Hi Network Admins,
Will the addition of "Knox security" to the Galaxy Note 3 phone be something that will sway your company into adopting this device as a company issued mobile? If not why? Also what phones are currently deployed to employees at your company?.
Related
I am about to buy my first smartphone (HTC Hero) my question is Would I be better off signing up with Sprint in the "Lower 48" or going with the local option here in Alaska using GCI Alaska Wireless/Alaska Dgiitel
I have seen that Sprint is getting fussy about users tethering their phones is this still an issue?
I am looking for ease of rooting tethering etcetera
What is the consensus for the most user friendly Wireless Provider
I am trying not to have to come to these boards asking "How do I restore my phone, I tried rooting/modding/hacking my phone and now IT DOESN'T WORK"
What do all you all recomend as far as phones and providers ROMs
Any recommended links
Thanks for any help opinions suggestions
Sparky
TL;DR - Verizon blocks your ability to unencrypt the boot loader and upload another wireless carriers software for use on their network which is explicitly written into the law. While Verizon stated the encrypted boot loader helps keep customer support high and FCC deemed it reasonable, Verizon will have a hard time explaining the reasonableness of it's encryption when you've decided you would like to take your device to another network. This "locking" of the device to Verizons network only is the noose we're going to tie around Verizons neck.
The concept:
Say you've decided you may be interested in taking your 4g device to another network. Unfortunately, the bootloader is encrypted and any flash of another providers software renders the device "bricked."
The law, as it is written (Feel free to skip to the next section):
§ 27.16 Network access requirements for Block C in the 746–757 and 776–787 MHz bands.
(a) Applicability. This section shall apply only to the authorizations for Block C in the 746–757 and 776–787 MHz bands assigned and only if the results of the first auction in which licenses for such authorizations are offered satisfied the applicable reserve price.
(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.
(c) Technical standards. For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section:
(1) Standards shall include technical requirements reasonably necessary for third parties to access a licensee’s network via devices or applications without causing objectionable interference to other spectrum users or jeopardizing network security. The potential for excessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network.
(2) To the extent a licensee relies on standards established by an independent standards-setting body which is open to participation by representatives of service providers, equipment VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:46 Dec 15, 2010 Jkt 220201 PO 00000 Frm 00334 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\47\47V2 ofr150 PsN: PC150325 Federal Communications Commission § 27.20 manufacturers, application developers, consumer organizations, and other interested parties, the standards will carry a presumption of reasonableness.
(3) A licensee shall publish its technical standards, which shall be nonproprietary, no later than the time at which it makes such standards available to any preferred vendors, so that the standards are readily available to customers, equipment manufacturers, application developers, and other parties interested in using or developing products for use on a licensee’s networks.
(d) Access requests.
(1) Licensees shall establish and publish clear and reasonable procedures for parties to seek approval to use devices or applications on the licensees’ networks. A licensee must also provide to potential customers notice of the customers’ rights to request the attachment of a device or application to the licensee’s network, and notice of the licensee’s process for customers to make such requests, including the relevant network criteria.
(2) If a licensee determines that a request for access would violate its technical standards or regulatory requirements, the licensee shall expeditiously provide a written response to the requester specifying the basis for denying access and providing an opportunity for the requester to modify its request to satisfy the licensee’s concerns.
(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.
How to play it:
Call Verizon Tech Support. Ask for the encryption and verification software used to verify the Operating System is approved "by Verizon" so you could potentially take your device to another network. You may be told, as I was by a Tech Support Supervisor, that it's as simple as having your new carrier flash their software onto the phone and it's good to go. Of course, we know this bricks the device. When you are told no, you could then ask to be transferred to someone who can remove this software, or, you could end it there, your job is done.
Once you're told "No." you have a legitimate complaint to file with the FCC. The law states specifically "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. The last part, in bold, is the noose you've just tied around Verizon's neck.
This will only work *if* you are told "No" by a Verizon Representative. As every call is logged by Verizon, you cannot lie about having been told no as their logged call may be used against them. You may ask them to note this in your account as well.
