http://www.droid-life.com/2011/04/0...eed&utm_campaign=Feed:+DroidLife+(droid+life)
This does not sound very good if true. The Fascinate is only a good phone because of the developers. It sounds like Verizon may already know who we are (as in, those who have rooted) and may have evil intent planned.
I can not go back to Stock on this phone. 2.2 w/ voodoo is the way. 2.1 Stock, please say ain't so! (That is if Verizon doesn't choose to deactivate us first). I don't tether so maybe they are only targeting that crowd...
I think I will not upgrade until a phone comes out that doesn't require rooting or ROMing. May have to put up with some bloat, but the new phones don't need to be overclocked, and the Dual Core's (rooted or not) seem to have virtually no lag. Android provides much custom option even without root.
I really hope the Galaxy SII comes to Verizon. I have my doubts.
I'm straight up leaving any carrier that does this. I refuse to let a random company tell me that I cannot do what I want with a device that I bought, especially given the inherent open nature of Android.
-Sent from the future using my time machine
This is not going to be pretty. Anyone remember Napster? Ticketmaster?
I don't think there is any confirmed source for this that it is actually happening, just that it could happen along with the locked boot loaders to "protect" users.
This sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen...
On Monday, the U.S Copyright Office ruled that jailbreaking an iPhone or other mobile device will no longer violate federal copyright law
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This was one of the headlines circulating last summer, and it is true. You can read more here.
Clicky
And as far as I know it is still legit to this date. So there is nothing any company can really do once the device is paid for. Now I don't know if this pertains to subsidized phones or corporate phones.
I would assume that doing this would be a HUGE violation by verizon and any carrier who participates. It is law that we are able to do what we want with our devices....for now.
Didn't they do this exact thing with the Moto Droid 1?
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1020494
Sounds like FUD to me. There is very little financial incentive for VZW to do this. Track yes, but do anything about, no.
VZW would quickly find that it's better to sell a unit for whatever reason than to lose a sale to another carrier/phone. (AOSP?)
Look at other embedded devices.
Linksys found it's better to just live with allowing 3rd party firmware than to fight it. They continue to offer a 'full' linux version of the WRT54G routers. Newegg even promotes it as being compatible with DD-WRT.
Since getting my android I don't keep up with media players but as far as I know, no providers are blocking RockBox. This is from 2006 but I still think shows how some companies embrace the value of 3rd party firmware:
"CNET reports that SanDisk is courting open source developers to port Rockbox to its popular MP3 players. SanDisk is currently the world's second most popular MP3 player manufacturer after Apple. Rockbox is an open source OS for most major MP3 players".
Carriers mostly get your money up front (and in your monthly usage bill). Not much financial incentive to stop how you use your phone. Ask yourself this. Why does VZW allow Google Maps if they offer VZ Navigator? Simple they sell more phones by including Google Maps than by 'forcing' you to use VZ Navigator.
Just my 0.02
Yeesh, I payed for the phone, and am paying for the data plan and all those other crappy fees. They better at least let me do what I want with the phone itself.
need to read this. from the guys at blackhat.
http://www.mydroidworld.com/forums/...rooting-manufacturers-carriers.html#post65013
if they shut off our service it will be legal. itll be in contracts. if you dont like them and wont sign them then you wont get service or whatever.
ugh.
what makes me mad is that devs and companies leak roms etc to us on purpose so we can test them better than they could in-house. pretty cheap testing if you ask me. then then fix things and release the offical updates.
just go after the bandwidth and warranty abusers.
I will not purchase another smart phone if this all comes to pass. I left the iPhone because of the draconian control the corporation exerted over *my* device, if Android goes the same way, I'll leave them too. I'd sooner drop back to a no-frills cell phone than to put up with a locked down and bloated to **** smartphone.
hasnt this battle already been won?? i mean with the Geohot situation last July that resulted in "jailbreaking" or modifying any mobile device being made legal? i dont think there is really anything they can do even if they do track us down and see who is rooted . mobile devices are safe im pretty sure . and hell , if Geohot comes through on this ps3 situation , gaming consoles will be too .
i suppose like the article says , they could deny us data ...maybe . but im pretty sure the law that was passed ... making it legal , would deny them the ability to punish us for doing something thats legal ..
i dunno , will be interesting to see how it plays out . if it does happen ... someone , somewhere , will find a way around it .
gkirby11 said:
This was one of the headlines circulating last summer, and it is true. You can read more here.
