Database Info

Verizon / Samsung Corporate Contact Log

Updated 09/6/12 http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=31190482&postcount=81
This is a combined log of my attempt to get answers from Verizon and Samsung regarding the encrypted bootloader. I currently have a ticket with level III tech support at Samsung. It took a huge dog and pony show to get this far and I have had several forum members contact me asking to pass along info and ask questions when I finally get a hold of the right people.
I posted most of this in another thread, but it not where it should have been so I am moving it for a mod so we can keep that other development thread clean. Its 8am EST and Samsung Level III should be open in three hours as they are not staffed 24/7 like Level II/I.
For the record Samsungs Tech Support phone number is 800-726-7864
Just remember the rep you talk to regardless of what their position in the company is had no say in the encrypting of the bootloader. Its not their fault Verizon screwed us, please keep that in mind if you call. Using 5c technical words will get you past Level I but level II seemed to be on point. It took some manipulative games to get the guy to admit there was even a level III department; at first he told me level II was the highest I could go in tech support. Will update with more info when I have something.
I am also considering contacting the firm that handled the Motorola V710 lawsuit against Verizon years ago. We won that one and anyone who wanted got to trade in their phone and accessories for a full refund, no ETF, and if they wanted could also get a new device w/o extending their contract. I hate lawyers and would rather cut off my pinky finger then deal with them but it may be the only option in the end. Its like Verizon delivered us cake, then shot our dog and walked away. So mentally exhausted dealing with this crap.
Lastly, I was able to get a hold of Verizon corporate and had a low level executive call me back. This was before the device was released and we knew the bootloader was encrypted. She told me to save her number, and I am glad I did because once we found out about the lockdown I called her back and left VM. Should hear back from her Monday.
Verizon's Corporate Contact Info.
Verizon Corporate Office Headquarters:
140 West Street
New York, NY 10007
Corporate Phone Number: 1-212-395-1000
Corporate Fax Number: 1-212-571-1897
Original Post:
Ok, just an update. Level III Samsung tech support is not 24/7 like Level II/I. I have a ticket in the system regarding the issue and its been forwarded to Level III.
They will be in tomorrow (Saturday) from 8am (PST) to 7pm (PST) and I have to call back to get a hold of someone in the Level III department. I will keep dragging this up the chain of command till I can get some answers. Level II once again confirmed what we already know, Verizon did mess with the phone. Level II said don't bother with Fastboot because were not getting in that way. I don't know if he was lying but he seemed to know exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned the odin/fastboot switch.
One more thing to note, I am not sure I believe him but he said that they sent the phones to Verizon, and its Verizon that did the messing around not Samsung. I find it hard to believe Verizon was able to do this without Samsung support.
I don't have high hopes of getting anything that will be able to help us out of Level III but I will try. They have also lodged a my customer complaint and supposedly I am going to be getting a call back from someone from their corporate office in consumer relations.
I wish I could help more on the technical side but my experience only takes me to the point where everyone else has gotten with fastboot. I am however quite the people person when it comes to making noise with corporations and will keep up the good fight with Verizon / Samsung Corporate.
If there is anything specific you want me to ask Level III send me a PM by tomorrow morning and I will address it with them when I call. I know enough that I should be able to at least hold a conversation with them on the subject but more ammo would be great. I would also be willing to conference call with a repeatable dev/mod when I call them so that you don't have to jump through the two hours of crap I just did to get this escalated.
Post 2: (A reply to a forum member asking for an update)
I asked them if there is a reason I can't get into fastboot and the guy said because Verizon has locked down the device. I asked him "how" and "why" but he was unable to provide me with an answer to both questions. He then referred me to Level III as he said they were the ones who could discuss how it was done. I asked him if there was a way around it through odin using .ops he went silent for a while and said he had no information to provide on the subject and just reiterated that Verizon has made changes to the device software and I would have to refer to them regarding those changes.
With regard to the "why" question he simply said that Samsung could not comment on carrier practices only that Verizon requested the lockdown and that the phones were sent to them first to have it applied. He made it sound like Samsung told them to go take a flying leap and Verizon went ahead and did it anyway. Again, were talking about a rep here so take it with a grain of salt.
I talked about the FCC's Block C agreement regarding carriers not locking devices but the rep said he did not have a comment on the subject as he was just tech support. Block C is probably the only legal course of action we have but despite the FCC saying they were going to enforce the rule, we all know how the FCC could give a crap.
I am going to flat out ask Level III to do the right thing and leak a file for us to fix the issue. I may be nuts but I am not delusional and have no real expectoration they will help. I am however going to do my best to get them to slip something that may help a dev find a solution. If I can get at least a small puzzle piece out of Level III it might be the crack in the dam we need to blow open the floodgates.
07/11/12 Samsung Level III blew me off yesterday as well saying they were still looking into the matter. I called again today and finally received an official reply. Samsung says they have no information exactly what Verizon has done to the phone, they do not know exactly what is and is not signed/encrypted, and they have no further information. I have submitted a complaint to the president of Samsung USA but thats as far as I could go with Samsung. They have closed my case and can not provide further information. I asked if they had an original system image before Verizon gimped the phone and they said "yes but we can not provide that to our customers per carrier agreement."
Lastly I was told that there is going to be a Verizon "Developer Edition" that you can buy directly from Samsung in the coming weeks. This is in "direct response to complaints filed by customers" according to Samsung and will be distributed and supported by Samsung directly. It will cost $600+ and basically be the same phone but w/o an signed/encrypted bootloader.
Off the record information from an unnamed outside source: Verizon is releasing a OTA update to patch the root exploit in the coming days. This OTA will break and prevent re-root as well as try and stop people from using the image off of the "Developer Edition" to mess with the "normal" Verizon Galaxy S3. I don't have specific details; sorry. Do not OTA unless you want to loose root and probably not get it back. Verizon is fk'ing pissed; I mean really pissed that we have root.
From what I am hearing, Verizon's "top %5 data abusers" are all typically rooted/romed. The whole point of locking this phone down was to mess with these unlimited data customers. Verizon started this war; let us end it and make them loath the day they decided to fk with the dev community.
Again, my case Support case has been closed with Samsung. We will get nothing further from them nor any direct help. My case with Verizon corporate is also closed; they said Samsung will offer a Developer model directly and if I wanted that kind of access I needed to talk to them not Verizon.
The lawyers still have not called me back. No shock.
Up until this point I have been angry; now I am pissed. This isn't over; not by a long shot.
Will update when I have more information.
07/17/12
Samsung "Office of the President" -
Phone 877-268-2121
eMail [email protected]
FYI Samsung records phone conversations between the 4th minute and the 18th minute. Anything you say after minute 4 and before minute 18 "MAY" be recorded. I know that sounds like a strange window of recording, but its straight out of the mouth of a sympathetic to the cause tech support rep. Just had a great conversation with a guy, nothing is fixed of course but needless to say, there are people in Samsung that have been hearing rumors that the company is tired of carrier's crap and with in the next few years will be offering all Samsung headsets for a subsidized price, directly through Samsung. There will probably be trade-in specials, loyalty discounts, etc. I can't wait not to buy my devices directly through Verizon! Secondly, as of now (Verizon lies again) anything software related with this phone is coming from, programmed by, and completely influenced by Verizon. Samsung manufacturing does not touch the device or support updates after its in the hands of Verizon. The developer model is not Verizon approved, nor is Verizon happy its going to be sold [from what I am told] however per FCC open network regulations Verizon has to allow the device on the network. Updates for the developer model will be directly from Samsung.
I was able to get the Samsung Apps (store) sideloaded on my device BTW. Verizon requested it be removed which is why its not on the device pre-installed. S-Suggest is NOT the same thing as Samsung Apps. Will Write something up here on XDA later when I get a chance.
07/24/12
The Electronic Frontier Foundation called me back and said they need more info on Block C. I am out of town until next Monday and let them know I would get back to them in a few days. They also are finding a lawyer who will do it pro bono. Looks like this may actually make it to court.

