Related
So here is the deal, I just want everyone to know this because I see it a lot! You have more than 30 days to return your phone, well it works out that way! This is the way it works, and you can verify this with Sprint:
You can return your phone on the 29th day and get the exact same phone, or whatever one you want, you can do this 3 times total! ( I want to clarify this, when you get your phone is 1 time, first exchange is second time, and final exchange would be third time.)
So you can try out the Photon for 30 days, exchange it for the exact same one, or something different? Say you want to try out the SGS2, ok so your 29th day just happens to fall a few days after it releases. Cool, take your Photon in, tell them your not sure if you like it or not, but your wanting to try out the SGS2. Try that one out for 29 days and hey if you like it, keep it or exhange it out for a new one maybe you might have dropped it. Or hey you do like the Photon better, well there you go, get a brand new Photon and welcome back! That would be your last exchange, but it reset your 30 days!
This is real, this is not a scam this can be verified by Sprint, it does help getting a cool guy at the Sprint store, but even so, they have to do it, period!
I just want people to know this, because maybe you do want to give the next best thing a try, so go ahead, get the phone you WANT, not the one your stuck with!
I did this with the Evo3d so I could wait for the Photon release. I know it works first hand, and I have called Sprint just to verify that it works for EVERYONE!
Hope this helps some of you guys and is not too confusing!
-DJ
Two things I would like to ask, 1)Does 29+29+29=90 2) Should/will be there a $35 restocking fee every time an exchange is done?
nunyabiziz said:
Two things I would like to ask, 1)Does 29+29+29=90 2) Should/will be there a $35 restocking fee every time an exchange is done?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There was not a restocking fee for me at anytime. Unless the Sprint rep is a *oo**(not nice guy) then I wouldn't think there would be. Like I said, helps if you friendly up with the Sprint rep of your choice.
I will let you answer your first question. I hope you would know what I meant by the 90 days.
-DJ
nunyabiziz said:
Two things I would like to ask, 1)Does 29+29+29=90
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
really ?? you absolutely had to go there ? I think the op was specific enough w/ his assessment of time for the majority of readers to get the idea, evidently, the idea passed over your head ...
on a different note, my wife traded her evo3D for the nexus S and the douche nozzle charged her the restocking fee.. I told her to wait till I could go w/ her but she was impatient.
YMMV but if they wanna charge me the restocking fee, I might call CS.
nunyabiziz said:
Two things I would like to ask, 1)Does 29+29+29=90 2) Should/will be there a $35 restocking fee every time an exchange is done?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If it's an upgrade it will b a $35 restocking fee not if its a add a line or new activation
Sent from my MB855 using XDA Premium App
snoopy1e11 said:
If it's an upgrade it will b a $35 restocking fee not if its a add a line or new activation
Sent from my MB855 using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
a very good friend of mine is the store manager at a (non corp) store and she tells me that it's each store's option/discretion as to whether they charge the restocking fee.
I'm likable and persuasive enough to be able to avoid the fee
newalker91 said:
this is just a way to manipulate the system and piss off sales reps, likely resulting in you not getting service at the store you do this to. No one likes a tool.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe in making friends w/ reps at stores that i patronize.. I also believe the op is condoning the same by the following portion of the op:
Djspinister said:
, it does help getting a cool guy at the Sprint store,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
how would a rep be considered a 'cool guy' ??.. he would attain such status if you and said rep had alot in common.. for example, at the store that I'm speaking of (the one that charge my wife the restocking fee).. I made lots of friends when I told the reps (who had evos) and the techs how to bypass sprint's proxy to alleviate the streaming problems that were encountered.. my nickname up there is 'smart guy'.. see.. it's not necessarily that it's possible to manipulate the system, it's 'how' you manipulate the system.. if you are able to shoot the **** w/ the reps and make decent acquaintances, they are more likely to be a bit lax w/ rules and regulations to help someone out if asked.
