In an attempt to get an official response from the parties involved with the locking of the phones, I am referencing 47 CFG 27.16 which has the following sections of interest, the former being more relevant than the latter.
(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee's C Block network, except:
(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network, or
(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government regulation.
(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks.
(f) Burden of proof. Once a complainant sets forth a prima facie case that the C Block licensee has refused to attach a device or application in violation of the requirements adopted in this section, the licensee shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it has adopted reasonable network standards and reasonably applied those standards in the complainant's case. Where the licensee bases its network restrictions on industry-wide consensus standards, such restrictions would be presumed reasonable.
I dont know if I will get anywhere with this but I am working on an open letter to VZW/Samsung (with EFF/FTC/FCC copied) requesting their official legal stance on this issue which will hopefully force them to respond according to part (f). I dont hold too much hope for this in the beginning but I am hopeful that this will gain traction as it seems, to me at least, that locking down the devices and not allowing installation of custom operating systems is in direct conflict with part (b) in that it "shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice".
Let me know what your thoughts are on this. I may be totally off base but I hope that I am not.
smokeyrd said:
In an attempt to get an official response from the parties involved with the locking of the phones, I am referencing 47 CFG 27.16 which has the following sections of interest, the former being more relevant than the latter.
(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee's C Block network, except:
(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network, or
(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government regulation.
(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks.
(f) Burden of proof. Once a complainant sets forth a prima facie case that the C Block licensee has refused to attach a device or application in violation of the requirements adopted in this section, the licensee shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it has adopted reasonable network standards and reasonably applied those standards in the complainant's case. Where the licensee bases its network restrictions on industry-wide consensus standards, such restrictions would be presumed reasonable.
I dont know if I will get anywhere with this but I am working on an open letter to VZW/Samsung (with EFF/FTC/FCC copied) requesting their official legal stance on this issue which will hopefully force them to respond according to part (f). I dont hold too much hope for this in the beginning but I am hopeful that this will gain traction as it seems, to me at least, that locking down the devices and not allowing installation of custom operating systems is in direct conflict with part (b) in that it "shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice".
Let me know what your thoughts are on this. I may be totally off base but I hope that I am not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon doesn't lock the phones. You can install any operator's SIM and use it. That's what this law is about - it's nothing to do with bootloaders, it's to do with portability of the phone between carriers.
Sorry, you're wasting your time.
k1mu said:
Verizon doesn't lock the phones. You can install any operator's SIM and use it. That's what this law is about - it's nothing to do with bootloaders, it's to do with portability of the phone between carriers.
Sorry, you're wasting your time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well that sucks. It seems like the law is referring to more than just the SIM cards because it references "devices and applications" but like I said before, I'm no lawyer. Part (e) is certainly intended to be about the SIM cards but part (b) seems to be a "general statement" In any case...waiting on the EFF response and we'll see where it goes from there. *shrug*
pected eekerman
smokeyrd said:
In an attempt to get an official response from the parties involved with the locking of the phones, I am referencing 47 CFG 27.16 which has the following sections of interest, the former being more relevant than the latter.
(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee's C Block network, except:
(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network, or
(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government regulation.
(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee's standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers' networks.
(f) Burden of proof. Once a complainant sets forth a prima facie case that the C Block licensee has refused to attach a device or application in violation of the requirements adopted in this section, the licensee shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that it has adopted reasonable network standards and reasonably applied those standards in the complainant's case. Where the licensee bases its network restrictions on industry-wide consensus standards, such restrictions would be presumed reasonable.
I dont know if I will get anywhere with this but I am working on an open letter to VZW/Samsung (with EFF/FTC/FCC copied) requesting their official legal stance on this issue which will hopefully force them to respond according to part (f). I dont hold too much hope for this in the beginning but I am hopeful that this will gain traction as it seems, to me at least, that locking down the devices and not allowing installation of custom operating systems is in direct conflict with part (b) in that it "shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice".
Let me know what your thoughts are on this. I may be totally off base but I hope that I am not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AFAIK this only applies to those phones that make use of the C-block (700MHz band) of the radio spectrum. Only some new phones utilize that frequency range, and I think they also have to be bought off contract from the manufacturer directly. I think the Nexus 7 2013 edition tablet is made to use the C-block spectrum, but even then Big Red found some way to get past and violate the open access policy and disallow those tablets to be used when they clearly can and do work with Verizon.
