do I will get a pocket wifi so I can have data wherever I go that way.
Any recommendations? I still can't understand about the global unlocking update coming to verizon s3 ?
Thank you in advance!
ancashion said:
BS, you say? Off base, you say?
Here's the regulations regarding any device sold by Verizon as a "4g capable" phone...
If that's too much to read, or too hard to comprehend, let me point out the specific part of those regulations...
Still too much.. let me make it a little clearer...
But Verizon says, and admits, no, you cannot have the unlock code to make your device available for use on other networks like they did for the OP.
But Verizon says, and will supposedly, release an "update" to allow this feature. Mind you- a feature it was required by the above regulation to come with out of the box. So exactly when, will Verizon comply with the Regs? When someone complains loudly enough, that's when.
I'm open to discuss this, and it's meaning and how the FCC will interpret it but from where I'm sitting, it's pretty clear. The OP does, infact, have a legitimate complaint. I ain't full of **** nor off base.
How many other devices has Verizon released that do not comply with the above regulations? It isn't just the S3, that's for sure. It won't end here either unless we petition the powers that be to force them to comply, or, give up the block C frequencies for re-auction to a company who will comply.
Frankly, I'm disgusted with the pro-Verizon rhetoric that's invaded XDA recently. Are they astroturfing for Verizon? How does anyone find Verizon's business practices acceptable? I like Verizon for the pipe it offers me, not for meddling with my phones and rendering the software on my phone obsolete because it's locked out third party developers and the powers that be decide it "isn't worth putting the newest OS on" is a good enough excuse to scam you into purchasing a new phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon S3 Global Root Unlock
Can anyone tell me if i did this root and global unlock does that mean i can put a international verizon wireless plan and use it overseas or is this just to be able to use international SIM's?
I'm going to say it would be for local pre-paid SIMs only. If you call into Verizon and try to get international data on your line, it will throw up serious red flags for them. Verizon doesn't support (officially) this device to be used abroad yet. So if you call in saying you got it unlocked, you may get into a bit of a sticky situation.
ahanecurren said:
I'm going to say it would be for local pre-paid SIMs only. If you call into Verizon and try to get international data on your line, it will throw up serious red flags for them. Verizon doesn't support (officially) this device to be used abroad yet. So if you call in saying you got it unlocked, you may get into a bit of a sticky situation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Alternatively, one could do it, get into this sticky situation with them and invite the FCC in on the conversation.
I would love to have VZW chew my ass for some **** that they agreed to not block, just to turn around and use their information against them.
Oh, wait.. that's what I did with my FCC complaint! :silly:
ancashion said:
Alternatively, one could do it, get into this sticky situation with them and invite the FCC in on the conversation.
I would love to have VZW chew my ass for some **** that they agreed to not block, just to turn around and use their information against them.
Oh, wait.. that's what I did with my FCC complaint! :silly:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never read anything about a grace period in the block c regulations so I wonder how vzw can get away with dragging their feet with the damn global unlock? I don't get why it's taking them so long. You won't be able to use it on say at&t or T-Mobile when it gets unlocked will you?
Imatoasta said:
I never read anything about a grace period in the block c regulations so I wonder how vzw can get away with dragging their feet with the damn global unlock? I don't get why it's taking them so long. You won't be able to use it on say at&t or T-Mobile when it gets unlocked will you?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should be able to provided your radio is compatible with the others network. That was the nature of block c's "openness" or the idea behind it anyways.
Vzw challenged the block c regs in court, after they made the purchase, and lost. I think they are being defiant on purpose.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
How to unlock and set up your SGS3 phone for world use.
I fyou have not yet seen this, go to this post: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1809314 and it will walk you through the steps that worked for me to use the Verizon Galaxy S3 overseas in GSM mode.
If it helps, give a thanks!
I'm writing a paper on Android bootloaders and security, profitability, and network performance and would like to get some of the enthusiast community's opinion.