this is my experience.. as always YMMV
newalker91 said:
This is 100% true. If you're a friendly person and you try your hardest to work with us, we will in turn work with you and bend rules to make you happy. But just to come in and say "HEY BUDDY YOU HAVE TO LET ME SWAP THIS 3 TIMES, SPRINT SAYS SO! DONT MAKE ME CALL CUSTOMER SERVICE!", then I will gladly dial customer service for you on our landline phone, introduce myself to them and tell them the situation and then listen to them reassure you it's allowed, just so I can repeat my initial response of "Not happening here" and then give you a nice fake smile and ask you to have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if I were the rep in that situation and 'that' guy came into my store, I would do the same thing, only after the fake smile, I'd politely suggest they go outside for a friendly game of 'hide and go fu%% yourself" LMFAO.. I'm in retail and have to deal with the public all the time.. we get 'those' customers on occasion and it really frustrates me that I have to smile and just be 'polite'.. sometimes there's not a big enough baseball bat for their knees
if you tried this in my store id lol all over you.
m&p states that it is 30 days from original purchase or activation date. lmao
newalker91 said:
Not to rain on your parade here, but in many stores, such my current and all previous retailer chains I've worked for, we limit you to one buyer's remorse swap. It's the fault of the customer for not researching more indepth before purchasing a device, but we understand mistakes happen. As such, you may swap models one time within your first 30 day window. Malfunctioning devices we will swap into the same model for, but that's it. You can go extending your 30 day's all you want, but it is up to the retailer, not Sprint, on how we handle the sale of our merchandise. We are only required to give you one buyer's remorse swap. It is way too costly for our companies to go RMA'ing two-three phones per customer just because you feel like it.
As such, this is not a guide, this is just a way to manipulate the system and piss off sales reps, likely resulting in you not getting service at the store you do this to. No one likes a tool.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't matter what YOU and your other reps do, by Sprints law, it is completely doable and if a customer requests it, it has to be done. Whether or not you're that (not so nice guy) that we have to go above and beyond is up to you. Like I said, we avoid people like you and talk to the nice reps.
Obviously I don't mean just go in there looking for this, I just meant if you were indecisive about a couple of phones, this is a way you could give them both a try. It's not that I want every Tom, **** and Harry to start doing this every time they upgrade, I just wanted to make people aware of Sprints rules.
Edit: Also, this is where I would make sure I had a rep that would do this for me before I even bought from your store. There are ways to cover your ass.
-DJ
Sent from my MB855 using xda premium
daddymikey1975 said:
I believe in making friends w/ reps at stores that i patronize.. I also believe the op is condoning the same by the following portion of the op:
how would a rep be considered a 'cool guy' ??.. he would attain such status if you and said rep had alot in common.. for example, at the store that I'm speaking of (the one that charge my wife the restocking fee).. I made lots of friends when I told the reps (who had evos) and the techs how to bypass sprint's proxy to alleviate the streaming problems that were encountered.. my nickname up there is 'smart guy'.. see.. it's not necessarily that it's possible to manipulate the system, it's 'how' you manipulate the system.. if you are able to shoot the **** w/ the reps and make decent acquaintances, they are more likely to be a bit lax w/ rules and regulations to help someone out if asked.
this is my experience.. as always YMMV
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This. +1. I knew I would get the uptight sprint reps to respond, but this is what i'm talking about. At least you get it.
Sent from my MB855 using xda premium
Just return and reset upgrade, then purchase again....simple
Sent from my MB855 using XDA App
newalker91 said:
This is 100% true. If you're a friendly person and you try your hardest to work with us, we will in turn work with you and bend rules to make you happy. But just to come in and say "HEY BUDDY YOU HAVE TO LET ME SWAP THIS 3 TIMES, SPRINT SAYS SO! DONT MAKE ME CALL CUSTOMER SERVICE!", then I will gladly dial customer service for you on our landline phone, introduce myself to them and tell them the situation and then listen to them reassure you it's allowed, just so I can repeat my initial response of "Not happening here" and then give you a nice fake smile and ask you to have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would hope this is what you would do, this is not at all how I meant it. I am not trying to have people go piss off reps, once again I am just giving information on the laws and limits of Sprint. I am not condoning a mass phone return from all of Sprints customers.
For instance, if I had just got my Photon, and then the SGS2 came out and I wanted to give that one a fair shot, this is something I would use that for, as I thought I explained that quite well. My bad.
