Slashdot Mirror
Is Verizon Breaking FCC Regulations With Locked Bootloaders?
First time accepted submitter PcItalian writes with an excerpt from an interesting editorial on XDA Developers: "The open access provision requires Verizon to '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.' It goes on to say, 'The potential for excessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network.' Verizon bought Block C and tried to have the provisions removed. They failed. ... That means if a device uses the Block C frequencies, Verizon cannot insist what apps or firmware it runs. ... So the question is, do any devices use Block C frequencies? Yes. Some are called Hotspots. Others are called the HTC Thunderbolt... [Hotspots] comply with FCC regulations as far as I'm aware. The HTC Thunderbolt, on the other hand, does not. In the list of rules and exceptions for the Block C license, it says this: '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'...'"
So what now? It's not like we can show this to Verizon and go "HAH! SEE! TOLDJA SO!" and expect them to unlock anything. If anything they've known about this for a very long time.
Like Verizon would let a silly little thing like laws get in their way...
I will revert to smoke signals before I use their "services" ever again.
And I speak from experience, having been abused by them.
Normally I dont agree with that kind of defeatism, but Verizon keeps doing this at every turn: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/solved-verizon-to-pay-25-million-fine-over-mystery-fees.ars. They are just up to the same old unethical behavior as before. Add uninstallable bloatware nagging you to buy things or use in app billing, they are really biting the hand that feeds them. Android phones are their bread and butter, making them cash hand over fist. Add insane data charges and it's really obvious how badly distorted the wireless market is. The ironic part? Google is who bid the c-block up to the open-access provision level. Forcing the winner to accept open access.
Verizon: we keep working you like a whore.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I have the HTC Thunderbolt, unlocked running BAMF. According to the verizon rep, the bootloader lockdown was at the request of HTC. Additionally, the warranty is handled by the manufacturer, and would be void by them, not verizon. He told me that I could return the phone, and verizon only does some cursory testing to see if it turns on, functions, etc. The fact it was rooted wouldn't be detected until handed to HTC.
Now this is all assuming Verizon isn't lying to me. It could very well be all false. But it seems like they're trying to pin the fault on locked down phones to the manufacturer, NOT themselves. Aren't there some Android phones, made by Verizon that are unlocked?
Interesting view that may hold water.
However, the position becomes weak when there IS a security issue and Verizon fails to patch it within minutes of a fix being available. Or as WinMo 6 users like to call it, "The Windows Update feature that Wasn't."
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Absolute rubbish. Apple tried to do away with removable SIM's entirely and the carriers said no. I suggest reading this interview:
http://allthingsd.com/20110523/exclusive-france-telecom-ceo-on-apple-android-and-how-you-can-kiss-your-unlimited-plan-goodbye/
Bush never actually said that, by the way.
http://factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Verizon in fact can't even tell HTC to unlock their phone (not that they would want to) because they aren't allowed to tell the manufacturer how to make their phone.
Oh, is it so?
HTC is committed to assisting customers in unlocking bootloaders for HTC devices. However, certain models may not be unlockable due to operator restrictions. We continue to work with our partners on this, check back often for ongoing updates about unlockable devices.
Granted, nowhere is Verizon mentioned explicitly in regards with the unlockable devices... but neither can be said that Verizon cannot ask HTC to unlock their phones.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Attempt at a troll? You said carriers don't dictate what manufacturers do with their phones. That's patently false, with evidence provided. If you think it doesn't extend to the US, you have your head in the sand. They tell the manufacturers yay or nay on every feature on the phone, and if the handset manufacturers don't comply, the phone doesn't get sold. Just like they dictate when phone updates are pushed, and what updates they get.
Google meant to change this situation with Android. Make a phone that consumers wanted, Create a market where consumers bought a phone made for end users, and then allow the carriers to complete for service. This plan, unfortunately, did not work. One reason is that Google was actually not going to service the Google phone, but rather allow the carriers to do incur those costs while Google made a huge profit on each phone. Obviously end users were not wild about paying a company for a product that denied the product was even made by them, and carriers were not wild about providing service for which they would not be paid.
In any case, everyone has basically blinked and phones are once again made, at least in part, for the carriers. This will happen until we have an old-ATT style breakup in which the governement tells everyone that they have to play nice.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
In the US at leaset, carriers are the customer, not the end user. The carriers determine which features are required and how much money will be spent by the end user and how much support is required from the carrier.
The C block is an exception. Read the links provided in the summary. Verizon isn't allowed to dictate features or limits to devices that make use of the C block.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Verizon can't tell the OEM's what to do with their phones. If you buy a phone that is locked, that is your choice.
Verizon can't tell an OEM what to do with their phone, however Verizon CAN tell an OEM what to do with their phone if they want Verizon to carry it. This means that if said OEM doesn't comply they loose a HUGE retail opportunity. Most OEMs would rather let the carrier dictate terms than loose the carrier as a sales channel.
