Related
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
Here is the ABC News link:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/now-illegal-unlock-cellphone/story?id=18319518
I just want to clarify that
I am not trying to "sensationalize" the issue.
I am not trying to pass on "misinformation."
I don't write for ABC.
I don't write legislation.
I don't vote on the passage of legislation.
I am merely sharing a link on a story that you will see sooner or later.
At least now you can say you saw it first on XDA!
DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER.
Please hit the "Thanks" button.
A link has been added to sign a petition if you are interested. It requires a "White House DOT Gov Account." Why?" Big Brother, probably.
I am not afilliated with the Federal Government,
I am not afilliated with any State Government,
I am not afilliated with Law Enforcement,
IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
I'm just a regular dude trying to make a positive, informative contribution to the community which I love so much and am very greatful and appreciative for ALL of the contributors, and everyone who shares. Where would we be without the Devs? Running STOCK, UNROOTED!
The petiton link was found via www.phonearena.com.
White House Petition:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7
Let us expand on the sensationalistic thread title, as many will not click through to see the real story, shall we?
Unauthorized subsidy unlocks performed without the consent of the carrier, return to being illegal under the DMCA today.
This does not mean that AT&T or T-Mobile won't or cannot provide unlocks, although it could mean that they might become less likely to do so during the period between the user purchasing the device at new line or upgrade pricing and the contract period expiring or an ETF being paid.
Re: Carrier Unlocking Your Cellphone ILLEGAL As Of TODAY
It is not illegal to unlock my phone, like you said. It is for phones purchased after today.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
PaulF8080 said:
It is not illegal to unlock my phone, like you said. It is for phones purchased after today.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, you misread it. If your phone was unlocked as of today then you are grandfathered in. If it is not unlocked then it is illegal for you to unlock it without the consent of the carrier.
Edit: My apologies PaulF8080 as you are correct and the story in the first post is not written correctly.
Re: Carrier Unlocking Your Cellphone ILLEGAL As Of TODAY
*cough cough*
Ebay *cough*
*cough*
............................*sneeze*
Sent from my SGH-T879 using xda premium
This may just drive up the prices of unlocked phones on eBay. Still curious to know how carriers will know if your phone was unlocked yesterday or tomorrow. I tend to use Canadian unlocked phones anyways.
Agoattamer said:
No, you misread it. If your phone was unlocked as of today then you are grandfathered in. If it is not unlocked then it is illegal for you to unlock it without the consent of the carrier.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is misinformation.
Any phone bought before today can be carrier unlocked, legally. And then there is the fact that the carriers are not really on a witch hunt to find anyone anyway. At least not yet.
Seems that story in the first post may be incorrect. You are correct kimtyson.
Unlocking phones without the express consent of the carrier who locked them became illegal thanks to edits to DMCA exemptions back in October, but it's only now that the 90-day grace period is running out. Locked phones purchased in the 90 days after the ruling are still game to be unlocked, but from here on out, for an unlocked phone to be legitimate, it'll have to have been bought that way or come with a permission slip from your carrier.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Taken from: http://gizmodo.com/5978982/unlocking-your-phone-is-illegal-starting-tomorrow
DELETED -(addendum to title description)
Re: Carrier Unlocking Your Cellphone ILLEGAL As Of TODAY
It should be illegal when/if you still have contract or the phone is on EIP. other that it should be fine because you own the phone and you can do what u you want with the phone
granted it maybe, but when I saw the article, I went on to ATT chat this morning and unlocked my wife's SIII. Did my replacement note about 3 weeks back. Both phones under original 24 month contract, mine 8 months since upgrade, wife's about 6 months since her upgrade, both subsidized by the way......
Re: Carrier Unlocking Your Cellphone ILLEGAL As Of TODAY
How in the world are people going to enforce this?
Sent from my GT-P7510 using xda premium
tigeryee said:
How in the world are people going to enforce this?
Sent from my GT-P7510 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually pretty simple, service provides will no longer unlock your phone and the pay for folks will charge four times the amount, because that is what the service providers will charge them. Not hard at all.
Agoattamer said:
This may just drive up the prices of unlocked phones on eBay. Still curious to know how carriers will know if your phone was unlocked yesterday or tomorrow. I tend to use Canadian unlocked phones anyways.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nah, I don't think so...Apparently, it is still legal to unlock your phone if you bought it used.
