Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Is Cutting the Note 7's Access To Mobile Networks In New Zealand (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the glorified-music-player dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: No one can claim there hasn't been ample warning. The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 saga dragged out over multiple months, encompassing two recalls, several travel bans and then, ultimately, the untimely end for the troubled handset. Even still, some people just have trouble letting go. Starting November 18, Note 7 owners will not be able to connect to mobile networks in New Zealand, courtesy of a joint effort by Samsung and the The New Zealand Telecommunications Forum (TCF) to "blacklist" the device. No calls, no texts, no mobile data. Users will still be able to access WiFi, but the device will essentially be turned into a big Samsung iPod Touch. Samsung New Zealand added that it will work to contact all remaining Note 7 owners twice prior to the shut down, "to ensure they have received adequate notice." It remains to be seen whether the company will take similar action in other markets. "Numerous attempts by all providers have been made to contact owners and ask them to bring the phones in for replacement or refund, this action should further aid the return of the remaining handsets," TCF's CEO said in a statement issued today.

41 of 63 comments (clear)

  1. Sort of concerning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Its sort of concerning that Samsung can just reach out and kill your phone, in effect at their whim.

    1. Re:Sort of concerning by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      It concerns you that Samsung can do something which every other phone manufacturer can also do? Why's that, exactly?

    2. Re:Sort of concerning by Espectr0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its sort of concerning that Samsung can just reach out and kill your phone, in effect at their whim.

      stop the FUD. samsung won't do anything. The carrier will just flag all Note 7 IMEI's so they won't get service. Quite simple and don't need a backdoor to do that

      --
      Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
    3. Re:Sort of concerning by wickerprints · · Score: 2

      Reach out and kill your phone? As if having a ticking time bomb of an exploding battery in your pocket is any less concerning?

      First of all, the device is recalled: the manufacturer and consumer product regulators have determined it is not acceptably safe to use, even if most users have not experienced any malfunctions. Second, Samsung is refunding the purchase cost of the phone and giving owners a discount on a future phone. Third, Samsung worked with the relevant telecommunications company to "kill" the Note 7. It's not as if Samsung itself has a switch somewhere to disable mobile network access. The telecoms have that power, but it's not any more exceptional or prone to abuse than any wireless provider being able to cut off network access to your device for any reason, such as failing to pay your phone bill.

    4. Re:Sort of concerning by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Because on my devices, I AM SUPPOSED TO BE GOD, not the OEM.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:Sort of concerning by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The device can function without a battery......Allowing arbitrary killing of hardware by remote is incredibly distasteful.

      --
      Good-bye
    6. Re:Sort of concerning by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Gees dude wake up to yourself. There are similar rules for things like hot water services (most people don't know that because big kaboom if pressurised vessel explode due to defective pressure release valve, heating water makes it expand) or cars or planes. Basically recall goes out, you are bound by law to be a part of that recall or the device can no longer be used. They tie those rules to provision of service. You can not hook up a recalled hot water service to the water supply, you can not drive a defective vehicle on public roads and you can not fly a defective plane over public or over other people's land, there are also rules for hooking up appliances to the electrical grid. As such you can no longer hook Note7 to the mobile network because of the mobile risk you present. Grow the fuck up, you are not God, you are just another mud monkey and no matter how stupid you might want to be you are not allowed to put the other mud monkeys at risk, even should they want to be just as idiotic as you. So good move my the New Zealand government, New Zealand telecoms and Samsung.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:Sort of concerning by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      On a device that has had a worldwide product recall?

      Tinfoil hats and all but perspective...

    8. Re:Sort of concerning by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

      No they can't, not if you have disabled automatic system updates. Google, on the other hand, can do quite some stuff on your phone simply by updating the Play Services app (which auto-updates on the background even if you have disabled auto-updating of normal apps from the relevant settting in the Play Store). This is simply a case of New Zealand's networks receiving a request to connect from Note 7 devices and replying "nope". The network could do that even on your Nokia 3310. Remember, the network knows your IMEI (or some other unique device identifier), not just the SIM identifier.

    9. Re:Sort of concerning by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      O look another idiot who doesnt understand property rights or Liberty at all.

      --
      Good-bye
    10. Re:Sort of concerning by tepples · · Score: 1

      Carry a laptop computer and a flip phone that can only talk and text.

    11. Re:Sort of concerning by CrankyFool · · Score: 1

      It really can't. The battery is soldered in place.

    12. Re:Sort of concerning by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh, look, another idiot who thinks if he starts a fire on his property, the neighbours aren't allowed to complain about the smoke.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    13. Re:Sort of concerning by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Let us know how that fire in your butt pocket works out for ya.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    14. Re:Sort of concerning by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Because on my devices, I AM SUPPOSED TO BE GOD, not the OEM.

      It may be your device, but it's not your network. They are not bricking the devices, they are being blacklisted from the cell networks.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    15. Re:Sort of concerning by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Because on my devices, I AM SUPPOSED TO BE GOD, not the OEM.

      And you still are. All Samsung did was disable cellular network access, on one provider.

      You still have your device, and it still works. You can use it on WiFI, or another cell network provider.

      You're still god of your device. No one's taken that away from you. The only thing is that someone else decided to not provide service to your device.