The paper is framed as an internal proposal to Verizon Wireless management proposing further investigation into their current policies. Part of the paper involves investigating if Verizon Wireless (or ATT even) changing their locked bootloader policies and generally being more dev friendly would encourage those of us who have left them to return. This could provide a profit incentive by gaining new customers. While this would certainly not be a scientific poll, it should do for the purposes of a college paper.
So, again, the question is, would Verizon Wireless changing their locked bootloader policies cause those of you who left to return?
Please clarify your response below, and tell me if there's another option you'd like added to the poll.
JesusFreak316 said:
So, again, the question is, would Verizon Wireless changing their locked bootloader policies cause those of you who left to return?
Please clarify your response below, and tell me if there's another option you'd like added to the poll.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For me to return to Verizon they would have to:
Allow bootloader unlocking.
Allow carrier unlocked phones on their network.
Allow their phones to be carrier unlocked to work on other networks.
Not charge so damn much.
Honestly, I don't think that your proposal would make any difference in profits. You could ask 100 random smartphone owners about the bootloader on their phone and maybe one or 2 could even have a clue what the bootloader is/does, and what an unlocked one means vs a locked one.
Planterz said:
For me to return to Verizon they would have to:
Allow bootloader unlocking.
Allow carrier unlocked phones on their network.
Allow their phones to be carrier unlocked to work on other networks.
Not charge so damn much.
Honestly, I don't think that your proposal would make any difference in profits. You could ask 100 random smartphone owners about the bootloader on their phone and maybe one or 2 could even have a clue what the bootloader is/does, and what an unlocked one means vs a locked one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your input.
Hopefully carrier unlocked phones will happen with VoLTE only phones, but that's still speculating now as to whether the FCC band 13 restrictions apply to other services and not just data.
Little known fact, but Verizon is the only carrier that has to have all their LTE devices be carrier unlocked due to the aforementioned FCC rules.
Heh, that last reason is mostly what I meant by other reasons in the poll.
Certainly, I know the enthusiast community is barely a drop in the bucket compared to everyone else, but what I'm wondering is if they are not only missing out on revenue, but are also spending money on extra locks for the devices that don't really protect the network, as nothing on XDA can touch the modem. It's a case of why not, with possibly good publicity in the influential tech community.
Sent from my VS985 4G using XDA Free mobile app
Sign the Petition. Reclaim YOUR device.
http://wh.gov/iGwh4
We all know that AT&T and Verizon have begun the process of "signing" bootloaders. To anyone who doesn't understand, this means you will never be able to upgrade your software on another carrier or root your phone in any way.
I fell this is in violation of the "Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act". Even though wireless carriers are obligated to perform a carrier unlock at your request, they should not be allowed to force you to continue to use their software. AT&T says this is "our branding" and it's not for you to tamper with. Wrong. It's OUR phone and we want your software off of it.
If you ever decide to switch carriers, AT&T and Verizon will be more than happy to let you go. Unfortunately their software goes with you. With a signed bootloader, your new carrier does not have the ability to install their own software on your device. To make matters worse, you cannot perform over-the-air (OTA) updates ever again. The new carrier cannot overwrite AT&T's software OTA, or any other way for that matter. AT&T is directing all their former customers to Best Buy so they can flash their devices with the latest upgrades from now on. These upgrades only update the AT&T/Verizon software. You will have to do this every time there is an upgrade....for the life of the phone. Imagine what this does to your phone's resale value.
Whether this practice violates the "Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act" is up to the government now. Sign the petition and help put a stop to this. http://wh.gov/iGwh4
Wow you didn't read the TOS you agree to do you.
You do know the bootloader is part of their own software right. So even if it got passed they would just leave you with the hardware and you would need to make your own bootloader and use a jtag system.
Yah but to lock up the bootloader, that'll prevent all kinds of mods. Won't it?
X-weApon-X said:
Yah but to lock up the bootloader, that'll prevent all kinds of mods. Won't it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh it does and by the TOS people sign it is their right. The bootloader is proprietary software.