Clicky
And as far as I know it is still legit to this date. So there is nothing any company can really do once the device is paid for. Now I don't know if this pertains to subsidized phones or corporate phones.
I would assume that doing this would be a HUGE violation by verizon and any carrier who participates. It is law that we are able to do what we want with our devices....for now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
iPhone's jailbreaking was never illegal even before the reassuring news press event. This has been covered by many different news.
However, it is the company's decision to go with whatever policy they want. Apple clearly stated that it is your decision to jailbreak your phone, but this will invalidate your warranty.
If Verizon starts cutting off rooted users, I will find a new carrier. They already rip us off with their pricing, but dictating how we use our phones? No way.
It isn't like anything illegal is being done with our phones. I root it to take off the **** that they put on. I rooted it because they won't hand over my 2.2 update. I root it so that I can customize it to my liking. A rooted phone is what Android is supposed to be like, not the crap that Verizon (or even Samsung) feeds us.
gkirby11 said:
This was one of the headlines circulating last summer, and it is true. You can read more here.
Clicky
And as far as I know it is still legit to this date. So there is nothing any company can really do once the device is paid for. Now I don't know if this pertains to subsidized phones or corporate phones.
I would assume that doing this would be a HUGE violation by verizon and any carrier who participates. It is law that we are able to do what we want with our devices....for now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah just so you know... it never was illegal. they just confirmed what we already knew.
I was in the ios scene for years before I came here, everybody made a big deal out of that bill but it didn't change anything at all really.
Sent from my MIUI SCH-i500
lucas.scott said:
hasnt this battle already been won?? i mean with the Geohot situation last July that resulted in "jailbreaking" or modifying any mobile device being made legal?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rooting/jailbreaking being legal wouldn't, in any way, stop carriers from deeming it a violation of the terms of service and denying access to the network.
The issue with Geohot was that Apple was trying to get the act of Jailbreaking considered a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and therefore, illegal. The courts concluded it wasn't, but the carriers can still draft any terms of service they like.
tbeas said:
If Verizon starts cutting off rooted users, I will find a new carrier. They already rip us off with their pricing, but dictating how we use our phones? No way.
It isn't like anything illegal is being done with our phones. I root it to take off the **** that they put on. I rooted it because they won't hand over my 2.2 update. I root it so that I can customize it to my liking. A rooted phone is what Android is supposed to be like, not the crap that Verizon (or even Samsung) feeds us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If they do go ahead with this it will be because of the largest data users being the ones most likely to flash a custom kernel that removes data throttling and enables free tethering. If 75% of the people who would be paying for tethering and use the most data aren't paying for the data/services then Verizon would see that as a huge loss of revenue and undue burden on the quality of their network.
Average Joe would view these users the same as P2P torrenting file sharers. Thieves. The term "root" will become synonymous with "bittorrent" even if you don't use it for mischevious practices. Both will be considered bad. You have to realize average Joe doesn't root or even understand it. The number of people who they are targeting is like 3% of Android users but they are probably using 20-30% or better of network resources. Its a win-win for Verizon. They lose relatively few customers and gain back a ton of network resources to sell to average Joe.
Bet your ass if its not already in your Verizon contract that using modified or unauthorized devices on the network being a breech of contract, that it will be added before you renew.
I have no issues with carriers tracking rooted users for the purpose of finding those that are tethering illegally (ie. without the proper data plan). However, if they start shutting off users that have rooted their devices just for the sake of rooting and cleaning them up or improving their functionality, that is over the line and I'm sure carriers such as MetroPCS and Cricket would love to see a nice new crowd of users come their way.
imnuts said:
I have no issues with carriers tracking rooted users for the purpose of finding those that are tethering illegally (ie. without the proper data plan). However, if they start shutting off users that have rooted their devices just for the sake of rooting and cleaning them up or improving their functionality, that is over the line and I'm sure carriers such as MetroPCS and Cricket would love to see a nice new crowd of users come their way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The bad part is, Verizon won't miss us. We are tiny. They stand to gain far more than they will lose.
