Related
Hey guys and gals, there's a petition floating around that everyone needs to sign. If you value the ability to unlock your device, you need to sign this. Let your voice be heard and keep this AOSP. XDA is a strong vast community of devs and noons alike. Don't let them take our rights.
http://www.androidauthority.com/mobile-phone-unlocking-petition-150925/
Thank You all very much:laugh:
I SIGNED
jbats said:
Hey guys and gals, there's a petition floating around that everyone needs to sign. If you value the ability to unlock your device, you need to sign this. Let your voice be heard and keep this AOSP. XDA is a strong vast community of devs and noons alike. Don't let them take our rights.
http://www.androidauthority.com/mobile-phone-unlocking-petition-150925/
Thank You all very much:laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i signed it man hope it helps we need to get this out more on different forums and such anything i can do to help
soldier1184 said:
i signed it man hope it helps we need to get this out more on different forums and such anything i can do to help
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Repost to your social networks, start other threads, pass it along. If you don't voice your opinion, you can't moan when they get locked down. Look what Verizon just did with there recent update. Luckily we have Adam Outler in our arsenal of devs.
jbats said:
Hey guys and gals, there's a petition floating around that everyone needs to sign. If you value the ability to unlock your device, you need to sign this. Let your voice be heard and keep this AOSP. XDA is a strong vast community of devs and noons alike. Don't let them take our rights.
http://www.androidauthority.com/mobile-phone-unlocking-petition-150925/
Thank You all very much:laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Signed it a few minutes ago
Sent from my GT-P3110 using xda app-developers app
I just wanted to give my two cents on this issue. I'm not a nay-sayer and am not trying to say you shouldn't take action if you believe action is warranted.
My opinions on this issue are as follows.
1. Has anyone read any of the official 'white house' responses from other petitions? It's like they pay someone (not sure who but I would bet they make minimum wage) to give a 2 or 3 line comment to whatever you submit. So say this petition gets an additional 82,000 signatures... what's the official response going to be? "Thank you for your concern in this matter, however, the administration's official position is that modifying an item that you do not fully own adds a burden and cost to businesses when those modifications result in failure of said item. We will continue to evaluate this issue" or some BS.
2. This law isn't enforceable. You can't physically 'go after' people for their cell phones and prosecute them. There's just no manpower to do so. Next time you get pulled over for speeding is the cop going to see your cell phone in your car and ask to see it? How's he/she going to know it's unlocked without permission (or unlocked at all)?
3. Let this law stand... see where it goes... Imagine the fallout if carriers started sending warning texts to people who have supposedly illegally unlocked their phones! Imagine the lawsuits/bad publicity that would spawn against carriers for monitoring people's cell phones without their consent or knowledge! I guarantee there's nothing in anyone's cell contracts that would allow T-Mobile, AT&T, etc. the right to track and monitor usage of the device throughout the duration of your contract to insure the device isn't being tampered with or unlocked.
4. This is just political figures throwing their campaign contributor 'a bone' and another sad sign of just how bloated government is here. This law is no different than some of the other ridiculous digital copyright crap being spewed out.
5. Once your contract is up you are allowed to do whatever you wish to your phone. You can also get permission to have your device unlocked from your carrier at any time. I know of a few people that travel abroad and for them it was as simple as asking to be able to use another sim when they travel. If you have a good long standing account with your carrier they are very likely to comply (else they risk losing business).
None of this applies to flashing custom roms or the like (which will always void any warranty, etc.), just with carrier unlocking the phone.
anactoraaron said:
None of this applies to flashing custom roms or the like (which will always void any warranty, etc.), just with carrier unlocking the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your right and I totally agree. I just recently got an i777 unlocked by simply calling the carrier(ATnT) and requesting it so I could use it with a prepaid network. The account was in good standing, all previous balance had been paid off.Voila
Trick was driving 45 mins to get a sim, because I told the carrier it was my phone(idiot), but my friend was happy.
I know that Dan found an exploit, I have a feeling this is part of why nobody seems to be complaining to AT&T about the locked bootloader, but the problem is that it isn't a permanent fix, granted we have the ability to disable automated updates, etc. My problem is that AT&T is going to lock all devices from here on out, simply because we allowed them too.
So what can we do?
AnthomX said:
So what can we do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't give AT&T your business? I know the locked bootloader issue incenses the Android modding community, but the vast majority of consumers don't know and don't care. AT&T is practically the government, and they don't care either. It's frustrating, but if you don't like it please vote with your dollars.
burhanistan said:
Don't give AT&T your business? I know the locked bootloader issue incenses the Android modding community, but the vast majority of consumers don't know and don't care. AT&T is practically the government, and they don't care either. It's frustrating, but if you don't like it please vote with your dollars.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can agree with that, my only complaint is the small majority of us that notice the lock. Speaking with our money in this case isn't going to make much of a point. There simply isn't enough of us to make them take a hit in their margins. So my guess is that in this instance, it is, what it is, for us? I know AT&T provides us (me and family) the best service in terms of voice/data.
That is just disappointing, because other carriers will follow behind it.
AnthomX said:
I know that Dan found an exploit, I have a feeling this is part of why nobody seems to be complaining to AT&T about the locked bootloader, but the problem is that it isn't a permanent fix, granted we have the ability to disable automated updates, etc. My problem is that AT&T is going to lock all devices from here on out, simply because we allowed them too.
So what can we do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right now there isn't many legal avenues in favor of the consumer concerning the access to unlocked devices. Congress has given the carriers most of the deciding power over what extent the end-user may manipulate the software on the device. After a petition gained enough friction and reached the White House, the executive branch has agreed consumers deserve the right to invoke their will over devices sold to them without criminal liability, there has yet been any legislative change regarding the matter.
Ultimately, what we can do is multi-faceted to get the attention of carriers [AT&T] to cave to our demands:
1: We can vote with our money by refusing to purchase devices distributed by them, citing their abuse of power over devices sold to consumers -- leaving us no freedom to do as we please with merchandise we contractually own.
2: We can appeal to authority by raising the issue to a federal level to be examined by either higher courts, consumer affairs, Better Business Bureau, or writing your congressman.
3: Start an online petition and hope it gains enough traction to put AT&T and other carriers in a negative light publically on the national stage.
These options work well with numbers and have a better chance of success when done in conjunction with one another. The armchair approach has very little chance of success and often doesn't even merit a reply by way of spokesperson.
AnthomX said:
I can agree with that, my only complaint is the small majority of us that notice the lock. Speaking with our money in this case isn't going to make much of a point. There simply isn't enough of us to make them take a hit in their margins. So my guess is that in this instance, it is, what it is, for us? I know AT&T provides us (me and family) the best service in terms of voice/data.