So we have root but we are still locked down unlike all other carriers. Basically this is going to turn into a Droid X situation and for those who know what I am talking about you know how bad this still sucks.
I am tired of this crap guys, and think with the amount of SG3 phones sold in the US and specifically Verizon, this is the time to strike back against all encrypted devices not just the GS3. We have dealt with this garbage long enough and now its time to end nonsense.
Kirtland and Packard, (310) 536-1000, 2361 Rosecrans Ave Ste 450, El Segundo, CA 90245
That's the law firm that won the huge case against Verizon over the Motorola v710 BT lockdown. I have left them a message asking if they will take this case too. In reality this one is going to vastly larger then the Moto case because of the number of users that have this device.
Please call them and let them know on the main VM that you too have been effected by this lockdown, or any lockdown in the US on any carrier. The more people who call the more likely they will take the case. Lots of people calling is how the guys over at Howard Forums were able to get the ball rolling on the v710, so let history repeat itself for the sake of every dev, phone enthusiast, and civil rights advocate.
ROM developers usually work off of donations and by encrypting this and other devices Verizon is stealing from these developers who's livelihood is phone software development. Software developers who want an open platform also have to deal with the hassle that Verizon and other carriers have put them through by locking down devices. If the personal computer was locked down like this when it was first created and sold to people we would never be where we were today technology wise. The crippling of our mobile devices needs to stop, and it needs to stop now.
Its time to take the fight to Verizon and hopefully end the lockdowns once and for all. If the lawfirm takes the case this is going to be winner takes all. This may be our best shot to end device lockdowns in the US once and for all.
I think the push we will make is going to be Block C. Normally Verizon could argue that they locked the device [against the FCC Block C mandate] because of network security. This is going to be hard for them to argue though when every other carrier in the US and internationally has not encrypted the device. It's a long shot, and its going to be up hill, but as far as I see it this is our best chance and the time to strike on this issue is now.
Samsung Level III opens in 30 min. Will update again soon.