One solution if they are tracking who took their ota update would be to odin to stock, receive update then just odin/flash back to super clean or whatever you use
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
Related
I considering suing 2012 for false advertisement because it listed 2012 as destruction of all humanity, they're liars . so I would need to know how many people would be willing to join my suit to possible a class action lawsuit. We must save Google, Android and AT&T!
ADMIN feel free to delete this at your choosing.
.01 Troll% .99% What? 95% Human 4% Random
FOR HUMANITY!!!! 2012!!1 AHhhhhh DOoOm Mayan DOoooommM What to do whhat to dooo!?!?!? GOOGLE AND ANDROID EPICNESS!!!?!?!?!?!?!!?!
KJSOARES2 said:
I considering suing AT&T for false advertisement because they listed the FM radio saying the phone had it,but upon learning this they removed the said feature from their site. so I would need to know how many people would be willing to join my suit to possible a class action lawsuit. I have started contact with a law office in Houston, and I intend to contact them tomorrow to see how to proceed. This is for AT&T customers only and for thoughts who purchased the Galaxy S 2 with intentions of using the FM Radio. This is not for people trying to make money for a feature they don't give a damn about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read haha.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium
Can't tell if real lawsuit or trolling ...
Sent from my SGS II
King Shady said:
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read haha.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
OP, are you serious? The T-Mobile G2X was advertised as a quad-band phone and it wasn't. Their website wasn't updated until about a month after people started to receive the device. You know what their response was? Crickets. The same response you'll get from AT&T. And this is a lot less impactful an omission. Whether you realize it or not you can't sue AT&T even if you wanted to. The T&C you agreed to when you signed up limits you to arbitration in case of a dispute. Instead of the nuclear option, why don't you try charm and get them to swap the phone or undo the transaction if FM radio really is that important to you. Those are your only options anyway as they're not going to change the specs on the phone or produce one just for you that has the FM radio.
This guy works for apple.
I voided my warranty and your mum.
KJSOARES2 said:
I considering suing AT&T for false advertisement because they listed the FM radio saying the phone had it,but upon learning this they removed the said feature from their site. so I would need to know how many people would be willing to join my suit to possible a class action lawsuit. I have started contact with a law office in Houston, and I intend to contact them tomorrow to see how to proceed. This is for AT&T customers only and for thoughts who purchased the Galaxy S 2 with intentions of using the FM Radio. This is not for people trying to make money for a feature they don't give a damn about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahaha!
Good luck with that.
This is from the Terms of Use for att.com which you agree to by using the site...
AT&T does not warrant that information, graphic depictions, product and service descriptions or other content of the Sites is accurate, complete, reliable, updated, current, or error-free. Despite our efforts, it is possible that a price for a product or service offered on the Site may be inaccurate or the product or service description may contain an inaccuracy. In the event AT&T determines that a product or service contains an inaccurate price or description, AT&T reserves the right to take any action it deems reasonable and necessary, in its sole discretion, to rectify the error, including without limitation canceling your order, unless prohibited by law. AT&T may make improvements or changes to any of its content, information products, services, or programs described on the Sites at any time without notice. You agree to notify AT&T immediately if you become aware of any pricing or descriptive errors or inconsistencies with any products or services you order through the Sites and comply with any corrective action taken by AT&T.
In other words, between mandated arbitration and the website ToU, you and your "lawyer" are pretty much SOL.
Barry is correct. You have no legal right or ability to file a law suit against them. In the contract that you signed, you accepted the ability to file through arbitration, but not through the courts.
i'm going to join the bandwagon here. Please do not actually follow through with this.
KJSOARES2 said:
I considering suing AT&T for false advertisement because they listed the FM radio saying the phone had it,but upon learning this they removed the said feature from their site. so I would need to know how many people would be willing to join my suit to possible a class action lawsuit. I have started contact with a law office in Houston, and I intend to contact them tomorrow to see how to proceed. This is for AT&T customers only and for thoughts who purchased the Galaxy S 2 with intentions of using the FM Radio. This is not for people trying to make money for a feature they don't give a damn about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
here you go, https://market.android.com/search?q=radio&so=1&c=apps
i recommend iHeartRadio if you want to listen to ClearChannel stations..
Its seems returning your phone would be the easiest solution to this issue...
Yeah... At best a lawsuit would get you back a restocking fee. Everyone who has this device is still within their 30 day return period at this point.