That is just disappointing, because other carriers will follow behind it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, but to play devil's advocate, I can see why AT&T would want to lock down devices. I imagine since they've been selling Android devices they've had to process tons of RMAs on devices that were bricked by amateurs installing the wrong ROMs. That may well amount to a minuscule hit in their bloated profit margin, but a corporation tends to do whatever it can to prevent dollars from leaking out. If the locked bootloader prevents the casual ROM flasher from bricking a new S4, then they view that as success. I don't know if that's why they did it, though.
The other side to that, of course, that an unlocked bootloader makes it easy to restore a bricked device back to stock. I'd like to see AT&T and other carriers reach out to the dev community more and have some provisions for installing alternate ROMs and OSes on the devices. I'd also like them to just sell me bandwidth and not interfere with content or operating systems, but I won't hold my breath!
antde201 said:
Right now there isn't many legal avenues in favor of the consumer concerning the access to unlocked devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
burhanistan said:
I agree, but to play devil's advocate,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AGREED very much Burhanistan, I know that is a hit for AT&T, but you know, they could offer repair services at a decent rate that could fix these bad flashes, as most of the time only a JTAG is needed. Which leads into support and encouragement for the Android communities. But, one can dream. They are more about that profit margin than a profit margin AND great customer service.
Antde, I am looking at starting a petition, maybe gain some traction there? Who knows, but I think you are right, in the end, AT&T doesn't want our business, and I am ok with that. Unfortunately it will be a headache similar to swapping from Apple after using them for so many years. Time to bust out the aspirin I guess. We will see.
Becasue carriers dont care about what we think about locked bootloaders.At the end of the day this device is making millions for them think about it to them it doesnt make a difference.I myself work for a carrier in the U.S and trust me to them what ever rants and complaints we post mean squat....
Anyways its going to be unlocked soon when the VZW releases so whatever I dont even get why we should make such a big deal locked bootloaders always get hacked ...
burhanistan said:
I agree, but to play devil's advocate, I can see why AT&T would want to lock down devices. I imagine since they've been selling Android devices they've had to process tons of RMAs on devices that were bricked by amateurs installing the wrong ROMs. That may well amount to a minuscule hit in their bloated profit margin, but a corporation tends to do whatever it can to prevent dollars from leaking out. If the locked bootloader prevents the casual ROM flasher from bricking a new S4, then they view that as success. I don't know if that's why they did it, though.
The other side to that, of course, that an unlocked bootloader makes it easy to restore a bricked device back to stock. I'd like to see AT&T and other carriers reach out to the dev community more and have some provisions for installing alternate ROMs and OSes on the devices. I'd also like them to just sell me bandwidth and not interfere with content or operating systems, but I won't hold my breath!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's more to a carrier's decision to lock down a device's bootloader than just pure spite and asserting their control. Carriers are also charged with mobile security, protection of their assets (bandwidth), and again security.
An unlocked bootloader theoretically opens the floodgates to a plethora of security threats to both the device and information stored and/or shared therein. Google and their partners are pushing mobile security to both stay relevant in the mobile OS market and to appeal to other markets where they may have been previously overlooked, such as defense and business.
You also have to consider the possibility of unregulated mobile tethering which falls under the umbrella of loss prevention to any business.
Lastly, as you and others have mentioned, the possibility of insurance claims due to bricked devices. Though I'd argue that this area doesn't pose much risk to the carrier directly as you void your warranty as soon as you flash a custom ROM.
So with all of these facets together, you'd see how it would be a no brainer to a corporation to purchase the secure version of an OEM device. Especially if you've chosen to adopt a subsidized device. The contract you sign is subject to whatever terms they produce and if you do not agree, you're free to stay with your current device and leave when your contract expires. I don't care for this sentiment, but it's the reality they have procured.
I think they did it to fight back against tethering.
ATT getting phone manufacturers to lock their phones started a while back. IIRC the first big uproar was for the HTC Vivid. IMHO it's for security and ATT keeping their big accounts. BB ruled for so long because of security. iPhones are the same way. Companies want a secure device. Moto (one of the main ones that market to business use) has always had the stingiest bootloaders regardless of carrier.
poofyhairguy said:
I think they did it to fight back against tethering.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya because that really stopped us from tethering... Oh wait..
I mean come on seriously Verizon in my opinion already charges too much just for their data plans and then you pay for a $600 phone on top of it that you can't even mod, no flashing AOSP for you, no experimenting with the phone that you OWN! I switched to T-Mobile a few weeks ago just for this reason I found out TWRP came out for the S6 on T-Mobile and then I thought no way am I going to miss out on CM and other AOSP ROMS I love having the ability to change my kernel and ROM sure there is SafeStrap which I don't really know when that will come out for Verizon S6 but you can't install AOSP ROMS on it there is no REAL freedom until you have an unlocked bootloader.
I made this to see how many people think like me when it comes to Verizon locking bootloaders.
Do you think Verizon owns their phones and they have every right to lock down their phones?
Or do you think you are paying these crazy amounts of money for a phone you can't even customize?
If you want to comment saying why you chose your answer that would be great! You don't have to though.
Edit: worded wrong The thing that should replace yes is "I think having a locked bootloader is fine".
I could either have an unlocked bootloader on a network with terrible service or a locked boot loader on a fantastic network. I choose the latter. Got lucky we got root but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I would have gotten the nexus 6 if I was still that into Roms. Root will keep me very happy.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2
hopesrequiem said:
I could either have an unlocked bootloader on a network with terrible service or a locked boot loader on a fantastic network. I choose the latter. Got lucky we got root but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I would have gotten the nexus 6 if I was still that into Roms. Root will keep me very happy.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand Verizon has the best service but I am saying wouldn't it be nice to have both an unlocked bootloader for easy root and custom recoverys AND the nice Verizon service. Thanks for the response
ethanscooter said:
I understand Verizon has the best service but I am saying wouldn't it be nice to have both an unlocked bootloader for easy root and custom recoverys AND the nice Verizon service. Thanks for the response
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Omg yeah that would be THE best lol. If only the nexus 6 wasn't so big
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2
hopesrequiem said:
Omg yeah that would be THE best lol. If only the nexus 6 wasn't so big
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then vote no lol that is what the poll is about no means having both unlocked bootloader and great service on the galaxy s6.
xD
Isn't your first option misleading thus skewing everyone to vote for the 2nd option? Wouldn't it be more fair to have the first option read
"Is it OK that Verizon makes the phone extra secure by locking the bootloader"
They do not own the phones unless you are leasing yours. I am also not seeing the point of this poll...to show how many here in a rooting hacking development site are unhappy because they can't do anything with the phone? I understand your frustration, I am just trying to see the point here.
Maybe you should ask if Verizon has the right to gain more commercial and military contracts by making the phone secure. Just playing devil's advocate here.