Level III is not in on the weekends, so I was just told by the automated message I got when the guy transferred me to that department. ok... Not what they told me yesterday but ok.
So Monday at 8am PST it is, and that's also when Verizon corporate will be calling me back too as the past two calls they have made to me have been the ass crack of dawn. If I time it right I can conference the two in and let them try and point the finger at the other one, to each others faces. No more "That's what the manufacture wanted, go talk to them" vs "That's what the carrier wanted, talk to them" runaround bull****.
Anyway, no updates till Monday then. That gives me time to root.

i'll be the first to say it but thank you
going above and beyond especially considering nobody asked you to do this. great work and i hope it leads to some results

chill145 said:
i'll be the first to say it but thank you
going above and beyond especially considering nobody asked you to do this. great work and i hope it leads to some results
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes thank you 100%, we are all in this together.

Also please file FCC Consumer Complaints against Verizon for potentially violating the openness requirements of the Block C spectrum purchasing agreement.
https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form2000.action?form_type=2000F
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/it-is-illegal-for-verizon-to-lock-some-bootloaders/
It's a long shot, but maybe worth it.

Have filed complaint with FCC and BBB, posted poor review on both Blue and White versons on VZW website, wall post ripping them apart on VZW facebook, poor reviews on every device site that will let me do so that I know of, personal contact with VZW reps filing complaints.
Any other avenues we can take?

Here's what I wrote in my FCC complaint:
The new Samsung Galaxy SIII on Verizon Wireless has a locked and encrypted bootloader, which appears to violate the openness requirements that Verizon agreed to when it purchased Block C, pursuant to § 27.16 (b) of 47 CFR Ch. I (10–1–10 Edition) available here-- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title47-vol2/pdf/CFR-2010-title47-vol2-sec27-16.pdf
§ 27.16 (e) clearly states "Handset locking prohibited" except under certain circumstances previously delineated. The anti-consumer actions taken by Verizon impinge upon the free of use of devices by consumers, and potentially harms the livelihoods of developers, who may not be able to do their work on the device of their choice.
I would appreciate the FCC investigating and clarifying this situation.
Thank you,

Thinking further about it, with how prominent devices are in today's world, would various news providers not want to run this story as well?
I recommend tipping off any local newspaper and news station you have access to. Lets get this story out there~!