-DJ
Sent from my MB855 using xda premium
I would like to reiterate that M&P specifically states that 30 day exchange/returns go off the inital purchase/activation date. Any corporate store will be able to search this in RSP and find the information.
If you visit an authorized dealer you may find some different results.
newalker91 said:
"Nice reps" huh? Funny enough that I've been recognized at the district level every month for top customer satisfaction scores on both phone repair and sales. I just don't let people like you walk all over reps and manipulate the system, which forces Sprint to tighten their reins and make it more difficult on the honest customers. You can't argue policy with someone who has to enforce it daily, resetting your 30 days is a manipulation of an extended courtesy option given originally only by retention to solve major customer satisfaction issues. It's not for every joe-schmo to take advantage of.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can spout off at me as much as you want bro, the fact is, is it's completely legal. Be mad, go cry to your manager I don't care, the guy I go through at Sprint doesn't have one bit of a problem with it. It's completely legal.
And guess what else, because the guy at my Sprint store did this, I have brought him over 60 people from competitors. Just think, if you weren't so anal, you might have got someone just as bad as me that walks all over reps and gives them as much commission as he could ever get from just one terrible guy like me.
Who gets to vote for you? I think they were rigged! Lol Chill dude, it's not a bad thing. You don't even know me, I bet we'd get along just fine, and I bet you would have hooked me up the same way if it was your store. You know why? Cuz we both have this in common! This being xda.
-DJ
Sent from my MB855 using xda premium
newalker91 said:
I'm not trying to be hostile towards you, but people in this forum will read this thread and take advantage of such knowledge. Stuff like this gets people fired when a pissy customer starts yelling in they give in and do it without permission from management.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So get permission. Don't be an idiot, I wouldn't do it either if I didn't have permission, I'm not stupid. You guys are completely over reacting. I mean I thought common sense was free. Jesus.
This is what happens when someone tries to help the community. No wonder it's quiet in here.
At my store I deal directly with the manager, period. I don't deal with pawns. Mainly because you're going to get this answer every time, "Let me ask my manager"....
-DJ
Sent from my MB855 using xda premium
newalker91 said:
Not to rain on your parade here, but in many stores, such my current and all previous retailer chains I've worked for, we limit you to one buyer's remorse swap. It's the fault of the customer for not researching more indepth before purchasing a device, but we understand mistakes happen. As such, you may swap models one time within your first 30 day window. Malfunctioning devices we will swap into the same model for, but that's it. You can go extending your 30 day's all you want, but it is up to the retailer, not Sprint, on how we handle the sale of our merchandise. We are only required to give you one buyer's remorse swap. It is way too costly for our companies to go RMA'ing two-three phones per customer just because you feel like it.
As such, this is not a guide, this is just a way to manipulate the system and piss off sales reps, likely resulting in you not getting service at the store you do this to. No one likes a tool.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whats wrong with a paying customer trying out the merchandise before he commits to such a large purchase? How can we research a product that just came out and truly get an unbiased opinion? Buyers remorse or not, these manufactures always tell you the pro's to their products and never the cons. I've gone through 3 phones to finally get the one that works good for me. I'm not manipulating the system, just trying to exercise my right as a consumer. A small price to pay for a multi-billion dollar company that should adopt a "spare no expense" type mentality against this economy and its competitors.
xxxicu812 said:
Whats wrong with a paying customer trying out the merchandise before he commits to such a large purchase? How can we research a product that just came out and truly get an unbiased opinion? Buyers remorse or not, these manufactures always tell you the pro's to their products and never the cons. I've gone through 3 phones to finally get the one that works good for me. I'm not manipulating the system, just trying to exercise my right as a consumer. A small price to pay for a multi-billion dollar company that should adopt a "spare no expense" type mentality against this economy and its competitors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Amen brother, amen! I know there's more of you! Lol
-DJ
Sent from my MB855 using xda premium
newalker91 said:
That's all fine and well if you want to do your business at corporate, but many of us aren't Sprint for the most part. We sell and represent Sprint, sure, but that's it. Our company assets are extremely finite and exchanging massive amounts of product for customers would not only cost us a substantial amount but it would also risk us losing our right to sell Sprint. Sprint and the manufacturers impose a set maximum number of product that we may return to them via RMA, and every exchange results in an RMA. This number is surprisingly small, and we get charged back for every item that we have to return. Justify your exchanges as you will, but I hold nothing against we third party retailers for denying you anything beyond one exchange. If we order 50 phones in a shipment, and 10 customers exchange their phone twice under buyer's remorse, that's 20 phones we're sending back, 10 sold, and 20 remaining for other customers. So out of 50 phones we purchased, we're only getting paid for 30 of them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see what you mean there, but it was that third party store that should have read the fine print pertaining to sprints rules to the customer. So next time order more phones! Jk. But I mean said store should know about how Sprint works, shouldn't they?