Basically, what Im saying is Verizon will always find ways to lock everything up and be buttholes about it. Im sure the guy in that Tom's Hardware article (I cant post links yet) is fighting Verizon to get his new tablet working as it should, but like others who have tried, hes apt to fail. We just have to wait and see and count on hackery and our beloved developers to get the things we want.
No letter/petition is ever going to persuade samsung or Verizon to unlock the bootloader. They can do whatever they want and aren't going to listen to a small amount of users who wish to flash custom software. Period.
What is the purpose of a developer edition? Thank you.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda app-developers app
richii0207 said:
What is the purpose of a developer edition? Thank you.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly, its just another way for Samsung to earn money. Normally, phones can be unlocked by going to the manufacturer website and using a special tool or some other sort of method. However, Verizon has completely removed that ability. So, Samsung, instead of helping devs by fighting to reverse that, they took it as a way to make extra cash by making a phone without Verizon's custom bootloader security that you buy out of contract from Samsung themselves. You get a completely unlocked phone, and Samsung gets pocket money. Not entirely fair, and it cheats people who need to buy the phone under subsidy, but such are companies like Verizon.
gnubian said:
No letter/petition is ever going to persuade samsung or Verizon to unlock the bootloader. They can do whatever they want and aren't going to listen to a small amount of users who wish to flash custom software. Period.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In this case the goal isnt to politely ask that they stop doing it. The goal is to force them to conform to Federal laws governing their use of the spectrum. That being said, after some input from other members here that looks to be doubtful. I'll still give it a shot and see what turns up. It cant hurt to try.
No can't hurt to try.. Like someone else already stated though.. Neither Verizon or Samsung really care about folks like us who wish to have an unlocked bootloader to flash custom ROMs and such. Were such a small number to them. Sux I know.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Mistertac said:
No can't hurt to try.. Like someone else already stated though.. Neither Verizon or Samsung really care about folks like us who wish to have an unlocked bootloader to flash custom ROMs and such. Were such a small number to them. Sux I know.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One piece of ammo you might want to use is the fact that Cyanogen and its partners are now making phones. CM is a custom ROM to start with and if the carriers don't want the phones on their network, a restraint of trade lawsuit could be in the works.
That said, the letter is still a long shot but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
ky5ever said:
Honestly, its just another way for Samsung to earn money. Normally, phones can be unlocked by going to the manufacturer website and using a special tool or some other sort of method. However, Verizon has completely removed that ability. So, Samsung, instead of helping devs by fighting to reverse that, they took it as a way to make extra cash by making a phone without Verizon's custom bootloader security that you buy out of contract from Samsung themselves. You get a completely unlocked phone, and Samsung gets pocket money. Not entirely fair, and it cheats people who need to buy the phone under subsidy, but such are companies like Verizon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who NEEDS an S4?
If you chose to have someone pay the bulk of the price for you in exchange for you signing a contract dictating usage... Where is your complaint?
I am all for "sticking it to the man", I heavily support us hacking the phones to get what we want... But Its hard to complain the "guy" who paid the bulk of the cost of your phone had a say what is going on.
Contrary to popular belief the a Samsung Galaxy S4 (non dev) does NOT cost $250. Its closer to $700. The difference in cost represents the cost of the restrictions placed on you by re-upping your contract and having limitations/bloatware put on your phone.
scryan said:
Who NEEDS an S4?
If you chose to have someone pay the bulk of the price for you in exchange for you signing a contract dictating usage... Where is your complaint?
I am all for "sticking it to the man", I heavily support us hacking the phones to get what we want... But Its hard to complain the "guy" who paid the bulk of the cost of your phone had a say what is going on.
Contrary to popular belief the a Samsung Galaxy S4 (non dev) does NOT cost $250. Its closer to $700. The difference in cost represents the cost of the restrictions placed on you by re-upping your contract and having limitations/bloatware put on your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Contrary to popular belief the a Samsung Galaxy S4 (non dev) does NOT cost $250. Its closer to $700.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what subsidy means....correct me if I am wrong?
Also, buying a retail (non-developer) S4 changes nothing. You still get bloatware, and you still get a locked bootloader, nothing changes.
Buying a phone out of contract just means you can go without data on your plan. It also means you do not have to keep paying for two years, obviously.
Buying a dev S4 is NOT done through Verizon. To get the ultra-super-special feature of an unlocked bootloader, you have to get it from somewhere else than Verizon. And that place is Samsung, directly.