Thalinor said:
So we have root but we are still locked down unlike all other carriers. Basically this is going to turn into a Droid X situation and for those who know what I am talking about you know how bad this still sucks.
I am tired of this crap guys, and think with the amount of SG3 phones sold in the US and specifically Verizon, this is the time to strike back against all encrypted devices not just the GS3. We have dealt with this garbage long enough and now its time to end nonsense.
Kirtland and Packard, (310) 536-1000, 2361 Rosecrans Ave Ste 450, El Segundo, CA 90245
That's the law firm that won the huge case against Verizon over the Motorola v710 BT lockdown. I have left them a message asking if they will take this case too. In reality this one is going to vastly larger then the Moto case because of the number of users that have this device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know that the dev's are working there rear ends off, and I appreciate all their efforts. I am truly pulling for them and hope that they can get the bootloader figured out. I'm not an expert, but in my opinion the ROMs on the DX didn't compare to a fully unlocked device and I'd prefer not to have to suffer through 2+ years of touchwiz.
Thalinor,
I agree that this maybe turning into the Droid X. As a droid x owner, waiting and watching for 18 months to see VZW and Motorola dump on us, I don't think we'll get anywhere with them. There was a huge effort on the DX with petitions, phone calls, emails, twitter, and FB posts.
Just a thought, but what about petitioning the law firm to take up this case. We are not going to get anywhere from VZW's or Samsung's pity for us. If this bootloader is truly encrypted, and if it is anything like the DX, the only way we will get this device completely unlocked is through a legal obligation on VZW's part. I think our energy would be better spent with the Attorneys who stand to profit from this case rather than burning our energy on VZW and Samsung who probably don't give a crap. I would think that the law-firm would have some interest in this (maybe?):

File with the FCC:
http://www.fcc.gov/complaints/
Talk about the Block C complaints. Don't attack them.
Post on VZW's Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/verizon
Talk about how dissatisfied you are and how you're looking to switch. Don't attack them.
Post on Samsung Mobile's Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/SamsungMobile
Don't attack them. Talk about how you will reconsider purchasing their devices in the future. They don't want to have to lock bootloaders, Verizon is almost certainly making them do it.
File with the BBB:
http://www.bbb.org/us/verizon-wireless/
Talk about how anti-competitive their practices are and how dissatisfied you are as a customer. Require an answer.
Complain to Verizon Wireless' Site:
https://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/contact/email.jsp
Don't attack them. Keep in mind you're talking to an employee, they didn't choose to lock down the bootloader. Be respectful but make your concern noted.
The problem lies with Verizon Wireless. They believe that there are not enough people concerned about this to affect their profit margin. You need to show that you will vote with your dollar and move somewhere else if this complaint is not answered. Also, bring up the Block C agreement. There are potential legal repercussions-- meaning that the FCC may be the best place to direct your complaints. Be respectful, I know we're upset, but being pissed off won't get you anywhere.

I just filled out a complaint with the FCC basically asking them to enforce the Block C agreement from Verizon.
I'll phone the lawyers posted on the first page when I get a chance at work tomorrow.

amt897 said:
File with the FCC:
http://www.fcc.gov/complaints/
Talk about the Block C complaints. Don't attack them.
Post on VZW's Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/verizon
Talk about how dissatisfied you are and how you're looking to switch. Don't attack them.
Post on Samsung Mobile's Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/SamsungMobile
Don't attack them. Talk about how you will reconsider purchasing their devices in the future. They don't want to have to lock bootloaders, Verizon is almost certainly making them do it.
File with the BBB:
http://www.bbb.org/us/verizon-wireless/
Talk about how anti-competitive their practices are and how dissatisfied you are as a customer. Require an answer.
Complain to Verizon Wireless' Site:
https://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/contact/email.jsp
Don't attack them. Keep in mind you're talking to an employee, they didn't choose to lock down the bootloader. Be respectful but make your concern noted.
The problem lies with Verizon Wireless. They believe that there are not enough people concerned about this to affect their profit margin. You need to show that you will vote with your dollar and move somewhere else if this complaint is not answered. Also, bring up the Block C agreement. There are potential legal repercussions-- meaning that the FCC may be the best place to direct your complaints. Be respectful, I know we're upset, but being pissed off won't get you anywhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't even own an S3, nor am I on Verizon, but damn't...I'm doing every one of things and calling just out of principle. I'm glad I left Verizon a long time ago, but they still tried to get more for money for almost 2 years. Damn near ruined my credit...assholes are going down.
Sent from my SGH-I727 using xda premium

I'd love to see this in major media:
"The Samsung S3 is a excellent smartphone, but Verizon's software modifications have made it unlikely to be upgraded and supported long term. If that's important to you, we recommend you consider another carrier."