Gizmodo said:
Legacy phones, i.e. "used (or perhaps unused) phones previously purchased or otherwise acquired by a consumer" are still cool to unlock, and that definition has a little bit of play in it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Re: Carrier Unlocking Your Cellphone ILLEGAL As Of TODAY
My opinion... If I want to unlock my phone fully (and the option to do so exists) I'm going to do it. It's not like I can jump carriers & not pay the ETF before the contract is up.
Just another example of crap legislation from D.C. morons.
Sent from my Thunderbolt using one opposable thumb.
This contradicts legislation already in place called fair use, which means if you buy a phone outright (no contract or used), you are free to modify it any way you please.
That law came as a result of class action against at&t and the iphone.
If you buy a phone at a subsidized price through a contract/upgrade, you break the law for flashing non-carrier software. The carrier still owns the phone until you pay it off.
Throwing a bone into the equation. For example, look at all the used ATT Notes that are for sale at this moment. I would say most of those are still involved with a subsidized 2 year contract. So how would future purchases like this be handled? I wonder if IMEI codes will have to be released before they can become unlocked. That would be the only way to run checks on this.
All I can say about that is a web service chat session with at&t gets you the code.
gibbsrob said:
Here is the ABC News link:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/now-illegal-unlock-cellphone/story?id=18319518
I just want to clarify that
I am not trying to "sensationalize" the issue.
I am not trying to pass on "misinformation."
I don't write for ABC.
I don't write legislation.
I don't vote on the passage of legislation.
I am merely sharing a link on a story that you will see sooner or later.
At least now you can say you saw it first on XDA!
DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER.
Please hit the "Thanks" button.
A link has been added to sign a petition if you are interested. It requires a "White House DOT Gov Account." Why?" Big Brother, probably.
I am not afilliated with the Federal Government,
I am not afilliated with any State Government,
I am not afilliated with Law Enforcement,
IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
I'm just a regular dude trying to make a positive, informative contribution to the community which I love so much and am very greatful and appreciative for ALL of the contributors, and everyone who shares. Where would we be without the Devs? Running STOCK, UNROOTED!
The petiton link was found via www.phonearena.com.
White House Petition:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lmao You guys think there going to approve this and make it legal again?
T-Mobile and AT&T are the ones who created to make the idea of unlocking illegal and presented it to the Congress. I don't see them making this legal again. Obviously its a monopoly.
Sent from my SGH-T889 using xda premium
This seems like it's aimed at people who are selling unlocked phones in higher numbers - it's not illegal to call up your carrier, request the unlock code, and unlock the phone, yesterday or today or whenever. It's only illegal if they say "no" and you go ahead and unlock it by some other means.
IMO, this is aimed for iPhone users - my phone took me 5 minutes to unlock, since I happened to have a SIM from another carrier. iPhones need to go through some big process to unlock, even officially. I asked for my wife's unlock code for her phone, and they gave this whole list of instructions, which included 24-48 hour wait for the code to be obtained, or something.
If I had to go through that with the Note, I might think about unlocking it by some other means as well, especially if I'm just trying to sell it.
As the title stated I have a Note 3 that I "can" donate to Adam. Please in response to this thread do NOT make mention of $ donations, pay-pal, or your favorite pets piggy bank. Kush of any kind, side shooters and hashish are also not to be mentioned. With that being said I would like to donate (for a good cause) my Verizon Galaxy Note 3 to Outler. Also this phone is my daily driver but I have a galaxy note 2 that I could be using if it were no longer broken. It needs the complete screen assembly. So if someone happened to have extra parts laying around or knew of extremely cheap parts for sale, I could fix my note 2 and ship out my note 3 to a cool guy that does cool stuff with hardware on awesome phones. I live in the Dallas area.
I re read the XDA rules and this post does not appear to violate any of them, but I also understand that interpretation is 93% of any rule/law. I am however not asking for donations for any reason and I am NOT asking for money at all. Thank you and good day.
drag&fly said:
As the title stated I have a Note 3 that I "can" donate to Adam. Please in response to this thread do NOT make mention of $ donations, pay-pal, or your favorite pets piggy bank. Kush of any kind, side shooters and hashish are also not to be mentioned. With that being said I would like to donate (for a good cause) my Verizon Galaxy Note 3 to Outler. Also this phone is my daily driver but I have a galaxy note 2 that I could be using if it were no longer broken. It needs the complete screen assembly. So if someone happened to have extra parts laying around or knew of extremely cheap parts for sale, I could fix my note 2 and ship out my note 3 to a cool guy that does cool stuff with hardware on awesome phones. I live in the Dallas area.