Isn't this poll akin to asking a group of kids "Who wants ice cream?" Just sayin'
KennyG123 said:
Isn't your first option misleading thus skewing everyone to vote for the 2nd option? Wouldn't it be more fair to have the first option read
"Is it OK that Verizon makes the phone extra secure by locking the bootloader"
They do not own the phones unless you are leasing yours. I am also not seeing the point of this poll...to show how many here in a rooting hacking development site are unhappy because they can't do anything with the phone? I understand your frustration, I am just trying to see the point here.
Maybe you should ask if Verizon has the right to gain more commercial and military contracts by making the phone secure. Just playing devil's advocate here.
Isn't this poll akin to asking a group of kids "Who wants ice cream?" Just sayin'
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good post. I agree.
I didn't take the poll because I feel Verizon can do whatever they like since I knew all of it up front, yet the first choice also includes an untruth....that Verizon owns the phone.
I own my phone, and I think Verizon made their choice clear before I purchased it.
Buyer beware.
Also....if you think they are just getting rich from us....I suggest you buy Verizon stock and share in the wealth.
The poll has 2 selections which are both invalid.
Bottom line is, if you wish to connect your device to the Verizon network, your device should follow their standards. Don't see a problem with that. If standardizing and locking devices keeps the network superior, I support them.
Unlocked Bootloader Is A Major Disincentive To Change Devices
As many are saying, I will not change devices (currently, Verizon HTC M8), unless I can properly mod my new device with root and recovery, and the unlocked bootloader is the absolute prerequisite for this ability to produce the optimal features, performance, and aesthetics in any new device.
Verizon made a marketing choice between selling supportability and network costs (no root means all phones allegedly have the some OS and basic settings, network has been discussed) or the cost of hiring people for support that can do more than read a script and follow a flow chart, which is what would be needed if they allowed for rooting. Also, think of the variety of phones. If they sold one brand of phone, and maybe only 2 or 3 of that brands models, supportability would not be as much of an issue.
Do I like being locked out from under the hood of my phone? No, of course not. Why else would I be on this site??
Do I understand their reasoning? Yes! Good technicians are not cheap. The person you call for tech help probably starts at under $12 an hour, and *might* have an A+ certification.
I'd rather have good cell service at a relatively reasonable rate and a variety of smartphones to choose from than pay how ever much extra it would cost to hire actual technicians to troubleshoot the myriad of issues opening the bootlocker would cost. Even with the "If you brek in, you don;t get support" type wanings, they would still have to pay hundreds iof not thousands of manhours for all the schmucks that would go in, unlock their phones, throw on custom ROM, or just start deleting files, and still call Verizon Support to fix it.
Source of my opinion - I have worked tech support for years. No amount of warnings, labels, etc will prevent customers for demanding you fix their stupidity, even when they admit that is the problem.
hopesrequiem said:
I could either have an unlocked bootloader on a network with terrible service or a locked boot loader on a fantastic network. I choose the latter. Got lucky we got root but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I would have gotten the nexus 6 if I was still that into Roms. Root will keep me very happy.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best network is very subjective to the area/region your in the most. In southwestern Ohio it is defiantly NOT the best network.
But I agree with OP on we should be allowed to unlock bootloader.
bkeaver said:
Best network is very subjective to the area/region your in the most. In southwestern Ohio it is defiantly NOT the best network.
But I agree with OP on we should be allowed to unlock bootloader.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
THANK YOU!!! It's like seriously we just want to use CWM or TWRP on OUR PHONES WE PAID FOR it is just ridiculous how they expect us to pay all this money for a phone that we own that we can't even modify!
Unfortunately all the b**ching and complaining isn't going to change that anytime soon I'm afraid
While I hate restrictions and censorship and over-protectiveness, I realize big red will only change when the market demands it. Unfortunately, we're too small a percentage of said market for the other players to even speak about bootloaders and root access, much less convince Verizon that they need to change. All Verizon cares about is the bottom line $$$, and apparently locking down everything is more profitable than attracting xda members to their network. As if they need the money, lol. I live in an area where there is only one choice, so I take what I can get.
I agree, the poll question is totally like asking a bunch of dairy-tolerant children if they want ice cream. I'd rather see something like "if you could pay more and waive any software support for a mobile device that has an unlocked bootloader, would you and how much more would you be willing to pay?" I suppose that question was sort of answered with the Google Edition devices (answer: $450 was too much for most) and sort of with the Nexus devices. I would pay at least $100 personally for an open bootloader, and probably waive the warranty completely. How could this not make Verizon money. Oh and my problem with the Nexus devices was the network exclusivity and then the Nexus 6 just being too big.
The real problem is there is no good developer program with Verizon or Samsung. If you buy a dev edition phone you are stuck with the OS that comes on it and Samsung's dev program is terrible. Verizon needs to create a good dev program with unlocked and not supported phones but give access to OTA updates. It's that simple...
MOS95B said:
Verizon made a marketing choice between selling supportability and network costs (no root means all phones allegedly have the some OS and basic settings, network has been discussed) or the cost of hiring people for support that can do more than read a script and follow a flow chart, which is what would be needed if they allowed for rooting. Also, think of the variety of phones. If they sold one brand of phone, and maybe only 2 or 3 of that brands models, supportability would not be as much of an issue.
Do I like being locked out from under the hood of my phone? No, of course not. Why else would I be on this site??
Do I understand their reasoning? Yes! Good technicians are not cheap. The person you call for tech help probably starts at under $12 an hour, and *might* have an A+ certification.
I'd rather have good cell service at a relatively reasonable rate and a variety of smartphones to choose from than pay how ever much extra it would cost to hire actual technicians to troubleshoot the myriad of issues opening the bootlocker would cost. Even with the "If you brek in, you don;t get support" type wanings, they would still have to pay hundreds iof not thousands of manhours for all the schmucks that would go in, unlock their phones, throw on custom ROM, or just start deleting files, and still call Verizon Support to fix it.
Source of my opinion - I have worked tech support for years. No amount of warnings, labels, etc will prevent customers for demanding you fix their stupidity, even when they admit that is the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It has nothing to do with hiring technicians to fix rooted phones...that is such a small small percentage of actual sales and technical errors. It is purely to provide maximum security for Exchange services for commercial and military contracts. AT&T and Verizon Samsung phones were rated the most secure phones on the market. And boom in came the dollars and contracts.
Any technician can drop the phone on their jig and push go for an Odin reset and restore to factory stock.
You all are taking this personal and it is not..blocking root or blocking kernel flashing (AOSP) was a side effect, not the intention of making it secure.
There are a lot of things that you choose to spend a lot of money on but cannot do what you want with. Here is the analogy, you buy Verizon because of the network...you spend $200,000 on a house in a good neighborhood. You cannot park your boat in your own driveway..why? Because the Home Owners Association for that nice neighborhood says you can't. You made your choice when you purchased this device knowing it was locked down as that has been the history of Verizon and AT&T for the past few devices.
bkeaver said:
Best network is very subjective to the area/region your in the most. In southwestern Ohio it is defiantly NOT the best network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then why did you choose Verizon?