  2. Emergency Access? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How would that affect emergency services access? Does NZ have rules such as Canada requiring all cell phones to be able to call 911?

    caption: tyrants

    1. Re:Emergency Access? by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine it would be fairly easy to exempt emergency services access. One would also think it would be relatively straightforward for Samsung to simply push a firmware update which disables anything except emergency calls, data backup / transfer and a nice big full-screen alert that says "Your phone is not safe. Please power it off now and contact your local Samsung dealer to arrange return or replacement."

    2. Re:Emergency Access? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      stolen blacklisted phones can still call 911

    3. Re:Emergency Access? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Calling the emergency fire service on a phone to say your phone has caught fire?

    4. Re:Emergency Access? by twosat · · Score: 1

      Yes, we do, except that in New Zealand the emergency phone number is not 911, but 111. Dialing 911 will work though, since a lot of people like tourists and NZ children who watched USA TV programs were calling 911, even after they had been reminded of the different number. As a result, the phone companies programmed their systems to accept 911 calls and divert them to 111.

  3. Re:What the hell?! by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    YES

    http://gizmodo.com/internet-ac...

  4. Re:What the hell?! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Informative

    I PAID for the device - it's MINE and not a threat to the telecommunications infrastructure

    Yes but Samsung first responsibility is to ensure the device is not a threat to the user, you. If despite all the publicity around the burning Note 7s you still want to use it, you are not only a threat to yourself but to Samsung as well (who then has to cover trial/injury/... expenses).

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  5. Re:What the hell?! by wickerprints · · Score: 1

    If you're willing to sign a legally binding waiver indemnifying Samsung and TCF and your wireless provider from any harm that may occur as a result of keeping your device, and accept all risks and liabilities of such a hazard in the event the device causes death or injury or property damage to other parties, then of course you should be able to continue using it.

    Not willing to sign such a waiver? Then Samsung should do what it can to encourage you to return the defective product, because as long as you haven't absolved them of this liability, it is theirs to retain. They have no other recourse to protect themselves. Most rational people will recognize that continuing to own a hazardous and defective product is not in their own best interest, because in some cases, you could lose any claim for damages if the manufacturer can demonstrate that you were injured or suffered a loss after you willfully ignored reasonable attempts to recall the product.

  6. Re:What the hell?! by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    Yes. The Note 7 is a public danger because of a well documented flaw and unacceptably low design tolerance that allows for violent explosion. It is a risk to the assets of others, and a risk to public safety. You should be arrested if you have one in active use next year if not earlier.

  7. Re:What the hell?! by wickerprints · · Score: 1

    Not to mention a threat to third parties who, unbeknownst to them, may be in the presence of a safety hazard and have no say in the matter.

  8. Re:What the hell?! by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    unbeknownst

    Didn't see that word since 1983

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  9. Travel ban by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    I recently flew back from SE Asia and the airline basically ordered people who might be carrying a Note 7 to declare it before they boarded the plane.

    I'm not sure if the people who had one were prohibited from flying with it or if it was put in some kind of secure container for the trip, but they called the Note 7 out by name specifically. I believe there were some stiff penalties for not declaring it before boarding (aside from the plane possibly catching fire and crashing, that is).

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Travel ban by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      I just flew domestically in the US and there are signs *everywhere* stating that both the FAA and US-DOT have banned the devices for travel. If caught the TSA will treat it as any other banned item and you can either not board your flight or dispose of it at the checkpoint.

  10. The real scary part by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    I hear that Samsung is going to kill the earphone jack. Now they are really hitting below the belt.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  11. Re:What the hell?! by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    They lose that right once i PAY FOR IT. It is no longer their property, its mine.. Did people fucking forget about property rights?

    --
    Good-bye
  12. They really are on fire at Samsung by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 2

    The company with the most explosive product of the year. The will no doubt sear the competition.

  13. Re: It's a remote recall by stevedog · · Score: 1

    They don't own your phone, and they aren't claiming to. They do, however, own the networks your phone is trying to connect to. As stated, your phone will work just fine on Wifi, just not on their networks... Which they own.

  14. Re:What the hell?! by Shados · · Score: 1

    And you're not allowed to do just whatever you want with an armed bomb.

  15. Re:What the hell?! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Waiver be damned--that dipshit better not try to bring it on my flight.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  16. Re:Collectors items? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    If it's purely a collector's item, then it doesn't need any network connectivity whatsoever, does it.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  17. Re:What the hell?! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    From what I remember I can't run an SMTP service on port 25 either because the ISP is part of an effort to limit the amount of spam. Keep using your volatile paperweight, but there is no intrinsic right for you to use anything and everything on TCF's infrastructure.

  18. Re:What the hell?! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    They lose that right once i PAY FOR IT. It is no longer their property, its mine.. Did people fucking forget about property rights?

    Yes and you can continue to do what you want with it. Your service provider on the other hand has zero obligation to let you onto their network and you don't have the right to demand that.

  19. "Stolen" could be slander of title by tepples · · Score: 1

    If a phone that is not stolen cannot connect to the network on grounds of having been stolen, subscribers will blame the carrier. And if the carrier insists that the same device that you've always been using on that account has been stolen, despite your possession of the device in the carrier's local store and showing photo ID whose name matches that of the subscriber, ultimately the "stolen" message could be considered slander of title.

  20. Re:Is Note 7 a threat to a network? by tepples · · Score: 1

    that contract said no such thing about enforced recalls cutting your connection.

    Prove it.

  21. Re:What the hell?! by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    Do you own the network? No, it's THEIR (the carriers) networks, they are within their rights to do as they see fit, within the law, with THEIR property. It's funny how people think property rights only apply to them.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.