I re read the XDA rules and this post does not appear to violate any of them, but I also understand that interpretation is 93% of any rule/law. I am however not asking for donations for any reason and I am NOT asking for money at all. Thank you and good day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure what's wrong with your note 2, but if its the digitizer sensor board ~$14
http://www.ebay.com/itm/OEM-Digitiz...e_Replacement_Parts_Tools&hash=item3cd73f961d
or the lens ~$13
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LCD-Touch-S...e_Replacement_Parts_Tools&hash=item4174b88d2b
If its the LCD, then those are running like $140+
From your post sounds like all 3, but figured i'd drop those for reference.
Yeah it needs all three parts. :crying: thought it would be worth a shot though.
drag&fly said:
Yeah it needs all three parts. :crying: thought it would be worth a shot though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can get you in touch with adam
buck2121 said:
I can get you in touch with adam
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I do thank you for the kindness and gesture, I am able to get in touch with him. I may have to wait a week or two until I can get parts for my note 2, but the moment my note 2 is operational I will FedEx the Note 3 overnight to him. The note 3 was free to me so I'm not at a loss in re-gifting it. I will upgrade my other line in due time to another 3 when and if the boot loader is unlocked or a custom recovery/kernel is flashable.
Like I said before, if you have a Note 2 laying around or parts to fix mine, I am not against paying for the parts but I don't have much money..... (3 kids @ Baylor are keeping me at the poverty line) literally.
Correct me if im wrong but don't ERD's get devices to develop for anyways?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Thank you so much, you are a hero. Let's hope for the best
drag&fly said:
While I do thank you for the kindness and gesture, I am able to get in touch with him. I may have to wait a week or two until I can get parts for my note 2, but the moment my note 2 is operational I will FedEx the Note 3 overnight to him. The note 3 was free to me so I'm not at a loss in re-gifting it. I will upgrade my other line in due time to another 3 when and if the boot loader is unlocked or a custom recovery/kernel is flashable.
Like I said before, if you have a Note 2 laying around or parts to fix mine, I am not against paying for the parts but I don't have much money..... (3 kids @ Baylor are keeping me at the poverty line) literally.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for sacrificing for us. It seems like it takes teamwork like this to make a bootloader unlock happen, although this is my first experience with a locked bootloader
Surge1223 said:
Correct me if im wrong but don't ERD's get devices to develop for anyways?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Adam isnt an ERD, but yes ERDs (SRDs now) do get devices.
jcase said:
Adam isnt an ERD, but yes ERDs (SRDs now) do get devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have seen you post this a few times. I'm asking what should we do @jcase at this point and moving on. If all we can hope from adam is a hardware exploit, I think many people will want to throw themselves to him because he is willing to help. If we were ganna try to get a dev a device, who do you think it should be?
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Brandonrz said:
I have seen you post this a few times. I'm asking what should we do @jcase at this point and moving on. If all we can hope from adam is a hardware exploit, I think many people will want to throw themselves to him because he is willing to help. If we were ganna try to get a dev a device, who do you think it should be?
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think I have posted that before...
I think people should start considering their intentions before purchasing a model, if they want unlocked they need to support the dev versions. It is showing the carriers which products are wanted. If they see a larger number of dev units on their network, they are more likely to give them greater support.
jcase said:
I don't think I have posted that before...
I think people should start considering their intentions before purchasing a model, if they want unlocked they need to support the dev versions. It is showing the carriers which products are wanted. If they see a larger number of dev units on their network, they are more likely to give them greater support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some people can't pay the 700 and something deductible. And the only way they probable could is buy the note 3 and keep it in the box then to and it on swappa. Then wait until it to get sold, then purchase it from sammy. And 9/10 times it's out of stock.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Brandonrz said:
Some people can't pay the 700 and something deductible. And the only way they probable could is buy the note 3 and keep it in the box then to and it on swappa. Then wait until it to get sold, then purchase it from sammy. And 9/10 times it's out of stock.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rock and a hard place.
jcase said:
I don't think I have posted that before...