---------- Post added at 10:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------
KennyG123 said:
It has nothing to do with hiring technicians to fix rooted phones...that is such a small small percentage of actual sales and technical errors. It is purely to provide maximum security for Exchange services for commercial and military contracts. AT&T and Verizon Samsung phones were rated the most secure phones on the market. And boom in came the dollars and contracts.
Any technician can drop the phone on their jig and push go for an Odin reset and restore to factory stock.
You all are taking this personal and it is not..blocking root or blocking kernel flashing (AOSP) was a side effect, not the intention of making it secure.
There are a lot of things that you choose to spend a lot of money on but cannot do what you want with. Here is the analogy, you buy Verizon because of the network...you spend $200,000 on a house in a good neighborhood. You cannot park your boat in your own driveway..why? Because the Home Owners Association for that nice neighborhood says you can't. You made your choice when you purchased this device knowing it was locked down as that has been the history of Verizon and AT&T for the past few devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
Squintz said:
Then why did you choose Verizon?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be honest I was all set to go back to att from tmobile but att pissed me off and I had never been on verizon so I went with them because of all the rave reviews about better network. Now we're kind of stuck for the time being.
This poll is stupid. Of course they have the right. They don't have to sell you the phone on their network. They're also not forcing you to stay, you could easily leave. Wonders of capitalism.
Disclaimer: Not saying I agree with it, but they certainly have the right.
KennyG123 said:
It has nothing to do with hiring technicians to fix rooted phones...that is such a small small percentage of actual sales and technical errors. It is purely to provide maximum security for Exchange services for commercial and military contracts. AT&T and Verizon Samsung phones were rated the most secure phones on the market. And boom in came the dollars and contracts.
Any technician can drop the phone on their jig and push go for an Odin reset and restore to factory stock.
You all are taking this personal and it is not..blocking root or blocking kernel flashing (AOSP) was a side effect, not the intention of making it secure.
There are a lot of things that you choose to spend a lot of money on but cannot do what you want with. Here is the analogy, you buy Verizon because of the network...you spend $200,000 on a house in a good neighborhood. You cannot park your boat in your own driveway..why? Because the Home Owners Association for that nice neighborhood says you can't. You made your choice when you purchased this device knowing it was locked down as that has been the history of Verizon and AT&T for the past few devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Excellent analogy! In that same mindset though, Cox cable didn't paste a giant tramp stamp on my garage door because there the internet provider of my home. Just sayin ?
Reading around I've found some passing mention of Block C, how bootloaders should be unlocked on it and such because of Open Use terms set by google. I created a petition here: https://www.change.org/p/federal-co...-circumventing-security-ver?just_created=true that although it may not relate completely to XDA in every sense, needs support I feel. An XDA article on the topic may be found here for more information on the subject: http://www.xda-developers.com/it-is-illegal-for-verizon-to-lock-some-bootloaders/
Thanks in advance for any support, hopefully we can work around having to hack into the thing(s) and just get what we should've gotten all along.
Cheers :fingers-crossed:
Would be nice if we could get it unlocked. Not like they are loosing money off these phones now since they are so old by today's ever so speedy tech market.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Question: would a bootloader be considered a "user application" in the sense that an application would be software? Or as firmware does it not extend to that?
BTW, here is a copy of my FCC complaint and text within. If anyone who is reading this has experience in the field and any pointers or arguments I could make that would be great:
For a great majority of phones currently sold by Verizon, many of which utilize Block C of the 700Mhz spectrum, the bootloader is locked. The original terms of Open Access allows for two exceptions only, the second being that the device must comply with other regulations, and the first that limitations may be made for "management or protection of the licensee's network." Locked bootloaders are in violation of Open Access, and thus the response from Verizon is that the allowance of such modification could cause breach in security, and thus such restrictions are necessary for that management. The counterargument to this is in part that phones from outside the network, sold by other manufacturers, as well as some sold through Verizon itself by certain manufacturers do not have any such restrictions. This lack in continuity wholly breaches any argument that security of the network could by improved by locking those devices in such a way that the original terms outweigh those exceptions.
Next comment by me:
Upon receiving reply from the subject of complaint, I have not thusfar been given what I would deem any substantial evidence that it is 1) a method of securing the licensee's network that is reasonable or consistently applied in any effective manner 2) not placing substantial burden on the customer relative to that originally applied by the OEM and 3) that it does not restrict the ability of any consumer to install applications (software, by nature including the operating system and related components) excluding for reasonable network management. This final point is troubling as of yet for the very reason that no specific examples or evidence was given to prove that it is necessary or that any plausible abuse or breach in security of the network may be exclusively performed by an end user with only a device with an unrestricted base firmware
And my last comment as of yet:
Thusfar, I have not yet received any written transcription, summary, or identifiable confirmation of receipt by the fcc from Verizon of the contact over phone that I have had with Verizon over this matter. I still find no reasonable objection to, or exception from, the contents of paragraph 222 and footnote 500 of FCC-07-132A1 that would allow for the restriction placed on these devices. Reasonable network management, as quoted as an exception by Verizon, has not been backed up or supported by any example or feasible hypothetical that a locked bootloader provides, in a direct manner, any noticeable or even quantifiably existent protection to the integrity of the carriers system over that of a phone without the restriction.
dreamwave said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon isn't going to do anything because you're in the minority. Locked bootloaders appeal to corporate/military for the security of Exchange. Bootloaders are not end user software, it is firmware, and firmware that isn't touched often at best. If you need proof of how locked bootloaders make a device more secure... all of XDA is your example. Anything that allows custom code to be flashed is a security risk.
If you took the time to look at other threads ranging from the S3, Note 4, etc, you'll learn that the S5 isn't the only one. Also, the reason the Devs don't work on it is because a failed bootloader exploit bricks the phone so that not even a JTAG will revive it.
The thing with root is its just injecting things inton a firmware to see if it will take. Any failure just means a stock rom needs to be flashed. While I can't stand the locked bootloader issue either, it's been beaten like a dead horse just as badly as people asking for root for OE1 and OG5 in basically every thread.
Spartan117H3 said:
Verizon isn't going to do anything because you're in the minority. Locked bootloaders appeal to corporate/military for the security of Exchange. Bootloaders are not end user software, it is firmware, and firmware that isn't touched often at best. If you need proof of how locked bootloaders make a device more secure... all of XDA is your example. Anything that allows custom code to be flashed is a security risk.
If you took the time to look at other threads ranging from the S3, Note 4, etc, you'll learn that the S5 isn't the only one. Also, the reason the Devs don't work on it is because a failed bootloader exploit bricks the phone so that not even a JTAG will revive it.