What to tell FCC:
You're allowed 1000 characters when you fill out the FCC complaint form. Lets do it with 690 characters:
I was told by a Verizon Wireless Representative that Verizon would not allow me to remove the software installed that verifies the device only runs "Verizon approved" software, and the encryption protecting it. As this explicitly limits my ability for a new carrier to provide their software on my device, for use on their network, I feel it is a direct violation of FCC code § 27.16(e). Any Operating System uploaded to my device not "Approved by Verizon" renders the device non-functional and requires the device be sent back to the manufacturer or Verizon for reapplication of "Verizon Approved Software" effectively restricting my ability to use my device on the network of my choice. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How to tell the FCC:
https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form2000.action?form_type=2000F
With enough pressure, provided the FCC will enforce their own codes, we can effectively unlock *all* devices with 4g capability. Samsung, Motorola, Etc,.
(Mods, please feel free, as you see fit, to merge my other thread that is far less refined and was used as a brain storming session for the creation of this one. Thank you)
Wasn't there something about all the above is null if the company needs to lock it down to provide better service?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
There was something that if they say it is for network security that is the loop hole they can use. But they have double standards of having some phones with unlocked bootloader not to mention allowing the developer edition which is the same exact phone just not locked down.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda app-developers app
Forgetfull said:
Wasn't there something about all the above is null if the company needs to lock it down to provide better service?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're referring to the unlock request made by a Droid Razr user, which what you wrote was essentially Verizon's official response.
We're taking a different approach here, which asks the bootloader be unlocked, not just because, but for the ability to load a different carriers software on the device to switch said phone to a different carrier. A request, which has nothing to do with providing any service to the user, at all. This is the beauty in it.
There is a new FCC chairman and he wants carriers to "unlock" phones. The argument for bootloader and carrier lock are quite similar. The definition of unlock is at play. It is super easy to lobby them.
If you want to complain then write the fcc: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
I tried to purchase a new Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Without a contract at full retail price. AT&T. I would like to modify the phone for a visual impairment application. AT&T has a phone unlock policy: https://www.att.com/deviceunlock/client/en_US/”
They have limited the unlock definition saying it does not apply to an “unlocked bootloader” which is necessary to modify the device. AT&T and Verizon are the only worldwide carriers with this practice. They have added custom software to permanently destroy the device if tampered with. They created a shadow policy on bootloaders:http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/0...tloaders-so-stop-asking-us-about-every-phone/.
The claim “To ensure a safe and consistent experience on your wireless device, we do not support unlocked bootloaders” is nonsense since they allow ANY GSM device on their network. Please add bootloaders explicitly to the FCC unlock policy.
sonicthoughts said:
There is a new FCC chairman and he wants carriers to "unlock" phones. The argument for bootloader and carrier lock are quite similar. The definition of unlock is at play. It is super easy to lobby them.
If you want to complain then write the fcc: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
I tried to purchase a new Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Without a contract at full retail price. AT&T. I would like to modify the phone for a visual impairment application. AT&T has a phone unlock policy: https://www.att.com/deviceunlock/client/en_US/”
They have limited the unlock definition saying it does not apply to an “unlocked bootloader” which is necessary to modify the device. AT&T and Verizon are the only worldwide carriers with this practice. They have added custom software to permanently destroy the device if tampered with. They created a shadow policy on bootloaders:http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/0...tloaders-so-stop-asking-us-about-every-phone/.
The claim “To ensure a safe and consistent experience on your wireless device, we do not support unlocked bootloaders” is nonsense since they allow ANY GSM device on their network. Please add bootloaders explicitly to the FCC unlock policy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should mention specifically that T-Mobile and Sprint have their bootloaders unlocked and there have been no problems with inconsistent service. AT&T and Verizon are just abusing their power. Being the largest two carriers, they dictate to manufacturers to lock down the devices to force us not to tether anyway but through them and to use their "bloat apps". Any other reason they state they lock the devices down for is absurd and bs.
sonicthoughts said:
There is a new FCC chairman and he wants carriers to "unlock" phones. The argument for bootloader and carrier lock are quite similar. The definition of unlock is at play.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the FCC couldn't care less about our ability to modify our phones. It has zero to do with antitrust or consumer portability. Therefore, the FCC won't care.