I think people should start considering their intentions before purchasing a model, if they want unlocked they need to support the dev versions. It is showing the carriers which products are wanted. If they see a larger number of dev units on their network, they are more likely to give them greater support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally agree with this; however, I was in the situation where I purchased the retail version before I knew there was going to be a dev version. Unfortunately I was too sick of my older slower phone and I purchased the Note 3 right away. Maybe someone mentioned the dev phone prior to the release or maybe that's a trend, but I unfortunately did not read it or did not know to expect it. From now on I will not buy a device unless it is a dev model. That doesn't help my current situation, so I thank anyone spending time on solving this one. I know it might not ever be solved, but efforts towards that end are appreciated. Thank you @drag&fly for being willing to contribute to the cause.
lkspencer said:
Thank you @drag&fly for being willing to contribute to the cause.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not a problem at all Sir. I was actually blessed with the funds to fix my note 2...... As soon as I can order the parts and get them I will be able to send my Note 3! Some of you guys here have really helped me out a lot! Anything I can do to return the favor even if indirectly I will.
jcase said:
I don't think I have posted that before...
I think people should start considering their intentions before purchasing a model, if they want unlocked they need to support the dev versions. It is showing the carriers which products are wanted. If they see a larger number of dev units on their network, they are more likely to give them greater support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Carriers? Besides Play Edition devices, the only carrier offering development devices is Verizon, and even then, they don't offer them. Motorola and Samsung are attempting to band-aid our market share they don't want to lose to another manufacturer like HTC or Sony. With the exception of AT&T and VZW, everyone else has the freedom to do as they please. I strongly disagree, as a couple thousand developer devices vs. millions of retail devices, they don't care one bit. This whole 'Dev Device' business model is Samsung's attempt at a band-aid Verizon's position on device modification. They should start differentiating corporate devices vs. consumer devices. Verizon caters heavily to the enterprise market, especially government organizations and large corporations, so the need for enterprise security created the bastard child known as Samsung Knox and LG Gate. RIM's fall from it's Blackberry throne really stung. Samsung wanted a piece of the pie. If we want to do something about it, switch carriers, not devices. Leave Verizon and AT&T en masse. I mean Verizon charges for 2GB of data instead of unlimited (was same price for me) because they insist this is what consumers wanted. What a joke. T-Mobile now offers international data for free off your data plan, in addition to acquiring the lower 700Mhz block, which will only help them even more with greater signal penetration (something they were struggling with outside of urban/suburban environments.) It's also not very realistic for people in the United States to adopt to the lower tariff/higher device cost model like Europe has. They've engrained subsidization deeply into the mobile industry, although some are starting to shake loose. Motorola is helping quite a bit. It's a complex issue, but truly Verizon is the enemy, and we should all abandon ship. Oh, and AT&T sucks too.
ryanbg said:
Carriers? Besides Play Edition devices, the only carrier offering development devices is Verizon. With the exception of AT&T, everyone else has the freedom to do as they please. I strongly disagree, as a couple thousand developer devices vs. millions of retail devices, they don't care one bit. This whole 'Dev Device' business model is Samsung's attempt at a band-aid Verizon's position on device modification. They should start differentiating corporate devices vs. consumer devices. Verizon caters heavily to the enterprise market, especially government organizations and large corporations. Samsung wanted a piece of the pie. If we want to do something about it, switch carriers, not devices. Leave Verizon and AT&T en masse. I mean Verizon charges for 2GB of data instead of unlimited (was same price for me) because they insist this is what consumers wanted. What a joke. T-Mobile now offers international data for free off your data plan, in addition to acquiring the lower 700Mhz block, which will only help them even more with greater signal penetration (something they were struggling with outside of urban/suburban environments.) It's also not very realistic for people in the United States to adopt to the lower tariff/higher device cost model like Europe has. They've engrained subsidization deeply into the mobile industry, although some are starting to shake loose. Motorola is helping quite a bit. It's a complex issue, but truly Verizon is the enemy, and we should all abandon ship. Oh, and AT&T sucks too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AT&T has dev edition devices as well, so does Motorola and HTC. Also Verizon and AT&T are not the only carriers locking devices, DoCoMo does as well.
I did switch, I use AT&T now, and I buy unlockable or dev units.
jcase said:
AT&T has dev edition devices as well, so does Motorola and HTC. Also Verizon and AT&T are not the only carriers locking devices, DoCoMo does as well.
I did switch, I use AT&T now, and I buy unlockable or dev units.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The perks of GSM... but you are right, I suppose if you aren't locked in a CDMA market, that's most certainly an option.
I think people are forgetting about what this community is all about. why give up and settle for the dev version so fast?