Entropy512 said:
Yeah... At best a lawsuit would get you back a restocking fee. Everyone who has this device is still within their 30 day return period at this point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Approached diplomatically, I'm sure they'd waive the re-stocking charge since there was an error on the website that indicated the phone was equipped with an FM radio. I've found AT&T pretty decent to work with most of the time. There's no question there was an error, the debate is over what should be done about it.
OP, assuming they let you out of the original purchase, get an iP4S instead. You can sell it on eBay and for the same price or less get an international SGS2 instead. It has the FM radio. If you buy it from the UK or Expansys-USA it'll still have a 2-year warranty.
This is something that could effect us all. What if the world does end? Depending on the survivors there may be enough to keep at&t going.
Does that mean I'm still under contract?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using XDA App
I think your contract dies with at&t. Unless you become president of at&t if you survive.
I know it's massively off-topic, but I really wanted to share my recent telephone experience with AT&T Wireless "customer service."
First, its important to note that I have two phones on my account: an iPhone 4 and the Samsung Galaxy SII. AT&T knows this and verified it on each one of my calls.
Having in mind that I wanted to harass them about Carrier IQ, I called to "demand" that AT&T stop spying on me. I explained that I work in the health care industry and that CIQ (carrier iq) transmitting that data was not only a violation of my privacy, but also likey a violation of federal HIPPA laws.
For each person I spoke with, I simply explained that I never agreed to share my personal information, and I'm not legally able to share my business information - regardless of AT&T's privacy policy - due to HIPPA laws. I would ask that the CIQ program be removed from my phones or disabled.
First person I spoke with (obviously outsourced call center) asked me to hold and hung up on me after 20 minutes of hold.
So, I called back again, and this person eventually said they'd have to escalate my concerns. She put me on hold for 30 minutes, came back to say she found a supervisor for me to talk to, and then she hung up on me as well.
I called back, this time very annoyed. I asked the person from the outsourced call center to either transfer me immediately to a supervisor, and if she wasn't able to do so without putting me on a hold of more than 1 minute, to transfer me to the department that handles contract cancellations. She put me on hold for 20 minutes and came back with a supervisor (supposedly... the "supervisor" was more clueless than the original rep.) (Note that the rep did EXACTLY what I asked her not to do: put me on hold again.)
Now, I'm going to point out again that I only have two phones: the iphone 4 and the SGS2. This was confirmed, even, by most of the people I talked to.
So, anyway, I asked that "supervisor" to transfer me to the department required to cancel my service. She did, and now I'm talking to a person named "Tim" (I also have his last name, but won't print it here) in their resolutions dept. Tim, and that was probably his real name, didn't sound like he worked for an outsourced call center.
I again asked to have the CIQ software removed or disabled from my device. He said he wasn't able to do that. However, he did inform me that AT&T has adopted a policy that they will NOT waive ETF's due to CIQ concerns.
I asked, then, if he'd waive the ETF based on section 1.2, item 5 of the wireless service agreement (....reasonable cause to believe that equipment is being used for an unlawful purpose.) He said he would not. When I asked if that was AT&T's policy (to knowingly allow a device to be used illegally), he said "I plead the 5th." (I'm not joking - he actually said that.)
That was about the extent of my call with AT&T.
So, what's the punch line?
At no point did any of the people I talked to do anything other than read prepared scripts or responses. It never even occured to any of them to mention that it's trivial for the user disable monitoring software on the iphone with a simple menu selection. No one even came up with the absolutely brilliant suggestion that the SGSII doesn't even have CIQ on it.
The cluelessness of their customer service people, the fact that no one seemed in any way concerned with my issue, the fact that none of them seemed to have even a hint of knowledge beyond their scripts, and their absolute rudeness has, however, had one impact: I no longer wish to be an AT&T customer. Even the $140 I'll have to pay for an ETF is worthwhile (assuming I can't get out of it somehow.)