Finally, I know nobody NEEDS an S4, I dont know why you had to attack me based on that assumption. I said anyone who needs the phone on SUBSIDY. Because, yeah, the only other option is $700, like you said.
ky5ever said:
That's what subsidy means....correct me if I am wrong?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, 100% wrong.
Look at your sales tax.
You bought a $700 phone and they refunded some money... Thats why you pay the sales tax on full price.
I mean, think of it this way... Find me a brand new S4 for $250 from a retailer. I have only $250 dollars. I will not sign any contracts or do any deals past the one event... Buying an S4. I have $300. Since you can buy S4's for $250, send me a brand new unopened S4 and you can pocket the profit...
But you cannot buy an S4 for $250 alone... So its pretty hard to call that the cost yes? Because no matter what it will cost you more then that to obtain one. You cannot straight trade $250 for an S4.
By definition subsidy is about the price you pay, but not cost.
See the following:
money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to Merriam-Webster.
The price you pay with a subsity is less then the cost of the good. The cost of the good is what you pay + whatever whoever else pays.
It may chance the price, but the cost
the price of something : the amount of money that is needed to pay for or buy something
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is still what is was before. Just now your not the one paying the bulk of it. Someone else is stepping in and taking up part of that burden.
But the cost the is taken up by Verizon is still recouped.
Firstly, and mostly, by the increase in monthly income due to more people resigning contracts.
Second, by the vendors who pay for their bloatware to be preloaded
Thirdly, by the increase in sales project to occur due to modifications made before sale, i.e. increasing security to make the product more viable for corporate and government use.
The cost is what it is, your price changes as you get someone else to foot the bill.
Hence the extra input from the guy who made up the difference in what you pay and the cost (Samsung is NOT selling the S4 to verizon at no profit, verizon buys phones to sell like any other retailer. Samsung doesn't care about Verizon contracts, only number of units sold to a retailer, on that basis Verizon CAN negotiate a better cost per unit, but that is really the same as any other retailer... Just their size gives them leverage. But Samsung has NOTHING to do with the subsidy. )
scryan said:
Yup, 100% wrong.
Look at your sales tax.
You bought a $700 phone and they refunded some money... Thats why you pay the sales tax on full price.
According to Merriam-Webster.
The price you pay with a subsity is less then the cost of the good. The cost of the good is what you pay + whatever whoever else pays.
It may chance the price, but the cost
Is still what is was before. Just now your not the one paying the bulk of it. Someone else is stepping in and taking up part of that burden.
But the cost the is taken up by Verizon is still recouped.
Firstly, and mostly, by the increase in monthly income due to more people resigning contracts.
Second, by the vendors who pay for their bloatware to be preloaded
Thirdly, by the increase in sales project to occur due to modifications made before sale, i.e. increasing security to make the product more viable for corporate and government use.
The cost is what it is, your price changes as you get someone else to foot the bill.
Hence the extra input from the guy who made up the difference in what you pay and the cost (Samsung is NOT selling the S4 to verizon at no profit, verizon buys phones to sell like any other retailer. Samsung doesn't care about Verizon contracts, only number of units sold to a retailer, on that basis Verizon CAN negotiate a better cost per unit, but that is really the same as any other retailer... Just their size gives them leverage. But Samsung has NOTHING to do with the subsidy. )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First off, what you are saying doesnt make any sense. You said that "contrary to popular belief, the S4 does NOT cost $250, its closer to $700."
Uhm, thats exactly what I said in my first post. So, no, I am not 100% wrong. Not even the slightest bit wrong. I said subsidy. Thats why the phone isnt actually $250. Cause thats what subsidy means. The phone is sold at a reduced price because the rest is paid off by Verizon.
You also stated that the reason there is bloatware and a locked bootloader is because, since Verizon paid half the price (or so), they assume some control over the phone.
My argument to that is, if that is the case, then how come buying the S4 out of contract for full price still gets you a bloated and locked device? The subsidy has nothing to do with bloatware. Verizon is going to bloat and restrict anything they sell THEMSELVES, no matter how it is purchased.
THAT is why, to get a phone sans bloatware and lock, you must get it from another company, and only purchase a SIM card and insert it to the phone.
You also now state that vendors pay Verizon for their bloatware to be preloaded. Uhm, no. Vendors made the phone. They dont have to pay anyone to install their own software on their own device. Verizon actually pays the vendors a small fee to have bloatware installed. That is part of the reason iPhones never have and never will have carrier bloat. Apple refuses to sell the software just so it can be slowed down.