On the other hand this completely goes against the law that was just passed recently that allows us to change carriers and for them to unlock our devices at our request. That's got nothing to do with the term of service, it's a law. I figure after 2 years of service to the provider that I paid a two-year contract for, that it's my right to keep on using the device and look for other carriers. And by law they are supposed to make that happen for me if I so wish it. TOS ends when your contract ends.
Hell, this is just apples iboot in miniature and spread across a bunch of different carriers
X-weApon-X said:
On the other hand this completely goes against the law that was just passed recently that allows us to change carriers and for them to unlock our devices at our request. That's got nothing to do with the term of service, it's a law. I figure after 2 years of service to the provider that I paid a two-year contract for, that it's my right to keep on using the device and look for other carriers. And by law they are supposed to make that happen for me if I so wish it. TOS ends when your contract ends.
Hell, this is just apples iboot in miniature and spread across a bunch of different carriers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That law only covers the sim lock. Not anything else. It doesnt cover updates (which the carriers in the US are in complete control over. Heck some phones on their network never even see an update)
The TOS I am talking about is the device TOS. You do know you agreed to one right? When you first start the device you have to agree to it, which by flashing, modding ect violates.
Well then by that definition, anything that they do that interferes with a SIM unlock violate that law. Let's just talk about unmodified devices. Okay, we agreed to that TOS and that if we modify our operating systems either by rooting or jailbreaking, then we have violated that. That's understandable. But if they make any proprietary changes to their firmware which violates the right to a SIM unlock, that shouldn't be done. In which case I support the petition, but only for that aspect of it. And we all pretty much violate the TOS when we flash our devices. As long as we have a way to restore it to factory, that's fine.
Usually that's what you have to do when you change carriers anyway, but if they do something that prevents other carriers from being used then that's a violation of the law, strictly speaking.
X-weApon-X said:
Well then by that definition, anything that they do that interferes with a SIM unlock violate that law. Let's just talk about unmodified devices. Okay, we agreed to that TOS and that if we modify our operating systems either by rooting or jailbreaking, then we have violated that. That's understandable. But if they make any proprietary changes to their firmware which violates the right to a SIM unlock, that shouldn't be done. In which case I support the petition, but only for that aspect of it. And we all pretty much violate the TOS when we flash our devices. As long as we have a way to restore it to factory, that's fine.
Usually that's what you have to do when you change carriers anyway, but if they do something that prevents other carriers from being used then that's a violation of the law, strictly speaking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes we do violate them here. That is why this is a hacking forum and there are warnings in every thread that everything you do to your device here voids your warranty.
You have to understand that carriers also control the devices that are allowed on their networks. Take Verizon for example. They have every right to deny the use of any device on their network.
You can pretty much use the device on any carrier for GSM based devices. As long as it is sim unlocked. This doesnt mean that they also have to provide updates for the device.
This petition has nothing to do with sim unlocks though.
It is about Bootloader unlocking. Which is not covered by that law.
I wouldn't expect firmware updates, as long as there were firmware packages I can use to restore with.
Okay well that's good to know, I know that when I joined Sprint it was CDMA but now the device I have is gsm I believe- and Verizon is also CDMA? I remember seeing Scripts that you could use to flash through your keypad to change a Verizon device so it would work with one of the cheap carriers. But that only works on devices that were CDMA only, like those iPhone 4's with no sim slot.
I suppose the carrier can do whatever they want as far as software they want to load as long as I can modify the device on my own at some later time. But I don't know what this bootloader locking is going to cause , what are they locking into the devices, their lousy boot logos? or is it all of their base software like what Samsung does with all of the stuff that they load? The first Android device I ever worked on was Knoxed Galaxy Tab 3, fortunately a simple restore fixed it.. Is that the kind of thing that they want to lock into their boot loaders?
The the bootloader going to be unlockable on verizon, like the nexus 6? The article about variants confused me a lot.