What you're saying would likely be true in one of 2 worlds:
1) A world where handsets are sold separately from service contracts (much of the world, but not North America)
2) A small enough carrier that the OEM wouldn't care if they lost them (again, not Verizon)
The end result is that carriers frequently DO dictate terms to the OEMs, in fact, to my knowledge the only OEM to ever stand up to a carrier on this one is Apple... and only because they wanted to put their own restrictions on instead of letting the carriers put theirs on.
HTC doesn't just lock phones that go to Verizon; they lock all of the phones they sell. You are buying a phone from HTC that HTC locks. Verizon can't tell you what you can or can't put on that phone, but by buying into HTC's walled garden, HTC can tell you what you will or won't put on that phone.
I RTFA. You made a false statement. You're now saying that Verizon couldn't tell them to do something because it's against the law. Good call. Verizon couldn't possibly tell another company to break the law, because it breaks the law. In fact, nobody can break the law. I bet you've never gone above the speed limit, because it's against the law. There was no price collusion in the memory market for years, because it was against the law. Intel didn't shit on AMD at OEM's, because it was agains the law.
You made an incorrect statement, I gave you proof otherwise that MFG's have long since demanded phone manufacturers make phones to their specification. Claiming they can't because it's on the C-block is humorous at best. They can do whatever they want right up until the point they get caught. Which is what this article is about, had you RTFA.
Verizon can't tell an OEM what to do with their phone, however Verizon CAN tell an OEM what to do with their phone if they want Verizon to carry it. This means that if said OEM doesn't comply they loose a HUGE retail opportunity. Most OEMs would rather let the carrier dictate terms than loose the carrier as a sales channel.
Hmm....No, not exactly.
On the C block, they can force Verizon to activate the phone for subscribers who request it. But the question ends up being: Is this profitable for the OEM? When an OEM makes a phone available for a given carrier, usually the carrier handles a lot of the burden of advertising and promoting that phone. For example, on Verizons website, Verizon stores, or orders over the phone, Verizon can completely deny that phone even exists if they'd like.
If you as a customer bring them a phone to that spectrum (passing FCC checks, of course) Verizon must make services available to it on your request. But how successful an OEM would be at providing that model is another question. Google tried to sell the original Nexus that way (unlocked, available to any GSM carrier that would take it) and it didn't sell too well from their own channels. Instead it was through t-mobil's channels that sold it well.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Verizon will do what they will, because the penalties for not complying with regulations are infinitesimal compared to the profits from nickel-and-diming customers.
Exactly. The penalties should be more significant, like fix it in 30 days or lose the spectrum, no fees refunded.
oh i can buy other phones, but there is no signal at my house for anyone but verizon
Not even a land line? I thought that's what the universal service fee was for: to get land-line coverage up to 100%.
You don't get it.
Verizon dictates, htc produces, verizon sells and operates. verizon is largely at fault.
If your point stands, why is my Sprint Samsung Epic 4g locked??
You still don't get it. The litle pieces and crappy assemblies of ideas you keep pushing about this topic is comedy at its best. Its fun watching you eat your foot evry step of the way.
That's because in North America phones are tied to contracts. Sure I can bring any phone I want and activate it on my current provider, but then I have to spend several hundred dollars on a phone. The carrier is willing to give me their phone for "free" if I sign a 3 year term. Now in an ideal world they'd give me a discount if I brought my own, but they don't, so I pay for that "free" phone whether I take it or not, I might as well take it. How many OEMs are willing to risk going up against free with a several hundred dollar device while also battling the marketing clout of the carrier? All just so they don't have to agree to the carrier's terms of locking the phone down and adding a few bloatware apps? Highly unlikely.
As I said, while OEMs don't "have" to do what a carrier asks of them, the truth is that they do, all the time, and if they don't, they won't sell any phones.
On the C block, they can force Verizon to activate the phone for subscribers who request it. But the question ends up being: Is this profitable for the OEM?
'Course it is!!! "You brick the phone by ROM modding, you're outside of warranty... I sympathize with you; here, let me sell you my new model; you get a 10% discount for your 3days old brick".
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Non-compliance by Verizon is cause for the FCC's termination of Verizon's licenses of C-Block bands. At that point, the FCC should reclaim the licenses and re-auction them to parties who would know that they can sub-lease them to a Verizon that they have by the balls.
The move here is to petition the executive branch to actually do its fucking job, which may mean firing the entire Genachowski FCC and starting over.
Installing a new OS on my Windows machine doesn't void the warranty, and neither should installing a new build of Android on an Android device. There should be a golden bootloader that is locked that then allows the installation of any operating system software. Then you can make a relatively unbrickable device that gives people complete choice. TPM for the DRM dicks if you really think you have to, bud I'd rather that we, as a people, decide to stop stabbing ourselves in the face.