Sent from my SM-N900V using xda app-developers app
As @AdamOutler once said
Why not just buy a developer edition?
GTFO! Not a single person got started developing by buying a developer phone. They started developing because they were unhappy with the features of their device and wanted something better. They wanted something more. This developer phone is a tax on developer innovation. We do not stand for that. We will break the security and we will enable XDA-Developers to do what they do best.
Until security is broken and available for everyone, this device will get updates last, users will be unhappy because there are no additional features and Samsung violates the spirit of Open Source and copyright laws. Take a look at the bottom line of GPL-Violations.org FAQ located here: http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By the way, what happened I thought Adam was ERD. Look here http://www.xda-developers.com/xda-t...stion-and-answer-session-qa-xda-developer-tv/
Plus AT&T doesn't have Dev edition of N3 and even if it did college student like me wont be able to afford something that was priced outrageously. Personally I think carrier should let customers choose between Regular phone or Dev phone and if you choose dev phone and brick it, then its your responsibility.
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
Hey all,
I did some searching so it makes me suspect this isn't possible yet, but does anyone have a method to change the IMEI or MEID of the LG V30+ (Sprint, if that matters)? I need to change it and not just mask it.
The short story is I bought on on eBay but it was already tied to someone's account. The seller won't give me that person's contact info, Sprint won't tell me if there's a finance balance on it and if I can pay it off, and Sprint won't give me that person's contact info either. eBay declined my request for a refund, so now I'm just trying to see if I can make this thing usable at all.
Thanks!
Changing IMEI is illegal you know?
t1mman said:
Changing IMEI is illegal you know?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've done some research and can't find anything that says it is illegal in the United States, which is where I live. I do believe it's illegal in Europe but I don't intend to use the phone there so I'm not really concerned about that.
The way I see it I legally bought a phone. I was mislead a little bit, but the phone is not reported stolen so that means the original owner sold it legally to someone else who bought it. That original owner still owes Sprint money, but that should have nothing to do with the phone itself. So I'd just like to use the phone I paid for. I have an IMEI from an older phone that went into the toilet, so I don't really see the problem with swapping the IMEI of this one out for that one.
https://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2249666&p=40723213
Is it google account lock ? Did you do a imei check ?
If its google account lock some sites provide service to bypass that
Imei check status - will tell you about just that the status. Could say clean , unpaid bills anything other than clean you may have to pay to get rid of that bad status aince sprint aint helping u
Another thing when you try to activate it on your sprint account they will remind you that you will be taking over unpaid payments left by previous owner. All the times i activated sprint phones a d the rep tells me that means ill be takong over payments. And on some phones wherr the rep doesnt say anything about taking over payments means phone is paid off by previous owner.
nizmoboy98 said:
Is it google account lock ? Did you do a imei check ?
If its google account lock some sites provide service to bypass that
Imei check status - will tell you about just that the status. Could say clean , unpaid bills anything other than clean you may have to pay to get rid of that bad status aince sprint aint helping u
Another thing when you try to activate it on your sprint account they will remind you that you will be taking over unpaid payments left by previous owner. All the times i activated sprint phones a d the rep tells me that means ill be takong over payments. And on some phones wherr the rep doesnt say anything about taking over payments means phone is paid off by previous owner.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When I put the IMEI into swappa's IMEI checker it says "Financial Eligibility - Device is not eligible for resale (financed)." When I talk to Sprint (Which I've done over a few calls and trips to the store) they tell me it can't be put on my account because it's still attached to another account, but they don't tell me why at all. They've never told me if I could just take over payments for the phone, which is interesting since I've asked specifically about that. I wonder if something else is blocking this IMEI? So far I haven't been able to reach anyone at Sprint that can tell me anything about the phone's previous owner or any financial obligations on the phone.
Do you happen to know of a different IMEI checker I should try that might give me more information?
Imei checker by cavallo enterprise
I tried that on my insuranced replacement lg v30 and it gave me unpaid balance on mines
cjshrader said:
The way I see it I legally bought a phone. I was mislead a little bit, but the phone is not reported stolen so that means the original owner sold it legally to someone else who bought it. That original owner still owes Sprint money, but that should have nothing to do with the phone itself.
So I'd just like to use the phone I paid for. I have an IMEI from an older phone that went into the toilet, so I don't really see the problem with swapping the IMEI of this one out for that one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry you are out the money....
