5,599,337 Members 38,030 Now Online
XDA Developers Android and Mobile Development Forum

Open Letter to VZW/Samsung/EFF/FTC/FCC regarding locked devices.

Tip us?
 
smokeyrd
Old
(Last edited by smokeyrd; 31st January 2014 at 06:03 PM.)
#1  
Junior Member - OP
Thanks Meter 2
Posts: 3
Join Date: Jan 2014
Info 2 Open Letter to VZW/Samsung/EFF/FTC/FCC regarding locked devices.

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.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to smokeyrd For This Useful Post: [ Click to Expand ]
 
k1mu
Old
#2  
k1mu's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter 1242
Posts: 1,578
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Virginia

 
DONATE TO ME
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeyrd View Post
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.
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.
My Android devices:
vzw Samsung Galaxy S4 stock MJ7, now rooted!
Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, also stock but rooted.

VZ Droid Incredible 2 rooted but otherwise stock.
Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to k1mu For This Useful Post: [ Click to Expand ]
 
smokeyrd
Old
#3  
Junior Member - OP
Thanks Meter 2
Posts: 3
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1mu View Post
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.
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*
 
ky5ever
Old
#4  
Junior Member
Thanks Meter 58
Posts: 22
Join Date: Jan 2014
Default pected eekerman

Quote:
Originally Posted by smokeyrd View Post
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.
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.
 
gnubian
Old
#5  
gnubian's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter 107
Posts: 185
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Asheville
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.
 
richii0207
Old
(Last edited by richii0207; 1st February 2014 at 03:52 AM.)
#6  
richii0207's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter 395
Posts: 992
Join Date: Dec 2010
What is the purpose of a developer edition? Thank you.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda app-developers app
_________________________________________

Phone: Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note II
Rom: Unrooted / Stock
__________________________________________
 
ky5ever
Old
#7  
Junior Member
Thanks Meter 58
Posts: 22
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by richii0207 View Post
What is the purpose of a developer edition? Thank you.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using xda app-developers app
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.
 
smokeyrd
Old
#8  
Junior Member - OP
Thanks Meter 2
Posts: 3
Join Date: Jan 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnubian View Post
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.
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.
 
Mistertac
Old
#9  
Mistertac's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter 654
Posts: 1,780
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Springfield, Ma
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
 
zeb carter
Old
#10  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter 17
Posts: 108
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Panama City, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistertac View Post
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
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.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


TRENDING IN THEMER...