Take care
Gary
Just FYI, it's the iPhone that you have that has CIQ, not the GSII...You're either complaining about the iPhone or AT&T, neither of which reason this really should be here. Can't say it doesn't suck, but yeah, just a problem of relevance.
yahoowizard said:
Just FYI, it's the iPhone that you have that has CIQ, not the GSII...You're either complaining about the iPhone or AT&T, neither of which reason this really should be here. Can't say it doesn't suck, but yeah, just a problem of relevance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
How many times does this need to be said that our phone doesn't currently have it?
yahoowizard said:
Just FYI, it's the iPhone that you have that has CIQ, not the GSII...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? No kidding? Did you read my post before responding? Perhaps you missed this part:
No one even came up with the absolutely brilliant suggestion that the SGSII doesn't even have CIQ on it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as the iphone (which I only mention as it's the only other phone I have with AT&T and), I also have the following in my post:
...it's trivial for the user disable monitoring software on the iphone with a simple menu selection
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As a matter of fact, you seem to completely have missed the end of the post... Where I state that I'm complaining about AT&T. I thought I was pretty obvious when I described the call in the following terms: "The cluelessness of their customer service people, the fact that no one seemed in any way concerned with my issue, the fact that none of them seemed to have even a hint of knowledge beyond their scripts, and their absolute rudeness "
Do you work for AT&T, yahoowizard?
AT&T are an Orwellian nightmare. I've had calls like this with them. It's infuriating and generally pointless, you'll achieve better results banging your head against a wall. "Ma Bell" was disbanded in the 80's because they became such a gross monopoly. In a generation, they're back to ruling all and showing no signs of slowing down. Now, they have these draconian practices and are notorious for "nickel and diming" consumers.
Even scarier? They installed and maintain monitoring equipment for the CIA. They can and do monitor your calls and traffic. Sounds like nutty conspiracy stuff, right? Read about it. It's all part of "homeland security" and as an engineer, I've seen these installations first-hand.
The free-for-all anarchy days of the net are drawing to a close.
Mark. My. Words.
No longer sent from my BlackBerry.
HIPPA
Captain Zero said:
Even scarier? They installed and maintain monitoring equipment for the CIA. They can and do monitor your calls and traffic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it is technically Homeland Security, but that is just nitpicking. The issue of HIPPA seems like it might be a legitimate angle, both from the perspective of the medical professional and the patient. Bringing that to the attention of groups fighting CIQ and the Patriot Act would probably be better than posting them on what is essentially a hacker site.
It does not surprise me that the ATT support center had no idea of what you were talking about. Most people have no idea how their rights and their privacy have been taken away from them.
The problem here is that you are dealing with low-level employees (even the call center supervisor) who had no power to make the initial decision about CarrierIQ, nor have any power to change the decision as to individual customers. Also, the CSR's likely have not received any training on what to do when customers call them about CarrierIQ.
I was bored, and I had another question they did answer for me, then this happened, and I thought it was pretty funny. This is with VZW chat rep on their website of course.
I also e-mailed their Wireless side CEO concerning this, the unlimited data crap, locked bootloaders (want a GSIII but the bootloader...) and such. I cannot wait for the response.
ryan: so if you are on month 21 of the 24 month contract, what would the ETF be? Do you know?
Kareva: No, as it is different per account for various reasons. Are you looking to upgrade or add a new line today?
ryan: No I am looking to leave your company as you wouldn't move my upgrade forward by a few months, so I could upgrade to the GSIII and keep my unlimited data. Therefor you won't get my service any longer.
Kareva: Great! Would you like to number to customer care to find the ETF amount?
ryan: not now, and I am rather bothered that you are excited to lose customers. What kind of company is this...
Kareva: Well not so much excited, but it is your money and to see you leave because of something that is in a contract that you applied for, I can't be too mad. I hate that you will now have to deal with bad service, but your choice.
Kareva: Can I assist you with anything else?
ryan: lol what? I would rather take bad service from companys that don't lock bootloaders, don't strip unlimited data away from customers just for pure profit. Some people have morals, apparently not your company, or you
Kareva: Well is there anything else I can assist you with tonight?
ryan: oh so you can make accusations like that, but lack the balls to stand behind them?
Kareva: Is there anything else I can do for you today?
ryan: grow a pair and not make comments you won't stand behind. This will be e-mailed to your CEO.
ryan: Terrible customer service
Kareva: Have a great night and please come again. We thank you for being the greatest side of Verizon !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not the first time I've seen their chat reps being very rude. A friend of mine posted her chat with one of their reps and that rep was rude as well. I don't understand how they can get away with being so rude and keep their jobs. If I acted that way at my job I would be out the door.
