Related
So in my frustration about the bootloader I filed a complaint with the FCC stating I believed they violated rules outlined regarding the new 700Mhz C band (I think that was the one I can't seem to find it again). I just got a call from Executive Relations today. Can't decide if I want to call them back or not. I just thought it might be a chance to voice some concerns from the community. Specifically things like, if VZW locked it for security and stability purposes, then why do they have other devices that are unlocked.
Anyone out there have any suggestions?
gumbi2400 said:
So in my frustration about the bootloader I filed a complaint with the FCC stating I believed they violated rules outlined regarding the new 700Mhz C band (I think that was the one I can't seem to find it again). I just got a call from Executive Relations today. Can't decide if I want to call them back or not. I just thought it might be a chance to voice some concerns from the community. Specifically things like, if VZW locked it for security and stability purposes, then why do they have other devices that are unlocked.
Anyone out there have any suggestions?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Executive relations likes to talk a lot of **** without giving much in the way of real answers. Unless you have a simple problem, they are pretty useless.
You might call them back and share whatever info you have on the FCC guidelines for operating on the 700Mhz C band and let them know you intend to push forward with the FCC and escalate the situation with the backing of the online community to have them take action against Verizon.
bbeelzebub said:
Executive relations likes to talk a lot of **** without giving much in the way of real answers. Unless you have a simple problem, they are pretty useless.
You might call them back and share whatever info you have on the FCC guidelines for operating on the 700Mhz C band and let them know you intend to push forward with the FCC and escalate the situation with the backing of the online community to have them take action against Verizon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I'm not expecting much from them. The trick is I can't seem to find a copy of what I sent in originally. I think it was a modified copy/paste from an earlier post (buried somewhere in the bootloader unlock thread). I did a bit of research by reading the rules themselves and figured I would give it a go. I just can't seem to find which one it is! I'll have to do some research after I finish with work for the day.
Rest assured though, unless the answer from Verizon is "You're right we'll unlock it" I'm not giving this one up. Even if I am just being petty and want to make it a pain for them.
This link discusses the FCC complaint and the argument that Verizon would most likely use to defend their position of an encrypted/locked bootloader
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...tloader-and-why-does-verizon-want-them-locked
gumbi2400 said:
Specifically things like, if VZW locked it for security and stability purposes, then why do they have other devices that are unlocked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it's very easy to prove they didn't do it for security or stability, if they had, then obviously they wouldn't allow the same exact phone (dev edition), not just other phones, with an unlocked bootloader, on the same network once they were done with all the pre-orders of this version. Also, if the unlocked bootloader posed any negative effect to network stability, then why would 4 other networks here, and the rest of the world, allow their versions of the same phone to be sold with unlocked bootloaders? I doubt other networks are aiming for network instability. In addition, you might mention that Verizon's customer service blamed the locked bootloader on Samsung at first (on twitter), when Samsung left the same phone unlocked for all other carriers in the world.
You should follow up with this if you have the opportunity. I'm sure everyone here will be behind you.
newuser134 said:
it's very easy to prove they didn't do it for security or stability, if they had, then obviously they wouldn't allow the same exact phone (dev edition), not just other phones, with an unlocked bootloader, on the same network once they were done with all the pre-orders of this version. Also, if the unlocked bootloader posed any negative effect to network stability, then why would 4 other networks here, and the rest of the world, allow their versions of the same phone to be sold with unlocked bootloaders? I doubt other networks are aiming for network instability. In addition, you might mention that Verizon's customer service blamed the locked bootloader on Samsung at first (on twitter), when Samsung left the same phone unlocked for all other carriers in the world.
You should follow up with this if you have the opportunity. I'm sure everyone here will be behind you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well they haven't allowed the dev handset on their network yet, it is presumed they will
PS. mentioning Twitter in the conversation will likely garner you some rolling of eyes and they may suddenly decide whomever they are speaking to is a kid wasting their time
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
For those adventurous ones... might want to read this first before attempting any kind of root. Such a shame... T-Mobile here I come.
“In most of the U.S. devices, if you root the device the device won’t even boot up; if it’s AT&T or Verizon,”
Samsung Galaxy Note 5, Galaxy S6 Edge+ Specs And Features: AT&T And Verizon Models Won’t Boot Up After Rooting
WTF, that's unacceptable
If it's unacceptable, better not buy the phone! Because it certainly isn't illegal, so I don't think anyone can force them to change it if they don't want to.