The thing with root is its just injecting things inton a firmware to see if it will take. Any failure just means a stock rom needs to be flashed. While I can't stand the locked bootloader issue either, it's been beaten like a dead horse just as badly as people asking for root for OE1 and OG5 in basically every thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The burden of proof is on them (as per the regulations), that they must prove that any restriction they make specifically allows for their network (not the phone) to be more secure. They need to prove (even if I am a minority complainee) that it falls under reasonable network management. I know that many parts have been harped on to no end, but what I'm arguing here seems not to have been argued in this way before. Many of the original complainees have not offered much beyond simply touting "open access", no real legal backing. Also, about the minority thing: the FCC has internal courts that are there to deal with complaints that don't necessarily affect a majority. They work like most other courts in that they decide what is right, not who has more money. I'm glad I'm dealing with the FCC now as in times past they were a bit more unresponsive to complaints by many people but now seem to be taking a more proactive approach to most everything.
Also, a major distinction in footnote 502 vs 500:
502: We also note that wireless service providers may continue to use their choice of operating systems, and are not
required to modify their network infrastructure or device-level operating systems to accommodate particular devices
or applications. Device manufacturers and applications developers are free to design their equipment and
applications to work with providers’ network infrastructure and operating systems, and must be given the applicable
parameters as part of the standards provided to third parties.
500: We note that the Copyright Office has granted a three-year exemption to the anti-circumvention provisions of
Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for “computer programs in the form of firmware that enable
wireless telephone handsets to connect to wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is
accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.” It found
that software locks on mobile handsets adversely affect the ability of consumers to make non-infringing use of the
software in those handsets. 17 Fed. Reg. 68472 (Nov. 27, 2006). We also note that a court appeal of the exemption
ruling is ongoing.
1st point: a distinction between the operating system, and "firmware" as a "program", and by extension an "application"...but not necessary to argue as it, within 500, notes that "software locks on mobile handsets adversely affect the ability of consumers...handsets," and although this exception may have expired the original text acts as a type of precedent that establishes 1. that firmware is independent from the operating system and 2. that its restriction does not conform to "open access" or constitute "reasonable network management"
veedubsky said:
Would be nice if we could get it unlocked. Not like they are loosing money off these phones now since they are so old by today's ever so speedy tech market.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the main reason they do it is because some people who brick their phones doing stuff they can't apply the warrantee to and still call tech support trying to get help
dreamwave said:
the main reason they do it is because some people who brick their phones doing stuff they can't apply the warrantee to and still call tech support trying to get help
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea well they could always have a sign here clause that will relinquish them from any liability then unlock your phone.
veedubsky said:
Yea well they could always have a sign here clause that will relinquish them from any liability then unlock your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's my point but they wouldn't listen in the original chat with them on the phone so...oh well
dreamwave said:
That's my point but they wouldn't listen in the original chat with them on the phone so...oh well
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also with all the help here and rescue resources (also knowing that there is that SLIGHT chance to completely brick your phone) you can almost reverse anything... Except some people freak out and first thing they do is call VZW
dreamwave said:
The burden of proof is on them (as per the regulations), that they must prove that any restriction they make specifically allows for their network (not the phone) to be more secure. They need to prove (even if I am a minority complainee) that it falls under reasonable network management. I know that many parts have been harped on to no end, but what I'm arguing here seems not to have been argued in this way before. Many of the original complainees have not offered much beyond simply touting "open access", no real legal backing. Also, about the minority thing: the FCC has internal courts that are there to deal with complaints that don't necessarily affect a majority. They work like most other courts in that they decide what is right, not who has more money. I'm glad I'm dealing with the FCC now as in times past they were a bit more unresponsive to complaints by many people but now seem to be taking a more proactive approach to most everything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
Spartan117H3 said:
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unsigned code is already possible to run in just installing an application not from the play store. To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one. Also, the petition was only really there to raise awareness about the issue to the public. The FCC is the only place I'm really able to do much against verizon.
Spartan117H3 said:
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And even if they make it closed source, forbidding the modification of the phone would be the subject of the exact terms of complaint that I've outlined
dreamwave said:
Unsigned code is already possible to run in just installing an application not from the play store. To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one. Also, the petition was only really there to raise awareness about the issue to the public. The FCC is the only place I'm really able to do much against verizon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That app is sandboxed within the android os, meaning the app is limited by whatever the OS allows it to do. To be able to replace the firmware on the phone is a huge difference. I'm sure the 18k bounty made more headlines than this thread did, considering it was for both AT&T and Verizon, and that many different news outlets reposted it. It doesn't matter if many people know about it, because most people don't care if it doesn't involve them. This type of stuff has been done by other companies as well. Notable examples:
UEFI - Has to be signed before it can boot before windows 8/8.1 (but you can request to have things reviewed and signed, Ubuntu did this).
Intel - they locked down their processors and now sell/mark up K versions to enthusiasts who want to overclock.
dreamwave said:
And even if they make it closed source, forbidding the modification of the phone would be the subject of the exact terms of complaint that I've outlined
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But then there's this:
dreamwave said:
To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have an unlocked bootloader, couldn't you run whatever you wanted on their network which would be the reason of making it closed source/addressing the quote above this quote? I'm not quite understanding this.
Spartan117H3 said:
That app is sandboxed within the android os, meaning the app is limited by whatever the OS allows it to do. To be able to replace the firmware on the phone is a huge difference. I'm sure the 18k bounty made more headlines than this thread did, considering it was for both AT&T and Verizon, and that many different news outlets reposted it. It doesn't matter if many people know about it, because most people don't care if it doesn't involve them. This type of stuff has been done by other companies as well. Notable examples:
UEFI - Has to be signed before it can boot before windows 8/8.1 (but you can request to have things reviewed and signed, Ubuntu did this).
Intel - they locked down their processors and now sell/mark up K versions to enthusiasts who want to overclock.
But then there's this:
If you have an unlocked bootloader, couldn't you run whatever you wanted on their network which would be the reason of making it closed source/addressing the quote above this quote? I'm not quite understanding this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what I'm disputing is the direct security impact to their network an unlocked bootloader poses compared to a locked one. If it is possible to run the same code on a locked bootloader that would post a direct threat to the integrity of their network then it doesn't constitute reasonable network management.
dreamwave said:
what I'm disputing is the direct security impact to their network an unlocked bootloader poses compared to a locked one. If it is possible to run the same code on a locked bootloader that would post a direct threat to the integrity of their network then it doesn't constitute reasonable network management.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But it's not. Unlocked bootloader allows much more freedom/allows you to run code that you can't on a locked one.