But the flaw in your logic is that 2017 $800-$900 LG V30 phone still belongs to Sprint, until paid off. The person who "sold" it to you had no right to sell property they do not own (unless they used the money to pay off the balance). So, technically, they are stealing it. The only reason it's not been "reported" stolen is Sprint is probably taking care of this in civil proceedings as opposed to criminal proceedings? They are probably getting a judgement against the person. In which case, Sprint doesn't want to deal with you because that just complicates the case.
IF the person you bought it from had used that money to immediately pay of the balance, then everything would be OK. But they probably sold for lot less than owed to Sprint. (Sprint wants customers with recurring monthly payments, they don't want to be Best Buy. The financial price of the contract is probably a LOT more than the hardware cost of the phone.)
This phone was released in October. The user probably didn't make any payments, to be honest. So you would be out not only what you paid them, but probably the full amount they owe Sprint for up to two years?
Sprint also had deals where you would get a phone, get free first year service, but then be obligated to pay for 2nd year of service. People signed a legal contract. To get out of the contract they had to pay the value of what was still left. The amount owed on this phone might not be just the cost of the phone, but a year or two of Sprint service charges. I haven't seen the contract, I really couldn't care less about Sprint --- I've helped many friends escape Sprint -- I'm just speculating why Sprint isn't being helpful with you. It seems it's more than just the phone?
One Sprint deal was to LEASE TWO PHONES. LEASE one phone, get one for free:
http://newsroom.sprint.com/lg-v30-a...e-get-one-on-us-just-38-per-month-for-two.htm
In which case, they weren't even buying the phone from Sprint over two years, they were renting it.
I see this a lot with new Sprint phones sold on Craigslist and eBay -- lots of drama for some reason. Earlier this year was lots of posts for help in unlocking Sprint Galaxy S8/S8+. It's not that those model phones cannot be unlocked, it's that money was owed on them still. People were getting new Sprint phones for "free", then turning around and selling them on eBay, Craigslist. But they weren't free. They had signed a contract, and until the terms were fulfilled it was still Sprint's phones. So, it was really a scam.
In many countries, changing IMEI numbers is like changing VIN on a car. It's against the law, because either the car is stolen or some other bad intent is happening.
Sent from my carrier unlocked LG V30+ US998
cjshrader said:
I've done some research and can't find anything that says it is illegal in the United States, which is where I live. I do believe it's illegal in Europe but I don't intend to use the phone there so I'm not really concerned about that.
The way I see it I legally bought a phone. I was mislead a little bit, but the phone is not reported stolen so that means the original owner sold it legally to someone else who bought it. That original owner still owes Sprint money, but that should have nothing to do with the phone itself. So I'd just like to use the phone I paid for. I have an IMEI from an older phone that went into the toilet, so I don't really see the problem with swapping the IMEI of this one out for that one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_cloning#Effectiveness_and_legislation
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/cell-phone-fraud
Contact your seller, explain the situation, and if the description didn't state the IMEI issue, or didn't state the item was AS-IS, contact paypal/ebay and open a dispute.
If it was stated, well, you knew what you where getting into!
Good luck!
I appreciate all the comments from everyone. Although I'm not sure that simply changing your IMEI is specifically illegal, I can see 100% how someone could use that information to do something illegal and therefore this forum wouldn't want to discuss it.
I'm going to continue to try to use the resources nizmoboy98 provided to me to see if I can learn any more (They haven't been working so far and have me a little nervous that they are also some form of scam...but I'll give the benefit of the doubt).
If that doesn't give me any additional worthwhile information, then I'll have to sell it for parts on eBay and be much more upfront than the seller was to me. I won't make all my money back but maybe I can make some. (The seller did say the phone was as-is but also said the only problem with it was it was "Activated on someone else's account" which didn't mean the same thing to me as it did to him) I've learned a valuable and expensive lesson about checking IMEIs in the future.
cjshrader said:
I appreciate all the comments from everyone. Although I'm not sure that simply changing your IMEI is specifically illegal, I can see 100% how someone could use that information to do something illegal and therefore this forum wouldn't want to discuss it.
I'm going to continue to try to use the resources nizmoboy98 provided to me to see if I can learn any more (They haven't been working so far and have me a little nervous that they are also some form of scam...but I'll give the benefit of the doubt).