No matter how you attempt to word it, it's not the same thing, doesn't do the same things, and in reality nobody cares except the XDA echo chamber.
sonicthoughts said:
There is a new FCC chairman and he wants carriers to "unlock" phones. The argument for bootloader and carrier lock are quite similar. The definition of unlock is at play. It is super easy to lobby them.
If you want to complain then write the fcc: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
I tried to purchase a new Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Without a contract at full retail price. AT&T. I would like to modify the phone for a visual impairment application. AT&T has a phone unlock policy: https://www.att.com/deviceunlock/client/en_US/”
They have limited the unlock definition saying it does not apply to an “unlocked bootloader” which is necessary to modify the device. AT&T and Verizon are the only worldwide carriers with this practice. They have added custom software to permanently destroy the device if tampered with. They created a shadow policy on bootloaders:http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/0...tloaders-so-stop-asking-us-about-every-phone/.
The claim “To ensure a safe and consistent experience on your wireless device, we do not support unlocked bootloaders” is nonsense since they allow ANY GSM device on their network. Please add bootloaders explicitly to the FCC unlock policy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the argument for forcing att/verizon to unlock phones and bootloaders falls flat when other companies(tmobile sprint) offer phones with unlocked bootloaders and unlocked for gsm use(tmobile-if you buy full price)
no one is forcing you to stick with att version, when there are other options, it sounds silly when its a gsm capable phone you're complaining about
FCC does not regulate this part of the industry nor do they regulate what a manufacturer or dealer puts on the phone as long as it does not violate FCC rules in the way it performs as a phone.
In short the FCC has no authority on the subject of bootloaders. End of thread..
I have a Samsung Galaxy S7 apparently originally a 930V. It purchased it from someone used in perfect condition, and it is running the Samsung stock AT&T firmware of 930U. The phone functions perfectly well, except for Wifi calling, HD Voice, and Number Sync with my Galaxy Gear S3 Frontier that I did purchase directly from AT&T. When I talked to the 'advanced' technical support, they looked up the IMEI of the phone and said, 'that IMEI is not shown as an AT&T branded phone as it is not in our database of devices sold by AT&T, therefore these services will not work.' Long story short, the Samsung Galaxy S7's are identical hardware, and it's running Samsung stock AT&T firmware. This means there is ZERO technical reason why these services won't work. They don't work simply because AT&T blocks them from working because the IMEI of my phone isn't in their database of phones they themselves have sold. So, they are literally blocking me from using services that I pay for because I didn't buy the phone from them, which is their way of trying to force me to purchase a phone from them. I filed a complaint with the FCC. They sent my complaint to AT&T, whereby I received an email from Misti Nations at the Office of the President for AT&T, who wanted to contact me to 'work towards a resolution.' Her definition of 'work towards a resolution' was to try to force me to buy a phone from them. Didn't try to debate at all on the merit of the complaint, didn't deny that there is zero technical reason it won't work, all she did was point to their terms of service agreement which says 'if you bring your own phone to AT&T, it is POSSIBLE that not all services will work correctly', which in her mind explains away my complaint. It does not. 'May not work' is far, far different than 'we will not allow to work.' So, I'm waiting to hear back from the FCC on this, just had the call with Misti this morning.
My opinion is we can't let carrier's block features simply because they don't like that the phone wasn't purchased from them. If they were allowing the services to attempt to function and they didn't, I wouldn't complain. I am PISSED because they are specifically preventing me from using services I am paying for, simply because they want to force me to buy a phone from them. We should NOT let AT&T (and others if they also follow this practice) to get away with either extortion, or pure laziness on their tech side (we don't want to allow it because who knows it MIGHT cause an issue, we're too lazy to check). So please, others in my boat that see this thread, also file a complaint with the FCC. Let's flood them and stop this extortionist practice by carriers!