Of course, that is assuming that this is even true. Hasn't been confirmed by anyone yet...
JasonJoel said:
If it's unacceptable, better not buy the phone! Because it certainly isn't illegal, so I don't think anyone can force them to change it if they don't want to.
Of course, that is assuming that this is even true. Hasn't been confirmed by anyone yet...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I already did lol ordered the white 32gb today
Pretty sure the jailbreak legal case would count for this tho, therefore we are allowed to root with a device that we paid (full price)
I've never actually rooted a Samsung device before, but we kinda need it now because Samsung isn't going to fix the ram issue
Good luck. Not sure what you will do if rooting it actually bricks it... even if you are legally right, that might not help make your bricked phone work any faster. Lol
Maybe a smart developer will find a way around it anyway.
Maybe this http://youtu.be/qCh0QuEwAgY
Here's to hoping for a Developer Edition
Someone will bypass this nonsense. Where there's a will there's a way
Samsung pay for Verizon is disable already ...why would it be a problem when rooting and booting
GreeleyXda said:
I already did lol ordered the white 32gb today
Pretty sure the jailbreak legal case would count for this tho, therefore we are allowed to root with a device that we paid (full price)
I've never actually rooted a Samsung device before, but we kinda need it now because Samsung isn't going to fix the ram issue
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ummm...being "allowed" to root and being "able" to root are 2 different things. If you figure a method around their security then you can root...nothing in that Jailbreak lawsuit says they have to make it easy.
KennyG123 said:
Ummm...being "allowed" to root and being "able" to root are 2 different things. If you figure a method around their security then you can root...nothing in that Jailbreak lawsuit says they have to make it easy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, verizon is bricking phones.
Locked bootloader would the equivalent to able
while bricking would be the equiv to allowed
I dont understand the need to brick a phone, instead of idk deny service. Since service is what verizon owns, while you own the hardware
GreeleyXda said:
Yes, verizon is bricking phones.
Locked bootloader would the equivalent to able
while bricking would be the equiv to allowed
I dont understand the need to brick a phone, instead of idk deny service. Since service is what verizon owns, while you own the hardware
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just because you own a device (governed by FCC regulations as a communications device) does not mean you are to be provided with methods to modify it any way you want. The one thing is there is no law preventing you from rooting...nothing says the carrier (the customer) can't ask the manufacturer to make it as close to impossible as possible. If I own a satellite box, it does not give me the right to a method to get all the Pay channels.
You have to remember what drives Verizon and AT&T...$$$$$$$$ and making the phone so secure and locked down will gain them millions more in military, government and corporate accounts...this is not an attack on the amateur modder...we are just collateral damage.
KennyG123 said:
Just because you own a device (governed by FCC regulations as a communications device) does not mean you are to be provided with methods to modify it any way you want. The one thing is there is no law preventing you from rooting...nothing says the carrier (the customer) can't ask the manufacturer to make it as close to impossible as possible. If I own a satellite box, it does not give me the right to a method to get all the Pay channels.
You have to remember what drives Verizon and AT&T...$$$$$$$$ and making the phone so secure and locked down will gain them millions more in military, government and corporate accounts...this is not an attack on the amateur modder...we are just collateral damage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand what youre saying im just lost on the part that theyre allowed to brick the phone. It just makes more sense to me for them to deny you sevice on a modified phone rather than bricking it. Wonder what this means for future nexus phones at verizon
Id be kind of tempted to test it, but im assuming there would be 0 chance of being able to get my money back on the phone.
GreeleyXda said:
I understand what youre saying im just lost on the part that theyre allowed to brick the phone. It just makes more sense to me for them to deny you sevice on a modified phone rather than bricking it. Wonder what this means for future nexus phones at verizon
Id be kind of tempted to test it, but im assuming there would be 0 chance of being able to get my money back on the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I have to agree with you there...perhaps they are counting on publicity and the fear factor of a few sacrifices to discourage any attempts at finding a solution. I miss the days of the S3 where you can flash just about anything and still recover if you screwed up. This is what keeps me stuck on Sprint. Can't go to T-Mobile because there is basically only LTE literally on the highways here.