Wow they really don't care at all anymore. Big red is a giant a-hole
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
adavit said:
That's not the first time I've seen their chat reps being very rude. A friend of mine posted her chat with one of their reps and that rep was rude as well. I don't understand how they can get away with being so rude and keep their jobs. If I acted that way at my job I would be out the door.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah it is terrible, I wrote this as the e-mail to the VZW CEO which also included the full chat between me and the rep. Can't wait for the response.
Hello,
I first off would like to state, that I am one of your customers rather upset by the choices Verizon has made in not letting us grandfather in on unlimited data, and forcing us to a tiered data plan, in what looks to be for nothing but pure extra unneeded profit. I probably will not be a customer for much longer due to this, and the fact that my upgrade is not terribly far away, but instead of moving it forward, and letting me get a galaxy SIII and keep my unlimited data, your company decided it was better to lose me. I am debating between buying a Galaxy SIII that your company has locked down which no other wireless provider has, or just paying the ETF and flat out leaving for another carrier now. I know my service wouldn't be as good as yours, but right now I don't feel as if your company deserves any more of my money, than I need to let you have. In doing so I joined your online chat to ask about the ETF. I wasn't bothered by the answer I got, but more so the excitement in the employees statement about me leaving verizon. I then was more bothered by the next statement made, that the rep then refused to respond too. I admit my responses ended up lacking a mature way of responding, but they were meant as intended. I think the employee realized their screw up as they forced me off the chat at the end. I would have been impressed with an "I am sorry I said that sir," but instead was treated like I ruined their day. I made sure to leave it up, so I can copy it here for you to read. I don't know if these are saved or not, but this is terrible behavior.
Loosing unlimited data, full price for phones, locked down bootloaders, and the way I have been treated by employees, are reason I will never come back or recommend verizon to anyone again. I stand with what I told the rep, I would rather stand behind my morals and have mediocre service, then lose them, and have great service.
I do give you a chance to change my mind, but I somehow don't see that happening.
Thank you for your time. (No my name is not ryan, but I had just ended a chat with my real name, with someone who was helpful, but forgot to ask about the ETF, and felt weird if I had ended up talking to them again.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is hilarious, I guess u got a bad CS rep. I have come across plenty of stupid ones, overly polite ones, or just people who write like they are copying and pasting from a handbook but never one of those.
I'm not defending the chat rep but aren't most of their responses just form responses anyway? I never had anything resembling a "conversation", I just assumed they basically went from a script, much like reading back tech support steps.
mbarry55 said:
I'm not defending the chat rep but aren't most of their responses just form responses anyway? I never had anything resembling a "conversation", I just assumed they basically went from a script, much like reading back tech support steps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You really think that second response about other coverage sucking was script?
I know some answers are, but that doesn't feel that way. Which would explain why they wouldn't respond about it.
For the sake of playing devil's advocate I don't see anything too outrageous being said by the chat rep. Your comments come across as a little naive.
ryan: lol what? I would rather take bad service from companys that don't lock bootloaders, don't strip unlimited data away from customers just for pure profit. Some people have morals, apparently not your company, or you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I mean at the end of the day they're a company who's primary goal is to, yes, make a profit. As they are honoring their current contractual obligations with you I don't really see this as a lack of morals?
For the record, I'm as unhappy about the changes and the bootloader annoyances and everything but we're kidding ourselves if we think this community represents the majority of wireless consumers. They are going to do whatever they want to do to turn a bigger profit. It's nothing personal, just capitalism...
nosympathy said:
You really think that second response about other coverage sucking was script?
I know some answers are, but that doesn't feel that way. Which would explain why they wouldn't respond about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll say at&t has the greatest customer service, if you have any issues they will do anything to keep you with them. I only went to Verizon to get away from tiered data plans
My contract ends next year, by then I hope at&t has 4g in my area and I'll be switching to them
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
usefulidiot127 said:
For the sake of playing devil's advocate I don't see anything too outrageous being said by the chat rep. Your comments come across as a little naive.
I mean at the end of the day they're a company who's primary goal is to, yes, make a profit. As they are honoring their current contractual obligations with you I don't really see this as a lack of morals?