Same.
Is there any downsides from purchasing from google vs Verizon? Will we get access to the same LTE bands, etc.?
In the past, have google versions of phones have come with unlocked bootloaders but verizon come with locked versions of the same devices?
Having to put a fresh ding on your credit is if you want a payment plan is a downside. Also no free Daydream.
Doubtful. See article: http://www.xda-developers.com/jcase-verizon-pixel-phone-may-not-be-bootloader-unlockable/
Early indicators are that the verizon one will be locked up hard and no way to unlock. At least not without a hack. Potential problem that has been around for a while, is that verizon, being verizon, is unlikely to permit units not sold BY verizon to connect to verizon.
In other words, you have an evil provider.
Does anyone have a link to the "article about variants"? I had trouble finding it.
Where did you see that Daydream is not included in the payment plan?
I have no inside information to add to the leaks that have already been made, but I think it's worth waiting and seeing.
Today's tweets suggesting that the VZW Pixels will not have an unlockable bootloader contradict previous leaks. The previous leaks come with supporting evidence - specifically I'm referring to this post: https://plus.google.com/+NathanBenis/posts/UaGDjHDikgi
At the time, this deliberately cryptic post was widely misinterpreted by the press, who simply deduced that the Pixel could be carrier SIM-locked and/or prevent bootloader unlocking. What they missed is that the two are LINKED - a carrier SIM-locked device will prohibit bootloader unlocking.
Presumably this means a few things:
1. Verizon is prohibited from carrier-locking by the FCC (per their 700Mhz D block spectrum purchase agreement), so my money is that VZW devices will also be bootloader-unlockable out of the box.
2. There are many ways to remove a SIM carrier lock; e.g., obtain a code from your carrier (often free for members of the military, or if your account has been in good standing for many months, or your device contract is paid off, etc) or obtained from internet code generators for a ~$20 fee. It stands to reason that inputting a code obtained from any of these avenues could also allow for bootloader unlocking.
"Confirmed: the Verizon Pixel's bootloader will not be unlockable"
http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/10/04/confirmed-verizon-pixels-bootloader-will-not-unlockable/
Thanks for the response, the $550 htc 10 is way more tempting though
Yeah, is this true?
I can tell you with 100% certainty that it's locked. - Source not those two.
Well, all bootloaders come locked. The question is can it be unlocked? I don't disagree that the vzw one will not be unlockable, but that means there has to be a different sku/model just for the verizon one. I haven't seen any details on this, but if there is a definite, different sku/model, then I'm pretty sure the vzw will not be unlockable. If not, I don't know, maybe it will be unlockable.
The only difference in the VZW variant is that its bootloader is locked. Aside from that, all the bands are the same, and it is NOT carrier locked.
Your first and second points could not be more wrong. SIM lock has no relation to bootloader lock. Every Verizon smart phone I've owned has been SIM unlocked and bootloader locked.
I don't know if it is going to do any good, and I don't know if this applies to other carriers, but it certainly can't hurt...
I just typed this up and submitted it to the FCC Consumer Complaint Center: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us
I purchased a phone from AT&T outright (not through a contract). This phone (LG V20) uses LTE B17 (700Mhz). As part of the auction of the class C spectrum, it was stated that:
"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."
By AT&T locking and signing the bootloader of my phone, they are in violation of that clause.
I am no longer an AT&T customer, and am not using the phone on their network. I would like them to provide me with the OEM unlock code for my phone.
Please keep in mind that this is NOT the carrier unlock code so that the phone can be used on other carriers ...
this is the boot loader unlock code so that I can install a ROM that matches the carrier I am using (T-Mobile).
Lastly I would like to point out that AT&T does NOT make it clear that their boot loaders are locked with no way to unlock them or
I would never have purchased the phone from them.
Thank you,
-- Brian
I encourage anyone that has an AT&T v20 to submit something similar. I don't have the money to sue them, or I would because they ARE in violation since they use LTE B17.