And by the way the one I go to is a third party store.
-DJ
Sent from my MB855 using xda premium
newalker91 said:
This is why I've explained and as [email protected] has said, the 30 day reset isn't a policy. It's a customer courtesy option. Your contract and our M&P both state that the customer has a 30 day satisfaction guarantee in which they may exchange under buyer's remorse or for manufacturer's defects. Being third party we do a lot of things to bend rules for customers but we avoid the ones that can put us out of business. Sprint doesn't like to pay any of us as it is, we all work for minimum wage at my store and average $400 commission per month with no overtime and no holiday pay. I'd say the amount we do for customers versus what corporate reps do, especially considering the difference in pay (our average W2's are about 15,000/year after taxes, corporate sales get roughly 35,000/year after taxes) is pretty dramatic. You can't blame us for protecting our companies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't mean to sound stupid, but when you say 3rd party store, do you mean like a Best Buy, Radio Shack, etc? I totally understand how this would hurt you, on the other hand I also agree that if Sprint has this, they do. Is it possible that if a customer came into your store (having already exchanged once) that you could redirect them to a corporate Sprint store? I'm not sure how it works. I know I originally bought the Photon at a Sprint store, took it back (it started having probs right after the 1st OTA), the db at the store charged me the $35 restock fee, didn't even bother to turn my old phone back on (I had to call in and have it reactivated), and I was gonna wait and get the GS II, but after the announcement I got another Photon (this time from BB, and saved $100 in the process).
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
EveryOne Petition the obama administration to: Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition the obama administration to: Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal.
The Librarian of Congress decided in October 2012 that unlocking of cell phones would be removed from the exceptions to the DMCA.
As of January 26, consumers will no longer be able unlock their phones for use on a different network without carrier permission, even after their contract has expired.
Consumers will be forced to pay exorbitant roaming fees to make calls while traveling abroad. It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full.
The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked.
We ask that the White House ask the Librarian of Congress to rescind this decision, and failing that, champion a bill that makes unlocking permanently legal.
Created: Jan 24, 2013
Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Consumer Protections, Technology and Telecommunications
Learn about Petition Thresholds
It's up to you to build support for petitions you care about and gather more signatures. A petition must get 150 signatures in order to be publicly searchable on WhiteHouse.gov.
Over time, we may need to adjust the petition signature thresholds, but we'll always let you know what the thresholds are.
Signatures needed by February 23, 2013 to reach goal of 100,00087,845
Total signatures on this petition12,155.
PLEASE GO SIGN IT MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...legal/1g9KhZG7
Thanks
I wouldn't ask that _uck up for a glass of water if I was dying of thirst. And why would you want to expand his fingers of incompetence to include your cell?
Umm, why post this? I don't see that it is a huge deal. All this states is that you can no longer buy a phone from (for example) Verizon and take it to MetroPC or some other carrier and unlock it to use with their service.
Most phones now are global ready, and if you buy a Nexus from Google it is unlocked for you to use as desired.
This is NOT saying that rooting or unlocking your bootloader is illegal. So again, I don't see why it is such a huge deal.
jonathon1289 said:
Umm, why post this? I don't see that it is a huge deal. All this states is that you can no longer buy a phone from (for example) Verizon and take it to MetroPC or some other carrier and unlock it to use with their service.
Most phones now are global ready, and if you buy a Nexus from Google it is unlocked for you to use as desired.