For the record, I'm as unhappy about the changes and the bootloader annoyances and everything but we're kidding ourselves if we think this community represents the majority of wireless consumers. They are going to do whatever they want to do to turn a bigger profit. It's nothing personal, just capitalism...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MOST companies understand that good customer service equals a greater profit, Verizon can get away with this because of their coverage and reliablity, but soon enough they will get bitten in the ass by this and change their ways
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
i tried, they completely dodged the questions and ended the chat verizon is seriously the worst
Maddison: Hello. Thank you for visiting our chat service. May I help you with your order today?
bob: Hello I just want to say i am very dissapointed with verizons plans to screw people out of their grandfathered unlimited data or else i would be purchasing a new phone soon but instead im thinking of leaving verzion
Maddison: I will be happy to assist you with your order today.
bob: okay nevermind iguess you guys really dont care about it
Maddison: It has been my pleasure to chat with you today! Please feel free to re-open the chat session if you need further assistance . Thank you and have a great day!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
usefulidiot127 said:
For the sake of playing devil's advocate I don't see anything too outrageous being said by the chat rep. Your comments come across as a little naive.
I mean at the end of the day they're a company who's primary goal is to, yes, make a profit. As they are honoring their current contractual obligations with you I don't really see this as a lack of morals?
For the record, I'm as unhappy about the changes and the bootloader annoyances and everything but we're kidding ourselves if we think this community represents the majority of wireless consumers. They are going to do whatever they want to do to turn a bigger profit. It's nothing personal, just capitalism...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
regardless of how you feel. Verizon found a loophole to the forced unlocked bootloaders of the 700mhz spectrum. No other company forces you to drop unlimited if you renew. Also, as you said yourself, we make up a small percentage. Yet that small percentage is the percentage they on purpose try and control the most.
Also, yes their statement was bothersome. Should have gone, "I am sorry to hear that sir, but unfortunately there is nothing I can do for you concerning this issue you are having."
Not, Have fun with the competitions crappy service. Specially when they do not know who I am going too, they are making assumptions.
I understand capitalism, but this really isn't it. There is too heavy of an attempted monopoly attitude with these companies. They don't compete to earn your business, they assume you will get their business and you will do whatever they say, because of their phone and service offerings.
nosympathy said:
regardless of how you feel. Verizon found a loophole to the forced unlocked bootloaders of the 700mhz spectrum. No other company forces you to drop unlimited if you renew. Also, as you said yourself, we make up a small percentage. Yet that small percentage is the percentage they on purpose try and control the most.
Also, yes their statement was bothersome. Should have gone, "I am sorry to hear that sir, but unfortunately there is nothing I can do for you concerning this issue you are having."
Not, Have fun with the competitions crappy service. Specially when they do not know who I am going too, they are making assumptions.
I understand capitalism, but this really isn't it. There is too heavy of an attempted monopoly attitude with these companies. They don't compete to earn your business, they assume you will get their business and you will do whatever they say, because of their phone and service offerings.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea alright I'm done playing devil's advocate, I think we're mostly in agreement here.
ijustwantmydock said:
i tried, they completely dodged the questions and ended the chat verizon is seriously the worst
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They used siri
Sent from my iPhone...
ijustwantmydock said:
i tried, they completely dodged the questions and ended the chat verizon is seriously the worst
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lololol. Webchat is a joke.
I am not siding with the VZW rep on this but it is competition that makes various businesses update/change policies. VZW cannot be to blame as your requests do not fall under the contract for which you signed. People take things for granted, if you are grandfathered into a unlimited data plan you should be happy with it. If you give someone an inch, they'll take a mile.
The providers all suck, each in their own unique ways. If you find the one that gives you awesome coverage, unlocked stock top-of-the-line cheap phones, provides OS upgrades quickly, no EFTs and unlimited data for great prices- please let me know where I can sign up!
Unlimited data is going away for everyone, just give it enough time. Grandfathers don't live forever.
richii0207 said:
I am not siding with the VZW rep on this but it is competition that makes various businesses update/change policies. VZW cannot be to blame as your requests do not fall under the contract for which you signed. People take things for granted, if you are grandfathered into a unlimited data plan you should be happy with it. If you give someone an inch, they'll take a mile.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No what people are mad about is lack of competition.
You have four major wireless companies. A bunch of smaller companies.
The companies all have their little "thing" the other companies don't offer to try and real you in.
What needs to happen, is every carrier gets the same phones. May not be interchangable, but if one company gets phone B, all companies get phone B. All versions of phone B will be exactly identical, minus maybe GSM/CDMA etc. that HAS to be different.