I've been planning on getting the US996 anyway. Maybe others should do the same if they use AT&T or any of its MVNOs. Its also much cheaper: the H910 is $830+.
runningnak3d said:
I don't know if it is going to do any good, and I don't know if this applies to other carriers, but it certainly can't hurt...
I just typed this up and submitted it to the FCC Consumer Complaint Center: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us
I purchased a phone from AT&T outright (not through a contract). This phone (LG V20) uses LTE B17 (700Mhz). As part of the auction of the class C spectrum, it was stated that:
"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."
By AT&T locking and signing the bootloader of my phone, they are in violation of that clause.
I am no longer an AT&T customer, and am not using the phone on their network. I would like them to provide me with the OEM unlock code for my phone.
Please keep in mind that this is NOT the carrier unlock code so that the phone can be used on other carriers ...
this is the boot loader unlock code so that I can install a ROM that matches the carrier I am using (T-Mobile).
Lastly I would like to point out that AT&T does NOT make it clear that their boot loaders are locked with no way to unlock them or
I would never have purchased the phone from them.
Thank you,
-- Brian
I encourage anyone that has an AT&T v20 to submit something similar. I don't have the money to sue them, or I would because they ARE in violation since they use LTE B17.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You may want to do some more research on this as from what you posted this applies to locking it to their Network. Basically, they can lock the bootloader or whatever but they can't lock the device to their Network. Verizon entered a similar deal when they got B13 LTE. That's why any Verizon phone thinking B13 has to be able to run on other networks as well, but they lock their bootloader's as the two have nothing to do with each other. Also, companies are not required to make it known that they lock their bootloader's and don't allow you to unlock them, that's where you have to do your own research before buying a phone. If you've been on XDA for a good amount of time, you'd have known to stay away from at&t as they have a long history of bootloader locking. Your best bet is usually unlocked devices (Nexus, HTC unlocked, etc.) or even most T-Mobile devices (and btw T-Mobile devices pretty much share same bands as at&t). But anyways, hopefully you get something from them although I highly doubt it. Like I said, from the wording it appears this only applies to Network locking not being allowed.
jeffsga88 said:
You may want to do some more research on this as from what you posted this applies to locking it to their Network. Basically, they can lock the bootloader or whatever but they can't lock the device to their Network. Verizon entered a similar deal when they got B13 LTE. That's why any Verizon phone thinking B13 has to be able to run on other networks as well, but they lock their bootloader's as the two have nothing to do with each other. Also, companies are not required to make it known that they lock their bootloader's and don't allow you to unlock them, that's where you have to do your own research before buying a phone. If you've been on XDA for a good amount of time, you'd have known to stay away from at&t as they have a long history of bootloader locking. Your best bet is usually unlocked devices (Nexus, HTC unlocked, etc.) or even most T-Mobile devices (and btw T-Mobile devices pretty much share same bands as at&t). But anyways, hopefully you get something from them although I highly doubt it. Like I said, from the wording it appears this only applies to Network locking not being allowed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did do some research, even had a lawyer look at the wording. It is ambiguous, and in contract law, any clause that is ambiguous benefits that signee. Now, this is not contract law, but there is hope
Yes, I will be getting a reply from AT&T -- received this from the FCC today:
Hi William,
Your Ticket No. XXXXXXX was served on AT&T Wireless on Apr 13 for its review and response.
AT&T Wireless will likely contact you in an effort to resolve your issue.
A response is due to the FCC no later than 30 days from today. AT&T Wireless will respond to you directly by postal mail.
You can view a list of frequently asked questions at: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/205082880.
We appreciate your submission and help in furthering the FCC’s mission on behalf of consumers.
I will update this post when I get the reply from AT&T. It would be in their best interest to just give me the OEM unlock code. What is funny is that I don't even want to run a custom ROM, I just want to remove the AT&T bloatware (#1 - it is bloatware, #2 - I am not on AT&T anymore so I couldn't use it if I wanted to).