If that doesn't give me any additional worthwhile information, then I'll have to sell it for parts on eBay and be much more upfront than the seller was to me. I won't make all my money back but maybe I can make some. (The seller did say the phone was as-is but also said the only problem with it was it was "Activated on someone else's account" which didn't mean the same thing to me as it did to him) I've learned a valuable and expensive lesson about checking IMEIs in the future.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you paid by CC, just dispute the charges with your CC company and they'll give you your money back. (Chargeback) now if the seller indeed showed it was not usable, you're outta luck.
cjshrader said:
I appreciate all the comments from everyone. Although I'm not sure that simply changing your IMEI is specifically illegal, I can see 100% how someone could use that information to do something illegal and therefore this forum wouldn't want to discuss it.
I'm going to continue to try to use the resources nizmoboy98 provided to me to see if I can learn any more (They haven't been working so far and have me a little nervous that they are also some form of scam...but I'll give the benefit of the doubt).
If that doesn't give me any additional worthwhile information, then I'll have to sell it for parts on eBay and be much more upfront than the seller was to me. I won't make all my money back but maybe I can make some. (The seller did say the phone was as-is but also said the only problem with it was it was "Activated on someone else's account" which didn't mean the same thing to me as it did to him) I've learned a valuable and expensive lesson about checking IMEIs in the future.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really sorry for what seems like a loss. The phone is a great phone. I hope something positive and inexpensive works in your favor.
Sent from my LG-H931 using XDA Labs
Just use some of the online services to sim unlock the phone. Screw the provider, they are all assholes.
That's if I understood correctly what you meant by "locked to another persons account"
Mr CATFISH said:
Really sorry for what seems like a loss. The phone is a great phone. I hope something positive and inexpensive works in your favor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I appreciate that, and even though I'm paying extra for one I'm definitely thinking it's going to be the next phone I get. I've been on a Note 4 for a long time and it's on its last legs.
adsubzero said:
Just use some of the online services to sim unlock the phone. Screw the provider, they are all assholes.
That's if I understood correctly what you meant by "locked to another persons account"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The IMEI is tied to that account, I don't think the SIM card would affect anything.
Josh McGrath said:
If you paid by CC, just dispute the charges with your CC company and they'll give you your money back. (Chargeback) now if the seller indeed showed it was not usable, you're outta luck.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The purchase was through Paypal, and since eBay and Paypal are generally in lock step together. That being said, I should still take a shot, it wouldn't hurt. This is effectively a bad IMEI phone, and the seller said the problem with it was it was "activated on someone else's account." Those two things don't mean the same to me.
cjshrader said:
The IMEI is tied to that account, I don't think the SIM card would affect anything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He's saying there are other providers who don't care that it's a blacklisted phone. That IF you get the phone carrier unlocked through an unlock code perhaps you can then use it with another service provider.
My understanding is there's a U.S. carrier blacklist covering all four major carriers. Whether there are loopholes, I don't know. Like maybe since is not actually been reported lost/stolen?
But there's also tons of U.S. MVNOs who may or may not suscribe to that list. Those MVNOs use the major carriers, like AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, but provide their own SIM cards.
I'm just explaining what the other person meant. What you do is your own decision.
Sent from my official carrier unlocked LG V30+ US998
Try and search ebay for the this seller and message the seller any questions you have. Ask seller if you will get refund if it does not work . im guessing sites that provide this service knows someone that works at sprint and maybe pays them under the table to change status of imei
Hey all,
Just to close this topic I called eBay just to give it one more shot (I'd already opened a case and had it denied, even after appeal). After speaking with them, they told me it's against eBay policy to sell a phone with a bad IMEI so they will actually go through with the refund. I immediately bought another version of this phone on swappa, so basically I think this is the happiest possible ending (except for the seller on eBay, who is about to have their phone back).
Once again thanks for all the comments, I appreciate it.
cjshrader said:
Hey all,
Just to close this topic I called eBay just to give it one more shot (I'd already opened a case and had it denied, even after appeal). After speaking with them, they told me it's against eBay policy to sell a phone with a bad IMEI so they will actually go through with the refund. I immediately bought another version of this phone on swappa, so basically I think this is the happiest possible ending (except for the seller on eBay, who is about to have their phone back).
Once again thanks for all the comments, I appreciate it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You sent the seller back a bad phone?
MicroMod777 said:
You sent the seller back a bad phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, with the refund it's now eBay seller's property (again)...
He can sell it to someone outside the U.S. and it will work.
MicroMod777 said:
You sent the seller back a bad phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a year old thread ?