Related
I considering suing 2012 for false advertisement because it listed 2012 as destruction of all humanity, they're liars . so I would need to know how many people would be willing to join my suit to possible a class action lawsuit. We must save Google, Android and AT&T!
ADMIN feel free to delete this at your choosing.
.01 Troll% .99% What? 95% Human 4% Random
FOR HUMANITY!!!! 2012!!1 AHhhhhh DOoOm Mayan DOoooommM What to do whhat to dooo!?!?!? GOOGLE AND ANDROID EPICNESS!!!?!?!?!?!?!!?!
KJSOARES2 said:
I considering suing AT&T for false advertisement because they listed the FM radio saying the phone had it,but upon learning this they removed the said feature from their site. so I would need to know how many people would be willing to join my suit to possible a class action lawsuit. I have started contact with a law office in Houston, and I intend to contact them tomorrow to see how to proceed. This is for AT&T customers only and for thoughts who purchased the Galaxy S 2 with intentions of using the FM Radio. This is not for people trying to make money for a feature they don't give a damn about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read haha.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium
Can't tell if real lawsuit or trolling ...
Sent from my SGS II
King Shady said:
This is the dumbest thing I've ever read haha.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
OP, are you serious? The T-Mobile G2X was advertised as a quad-band phone and it wasn't. Their website wasn't updated until about a month after people started to receive the device. You know what their response was? Crickets. The same response you'll get from AT&T. And this is a lot less impactful an omission. Whether you realize it or not you can't sue AT&T even if you wanted to. The T&C you agreed to when you signed up limits you to arbitration in case of a dispute. Instead of the nuclear option, why don't you try charm and get them to swap the phone or undo the transaction if FM radio really is that important to you. Those are your only options anyway as they're not going to change the specs on the phone or produce one just for you that has the FM radio.
This guy works for apple.
I voided my warranty and your mum.
KJSOARES2 said:
I considering suing AT&T for false advertisement because they listed the FM radio saying the phone had it,but upon learning this they removed the said feature from their site. so I would need to know how many people would be willing to join my suit to possible a class action lawsuit. I have started contact with a law office in Houston, and I intend to contact them tomorrow to see how to proceed. This is for AT&T customers only and for thoughts who purchased the Galaxy S 2 with intentions of using the FM Radio. This is not for people trying to make money for a feature they don't give a damn about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahaha!
Good luck with that.
This is from the Terms of Use for att.com which you agree to by using the site...
AT&T does not warrant that information, graphic depictions, product and service descriptions or other content of the Sites is accurate, complete, reliable, updated, current, or error-free. Despite our efforts, it is possible that a price for a product or service offered on the Site may be inaccurate or the product or service description may contain an inaccuracy. In the event AT&T determines that a product or service contains an inaccurate price or description, AT&T reserves the right to take any action it deems reasonable and necessary, in its sole discretion, to rectify the error, including without limitation canceling your order, unless prohibited by law. AT&T may make improvements or changes to any of its content, information products, services, or programs described on the Sites at any time without notice. You agree to notify AT&T immediately if you become aware of any pricing or descriptive errors or inconsistencies with any products or services you order through the Sites and comply with any corrective action taken by AT&T.
In other words, between mandated arbitration and the website ToU, you and your "lawyer" are pretty much SOL.
Barry is correct. You have no legal right or ability to file a law suit against them. In the contract that you signed, you accepted the ability to file through arbitration, but not through the courts.
i'm going to join the bandwagon here. Please do not actually follow through with this.
KJSOARES2 said:
I considering suing AT&T for false advertisement because they listed the FM radio saying the phone had it,but upon learning this they removed the said feature from their site. so I would need to know how many people would be willing to join my suit to possible a class action lawsuit. I have started contact with a law office in Houston, and I intend to contact them tomorrow to see how to proceed. This is for AT&T customers only and for thoughts who purchased the Galaxy S 2 with intentions of using the FM Radio. This is not for people trying to make money for a feature they don't give a damn about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
here you go, https://market.android.com/search?q=radio&so=1&c=apps
i recommend iHeartRadio if you want to listen to ClearChannel stations..
Its seems returning your phone would be the easiest solution to this issue...
Yeah... At best a lawsuit would get you back a restocking fee. Everyone who has this device is still within their 30 day return period at this point.
Entropy512 said:
Yeah... At best a lawsuit would get you back a restocking fee. Everyone who has this device is still within their 30 day return period at this point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Approached diplomatically, I'm sure they'd waive the re-stocking charge since there was an error on the website that indicated the phone was equipped with an FM radio. I've found AT&T pretty decent to work with most of the time. There's no question there was an error, the debate is over what should be done about it.
OP, assuming they let you out of the original purchase, get an iP4S instead. You can sell it on eBay and for the same price or less get an international SGS2 instead. It has the FM radio. If you buy it from the UK or Expansys-USA it'll still have a 2-year warranty.
This is something that could effect us all. What if the world does end? Depending on the survivors there may be enough to keep at&t going.
Does that mean I'm still under contract?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using XDA App
I think your contract dies with at&t. Unless you become president of at&t if you survive.
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.
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
If having an unlocked phone is important to you why not just buy one? They are not available from Sprint but you can get GSM models on Amazon and other websites.
Does this makes it illegal to flash an Evo 3D to Virgin Mobile, Boost or another prepaid carrier? If so, I guess there are some threads here on XDA that might need to be closed.
Edit:
There's a good article here that explains this situation pretty thoroughly and it really doesn't sound like anything to get too excited about.
It's actually a digital media copyright act (DMCA) ruling by the Library of Congress and even allows for exemptions for legacy devices and situations where the carrier won't unlock their phones.
IMO, it really doesn't seem to be anything worth bothering Obama about since he has plenty on his plate already.
ramjet73
ramjet73 said:
If having an unlocked phone is important to you why not just buy one? They are not available from Sprint but you can get GSM models on Amazon and other websites.
Does this makes it illegal to flash an Evo 3D to Virgin Mobile, Boost or another prepaid carrier? If so, I guess there are some threads here on XDA that might need to be closed.
Edit:
There's a good article here that explains this situation pretty thoroughly and it really doesn't sound like anything to get too excited about.
It's actually a digital media copyright act (DMCA) ruling by the Library of Congress and even allows for exemptions for legacy devices and situations where the carrier won't unlock their phones.
IMO, it really doesn't seem to be anything worth bothering Obama about since he has plenty on his plate already.
ramjet73
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i agree totally
Better yet everyone with a cell phone should unlock it. See how they would respond to that.
Sent from my Evo 3D CDMA using XDA Premium HD app
Or move to canada
Sent from my IdeaTabA2109A using Tapatalk HD
I hear that on Saturday 2-2-13 unlocking will be illegal is this true?
Sent from my PG86100 using xda app-developers app
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