Another thing. Verizon did absolutely nothing towards increasing security for corporate users. Samsung did. Also, Samsung made the bootloader able to boot custom ROMs and kernels, you just lose the ability to make KNOX containers. But, really, what average user is going to do that? The reason most of the average S4 users do not want the KNOX warranty void flag set is because it reduces resell value.
Samsung sells the phones at about $580-$600. Thats some profit off the manufacturing cost, which Im not sure of. Verizon then sells it for $700 plus taxes and all. Thats some profit for them, too. However, that is too high for the average user to pay. So, they have part of the cost paid for, as long as you promise to give them money for two years.
Verizon recovers the lost money from charging ridiculously high prices for CAPPED and SPEED LIMITED data, as well as by forcing the use of some of their services, like making you pay for internet if you have a smartphone. They cost more, so they make you pay for something else, a little over a long time, to recoup what they lost.
They DONT get it back from people resigning contracts. New contracts have nothing to do with phones purchased previously. Once the contract is paid, the phone is paid for, in full. So, starting a new contract starts payments on an entirely new session.
ky5ever said:
First off, what you are saying doesnt make any sense. You said that "contrary to popular belief, the S4 does NOT cost $250, its closer to $700."
Uhm, thats exactly what I said in my first post. So, no, I am not 100% wrong. Not even the slightest bit wrong. I said subsidy. Thats why the phone isnt actually $250. Cause thats what subsidy means. The phone is sold at a reduced price because the rest is paid off by Verizon.
You also stated that the reason there is bloatware and a locked bootloader is because, since Verizon paid half the price (or so), they assume some control over the phone.
You also stated that the reason there is bloatware and a locked bootloader is because, since Verizon paid half the price (or so), they assume some control over the phone.
My argument to that is, if that is the case, then how come buying the S4 out of contract for full price still gets you a bloated and locked device? The subsidy has nothing to do with bloatware. Verizon is going to bloat and restrict anything they sell THEMSELVES, no matter how it is purchased.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When you buy off contract you have the choice of
The phone still "costs" the market clearing price of an off contract S4... Sure that money is not anywhere, but its opportunity costs because they could have sold that unit subsidized for the market clearing price had they chosen.
The off contract verizon S4 still comes with all of that because that is what they decided to do with what they sell. Just like I can go buy a corvette and paint on a race strip and sell it at my dealership. If you want a discount from me on a corvette you need to run a bumpersticker with my logo, and I am forcing you to have a race strip. If you don't want a race strip... Buy from chevy.
ky5ever said:
You also now state that vendors pay Verizon for their bloatware to be preloaded. Uhm, no. Vendors made the phone. They dont have to pay anyone to install their own software on their own device. Verizon actually pays the vendors a small fee to have bloatware installed. That is part of the reason iPhones never have and never will have carrier bloat. Apple refuses to sell the software just so it can be slowed down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Vendors didnt make the phones. Vendors are:
a person or company offering something for sale, esp. a trader in the street.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The people who make the bloatware profit off their apps or services. Guys who sell services (vendors) pay verizon to put their apps on phones so that the end consumer will hopefully like it and continue using the service.
ky5ever said:
Another thing. Verizon did absolutely nothing towards increasing security for corporate users. Samsung did. Also, Samsung made the bootloader able to boot custom ROMs and kernels, you just lose the ability to make KNOX containers. But, really, what average user is going to do that? The reason most of the average S4 users do not want the KNOX warranty void flag set is because it reduces resell value.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Having Admin rights reduces security. Its just a fact. Its the reason user accounts exist in linux, and why you only become administrator briefly each time rights need to be granted in both android and linux. Your phone is more secure if you don't have to option to mistakenly load something insecure on it. This is simply a fact, you can read it from pretty much any book that discusses the subject. YOU may be super admin, but there is no test before admin rights are given... and if one of your employees is not the super admin he thinks he is, your security has been compromised.
ky5ever said:
Verizon recovers the lost money from charging ridiculously high prices for CAPPED and SPEED LIMITED data, as well as by forcing the use of some of their services, like making you pay for internet if you have a smartphone. They cost more, so they make you pay for something else, a little over a long time, to recoup what they lost.
They DONT get it back from people resigning contracts. New contracts have nothing to do with phones purchased previously. Once the contract is paid, the phone is paid for, in full. So, starting a new contract starts payments on an entirely new session.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They make money in more ways then just monthly contract. Again, do you think they are not paid to load bloat? Do you really not acknowledged that a phone that cannot be modified is more secure from the viewpoint of a corporation issuing phones to random employies? This increases sales and profit.