Also, yes, I have been on XDA for quite some time, and am very familiar with AT&T and Verizon A-Hole policies concerning bootloaders. This was a deal that I just couldn't pass up.
Also, I know that there is a debug boot loader for the US996 that can be flashed using dirty santa, but that is NOT acceptable without a KDZ. I got a good deal on the phone, not a GREAT one
runningnak3d said:
I did do some research, even had a lawyer look at the wording. It is ambiguous, and in contract law, any clause that is ambiguous benefits that signee. Now, this is not contract law, but there is hope
Also, yes, I have been on XDA for quite some time, and am very familiar with AT&T and Verizon A-Hole policies concerning bootloaders. This was a deal that I just couldn't pass up.
Also, I know that there is a debug boot loader for the US996 that can be flashed using dirty santa, but that is NOT acceptable without a KDZ. I got a good deal on the phone, not a GREAT one
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, the wording is ambiguous. Hopefully you get a good resolution out of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just responded stating that it has to do with network locking, but again hopefully that's not the case as it would be a major step forward if they just unlocked the bootloader. However, is not as simple as giving you an unlock code unless things really changed from G5 to V20. On G5, fastboot was completely disabled on AT&T. So, if that's the case with the V20, they would have to push an update to enable fastboot and allow using the unlock.bin file lg provides (and lg would have to add support for it to be unlocked from their site) or they could just be nice and push an update to enable fastboot oem unlock
As far as the kdz for AT&T, did you check this:
http://csmg.lgmobile.com:9002/csmg/b2c/client/auth_model_check2.jsp?esn=YOURIMEMHERE
Just try putting your imei in and see if it gives you a kdz file key or not. Can't try as I don't have an imei for at&t.
Anyways, best of luck and hopefully you get a good resolution from your complaint against them
jeffsga88 said:
Yes, the wording is ambiguous. Hopefully you get a good resolution out of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just responded stating that it has to do with network locking, but again hopefully that's not the case as it would be a major step forward if they just unlocked the bootloader. However, is not as simple as giving you an unlock code unless things really changed from G5 to V20. On G5, fastboot was completely disabled on AT&T. So, if that's the case with the V20, they would have to push an update to enable fastboot and allow using the unlock.bin file lg provides (and lg would have to add support for it to be unlocked from their site) or they could just be nice and push an update to enable fastboot oem unlock
As far as the kdz for AT&T, did you check this:
http://csmg.lgmobile.com:9002/csmg/b2c/client/auth_model_check2.jsp?esn=YOURIMEMHERE
Just try putting your imei in and see if it gives you a kdz file key or not. Can't try as I don't have an imei for at&t.
Anyways, best of luck and hopefully you get a good resolution from your complaint against them
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You know I didn't check to see if fastboot was disabled, but as you said, if they are going to grant my request they WILL find a way even if that means me taking my phone to AT&T and them giving me a US996
As for the KDZ, thanks, but that is the first thing that I did. From what I understand, due to the contracts that LG has with AT&T and Verizon, they aren't allowed to distribute the KDZ. After this experience, even with a GREAT deal, I will never do business with AT&T, Verizon, or Sprint ever again. I have NEVER had a locked boot loader on T-Mobile, and their network coverage is getting better and better (just had a fairly major auction win).