All phones will be UMRP and sold at a subsidized price per the MFG. All your major and minor companies will then only have to focus on a few things. Coverage, plans, speed, and price. They could control the price of the phones too, and things would get better.
At this point, (ignore the fact it was kind of a fail advertising wise using it to prove a point) say the hot new phone comes out, the rezound, and you want it, you can have it on anybodies service. Now all four major companies, and if it applies, minor companies, will have to ACTUALLY compete to get your service. More mins for less money, unlimited data, better customer service. They would never burn you, because they know you won't be back, because they won't have that exclusive that you have to have.
this isn't exactly how it works over seas, but is closer, and from my understanding service over their is DIRT cheap, and look at the amount of phones over seas running cyanogenmod, aokp, MIUI, etc.
nosympathy said:
You really think that second response about other coverage sucking was script?
I know some answers are, but that doesn't feel that way. Which would explain why they wouldn't respond about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, that is. Granted, it was worded poorly, but it's in their script to talk about how bad service is with other carriers.
I don't have your phone, or Verizon.. but your post is why I don't have that phone, or Verizon. I've always been confused why people pay so much more to be with Verizon.. I pay 64.50 per month with T-Mobile, unlimited minutes and texts with 2gb of data. I could pay 76.40 and have 5gigs of data, do you actually need more??
Everyone has their reasons for choosing the company they do, tho most don't have very well thought out reasons.. these companies let each other use each others service, so technically you don't get better service from one over another.
And to the last guy who was posting about the subsidy situation with the carriers, in almost any other country in the world, phones are not locked into the carrier, and the carrier doesn't have the say so over the phone, which we know simply isn't true here. These companies try to hold on to the way things are, and they aren't going to stop.. simply for all the reasons you named. They are in control. They've made us their *****. We have to deal with it until the majority of consumers here change their buying habits.. but just like so many other issues, I don't see us ever working together to make positive change.
to the open, switch companies and feel good about it. Vzw sucks, you won't miss them.
Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using xda app-developers app
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/26/dmca-update-makes-new-phone-unlocking-illegal/
What's this gonna mean for the community? We'll all be felons next year?
More 'big brother' intruding in our lives. Seems like a good waste of taxpayer money and government time that could be spent on real problems.
how would this affect us?
android is open source, and it is still gonna allow rooting
I read it to mean that unlocking smartphones WILL be allowed still...they're extending the legality for another 3 years. Switching carriers will soon be illegal though.
http://m.cnet.com/news/feds-uphold-...0756?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
Sent from my EVO LTE
eXplicit815 said:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/26/dmca-update-makes-new-phone-unlocking-illegal/
What's this gonna mean for the community? We'll all be felons next year?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This won't affect us in any way. The unlocking they're talking about refers to unlocking a phone to be used on another carriers network, not unlocking bootloaders, rooting, etc. It will be interesting to see how this affects some of the smaller carriers though, as they seem to tacitly encourage the re-flashing of devices originally sold by Sprint and Verizon to activate on their networks. This business model should be illegal under the new ruling, I'll be curious to see if there are still as many cell phone shops advertising the ability to reflash handsets and activate them on pre-paid services next year (that's pretty common around my neighborhood, but maybe not so much in better areas). Ideally I'd like to see that practice eliminated as it's the easiest way to monetize a stolen phone, and I'm still p*ssed that my EVO LTE was stolen last week.
What I'm surprised about is that it will be illegal to jailbreak/root tablets but legal for smartphones once this new ruling goes into effect.
Yeah that's interesting. I misread it, I thought it was rooting in general.
T3CHW0LF said:
What I'm surprised about is that it will be illegal to jailbreak/root tablets but legal for smartphones once this new ruling goes into effect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stupid really especially for a device 9/10 will be bought without the carrier as the middle man, a fully owned, unsubsidized device. I mean hell. If I enter sudo or login as Root on my netbook/laptop wouldn't I be just as guilty lol?
BTW my laptop is an HP TM2 tablet. :silly:
Haven't read the article yet but as far as rooting goes, htc dev unlock *blegh* is basically a contract between you and the oem giving permission to modify your device as long as you leave their proprietary alone. Unless they specify that your are not allowed to exploit their software and specify in particular what area of their software (hurrah for grey legal areas) We can probably still soff the phones
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