The fact that its mean kind does not mean a damn thing. Its a deal YOU already agreed was fair, and VZ has your signature to prove it. If it wasn't fair, why didn't you sign up for the better option?
You were presented with, in writing, the fact that you would not be allowed to modify your phone if you asked VZ for help with the price. If you didn't read your contact, or didn't believe they would hold you to it... I don't know what to tell you.
And honestly that is what it comes down to more then ANYTHING.
MAN THE **** UP. You knew VZ locks phones from the get go. They don't hide it. Even if it was unlocked you agreed contractuatlly that you should not be able to modify the phone.
The real difference is that we haven't been able to beat them yet. Be upset about that, but you signed up for what you signed up for man... Very transparent.
15 33663429
scryan said:
When you buy off contract you have the choice of
The phone still "costs" the market clearing price of an off contract S4... Sure that money is not anywhere, but its opportunity costs because they could have sold that unit subsidized for the market clearing price had they chosen.
The off contract verizon S4 still comes with all of that because that is what they decided to do with what they sell. Just like I can go buy a corvette and paint on a race strip and sell it at my dealership. If you want a discount from me on a corvette you need to run a bumpersticker with my logo, and I am forcing you to have a race strip. If you don't want a race strip... Buy from chevy.
Vendors didnt make the phones. Vendors are:
The people who make the bloatware profit off their apps or services. Guys who sell services (vendors) pay verizon to put their apps on phones so that the end consumer will hopefully like it and continue using the service.
Having Admin rights reduces security. Its just a fact. Its the reason user accounts exist in linux, and why you only become administrator briefly each time rights need to be granted in both android and linux. Your phone is more secure if you don't have to option to mistakenly load something insecure on it. This is simply a fact, you can read it from pretty much any book that discusses the subject. YOU may be super admin, but there is no test before admin rights are given... and if one of your employees is not the super admin he thinks he is, your security has been compromised.
They make money in more ways then just monthly contract. Again, do you think they are not paid to load bloat? Do you really not acknowledged that a phone that cannot be modified is more secure from the viewpoint of a corporation issuing phones to random employies? This increases sales and profit.
The fact that its mean kind does not mean a damn thing. Its a deal YOU already agreed was fair, and VZ has your signature to prove it. If it wasn't fair, why didn't you sign up for the better option?
You were presented with, in writing, the fact that you would not be allowed to modify your phone if you asked VZ for help with the price. If you didn't read your contact, or didn't believe they would hold you to it... I don't know what to tell you.
And honestly that is what it comes down to more then ANYTHING.
MAN THE **** UP. You knew VZ locks phones from the get go. They don't hide it. Even if it was unlocked you agreed contractuatlly that you should not be able to modify the phone.
The real difference is that we haven't been able to beat them yet. Be upset about that, but you signed up for what you signed up for man... Very transparent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was gonna just give the f**k up and leave you be, cause Im tired of arguing and I figured youd come to a consensus, and I was even agreeing with many of your points, up until I read the last paragraph.
scryan said:
The fact that its mean kind does not mean a damn thing. Its a deal YOU already agreed was fair, and VZ has your signature to prove it. If it wasn't fair, why didn't you sign up for the better option?
You were presented with, in writing, the fact that you would not be allowed to modify your phone if you asked VZ for help with the price. If you didn't read your contact, or didn't believe they would hold you to it... I don't know what to tell you.
And honestly that is what it comes down to more then ANYTHING.
MAN THE **** UP. You knew VZ locks phones from the get go. They don't hide it. Even if it was unlocked you agreed contractuatlly that you should not be able to modify the phone.
The real difference is that we haven't been able to beat them yet. Be upset about that, but you signed up for what you signed up for man... Very transparent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First off. Verizon does not state that the software cannot be modified. They state that if you do modify the phone, you cannot ask for help fixing the phone or applying further modifications to it with support from Verizon. They will not help you. If they said you cannot root the phone, than a LOT of people would be facing court sessions.
Secondly. Man the f**k up? What made you think I was any bit upset with what Verizon does?
I sure as hell accept it. And I sure as hell cant do anything about it. Thats not the problem here. I was merely telling the other guy that HE is also going to have to "man the f**k up" and deal with it.