This is NOT saying that rooting or unlocking your bootloader is illegal. So again, I don't see why it is such a huge deal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. You'll do what you want to anyway...or atleast I will lol
Plus I think the president has bigger issues to tackle quite frankly
sent from my Note 2
Kinda thought the same thing. Not really a big deal. It's my impression that this is mainly to curb abuse by people who get the phone, unlock them and resell them. Giving authorities a way to prosecute those that fit that category ( that essentially fraud the subsidy that carriers provide)
Sent from my SCH-I605
Lol, you can always buy a phone from your new carrier...? It's not like they are banning cell phones.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using xda app-developers app
purged363506 said:
Kinda thought the same thing. Not really a big deal. It's my impression that this is mainly to curb abuse by people who get the phone, unlock them and resell them. Giving authorities a way to prosecute those that fit that category ( that essentially fraud the subsidy that carriers provide)
Sent from my SCH-I605
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a civil/contract matter between the carrier and the person that did that. The problem I have is that the dcma law is being turned on its head to help the carriers with this issue. I support the carriers in getting what is due to them but I object to them abusing the law.
TonikJDK said:
That's a civil/contract matter between the carrier and the person that did that. The problem I have is that the dcma law is being turned on its head to help the carriers with this issue. I support the carriers in getting what is due to them but I object to them abusing the law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have paid your ETF and/or finished your contract, why would it stop them from unlocking it?
They know they won't keep you by not doing it, and they certainly don't have use of the phone being locked in.
I think things are being blown out of proportion.
I think the real loud ones against this law are just upset that they can no longer default on a contract and sell the device unlocked on another carrier.
OP just wanted to start a political flame thread. Congrats. Mission will be accomplished.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2
http://m.androidcentral.com/what-you-need-know-abut-cell-phone-unlocking
Sent from my SCH-I605 using xda premium
People that know that they will need an unlocked phone because they will be traveling will either already have one, or go into the store with the intention of buying an unlocked phone for that exact purpose.
I personally don't see the big issue about this new law. If you know you're going to be traveling abroad and need an unlocked phone, then there are several to choose from on most carriers. Plain and simple.
TonikJDK said:
That's a civil/contract matter between the carrier and the person that did that. The problem I have is that the dcma law is being turned on its head to help the carriers with this issue. I support the carriers in getting what is due to them but I object to them abusing the law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think you realize how hard it is to get new laws enacted. That's why so many existing ones are modified.
You think they are going to go after John Smith that unlocks his phone cause he got a new job traveling? That would be a PR nightmare.
Now Johnny Mule that does it to every major carrier around then sells the phone after to support whoever told him to do it.....Sure.
What about the shops that deal in stolen phones but they are unlocked for other carriers? Contrary to popular opinion, those databases are rubbish and fragmented.
There are quite a few ways that this could help criminal prosecution where right now there is very little.
Sent from my SCH-I605
Starting this weekend it is illegal to unlock new phones to make them available on other carriers. Seriously: It’s embarrassing and unacceptable that we are at the mercy of prosecutorial and judicial discretion to avoid the implementation of draconian laws that could implicate average Americans in a crime subject to up to a $500,000 fine and up to five years in prison.
When did we decide that we wanted a law that could make unlocking your smartphone a criminal offense? The answer is that we never really decided. Instead, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998 to outlaw technologies that bypass copyright protections. In practice it has terrible, and widely acknowledged, negative consequences that affect consumers and new innovation. The DMCA leaves it up to the Librarian of Congress (LOC) to issue exemptions from the law, exceptions that were recognized to be necessary given the broad language of the statute.
After Saturday it will be illegal to unlock a new smartphone, thereby allowing it to switch carriers. This is a result of the exception to the DMCA lapsing. It was not a mistake, but rather an intentional choice by the Librarian of Congress, that this was no longer fair use and acceptable.
Laws that can place people in jail should be passed by Congress, not by the decree of the Librarian of Congress. We have no way to hold the Librarian of Congress accountable for wildly unfair laws. There are still plenty of crazy laws passed by elected officials, but at least we can then vote them out of office.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source
For those who need to unlock your phone, you must now do it via your service carrier!