runningnak3d said:
You know I didn't check to see if fastboot was disabled, but as you said, if they are going to grant my request they WILL find a way even if that means me taking my phone to AT&T and them giving me a US996
As for the KDZ, thanks, but that is the first thing that I did. From what I understand, due to the contracts that LG has with AT&T and Verizon, they aren't allowed to distribute the KDZ. After this experience, even with a GREAT deal, I will never do business with AT&T, Verizon, or Sprint ever again. I have NEVER had a locked boot loader on T-Mobile, and their network coverage is getting better and better (just had a fairly major auction win).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
check the dirty elf thread i was able to convert my h910 to the us996 model
runningnak3d said:
You know I didn't check to see if fastboot was disabled, but as you said, if they are going to grant my request they WILL find a way even if that means me taking my phone to AT&T and them giving me a US996
As for the KDZ, thanks, but that is the first thing that I did. From what I understand, due to the contracts that LG has with AT&T and Verizon, they aren't allowed to distribute the KDZ. After this experience, even with a GREAT deal, I will never do business with AT&T, Verizon, or Sprint ever again. I have NEVER had a locked boot loader on T-Mobile, and their network coverage is getting better and better (just had a fairly major auction win).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, have to agree never will get a phone from AT&T, Verizon or Sprint, and even T-Mobile might not be a great choice in the future. With the G5, V20 and now the G6, even though T-MOBILE allows you to unlock the bootloader via fastboot, they've disabled the fastboot boot and flash commands. On G5 and V20 there were still options using dirtycow or flashing unsigned tot files for the G5, although that appears to have been patched by LG. The G6 T-Mobile version has the same thing fastboot oem unlock, yet they can't root or install twrp because the fastboot flash and boot commands were disabled and dirtycow was patched. Looking like only way to go is completely unlocked non carrier phones, sucks because there's usually no deals on those phones :crying: Another thing for the kdz would be to try using lg bridge and see if it finds the software, if it does it should create a log file with the web address of the kdz (although you may have to use something to monitor web traffic to see where it's connecting for the file). Hopefully that works, if not though not sure how else to get one (technically they're not distributing the kdz using this method as it is only to restore or update the device and doesn't give you the location unless you know where to look).
jerrycoffman45 said:
check the dirty elf thread i was able to convert my h910 to the us996 model
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That isn't a typo? I thought Dirty Elf was only for the h915 not the h910 (unless the us996 kdz has been successfully tested on the h910). Will have to give the thread a read again.
jeffsga88 said:
Yeah, have to agree never will get a phone from AT&T, Verizon or Sprint, and even T-Mobile might not be a great choice in the future. With the G5, V20 and now the G6, even though T-MOBILE allows you to unlock the bootloader via fastboot, they've disabled the fastboot boot and flash commands. On G5 and V20 there were still options using dirtycow or flashing unsigned tot files for the G5, although that appears to have been patched by LG. The G6 T-Mobile version has the same thing fastboot oem unlock, yet they can't root or install twrp because the fastboot flash and boot commands were disabled and dirtycow was patched. Looking like only way to go is completely unlocked non carrier phones, sucks because there's usually no deals on those phones :crying: Another thing for the kdz would be to try using lg bridge and see if it finds the software, if it does it should create a log file with the web address of the kdz (although you may have to use something to monitor web traffic to see where it's connecting for the file). Hopefully that works, if not though not sure how else to get one (technically they're not distributing the kdz using this method as it is only to restore or update the device and doesn't give you the location unless you know where to look).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Using LG bridge is an awesome idea *smacks head*. Yea, setting up a sniffer isn't a problem. I will test that as soon as I get home.
If the US996 KDZ has been tested on the V20, and I can get the location / copy of the H910 KDZ then I will no longer have any issues rooting. Great thing about LG phones -- can't brick them as long as you have a KDZ
runningnak3d said:
That isn't a typo? I thought Dirty Elf was only for the h915 not the h910 (unless the us996 kdz has been successfully tested on the h910). Will have to give the thread a read again.
Using LG bridge is an awesome idea *smacks head*. Yea, setting up a sniffer isn't a problem. I will test that as soon as I get home.
If the US996 KDZ has been tested on the V20, and I can get the location / copy of the H910 KDZ then I will no longer have any issues rooting. Great thing about LG phones -- can't brick them as long as you have a KDZ
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not a typo i have done this only thing you probably would not be able to use lg website to unlock the bootloader because the imei would be for a h910 edit: and i am not sure if you would get otas when i tried it said the phone was not registered
runningnak3d said:
Using LG bridge is an awesome idea *smacks head*. Yea, setting up a sniffer isn't a problem. I will test that as soon as I get home.