KennyG123 said:
Just because you own a device (governed by FCC regulations as a communications device) does not mean you are to be provided with methods to modify it any way you want. The one thing is there is no law preventing you from rooting...nothing says the carrier (the customer) can't ask the manufacturer to make it as close to impossible as possible. If I own a satellite box, it does not give me the right to a method to get all the Pay channels.
You have to remember what drives Verizon and AT&T...$$$$$$$$ and making the phone so secure and locked down will gain them millions more in military, government and corporate accounts...this is not an attack on the amateur modder...we are just collateral damage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that it still has to be FCC compliant and should not give everything for free like your other tv example. But here is my issue. I can buy a computer from bestbuy and put linux on it or modify whatever i want. Secondly I understand it is using verizon bands etc but why is this just verizon & AT&T??? Seems a little bit odd that it is just them. Why do they care unlike tmo and sprint that probably have unlockable bootloaders. I get the military/corporate discounts but at least offer a developer edition. But is there really not a law that says the carrier can shut your phone down? Doesn't there always have to be an emergency call option? I need to do some legal digging and see I find it odd that a carrier can disable a phone for any reason!
oneandroidnut said:
I agree that it still has to be FCC compliant and should not give everything for free like your other tv example. But here is my issue. I can buy a computer from bestbuy and put linux on it or modify whatever i want. Secondly I understand it is using verizon bands etc but why is this just verizon & AT&T??? Seems a little bit odd that it is just them. Why do they care unlike tmo and sprint that probably have unlockable bootloaders. I get the military/corporate discounts but at least offer a developer edition. But is there really not a law that says the carrier can shut your phone down? Doesn't there always have to be an emergency call option? I need to do some legal digging and see I find it odd that a carrier can disable a phone for any reason!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am with you..just trying to explain Big Red's and AT&T's logic....they got the power by having the best coverage in the US..they are #1 and #2 there...I am sure they have worked with the military, government, corporate and all Exchange users to ask what they would need to sign big contracts with them...of course the answer is always that these mini-computers be as secure as possible.....then these carriers worked with Samsung to provide these solutions. I am not sure why T-Mobile and Sprint have not followed suit...we would need to see more of the deal between Sammy and Verizon to know how much engineering costs and exclusivity is in there...perhaps it is out of the lower two's budget.
Now as far as legality..you are attempting to modify the phone against the carrier's instructions which results in a brick...legalwise is that much different than expecting it to be able to dial 911 if you throw it against the wall? Both things are not supported by the carrier or manufacturer. The carrier is not disabling the phone...you are by attempting an unauthorized procedure. (Just devil's advocate here)
With so many hackers out there trying desperately to get at your identity and banking information (all done with cell phones now), and vulnerabilities being discovered daily, expect security to only get tighter and tighter going forward. The point of vulnerabilities may become moot if the phone is so locked down against any root functions and unauthorized use.
You do have options though...a Nexus.
Someone will root the device. To date there has never been an unrootable device
bash_array said:
Someone will root the device. To date there has never been an unrootable device
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon note 4
---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 PM ----------
KennyG123 said:
I am with you..just trying to explain Big Red's and AT&T's logic....they got the power by having the best coverage in the US..they are #1 and #2 there...I am sure they have worked with the military, government, corporate and all Exchange users to ask what they would need to sign big contracts with them...of course the answer is always that these mini-computers be as secure as possible.....then these carriers worked with Samsung to provide these solutions. I am not sure why T-Mobile and Sprint have not followed suit...we would need to see more of the deal between Sammy and Verizon to know how much engineering costs and exclusivity is in there...perhaps it is out of the lower two's budget.
Now as far as legality..you are attempting to modify the phone against the carrier's instructions which results in a brick...legalwise is that much different than expecting it to be able to dial 911 if you throw it against the wall? Both things are not supported by the carrier or manufacturer. The carrier is not disabling the phone...you are by attempting an unauthorized procedure. (Just devil's advocate here)
With so many hackers out there trying desperately to get at your identity and banking information (all done with cell phones now), and vulnerabilities being discovered daily, expect security to only get tighter and tighter going forward. The point of vulnerabilities may become moot if the phone is so locked down against any root functions and unauthorized use.
You do have options though...a Nexus.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know you are and as far as an unauthorized procedure does Verizon list in their statement about rooting phones??
oneandroidnut said:
Verizon note 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Originally it was rootable. Updates have made it locked
bash_array said:
Originally it was rootable. Updates have made it locked
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still counts though lol it's current state it isn't
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?