Spartan117H3 said:
But it's not. Unlocked bootloader allows much more freedom/allows you to run code that you can't on a locked one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Code that can directly impact the security of their network infrastructure, not just your phone?
dreamwave said:
Code that can directly impact the security of their network infrastructure, not just your phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the case of Samsung phones, it would undermine the security of at minimum the device that connects to the Exchange service. To the extent, I have no idea, I'm just here speculating/learning, but I thought that was one of the reasons they gave for locking it down.
Spartan117H3 said:
In the case of Samsung phones, it would undermine the security of at minimum the device that connects to the Exchange service. To the extent, I have no idea, I'm just here speculating/learning, but I thought that was one of the reasons they gave for locking it down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thing is that they can only restrict devices like that if it has any impact on their network infrastructure, if they can't prove it does they can't really do anything about it
dreamwave said:
The thing is that they can only restrict devices like that if it has any impact on their network infrastructure, if they can't prove it does they can't really do anything about it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Couldn't they claim something as simple as, a keylogger on a phone from a corporate/military person which would impact Exchange? Dunno. But that could be done with root. Bootloader makes it possible to root phones that aren't usually rootable though.
Hey fellow Devs and Users in the Development Community,
I am debating on whether or not to file a Class Action Lawsuit against possibly BOTH Google and Verizon Wireless for not printing on the Manufactures Box that the BOOTLOADER CANNOT EVER BE UNLOCKED whether or NOT You CARRIER UNLOCK the Device after the (60) Days of purchase. This is something that should be either printed on the Box by Google or VZW should put a sticker on the Boxes before sale, letting us in the Development Community know before we purchase or are able to return the device within the 14 day return policy incase you missed the Fine Print that should be on said Box or the Sticker that VZW should put before Point-of-Sale.
The fact that you ask the Representative you purchase your device from, thinks you are talking about Carrier Unlock and dont know what a Bootloader even is, they state that "IT" can be Unlocked, meaning Carrier Unlocked. I have tried (2) devices BOTH Carrier Unlocked and neither will highlight OEM UNLOCKING in Developer Settings. I have seen many with screenshots of messages from VZW Reps saying that the Bootloader can be Unlocked Once the device is Carrier Unlocked. It has been confirmed in an email from a "Floor Manager" that the VZW Varient of the Pixels CANNOT EVER BE OEM UNLOCKED even after being CARRIER UNLOCKED in the following message, which will be escalated to a Department Supervisor next:
Hi Thomas,
Thank you for contacting the Google Support Team.
My name is Wilson H. and I am the Floor Manager here.
I have reviewed your case and understand that you are facing issues with the OEM unlocking of your Pixel device.
At Google, customer satisfaction is something we take very seriously and anything less than ensuring you are completely happy is unacceptable. In regards to your concern, after checking with all the resources and product specialists, I want to keep you informed that the Verizon locked pixel device's bootloader menu cannot be unlocked even if the sim unlock is enabled.
I also read your email in which you have mentioned that previously you are able to get it unlocked however, as of the new updates and services regulatory, it can not be unlocked from the boot loader menu. The device is functioning as intended.
I also came to know that you are looking for a replacement device which has an unlocked bootloader menu. I understand how important this feature must be for you however, we will not be able to provide you a replacement of an unlocked device as the devices can only be replaced with the same make & model and specifications.
I apologize but we will not be able to proceed in this term to help you with a replacement and request you to please reach out to the Verizon team again for further clarification regarding the same.
In case of any further queries or concerns, you can reach out to us.
Thanks!
WH
The Google Support Team
So if you have a Google Pixel 7 or 7 Pro or an earlier model that is FULLY Up to Date, You Can be apart of a Class Action Lawsuit against Google and/or Verizon Wireless for Misinforming us, the Unsatisfied Customers stuck with a VZW Model that can NEVER be OEM UNLOCKED Unless an Exploit is found, Sunshine DOES NOT WORK!
Please pass this on to other Verizon Wireless Pixel owners and either post your name or screen name so i can get a head count...
AndroidAddict420 said:
Hey fellow Devs and Users in the Development Community,
I am debating on whether or not to file a Class Action Lawsuit against possibly BOTH Google and Verizon Wireless for not printing on the Manufactures Box that the BOOTLOADER CANNOT EVER BE UNLOCKED whether or NOT You CARRIER UNLOCK the Device after the (60) Days of purchase. This is something that should be either printed on the Box by Google or VZW should put a sticker on the Boxes before sale, letting us in the Development Community know before we purchase or are able to return the device within the 14 day return policy incase you missed the Fine Print that should be on said Box or the Sticker that VZW should put before Point-of-Sale.
The fact that you ask the Representative you purchase your device from, thinks you are talking about Carrier Unlock and dont know what a Bootloader even is, they state that "IT" can be Unlocked, meaning Carrier Unlocked. I have tried (2) devices BOTH Carrier Unlocked and neither will highlight OEM UNLOCKING in Developer Settings. I have seen many with screenshots of messages from VZW Reps saying that the Bootloader can be Unlocked Once the device is Carrier Unlocked. It has been confirmed in an email from a "Floor Manager" that the VZW Varient of the Pixels CANNOT EVER BE OEM UNLOCKED even after being CARRIER UNLOCKED in the following message, which will be escalated to a Department Supervisor next:
Hi Thomas,
Thank you for contacting the Google Support Team.
My name is Wilson H. and I am the Floor Manager here.
I have reviewed your case and understand that you are facing issues with the OEM unlocking of your Pixel device.
At Google, customer satisfaction is something we take very seriously and anything less than ensuring you are completely happy is unacceptable. In regards to your concern, after checking with all the resources and product specialists, I want to keep you informed that the Verizon locked pixel device's bootloader menu cannot be unlocked even if the sim unlock is enabled.
I also read your email in which you have mentioned that previously you are able to get it unlocked however, as of the new updates and services regulatory, it can not be unlocked from the boot loader menu. The device is functioning as intended.
I also came to know that you are looking for a replacement device which has an unlocked bootloader menu. I understand how important this feature must be for you however, we will not be able to provide you a replacement of an unlocked device as the devices can only be replaced with the same make & model and specifications.
I apologize but we will not be able to proceed in this term to help you with a replacement and request you to please reach out to the Verizon team again for further clarification regarding the same.
In case of any further queries or concerns, you can reach out to us.
Thanks!
WH
The Google Support Team
So if you have a Google Pixel 7 or 7 Pro or an earlier model that is FULLY Up to Date, You Can be apart of a Class Action Lawsuit against Google and/or Verizon Wireless for Misinforming us, the Unsatisfied Customers stuck with a VZW Model that can NEVER be OEM UNLOCKED Unless an Exploit is found, Sunshine DOES NOT WORK!