If the US996 KDZ has been tested on the V20, and I can get the location / copy of the H910 KDZ then I will no longer have any issues rooting. Great thing about LG phones -- can't brick them as long as you have a KDZ
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, hopefully that will work for getting the kdz. Oh, and most times you can't brick LG phones, but... It is still possible to do and even a kdz won't help (Qualcomm 9008 mode or whatever it is).
I went through this same thing with ATT when I had a GS5. Basically their reply was no we aren't going to do anything. Then one of their managers called me, and they gave me a free LG G3.
Interesting, I have 2 H910s on T-Mo network since 3/30/17
runningnak3d said:
I don't know if it is going to do any good, and I don't know if this applies to other carriers, but it certainly can't hurt...
I just typed this up and submitted it to the FCC Consumer Complaint Center: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us
I purchased a phone from AT&T outright (not through a contract). This phone (LG V20) uses LTE B17 (700Mhz). As part of the auction of the class C spectrum, it was stated that:
"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."
By AT&T locking and signing the bootloader of my phone, they are in violation of that clause.
I am no longer an AT&T customer, and am not using the phone on their network. I would like them to provide me with the OEM unlock code for my phone.
Please keep in mind that this is NOT the carrier unlock code so that the phone can be used on other carriers ...
this is the boot loader unlock code so that I can install a ROM that matches the carrier I am using (T-Mobile).
Lastly I would like to point out that AT&T does NOT make it clear that their boot loaders are locked with no way to unlock them or
I would never have purchased the phone from them.
Thank you,
-- Brian
I encourage anyone that has an AT&T v20 to submit something similar. I don't have the money to sue them, or I would because they ARE in violation since they use LTE B17.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Our problem exactly! I have 2 H910s on the T-Mobile network. It would be great to receive the bootloader unlock code or even if they could unlock it for us and allow us to go on about our business. Have you gotten a response?
wayne8821212 said:
Our problem exactly! I have 2 H910s on the T-Mobile network. It would be great to receive the bootloader unlock code or even if they could unlock it for us and allow us to go on about our business. Have you gotten a response?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I received a phone call, and the guy was actually knowledgeable. Basically he said AT&T's interpretation of that clause is exactly what we have assumed -- prevent locking to a carrier. That is just messed up since there was already a law in place to prevent them from doing that if the phone was paid for and the contract satisfied. It really sucks I don't have the money to fight this in court or I would.
They have 10 days in which to send me something in writing stating their reasons, and I have not received it yet.
However, I have opened another complaint and this one might have some more teeth. Because I am on T-Mobile, I can not receive any updates for my phone (H918 update won't work on an H910), and that most certainly is locking out functionality. I am not going to buy an AT&T Go Phone SIM just to update my phone. We will see where that goes.
I was informed that they couldn't give me an unlock code even if they were instructed to, because fastboot isn't even in the bootloader -- it is not just disabled (so no fastboot oem unlock blah.bin).
-- Brian
I think about the best I can hope for is they get tired of me and give me a refund even though I purchased the phone from a third party.
Wow why you all quoting so much???
A little editing makes the thread easier to read...
I was tempted to swap our H910s for 2 H918s but understandably T-Mobile wants $480 (down from$679) for the H918 and are only offering like $160 per H910.
Sent from my LG-H910 using XDA-Developers Legacy app
It's really not vague, it's telling you that this is pursuant to paragraph b which says
(b)Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee's C Block network, except:
(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network, or
(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government regulation.
in other words, it has nothing to do with bootloaders and everything to do with restricting network access. I'm guessing your lawyer friend doesn't work with this kind of law or maybe you just showed him section e without section b or something. try not to clog up the fcc with your misunderstandings though, we are trying to clog them up with net neutrality complaints which are more important than your misreading of fcc regulations.