My girlfriend used to work for the local news, I'll talk to her about contacting her friends at the station and see if I can get a face to face, or at least an email contact. I'll have to dig up all the info I can on the block C stuff and locked/encrypted bootloaders to take to them first.
Sent from my Droid X until I get my SGS3

block c
The Block C issue relates more toward unlocked devices like the nexus on the play store than unlocked bootloaders. You may be able to press the unlocked bootloader issue under the 'open applications' provision, but obviously that did a ton of good for Google Wallet. Of course, I can't find a single device you can use on Verizon's network that isn't held in verizon's death grip, so even the open device provision seems to be being ignored. The worst part is that verizon filed suits against these provisions and LOST. But true to form, if you have enough money and pull, and are willing to screw your customers as every turn (share everything plans are such a great deal right?) you can break the law over and over in broad daylight, and no one with power will bat an eye. Also, I'm not sure why the 'open application' provision was never really used as a battering ram when in came to things like tethering applications.

I think this type of work is very important. Thanks so much. Very much looking forward to hearing more from the companies themselves about why they make these types of decisions. Can't wait for an update here.
Sent from my Incredible 2 using xda app-developers app

Complained with the FCC, here is my complaint for anyone looking for somewhat of a template.
Recently, after preordering a Samsung Galaxy s3 handset from Verizon, I learned that they have violated the openness requirements of the Block C spectrum purchasing agreement by encrypting my device. This directly impacts my ability to enjoy my phone, and take advantage of the spectrum which Verizon owns. While I understand that the purchasing agreement gives Verizon leeway in regards to "reasonable" protection of the network, no other carrier in the United States (or the world), has done this, leading me to believe that this action is indeed unreasonable. It is unfair and anti-competitive for a company to misuse frequencies they own in this way.
I appreciate your time, and would appreciate a response in this matter.
Thank you,

With Verizon Twitter claiming it was Samsung, I'm curious what both companies said.

skennelly said:
I know that the dev's are working there rear ends off, and I appreciate all their efforts. I am truly pulling for them and hope that they can get the bootloader figured out. I'm not an expert, but in my opinion the ROMs on the DX didn't compare to a fully unlocked device and I'd prefer not to have to suffer through 2+ years of touchwiz.
Thalinor,
Just a thought, but what about petitioning the law firm to take up this case. We are not going to get anywhere from VZW's or Samsung's pity for us. If this bootloader is truly encrypted, and if it is anything like the DX, the only way we will get this device completely unlocked is through a legal obligation on VZW's part. I think our energy would be better spent with the Attorneys who stand to profit from this case rather than burning our energy on VZW and Samsung who probably don't give a crap. I would think that the law-firm would have some interest in this (maybe?):
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the whole point! I certainly don't have the money to go up against Verizon and do not want to make a dime out of this; that's not the point at all. I want Verizon to once and for all agree to stop ****ing with our phones. Phones should be sold locked not signed/encrypted.
Locked protects Verizon or the manufacture from having to eat the costs of a new phone when an end user breaks their device doing something irresponsible. I don't want Verizon paying for people's screwed up devices because eventually it will lead to MY bill going up. Its not my fault if someone screw's up their device. On the other hand by encrypting the bootloader Verizon is forcing people to do things that may lead to breaking your phone. If the manufacture offered a phone number for unlocking, where you would agree that unless it was something hardware defective, if you unlock and your device breaks, its not under warranty. Problem solved for everyone; no encrypted bootloader needed.
I am going after Verizon but this is really about every carrier who gimps cell phones. Smartphones have become pocket computers. They are no longer PDA's, or "like" pocket computers, they ARE pocket computers. Hell, my SG3 is got better hardware specs than the **** netbooks people waited in line for last black Friday at Walmart. If we consider netbooks in that they come giving the buyer full administrative access over the device and yet still give the end user the option to hook it up to Wi-Fi. One way or another my devices are hooking up to a company who I pay for data and/or voice service. My rights should be universal and now that the device in my pocket has evolved into a full blown computer, my access rights should evolve as well. Whether its a computer in your pocket or a computer on your desk, it can be used in accordance with your providers service agreement, or it can be abused.
Prejudging your entire customer base to abuse your network and handing down sentence as judge, jury, and executioner like Verizon has done, before people have even had the chance to make the decision to do right or wrong; to me that just violates every ideal set forth in this countries constitution. I am ****ing sick of corporate america ****ting on this countries citizens, and the whole god damn world for that matter. It needs to stop. While I despise lawyers to the core, I sincerely hope they take on this case and prove there are still people in the field who remember why their profession exists (Hint: Its NOT to make money) and that there is some justice left in this country.
/end rant
Update: Talked to Verizon Exec, they have passed info on to the lawyers to look over and may or may not get back to me; at this point its out of her hands.
Update: I have not heard back from the lawyers above, but another user here on XDA PM'd me and said they were able to talk to someone today who told them that the legal team was looking into the case and make a decision after getting more information. They have my number, if they want to call me they can; if not I could care less who spear heads this as long as the battle is fought and won.
Update: I called Samsung, talked to Level I, they tried to transfer me to level III, I was put on told and Level I came back and said they would call me back later. The call never came. I will try them again more vigorously tomorrow.
MichaelVash7886 said:
With Verizon Twitter claiming it was Samsung, I'm curious what both companies said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LMFAO @ Verizon's blatant bull**** lies. Why would Samsung decide, at their own free will and expense, to sign-encrypt ONLY Verizon's Galaxy S3, and not one other carrier in the world? Verizon is full of **** and the fact they think the line "Its the other guys fault" is actually going to work, is flat out ****ing insulting.
Screenshot that and post it here please. I do not use social networking; if they really need to spy on me they have my smartphone information, and know where to find me.