Third. VZW just recently started locking phones. And it was not publicized. They dont just up and go "HEY GUYS, WE LOCK PHONES NOW. KTHXBAI." Also, if it was unlocked, then why make an agreement that Im not going to unlock it? Thats right, there was no agreement.
We have beaten them, several times. Not yet for the S4, but we are oh so close. Im not upset about that, far from it, my friend. Im ecstatic. I only wish I could contribute somehow myself.
I signed up for a high end phone on the nations most reliable cellphone network. Any caveats therein are to be dealt with as met.
Fourth. Verizon locking the bootloader when one of the key features of the KNOX bootloader is staying secure while also letting you run proprietary customized ROMs and software IS NOT A SELLING POINT. I dont know WHAT made you think LACK of features was a selling point.
A phone that keeps ONLY THE DATA THEY WANT, to be encrypted, encrypted, while keeping everything else normal, is the best phone.
Most corporate companies are purchasing T-Mobile or AT&T phones, even, because they are more lenient with letting the business customize the phone to their individual needs. Not everyone wants what Verizon wants.
Im done with you. You can type me up another nice long reply and tell me again how wrong I am. I dont care. You believe what you want to believe, and Ill believe what I want to believe. This all started because you misinterpreted my words, anyway. So, please, lets drop this.
It's worth a shot and i applaud u for exercising your 1st amendment and looking out for consumer rights. I'll definitely sign that petition. In addition, I wonder if this also applies to carrier"blacklisting/blocking" equipment imei from being used due to unpaid accounts. I would think that it's common sense and good business to blacklist/block the account holder who has delinquent or unpaid equipment bills instead of blocking the phone from being activated on another account.
////ANDY
I apologize if i found the wrong forum to ask this in, if so please forgive and excuse me.
So for the "TL/DR" version, the question i have is...
From what i understand the SM-G965U Samsung Verizon S9+ that i have, which i today flashed to G965u1 global variant was already, by default sold from verizon as Unlocked. A IMEI check on various MVNO's ting.com, straighttalk, Walmart Fam Mobile, as well as a few IMEI checker sites have show this IMEI for this phone thats still under payments as clear and ready to activate with their sim. Also after successfully flashing the global bloat free variant to the phone, i was able to make a successful test call and confirm mobile data worked great with a borrowed Walmart Family Mobile Sim in it.
If i bounce out of this relashonsip, and take my phone as it is, still under her plan, and just go get a Sim Kit with the Unlimited plan from (Probably AT&T) will verizon or can verizon, or her block the phone once the sim from another carrier is working in it? Either by financle lock or her reporting it lost or anything like that? Or am I in the clear?
This isnt going to base my decison to leave this situation or not, (im going to peroid my childs welbeing is most important of all, my tolance for anger, abuse and BS comes a much later 2nd or 3rd) I just want to make plans as to what i should do about my phone, i want to keep it, im not going to fall into her games, and im going to change the number and would like to just pop the sim and be done with it, but i want to know if they can do anything if its reported lost, or she just stops paying her bill and they shut the account down due to non payment.
And for the details, and the morally inclined the situation is..
I have a week and a half new S9+ activated on an account from Verizon. The situation with myself and the account holder (Ex-Gf, or soon to be) has turned very sour so much that Im at a empass where I feel myself and my daughter are in a unhealthy enviroment and Im legitamatly concerned for her mental health, and the enviroment being to agressive, controlling and abusive. So basicly im leavin her. Im a single dad and this is my kid, not her so no im not running off with "our" child, unfortuatley the biological mother doesnt care to be in her life. But enough about the moral dilemma, emplications and personal life. This person is very unhealthy and we need to leave.
I became a authorized user on her account, allowed to make any decisons/purchases ect and she was with me when we bought it. Or rather signed up the payment agreement, with 0 down and just paid taxes and turned her plan and mine into a family with Go unlimited. With my S9+ having 24 payments of like $36 a month with the insurance ect. Phone case and screen protector added to the next bill, bill date the 27th.
Night before i handed her $400 in cash to add to the bill to get this about half paid off, only to find out she choose to blow it on something else, and giving her friend $150 because he was down on his luck.
The enviroment and some things she has said, has frightened me to the point where i belive she may try to either falsely accuse me of something to hold me hostage in the relashonship as she wont seek counsiling, or just continue to scream and agrue and yell either in front of or directly at my child, and after many attempts to try to get some 3rd party help counsilling ect ive decided its not going to work, and shes not going to try. She addtionaly has around $2k of my silver bars locked in her safe deposit box she wont allow access to for reasons I spend to much on things i dont need which isnt true. I think she is just trying to limit my resources to leave and or make me more dependant on her.