Please pass this on to other Verizon Wireless Pixel owners and either post your name or screen name so i can get a head count...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They're just going to let you unlock the bootloader, no one tries to push this even though it is federally illegal. But, you won't get anything but hate from this forum. In a few minutes you're going to have multiple "Recognized Developers" telling you it's impossible. Which only shows the level of talent on this platform. Anything is hackable, if you know what you are doing.
mavssubs said:
They're just going to let you unlock the bootloader, no one tries to push this even though it is federally illegal. But, you won't get anything but hate from this forum. In a few minutes you're going to have multiple "Recognized Developers" telling you it's impossible. Which only shows the level of talent on this platform. Anything is hackable, if you know what you are doing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If anything is hackable and someone can do it, the developers here would have done it by now. "The level of talent"? Please tell me of another website that has the level of talent that the developers on this site have, and also surpasses it. If it was hackable, someone on this site or another would have done it by now. If this site has a substandard level of talent, point me to a website where they have been able to hack into Verizon's unlock policy. No level of talent here? Then where is the talent to do this? It doesn't exist. There's no way. If there was you'd be able to provide a link to it.
Meanwhile, nobody on any website anywhere at all has been able to bypass it. I guess the "lack of talent" is world wide, not just on this site smh
xunholyx said:
If anything is hackable and someone can do it, the developers here would have done it by now. "The level of talent"? Please tell me of another website that has the level of talent that the developers on this site have, and also surpasses it. If it was hackable, someone on this site or another would have done it by now. If this site has a substandard level of talent, point me to a website where they have been able to hack into Verizon's unlock policy. No level of talent here? Then where is the talent to do this? It doesn't exist. There's no way. If there was you'd be able to provide a link to it.
Meanwhile, nobody on any website anywhere at all has been able to bypass it. I guess the "lack of talent" is world wide, not just on this site sm
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, the original exploit was patched obviously. You are missing the point of this thread. Do you want to be included or not is the question?
mavssubs said:
They're just going to let you unlock the bootloader, no one tries to push this even though it is federally illegal. But, you won't get anything but hate from this forum. In a few minutes you're going to have multiple "Recognized Developers" telling you it's impossible. Which only shows the level of talent on this platform. Anything is hackable, if you know what you are doing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not asking about whether or not it is hackable but the original exploit was patched from every Pixel from 3 or 4 and up. Do you want in or no?
AndroidAddict420 said:
Yea, the original exploit was patched obviously. You are missing the point of this thread. Do you want to be included or not is the question?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no way. The post I replied to said the devs here are weak. So I asked for a link to where the devs are better than here. There should be an exploit but there isn't. If there was we'd know about it by now, either on this site or another. There's no way as of now. Saying the talent here is lacking is an incorrect statement.
AndroidAddict420 said:
Not asking about whether or not it is hackable but the original exploit was patched from every Pixel from 3 or 4 and up. Do you want in or no?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not in. I don't have a Verizon model. I'm just responding to his declaration
mavssubs said:
They're just going to let you unlock the bootloader, no one tries to push this even though it is federally illegal. But, you won't get anything but hate from this forum. In a few minutes you're going to have multiple "Recognized Developers" telling you it's impossible...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It sort of already happened when OP brought this subject up in THIS THREAD...
But @AndroidAddict420, I'd like to put forth questions; All previous Pixel owners and most users who have done the least bit research on the subject know that Verizon will not have a device (in this case, any Pixel past, present, or future) that have its bootloader unlocked (I wonder if Google would need to be included in the "lawsuit" as they are just being complaint to Verizon as a carrier as well as they even set aside a whole variant just for VZW, and outside of that Google doesn't really care to lock the bootloader down as severely as Verizon) -- therefore most of us have gone to merely ordering from the Google Store or unlocked variants from Amazon/Best Buy; the only upside buying from Verizon is being able to get on a payment plan attached to your existing cell bill, which you can also achieve and pay in the same rate if you qualify for Google Financing (worst downside buying from Verizon, outside of locked bootloader, is all the bloatware) ~~ So why should/would anyone go through the trouble of this class action lawsuit (when the circumstance has long been established [7 years]) instead of just merely purchasing from Google Store or elsewhere outside of VZW? I mean, I understand the lawsuit would potentially get Verizon to change the practice and the change would be nice for Verizon customers (purchasing the device on their payment plan to be on their cell bill), but considering it has been a long standing, established, relatively well-known practice, all these facts standing against it, what realistic hope is there for this class action lawsuit?
Wait, VZW Locks the Bootloaders down?
Who knew!!!???
AndroidAddict420 said:
Yea, the original exploit was patched obviously. You are missing the point of this thread. Do you want to be included or not is the question?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Man, just sell the device and get it straight from Google. You claimed in the other thread that you are not new to smart phones, however it has been common knowledge that Verizon locks down all of their bootloaders. This has been going on for at least 10 years now, with a couple of exceptions that required an exploit.
You are wasting your time and energy with a petition or a class action (which will never get anywhere). All Verizon has to say is it ensures safety on their network and customers.
When I see some of the replies in this and other forums (looking at you FlyerTalk) I have to wonder if some of you are corporate shills on their payroll.
Most people know nothing about bootloaders and not everyone that does knows that some are unlockable. Ask the typical cell phone store salesperson or eBay seller if the phone can be unlocked and they'll assure you it can be completely unlocked for any carrier. Some might be lying, most probably don't know. Putting aside whether lying by omission is a lie.
What happens a few years down the road when I learn about alternate firmware? Or maybe I don't and just want to sell the phone - sorry, it's worthless, no more security updates. Bootloader locking affects more than just us hobbyists.
Security and safety? Don't unlock the bootloader! It should be your choice. They give you plenty of warnings while you're unlocking and every time you reboot.
Not to mention that Verizon lets you use pretty much any device on their network these days. What are they protecting?
Would such a class action succeed? Would it change anything? I guess that works depend on your lawyers and what judge they can get the case in front of.
All that said, I can't join your class since I've haven't bought a Verizon device since the Kyocera 6035.
I think it's important to clarify some things....
Verizon is not a public utility. They might be a publicly traded company, and a carrier under the protections of Section 230, but they are not obligated to provide universal access to anyone who wants it, nor are they required to permit unlocking bootloaders of devices on their network. As to why they would want to restrict bootloader unlocking, this would most likely be due to their impressions of network and consumer security; to a company such as Verizon (or any other carrier) a bootloader unlocked device is considered compromised.
They aren't "required" to allow the end user to unlock the bootloader, nor is Google, by any federal law. Sure, you can point to things like the Magnussen Moss Warranty Act, but there's a reason why there are massive ongoing lawsuits over the "right to repair" and "free access". Out here in the agricultural country of Kansas, there are millions of farmers who would much rather be able to fix their own tractors, but John Deere has made a point of preventing unauthorized repairs by anyone who isn't a Deere certified technician, using Deere proprietary tools, to the point where the tractor will "brick" if a non-OEM part is used.