Why isn't there more of a rally against AT&T?

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..

What's legal and illegal?

What's legal and illegal when it comes to hacking android (in USA)? I want to unlock the bootloader on my Verizon gs3. Is that illegal?
If you can point me to some definitive or authoritative resources, I would appreciate that. I have been googling this topic for a couple weeks, and as far as I can tell, it's currently legal to unlock your phone for use on another wireless carrier, but it is technically illegal to root or unlock bootloaders (by hacking). But what doesn't fit with that are the bounties I see offered for these activities, so I'm very uncertain either way.

bump

Its legal to do anything to your own device.
You can unlock the bootloader, root the phone, install custom firmwares, or break it to pieces with a hammer as long as it's yours...
Worst case scenario you can always start a new life in Mexico

ishaang said:
Worst case scenario you can always start a new life in Mexico
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That just made my day.

ishaang said:
Its legal to do anything to your own device.
You can unlock the bootloader, root the phone, install custom firmwares, or break it to pieces with a hammer as long as it's yours...
Worst case scenario you can always start a new life in Mexico
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you allowed to post the info of how to do it?

squebler said:
What's legal and illegal when it comes to hacking android (in USA)? I want to unlock the bootloader on my Verizon gs3. Is that illegal?
If you can point me to some definitive or authoritative resources, I would appreciate that. I have been googling this topic for a couple weeks, and as far as I can tell, it's currently legal to unlock your phone for use on another wireless carrier, but it is technically illegal to root or unlock bootloaders (by hacking). But what doesn't fit with that are the bounties I see offered for these activities, so I'm very uncertain either way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The real issue is with the contract you sign with your carrier. As long as you are in the subsidised portion of your contract (generally 2yrs), the phone technically still belongs to them, not you.
Are they going to look for you to make an issue of it, no. If you need to make a warranty claim though, and they find out it's modified, they have the right to not honor the warranty if they choose (happens occasionally, but not widespread).
I mod my phones all the time, but I do it without any expectation of help from vzw if I break something and can't fix it.
Jmo, hope that helps

squebler said:
What's legal and illegal when it comes to hacking android (in USA)? I want to unlock the bootloader on my Verizon gs3. Is that illegal?
If you can point me to some definitive or authoritative resources, I would appreciate that. I have been googling this topic for a couple weeks, and as far as I can tell, it's currently legal to unlock your phone for use on another wireless carrier, but it is technically illegal to root or unlock bootloaders (by hacking). But what doesn't fit with that are the bounties I see offered for these activities, so I'm very uncertain either way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In my opinion, as long as you have warranty, don't root your phone because it will void the warranty.