This is horiable
Just a few points I'd like to make that may clear up a few things.
When we get our phones on contract, we pay ~$200 or so for a $800 device. Cell companies subsidize our phones and don't want us buying at their low price then switching. From this point of view I could see it as a breach of contract, nothing more.
Also AFAIK, rooting your device is still perfectly fine. It's taking your ATT phone to, say, T-Mobile that's now illegal.
[If any of this information is incorrect, please post sources. The above is what I have gleaned from reading dozens of threads on this topic.]
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
What about people who run this buissness?
Sent from my GT-N7000
If you ask att for a code and say you're going overseas they almost always give it to you
Sent from my GS4 running CM11 Kandy Kane
IconRunner said:
Just a few points I'd like to make that may clear up a few things.
When we get our phones on contract, we pay ~$200 or so for a $800 device. Cell companies subsidize our phones and don't want us buying at their low price then switching. From this point of view I could see it as a breach of contract, nothing more.
Also AFAIK, rooting your device is still perfectly fine. It's taking your ATT phone to, say, T-Mobile that's now illegal.
[If any of this information is incorrect, please post sources. The above is what I have gleaned from reading dozens of threads on this topic.]
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rooting is still legal. It's actually protected by certain laws.
jthatch12 said:
Rooting is still legal. It's actually protected by certain laws.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rooting the phone is NOT illegal.
Rooting the tablet is illegal.
---------- Post added at 04:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------
IconRunner said:
Just a few points I'd like to make that may clear up a few things.
When we get our phones on contract, we pay ~$200 or so for a $800 device. Cell companies subsidize our phones and don't want us buying at their low price then switching. From this point of view I could see it as a breach of contract, nothing more.
Also AFAIK, rooting your device is still perfectly fine. It's taking your ATT phone to, say, T-Mobile that's now illegal.
[If any of this information is incorrect, please post sources. The above is what I have gleaned from reading dozens of threads on this topic.]
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How's about I pay $200 for the phone, sign and stay with provider for 2 years. After 2 years, isn't that my OWN phone? Why can't I unlock it and do whatever I want with it?
I think the title of the thread is poorly chosen.
1) The new law applies to phones purchased after January 26th 2013, hence phones purchased before this date are 100% okay to unlock.
2) Only applicable on US customers.
This law can be completely ignored by clients outside of the USA. (Apparently it is part of the DMCA ruling)
There is an online petition to the white house to stay the order being run atm. (Mods should make that link/this post a sticky for the entire forum.. )
Vote to get yourself heard
spacescreamer said:
I think the title of the thread is poorly chosen.
1) The new law applies to phones purchased after January 26th 2013, hence phones purchased before this date are 100% okay to unlock.
2) Only applicable on US customers.
This law can be completely ignored by clients outside of the USA. (Apparently it is part of the DMCA ruling)
There is an online petition to the white house to stay the order being run atm. (Mods should make that link/this post a sticky for the entire forum.. )
Vote to get yourself heard
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By my understanding, it is illegal to unlock your phone after 01/26 (or 27) regardless you bought the phone a year or 10 years ago, if you unlock it b4 the 26th, it's OK. It's not now.
Agreed with you on your 2)
spacescreamer said:
I think the title of the thread is poorly chosen.
1) The new law applies to phones purchased after January 26th 2013, hence phones purchased before this date are 100% okay to unlock.
2) Only applicable on US customers.
This law can be completely ignored by clients outside of the USA. (Apparently it is part of the DMCA ruling)
There is an online petition to the white house to stay the order being run atm. (Mods should make that link/this post a sticky for the entire forum.. )
Vote to get yourself heard
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Got my vote! :good:
votinh said:
By my understanding, it is illegal to unlock your phone after 01/26 (or 27) regardless you bought the phone a year or 10 years ago, if you unlock it b4 the 26th, it's OK. It's not now.