No thanks: no evidence of "blocking" services or "forcing" purchases. You actually sound a bit nutz.
I have an original 930u on stock firmware. It lacks the software to make those features work along with all of the AT&T bloat. I believe the software for the true AT&T variant has and allows those options but it has not been able to be added to the U firmware.
Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk
Other carriers do this all the time. I brought my ATT device to cricket and now I am not able to use wifi calling since it's not on their imei database to allow the feature to be turned on even though it would work no problem.
spasch said:
I have an original 930u on stock firmware. It lacks the software to make those features work along with all of the AT&T bloat. I believe the software for the true AT&T variant has and allows those options but it has not been able to be added to the U firmware.
Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the same phone, and can't use it in Southamerica. I think it's a AT&T model. I'm not interested in updating software or anything, just any stock rom available that it would make it work? Moderator Edit: NO IMEI talk on XDA I can't even root the phone with odin.
First off, make sure you have the right G930U AT&T firmware, not the unbranded one. Second of all, you're flashing different firmware and expecting them to accommodate you; that's LOL-worthy.
Unlocked AT&T S8 on TMobile - Extended Range LTE Coverage (700 Mhz) & Voice Over LTE
I have an unlocked AT&T S8 that I am using with Cricket Wireless. I will be switching to TMobile next week. I WAS certain that this device would work with no issue until I checked the IMEI number using TMobile's IMEI checker. The TMobile IMEI checker gives me the following message:
"Your device may not be able to use our Extended Range LTE Coverage (700 Mhz) and Voice Over LTE"
Can this be resolved by flashing the devices ROM with an unbranded or TMobile version of the latest operating system?? Will Samsungs "BYOD recustomization" resolve the issue without having to flash this device?? (https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/ANS00078492/) or do I REALLY have to look at buying another device just to move my service to TMobile??
DivaVocals said:
I have an unlocked AT&T S8 that I am using with Cricket Wireless. I will be switching to TMobile next week. I WAS certain that this device would work with no issue until I checked the IMEI number using TMobile's IMEI checker. The TMobile IMEI checker gives me the following message:
"Your device may not be able to use our Extended Range LTE Coverage (700 Mhz) and Voice Over LTE"
Can this be resolved by flashing the devices ROM with an unbranded or TMobile version of the latest operating system?? Will Samsungs "BYOD recustomization" resolve the issue without having to flash this device?? (https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/ANS00078492/) or do I REALLY have to look at buying another device just to move my service to TMobile??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am posting an update in case it helps somebody else. The follow-up to this question and the saga that followed trying to activate this "unlocked" AT& T device on T-Mobile's network is outlined here: https://forums.androidcentral.com/a....705774106.1568391822&passport=1568858042#_=_
Bottomline is this:
Going forward, I will stick with unbranded unlocked devices. I will no longer trust the carrier branded unlocked devices anymore. (especially AT&T unlocked devices!)
I'm not an Apple fan (nor am I an Apple detractor), but Apple's "deal" as it were with mobile carriers is very different than Samsung or the other Android manufacturers. It's entirely too bad Samsung and the other Android device manufacturers don't push back on the US carriers the way Apple does. Apple doesn't allow network lockouts, or carrier bloatware, nor do they allow locking devices out of services the device (and network) supports (like hotspot or wifi calling).
My mistake in this situation was believing that carrier branded unlocked devices really meant UNLOCKED. My mistake was not understanding how much the US carriers are in bed with the device manufacturers. It's unfortunate that Samsung would allow the US carriers to behave in such an unorthodox & thuggish manner. Why would Samsung NOT authorize their service center's to flash the unbranded firmware on this device? or at the VERY LEAST why not allow their service centers to flash the firmware for the TARGET carrier (T-Mobile) on this device. Because HONESTLY this could have been resolved if the Samsung service centers were empowered to do that much. Samsung seems more concerned with the CARRIERS than their REAL customers THE CONSUMER!
and no (before someone asks) I am not fully comfortable flashing this device (or any device) myself.