So, it's my opinion that there aren't grounds for a lawsuit. I'd strongly advise anyone considering doing so to talk to an attorney first, to determine what your options are. Ultimately for a class action suit such as this, you have to claim injury of some kind, and it's unlikely that a court would conclude that your case has merit.
Further, I would strongly advise using absolute terms like claiming basis in federal law or case law, unless you can cite the specific statute and/or case.
Just be smart, that's all.
A lawsuit, class action or otherwise, would go nowhere. I don't see a cause of action. I don't see a prima facie case. I don't see any federal law, rule or regulation which would require a warning label on the box.
The best hope to have OEMs allowing their bootloaders to be unlocked would be through Right-To-Repair, or similar, legislation. I don't live in the EU and do not follow their proposed legislations, but I understand there have been some legislations proposed as part of a Right-To-Repair/European Green Deal that may require OEMs to allow bootloader unlocking at the end of warranty or the end of life to allow greater sustainability of these devices.
justDave said:
Most people know nothing about bootloaders and not everyone that does knows that some are unlockable. Ask the typical cell phone store salesperson or eBay seller if the phone can be unlocked and they'll assure you it can be completely unlocked for any carrier. Some might be lying, most probably don't know. Putting aside whether lying by omission is a lie.
What happens a few years down the road when I learn about alternate firmware?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe most people/not everyone would know offhand, but surely a simple internet search or smallest amount of research would easily answer the subject or re-affirm/reconfirm what may be advertised by said salesperson or Ebay seller... literally google "verizon" "pixel/device" "can bootloader be unlocked/rooted", right? Especially if most of those same people are planning on doing rather (more) advanced things to their device, they would be planning on research and/or information searching on how to unlock bootloader/root anyways, right?
Lughnasadh said:
A lawsuit, class action or otherwise, would go nowhere. I don't see a cause of action. I don't see a prima facie case. I don't see any federal law, rule or regulation which would require a warning label on the box.
The best hope to have OEMs allowing their bootloaders to be unlocked would be through Right-To-Repair, or similar, legislation. I don't live in the EU and do not follow their proposed legislations, but I understand there have been some legislations proposed as part of a Right-To-Repair/European Green Deal that may require OEMs to allow bootloader unlocking at the end of warranty or the end of life to allow greater sustainability of these devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have my doubts on right to repair anyway. This would ostensibly mean that they would have to make their own proprietary tools publicly available, such as they would use for things like QFIL...and while that would be a boon for us, I don't think anyone would be willing to compromise their intellectual property that way.
V0latyle said:
I have my doubts on right to repair anyway. This would ostensibly mean that they would have to make their own proprietary tools publicly available, such as they would use for things like QFIL...and while that would be a boon for us, I don't think anyone would be willing to compromise their intellectual property that way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You wouldn't have to force them to make any proprietary tools available to the public. Manufacturers could simply allow bootloader unlocking from their end in some manner. And it doesn't have to fall under the realm of "Right-To-Repair" as we know it in the U.S. (supplying parts, tools, etc.). The EU "environmental/sustainability" approach could be used to support such legislation.
That being said, I think we are a long way off from that here in the U.S.. A long way off...
Lughnasadh said:
You wouldn't have to force them to make any proprietary tools available to the public. Manufacturers could simply allow bootloader unlocking from their end in some manner. And it doesn't have to fall under the realm of "Right-To-Repair" as we know it in the U.S. (supplying parts, tools, etc.). The EU "environmental/sustainability" approach could be used to support such legislation.
That being said, I think we are a long way off from that here in the U.S.. A long way off...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point was, unbricking falls under the category of "repair", therefore a low level reflash as performed via QUSB would qualify
V0latyle said:
My point was, unbricking falls under the category of "repair", therefore a low level reflash as performed via QUSB would qualify
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, ok. Didn't realize you were specifically talking about unbricking.
V0latyle said:
I think it's important to clarify some things....
Verizon is not a public utility. They might be a publicly traded company, and a carrier under the protections of Section 230, but they are not obligated to provide universal access to anyone who wants it, nor are they required to permit unlocking bootloaders of devices on their network. As to why they would want to restrict bootloader unlocking, this would most likely be due to their impressions of network and consumer security; to a company such as Verizon (or any other carrier) a bootloader unlocked device is considered compromised.
They aren't "required" to allow the end user to unlock the bootloader, nor is Google, by any federal law. Sure, you can point to things like the Magnussen Moss Warranty Act, but there's a reason why there are massive ongoing lawsuits over the "right to repair" and "free access". Out here in the agricultural country of Kansas, there are millions of farmers who would much rather be able to fix their own tractors, but John Deere has made a point of preventing unauthorized repairs by anyone who isn't a Deere certified technician, using Deere proprietary tools, to the point where the tractor will "brick" if a non-OEM part is used.
So, it's my opinion that there aren't grounds for a lawsuit. I'd strongly advise anyone considering doing so to talk to an attorney first, to determine what your options are. Ultimately for a class action suit such as this, you have to claim injury of some kind, and it's unlikely that a court would conclude that your case has merit.
Further, I would strongly advise using absolute terms like claiming basis in federal law or case law, unless you can cite the specific statute and/or case.
Just be smart, that's all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except that the *issue* isn't whether or not they are obligated legally to unlock it, it is that they LIED and claimed that it could be unlocked, when in fact it cannot.
That kind of issue doesn't lend itself to class action unless it can be demonstrated that they systemically lie about this fact.
96carboard said:
Except that the *issue* isn't whether or not they are obligated legally to unlock it, it is that they LIED and claimed that it could be unlocked, when in fact it cannot.
That kind of issue doesn't lend itself to class action unless it can be demonstrated that they systemically lie about this fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lied about what, though?
Verizon Pixels can be used on other networks once they're carrier unlocked. Carrier lock =/= bootloader lock, and 99% of the time when a device is advertised as "unlocked" this is what it means.
They didn't lie about anything, and you can't hold a company legally liable for something a technically illiterate CSR said.
Neither Google nor Verizon advertises ANY device as specifically "bootloader unlockable". This case wouldn't see a hearing, much less a jury. Plus, any case against a large corporation only works when there's some formidable legal firepower behind it. No lawyer will touch this without a sizeable retainer. Attorneys rarely care about who wins, they only care about getting paid, and class action lawsuits generally means there's significant potential for a very large settlement.
I'm not defending Verizon or Google here, I'm just being realistic. There's a lot of ideas flying around here, but these are the requirements that have to be met:
There has to be evidence of deception or other wrongdoing
The alleged fault has to have caused measurable injury
The claimant(s) have to have competent legal representation who are willing to go up against billionaire corporate lawyers
None of these are satisfied by "I think Google lied because they said their device is unlockable and I meant bootloader when they really meant carrier".
I'm not a defeatist, again I'm just a realist. OP won't be able to get any competent law firm to take this case, especially not pro bono, so it's not going to go anywhere.