Verizon shouldn't be allowed any end-runs, nor should, frankly, anyone else. So the FCC didn't man up and actually give us network and device neutrality that makes sense. That's not the end of the world if they actually enforce C-Block restrictions effectively.
why is my Sprint Samsung Epic 4g locked??
It's not. It and all other Samsung phones can be easily flashed with a program called ODIN. Just tar up the filesystem images, modem, and kernel and flash away.
Google: ODIN samsung
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
No, the way to fix this is to seize all profits made as a result of the violation, and then add a fine on top of that.
The 'fine' should be loss of the license. They appear to have broken the license deliberately to make more money so they should have to repay the money and then lose the license for having proven themselves untrustworthy to have it. This would certainly be disruptive to customers but if governments behaved this way you'd soon see companies taking their responsibilities a lot more seriously and there there would be less need for such forceful action.
Here in Switzerland you can buy your phone at any shop that sells mobiles and sign a contract with a phone company.
The cool thing is, if you do so, you get a phone which came directly from a factory, e.g. no sim lock, no bloatware, etc. It is a really cool approach, but I dont know how heager us companies would be to adapt this approach.
and this is not the first time the question has been raised -- see also: potential future 4G iPhone (which will be very interesting)
With regards to the Thunderbolt, however, the bootloader is easily unlocked so it doesn't seem to be the best case to get upset about.
The day Verizon allows customers to walk into a Verizon store and buy a R-UIM card that will allow them to use any physically-compatible phone on Verizon, you might have a point. However, in the real world, Verizon and Sprint dictate the phones available for use on their networks, and have more or less complete veto power (the sole real-world exception being that Verizon will grudgingly allow you to use a Sprint twin of a Verizon phone that's been reflashed to Verizon firmware, but AFAIK nobody has EVER gotten a completely alien phone (with EVDOrev.A chipset) to do EVDOrev.A on Verizon, and as of a year or so ago, if you were willing to live with slow 1xRTT to use an alien phone on Verizon, you'd still have dysfunctional voicemail and MMS.
Remember, the T-Mobile and AT&T Samsung Galaxy S II has a better CDMA chipset than Sprint's does. In theory, someone able to create his own radio firmware and access to Verizon's internal docs could forcibly reflash one to do EVDO on Verizon. The catch is, to do it legally, he'd probably have to get his phone individually certified by the FCC, because Samsung only had the GSM SGS2 officially certified for GSM and UMTS, even though the Qualcomm chipset inside is perfectly capable of CDMA.
Bush didn't say it, he did it. Actions speak so much louder than words.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
The requirement doesn't mean they have to hook up only unlocked phones. Just like the requirement decades ago wasn't that AT&T stop renting hardwired phones. The requirement is that if I buy any random device capable of talking on their network, they must allow me to use it on their network... even if that device does things with their network they'd rather it not.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
But, depending on the circumstance, a lawsuit might compel the FCC to take action.
Block C should never have been sold. They should have charged for permission to build devices that communicate over 700hz and left the connectivity and use up to the public. Allowing ONE company to control a frequency is completely unacceptable!
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Guy was a big enough douche that we don't have to lie about the things he said. The truth is just as bad as fiction for him most of the time.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Um, it isn't?
The most bootloader "locking" I've seen with Samsungs is the "custom binary count" counter/warning in newer phones. It'll rat on you that you flashed a custom kernel via ODIN, but it will happily boot it.
This goes for every GalaxyS variant (including the Epic 4G) - although most of these don't have the "new" custom binary count feature, all interim devices (like the Infuse and Droid Charge), and all GS2 variants (which all have CBC counters - but happily boot custom kernels.)
So if anyone is eating your foot, it's you. It's clear that you either don't have a damn clue or you're trolling.
As to my credentials in this regard - I maintain custom kernels for the AT&T Infuse and AT&T GSII. I know for a fact that the original Epic 4G had unlocked bootloaders and PLENTY of custom kernels because I based some of the features in my Infuse kernel series on an Epic 4G kernel series.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Don't forget Heimdall for Mac/Linux users. Heck - I know a lot of ROM devs use it on Windows too because it's just plain more consistent.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Why not a RICO prosecution?
It's clearly a conspiracy on the part of executives to break the law and obtain illegal profits.
Let's seize all the personal assets of these executives, fine them a few million dollars personally and throw them in jail.
When "aggressive billing practices" starts becoming a significant risk of loss of personal fortunes and extensive jail time, then you'll see greater caution.
I didn't know Heimdall supported Windows. I'll have to give it a whirl.
Thanks!
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
By the same token, are they required to sell devices that they don't want to sell (such as, devices that don't comply to internal standards)?
Maybe... If other C block bidders could have made more money by charging for inherent features, they could have bid a lot more.
404: sig not found.