So, I like to vent at companies on Twitter and any other social networks if they are not listening to their customers or taking advantage of loyal customers. So last night I started venting to T-Mobile asking about the bootloader and why we haven't heard anything at all. I mean, i'm sure most of us are on JUMP and could jump if we wanted to, but why, theres nothing better out, yet. Anyways to conclude my conversation with the rep, I got a confirmation from the rep saying:
"Good news! T-Mobile is working with Samsung to hopefully unlock bootloader!"
I tried to press for more information, sources etc but did not have any luck. Pretty much the answer I was given was they are limited on what they can see or do as chat reps.
Well, I'll believe it when I see it, but just thought I would share, that there could possibly be a bright light at the end of the tunnel for some of those loyal users. I for one will be jumping as soon as a more improved Android phone comes out, might have to wait till the end of the year though.
A dump truck full of salt and still nothing new.
People need to take their time and understand the underlying situation. Here's a good summary, apologies for reposting again:
mathieulh said:
The CROM lock does not exist on non-Chinese bootloaders
Samsung's Chinese handsets bootloaders have in 3 types of bootloader locks, the carrier lock, the CROM lock (which is enabled if the Chinese bootloader does not find the "KIWIBIRD" string written in the STEADY partition), and the reactivation lock, they are not carrier locked.
U.S. variants only have the Carrier and reactivation locks, there is no CROM lock to unlock on these devices (or any international variants either), U.S. variants are however carrier locked, the lock is hardcoded in the bootloader code (there is just no execution path to load an unsigned kernel on the consumer carrier locked variant bootloaders, there is no "lock" Qfuse anymore, the bootloader itself just has no carrier unlocking/locking support, it is always locked by design) and the bootloader is tied to the device ID, for example SM-G935F (which is One Time Programmable) and will refuse to run on anything but the device id that is hardcoded within it, obviously the bootloader is signed so you can't modify it, there is also a revocation mechanism involving Qfuses to make sure you can't downgrade to a vulnerable version (should one exist).
There are presumably Engineering versions of the bootloader that allow running unsigned kernels but those have not been leaked and they probably won't run on devices for which the production mode Qfuse has been blown (the device is in Engineering mode when that Qfuse is not set).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, no......this was not a repost, this was me sharing information that I gained from TMO. I and most tmo users are not active in XDA anymore because of the locked bootloader, so it's news to some people.
DesignGrits said:
So, I like to vent at companies on Twitter and any other social networks if they are not listening to their customers or taking advantage of loyal customers. So last night I started venting to T-Mobile asking about the bootloader and why we haven't heard anything at all. I mean, i'm sure most of us are on JUMP and could jump if we wanted to, but why, theres nothing better out, yet. Anyways to conclude my conversation with the rep, I got a confirmation from the rep saying:
"Good news! T-Mobile is working with Samsung to hopefully unlock bootloader!"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hopefully! keyword. Reps dont know jack. We know more then they know. They are out of loop. This isnt even post worthy lol
DesignGrits said:
Um, no......this was not a repost, this was me sharing information that I gained from TMO. I and most tmo users are not active in XDA anymore because of the locked bootloader, so it's news to some people.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He was calling his post a repost, not yours.
Sent from my SM-G935T using XDA-Developers mobile app
Please continue this discussion here:
ROOT DISCUSSION - R.I.P. Sticky Root Guide SM-G935T -> SHOW YOUR TWEETS / E-MAIL / FB
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
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
I preemptively apologize if someone already posted on this.
This is ludicrously bad. If only Samsung cared so little about the bootloader ...
https://www.nowsecure.com/blog/2015/06/16/remote-code-execution-as-system-user-on-samsung-phones/
The only workaround requires--you guessed it--rooting the phone. We should really write Verizon and Samsung a scathing group appeal. Needless to say, I'm done with Verizon after the contract is up.
blair.sadewitz said:
I preemptively apologize if someone already posted on this.