Which isnt going to work.
Thank you, and I apologize for the personal details of the post, and the lenght.
Thanks again.
She will likely report the phone stolen. It will be blacklisted at that point for all American carriers, but would still work internationally.
You should just be able to return it if you've had it a week and a half. It's network locked and won't work with another carrier's SIM unless you pay it off and get the code from Verizon or use one of the pay services you can find around the net.
No, it's not network locked. As I said I just tested it with a At&t sim and worked fine. It seems all Verizon phones are now unlock from the network as per an agreement with the FCC during the purchase of the 700 megahertz Spectrum that they would allow their phones to be unlocked what's your now done at the point of sale and activation. When I'm wondering is as if after I've Place another Sim in it and have continued use if she decides to be the way that she is and report it stolen or lost or whatever which I'm guessing is it can't be reported stolen unless there's a police report lost Maybe. If the new carrier it's working on will the activate or block it. I've already given her money to make up for the cost of the device whether or not she can apply it to the bill is up to her or if she even can but I'm not getting that money back so it's in my best interest to keep the device and keep it working on a different network via prepaid.
Bottom line, if you're using a device that isn't yours (and honestly, it really isn't), it's not safe. It seems unlikely that she will just continue to make payments on a device used by someone that just left her life. Maybe she's honest and will do the right thing, since you paid her money. But you'll never really know. You could wake up one day with no service and have very little you can do about it.
The better thing to do, rather than handing her $400, would have been to walk out of the relationship, leaving the phone in the home. Go take the $400 and buy a midrange device of your own.
Given she already took your money and blew it on something other than the bill you intended it for, you're pretty much screwed. She could easily blacklist the phone and there wouldn't really be any recourse for you (not even small claims court, as I'm guessing it was a verbal "agreement" when you gave her the $400 to put towards the bill. It would literally be your word against hers, and that wouldn't go far.)
Not saying you would have considered that route, but just putting it out there it wouldn't work
Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
T-Mobile employee here. If she decides to report it lost or stolen (if she still has the insurance on it she can pay the deductible and receive another of the same model) your IMEI will be put on a national blacklist. Doesn't matter which carrier you use or the firmware you flash on the device, the IMEI will be the same and will not register with any network in the US if she uses her insurance or just reports it but doesn't claim it. Once the IMEI is on this list it's nearly impossible to get it unblocked. Your best option is to try and return it and get your money back from your ex. You could try to sell it to someone overseas but that comes with it's own risks.
Thread closed by OP request!
I own and I mean own a OnePlus Nord N10 5G on a T Mobile carrier. It's a decent phone I think, but the folks at T Mobile in the US apparently have a problem unlocking devices even though you own them. I spent over two hours on the phone and visited the store where I bought it from only to have wasted a ton of time. Can anyone tell me how to get around this? I want to root and flash my rom to global so I can, well you know why.. I have all my documentation to prove my device is legit I just need help. OnePlus Nord N10 5G
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hint: Add OnePlus Nord N10 5G to this thread's title thus mainly owners of such a device get addressed.
jwoegerbauer said:
Hint: Add OnePlus Nord N10 5G to this thread's title thus mainly owners of such a device get addressed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks! I'm new to this world and have a ton to learn.
You do not have any pending payment. Then tmobile must unlock your phone. You can use their app. T
You can call to customer care and ask for unlock code.
When you add other sim card, it is ask for code?
Mobilelearner said:
You do not have any pending payment. Then tmobile must unlock your phone. You can use their app. T
You can call to customer care and ask for unlock code.
When you add other sim card, it is ask for code?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, I don't owe money on the device, I paid cash at the carrier store. Apparently when you but a carrier phone from T-Mobile they require you to use it in network for 40 days before they will send you a token. To me this is a bunch of crap. I haven't put a new sim in as I am still using this carrier for service. It's just aggravating that this company wants so much control. Point being; it's MY PHONE!! I can get them to send my token for OnePlus in a month from now, so if there is a way I can get around that I am all ears. OnePlus Nord N10 5G T-Mobile
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
40 days for locked mobile to unlock. You have no pending money. You can ask for unlock code. You can temporary unlock for 15 days using their apps.
I called them again today, spent an hour to hear the lady say that it wasn't their policy but the FCC? I don't know what the hell is going on.
i have a 300 dollar phone that is paid for and no obligations to them and yet because my ignorant American ass go at carrier based phone I now have to wait . If I could just wax the thing or trade it at this point I would.