Its legal, but can void your warranty with the manufacturer or if you have bought your phone through a carrier they may have a clause in the agreement related to this.
Sony as a manufacturer is cool with you unlocking your bootloader, and they offer the instructions and code on their own website officially, here -http://developer.sonymobile.com/unlockbootloader/unlock-yourboot-loader/
So that's an example of it being legal.

Very helpful info, thanks! Now I think I'll switch to Sony instead of Samsung.

No problem, and good idea!
I've been a Sony user for a very long time, and generally their devices have never failed to deliver. On top of that they are very developer friendly and support the open source community a lot. This has been referenced in XDA also, many times. Besides that I do feel the build quality of Sony products is superior, and in phones their hardware specs and stock UI is also pretty decent.

oh it's good:highfive:

ite's legal to do anything on your phones of course (like unlock bootloader),
but if you want to test(hack) on other's phones, make sure you get their permission ^^

Petition to Verizon/FCC to unlock all verizon phone bootloaders that use Block C

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.

Root Options. sm-n986u

Wanting to root Sm-n986u Verizon. I have read that the Sm-n986u can be firmware flashed to the Sm-n986u1 with a patched odin. If that is possible will the oem bootloader unlock show up in the developers mode?

Read: https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/sampwnd-usa-model-bl-unlock-info-u-u1-w.4205981/
You can root USA variant. You can find here

I did it and I'm thrilled, works great

We're you able to unlock the Bootloader!

Yes, I used a paid service, super easy and works great.

Can someone send me a link for sm 986 w rooting?

Shams kh said:
Can someone send me a link for sm 986 w rooting?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thread is about 5 up using a paid service.
[CLOSED][SamPWND]USA Model BL Unlock Info [U/U1/W]
Note: This Thread is @svetius Approved! NOTE: Thread temporarily closed until OP returns SamPWND Bootloader Unlock Service Note2: This is an informational thread that links to a paid service. Paid service is not a service provided by XDA...
forum.xda-developers.com

Jack143 said:
We're you able to unlock the Bootloader!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey Jack. Were you ever able to figure out how to root your phone on your own? Without using a paid service. I think it is bull**** these guys keep the secret from everyone to capitalize on it.

DarkRasta33 said:
Hey Jack. Were you ever able to figure out how to root your phone on your own? Without using a paid service. I think it is bull**** these guys keep the secret from everyone to capitalize on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd say it's fair, he put himself on the line to get the things required to do so.
How bout you work for sammy, grab their secret stuff and distribute it to everyone?
Were lucky we have anything at all. It's not really legal what he's doing you know.

No I haven't, and that's what my post was about.

coilbio said:
I'd say it's fair, he put himself on the line to get the things required to do so.
How bout you work for sammy, grab their secret stuff and distribute it to everyone?
Were lucky we have anything at all. It's not really legal what he's doing you know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
as long as the device is paid for it is perfectly legal. #righttorepair

Arod4409 said:
as long as the device is paid for it is perfectly legal. #righttorepair
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right to repair applies to cars and is old legislature. Just because people don't understand that doesn't mean we get to apply it to another market.
Electronic right to repair is not legal legislation, it's an idea, an incomplete idea that hasn't been well thought out at that considering big cell phone manufacturers can't even keep the same components and supply chains to build every device the same . Anyone who buys anything up to that point where it becomes actual defined legislation shouldnt assume rights to anything of the sort.
Read all the legal stuff you agreed to when you set up your phone, you're renting it, you don't own. It.

Right to repair applies to all consumer goods, and that legislation has been recently updated. It is legal to unlock and root/jailbreak your phone as long as you are not under a contract or lease agreement. Terms and conditions are very rarely binding contracts, and don't usually hold up in court, they are like a liability release at a trampoline park, ultimately you can still sue if you get injured. I doubt in the current political climate, any court would bother with a case of someone violating the t&c by rooting, unless it caused significant economic damage to a manufacturer. Yes, they would not have to honor the warranty anymore, but that's the risk you take.