Agreed with you on your 2)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is my understanding also. They can't magically say everyone that has an unlocked phone before 1/26 is now a felon... I'm just glad that I had my phone unlocked before all this **** went down. I'm heading to England in a few months
You can still legally get unlock codes from the carrier (AT&T for us). The law speaks about subsidized phones. It is legal to purchase an unlocked phone, usually for full retail price. Also, it is unclear whether a phone is still legally considered subsidized after your two year contract ends. I can't seem to find anything on that.
creepyncrawly said:
You can still legally get unlock codes from the carrier (AT&T for us). The law speaks about subsidized phones. It is legal to purchase an unlocked phone, usually for full retail price. Also, it is unclear whether a phone is still legally considered subsidized after your two year contract ends. I can't seem to find anything on that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This law is going to get complicated real fast Lol.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using xda premium
creepyncrawly said:
it is unclear whether a phone is still legally considered subsidized after your two year contract ends. I can't seem to find anything on that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That shouldnt be the case. I mean after the contract ends.. the company would have got the revenue back from the customer.
So that shouldnt stand in the way of getting it unlocked afterwards. If it does.. it ll be a very stupid 'boot hang' for the end customer
Btw, can non American citizens vote on that petition ? And if yes, Will it count ?
creepyncrawly said:
You can still legally get unlock codes from the carrier (AT&T for us). The law speaks about subsidized phones. It is legal to purchase an unlocked phone, usually for full retail price. Also, it is unclear whether a phone is still legally considered subsidized after your two year contract ends. I can't seem to find anything on that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This would be the modern equivalent of holding your phone # hostage. If this is how they interpret the law, it will get smacked down. And as with most stupid laws (DMCA being a big one), the illegality will be truly defined by prosecution/enforcement.
Saurik (the guy who develops Cydia for the iPhone) said it was if you bought the phone after the cutoff date.
I'm more inclined to believe him.
Sent from my SGH-I777 using xda app-developers app
Although I do not reside in usa, however this doesn't seem fair.
The customer buys a phone on contract. He decodes to use it on other networks. The phone is subsidized by the network operator thus they do not want to loose u.
But let's say I bought the phone on contact and wanted to use it on other networks.. correct me if I'm wrong.. I still need to continue paying the network provider because there is a contract on it. So what's there to loose for the operator? I'm still paying fees as dispicted in the contract.
What if I'm going abroad.. I can't use a local sim card? And forced to use roaming rates?
Sent from my GT-N7100
There are really two issues involved. For an individual to unlock their own phone for their own use, the penalty would be civil only, and the maximum fine is $2,500. On the other hand, to buy phones, unlock them and then resell them would be a criminal offence, with penalty of 500,000 or 5 years, or both for the first offense, 1,000,000 or 10 years for any additional offensees.
Several commentators feel that if the personal use issue comes to court, the court would likely rule that the law is incorrect and be thrown out. But that remains to be seen. At least one commentator stated that if the phone is subsidized, it will be illegal to unlock it regardless of the state of the contract. It will be interesting to see how the law is interpreted over time.
From what I've read, the carriers are more interested in preventing the resale of unlocked phones.
vash_h said:
Although I do not reside in usa, however this doesn't seem fair.
The customer buys a phone on contract. He decodes to use it on other networks. The phone is subsidized by the network operator thus they do not want to loose u.
But let's say I bought the phone on contact and wanted to use it on other networks.. correct me if I'm wrong.. I still need to continue paying the network provider because there is a contract on it. So what's there to loose for the operator? I'm still paying fees as dispicted in the contract.
What if I'm going abroad.. I can't use a local sim card? And forced to use roaming rates?
Sent from my GT-N7100
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you ask the carrier for an unlock code using say Skype they mostly say yes
Sent from my GS4 running CM11 Kandy Kane
122ninjas said:
If you ask att for a code and say you're going overseas they almost always give it to you
Sent from my GS4 running CM11 Kandy Kane
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not always. They refused to give me a code for my Aria on three separate occasions. Seems to be dependent on the phone. Never bothered to call them for the S2, I'll unlock it with an app when I go to Europe or Asia next...
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
tedkunich said:
Not always. They refused to give me a code for my Aria on three separate occasions. Seems to be dependent on the phone. Never bothered to call them for the S2, I'll unlock it with an app when I go to Europe or Asia next...
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No harm in asking. I see success stories all the time
Sent from my GS4 running CM11 Kandy Kane
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