Total BS
Spidermonkeyj75 said:
I called them again today, spent an hour to hear the lady say that it wasn't their policy but the FCC? I don't know what the hell is going on.
i have a 300 dollar phone that is paid for and no obligations to them and yet because my ignorant American ass go at carrier based phone I now have to wait . If I could just wax the thing or trade it at this point I would.
Total BS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no you dont lol
complain on facebook or dm me and ill give you corprats number they over ride aanyhting
I agree, you really did get shafted paying cash for a jailed phone mate. Why did you buy from t-mobile instead of ordering an unlocked phone from oneplus website?
You could have had verizon stick a sim in it immediately instead of getting forcibly bent over by t-mobile. You definitely have my sympathy. That really blows.
To be fair to T-Mobile, this has been their policy for years, and is publicly visible. It only would have required a little reading to discover. It's not really their fault if you didn't do your due diligence.
swbf2lord said:
To be fair to T-Mobile, this has been their policy for years, and is publicly visible. It only would have required a little reading to discover. It's not really their fault if you didn't do your due diligence.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol at being fair to a major corporation that's apart of an oligopoly. Who do you think drafted the laws and rules that they hide behind? They ****ing did. I mean seriously bro... How much did they pay you to be shillin'? LMAO fair to T-Mobile... That's like saying "Now to be fair to the Nazis...". GTFOoH.
Just threaten them with false advertisement if they're playing the FCC game.
The ability to unlock your phone and when is in their fine print. Like on tv where everyone can see it, with a magnifying glass.
Pipedream420 said:
Lol at being fair to a major corporation that's apart of an oligopoly. Who do you think drafted the laws and rules that they hide behind? They ****ing did. I mean seriously bro... How much did they pay you to be shillin'? LMAO fair to T-Mobile... That's like saying "Now to be fair to the Nazis...". GTFOoH.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can we be adults here? Or will we devolve to childish mud-slinging?
el80ne said:
I agree, you really did get shafted paying cash for a jailed phone mate. Why did you buy from t-mobile instead of ordering an unlocked phone from oneplus website?
You could have had verizon stick a sim in it immediately instead of getting forcibly bent over by t-mobile. You definitely have my sympathy. That really blows.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was certainly ignorant. This is the cherry popper device. I had never attempted nor knew about modding at all. Lesson learned.
If you paid full price for the phone, then T-Mobile has to unlock it for you. Try to contact their T-force support on Twitter.
I have one I got from Metro by T-Mobile for $40 as a port-in deal, but they have a different unlock policy, after 6 months you can unlock it.
Oh I filed a FCC complaint and TMobile super high up ended up unlocking every TMobile phone I needed unlocked. Even my woman's phone which she just got lol
For anybody currently reading through this post, and are considering purchasing a new device at full price...
Let this be a lesson to always ALWAYS look for an unlocked variant if you intend to fully own the device without carrier lock qualms. Unfortunately buying any device direct from a carrier store will inevitably contain the fine print we so often skim through right before handing them that cash money moolah. Buy unlocked if possible, and if not then go for the carrier variant you intend to stick with. Avoid this hoedown of a waiting for the ****hawks to swoop down to free you simply because you didn't do your due diligence. I mean, you don't buy an appliance that runs on 240v only to find you won't be able to run it in the US grid and complain to the seller for selling you a locked device that you now fully own, right? There's a certain degree of basic consumer knowledge required especially for a consumer who intends to modify the device through advanced technical methods, right?
mario0318 said:
For anybody currently reading through this post, and are considering purchasing a new device at full price...
Let this be a lesson to always ALWAYS look for an unlocked variant if you intend to fully own the device without carrier lock qualms. Unfortunately buying any device direct from a carrier store will inevitably contain the fine print we so often skim through right before handing them that cash money moolah. Buy unlocked if possible, and if not then go for the carrier variant you intend to stick with. Avoid this hoedown of a waiting for the ****hawks to swoop down to free you simply because you didn't do your due diligence. I mean, you don't buy an appliance that runs on 240v only to find you won't be able to run it in the US grid and complain to the seller for selling you a locked device that you now fully own, right? There's a certain degree of basic consumer knowledge required especially for a consumer who intends to modify the device through advanced technical methods, right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Kinda. Up until maybe three months in, none of us were really clear about carrier variants. So a lot of people did buy expecting the usual metro crap, but not the TMobile fine print.