This is ludicrously bad. If only Samsung cared so little about the bootloader ...
https://www.nowsecure.com/blog/2015/06/16/remote-code-execution-as-system-user-on-samsung-phones/
The only workaround requires--you guessed it--rooting the phone. We should really write Verizon and Samsung a scathing group appeal. Needless to say, I'm done with Verizon after the contract is up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The carriers (Samsung's customer) control the locked bootloader, not Samsung. Samsung would not shoot themselves in the foot and refuse to build the phone to the customers' specifications. And since Verizon and AT&T went for the corporate and military sales, plus the 99.5% who never heard of XDA or could care less about a locked bootloader purchasing what they heard is the most secure phone...our please would make the same wave as dropping a pebble in the ocean. The best that could be done is what you said..choose your next device and carrier based on what you have learned. A lot of us deal with the crappier coverage that Sprint and T-Mobile have to avoid being locked down.
KennyG123 said:
The carriers (Samsung's customer) control the locked bootloader, not Samsung. Samsung would not shoot themselves in the foot and refuse to build the phone to the customers' specifications. And since Verizon and AT&T went for the corporate and military sales, plus the 99.5% who never heard of XDA or could care less about a locked bootloader purchasing what they heard is the most secure phone...our please would make the same wave as dropping a pebble in the ocean. The best that could be done is what you said..choose your next device and carrier based on what you have learned. A lot of us deal with the crappier coverage that Sprint and T-Mobile have to avoid being locked down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I suspect you're right. Nevertheless:
http://www.androidcentral.com/it-wi...mericas-top-carriers-heres-what-you-need-know
These guidelines could be [broadly or narrowly] adapted for bootloader unlocking as well. As it stands, I don't even have the option to unlock the bootloader at any time in the future. Do I _never_ own the phone outright, even after I've fulfilled my contractual obligations? This is the frontier beyond which all of the arguments in favor of the practice cannot be sustained.
blair.sadewitz said:
Yeah, I suspect you're right. Nevertheless:
http://www.androidcentral.com/it-wi...mericas-top-carriers-heres-what-you-need-know
These guidelines could be [broadly or narrowly] adapted for bootloader unlocking as well. As it stands, I don't even have the option to unlock the bootloader at any time in the future. Do I _never_ own the phone outright, even after I've fulfilled my contractual obligations? This is the frontier beyond which all of the arguments in favor of the practice cannot be sustained.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That article is regarding unlocking a phone to use on another carrier...SIM unlocking basically...not bootloader. The security put on the phone is the business of the carriers requesting from the manufacturer..including Verizon blocking access to HTCDev to unlock HTC devices. Owning a phone outright does not give you rights to having the security software removed. But of course if you figure out how to do it, kudos...no one can stop you. Just because you buy and own a satellite box does not give you rights to have it unlocked to give you free PPV or programming. The fact that you can sell the phone to another person proves you own it. But you have more knowledge now when you choose your next phone and carrier.
KennyG123 said:
That article is regarding unlocking a phone to use on another carrier...SIM unlocking basically...not bootloader. The security put on the phone is the business of the carriers requesting from the manufacturer..including Verizon blocking access to HTCDev to unlock HTC devices. Owning a phone outright does not give you rights to having the security software removed. But of course if you figure out how to do it, kudos...no one can stop you. Just because you buy and own a satellite box does not give you rights to have it unlocked to give you free PPV or programming. The fact that you can sell the phone to another person proves you own it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oops, I had two different articles open in different tabs and somehow melded them together. That sure isn't helping my buzz.
You do have the right to unlock the cable box or dispose of it in any way you wish. It is a basic property right. You do not have the right to employ it to "steal" service, though. Similarly, they cannot stop you if you figure it out because it is your property, and as such your property rights trump their desires--such is my layman's understanding, anyway, heh.
blair.sadewitz said:
Oops, I had two different articles open in different tabs and somehow melded them together. That sure isn't helping my buzz.
You do have the right to unlock the cable box or dispose of it in any way you wish. It is a basic property right. You do not have the right to employ it to "steal" service, though. Similarly, they cannot stop you if you figure it out because it is your property, and as such your property rights trump their desires--such is my layman's understanding, anyway, heh.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup...just as you are free to figure out how to unlock the bootloader on your phone...and collect that bounty!!!! $$$$$
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?