Related
Just saw on Engadget how Samsung accomplished the goal that Google failed at: Getting its Galaxy phone line on all 4 carriers
Why again didnt Google just play nice and be flexible to the carriers demands?
Why not allow Verizon and Sprint to have a little control over their versions of the N1 in order to ensure the N1 becomes a national success?
If Samsung can accomplish this, why couldnt Google?
Seems like such a waste of a perfect opportunity
Verizon ropes in Samsung Fascinate, US Cellular gets a Galaxy S too -- Engadget
Because the entire point of the Nexus One was to prove that customers wanted a phone that was not bound by "carrier demands" thats why all the Droids have the pay for tethering, while the Nexus One supports it freely.
Why not just be flexible?
Let the T-Mobile and Att versions be completely free of carrier control and be flexible with the Verizon/Sprint versions. I'd much rather have a non-tethering N1 on Sprint and Verizon as options than nothing at all...
If Samsung could do it, why not Google?
Because each version of the Galaxy is a totally different version, because this carrier didnt like this option on the phone, they took it out and renamed the phone. There are 4 versions of this phone each one less of a total package then the one before it. The Nexus One didn't want to be "flexible" it wanted to be allowed at the party as it designed to be. Plus the Nexus One was originally planned to be on Sprint and Version, it was the carriers who then dropped support for it. Also i was just throwing tehtering out there as an example there are many other things that the Nexus One can do that other phones have had stripped because of carrier control.
Those phones are gonna be hindered by carrier approval for updates.
The main thing that will be gimped is the native tethering option of android.
Samsung is in the game for $$$ with a guaranteed business plan.
Google was attempting to change the typical business plan. It was always an gamble.
Blueman101 said:
Because each version of the Galaxy is a totally different version, because this carrier didnt like this option on the phone, they took it out and renamed the phone. There are 4 versions of this phone each one less of a total package then the one before it. The Nexus One didn't want to be "flexible" it wanted to be allowed at the party as it designed to be. Plus the Nexus One was originally planned to be on Sprint and Version, it was the carriers who then dropped support for it. Also i was just throwing tehtering out there as an example there are many other things that the Nexus One can do that other phones have had stripped because of carrier control.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon publicly came out and said they wanted the nexus but it was Google that did not come thru for unknown reasons. Who are we to believe, I agree I don't trust any of them. But its definitely weird that Verizon went on record saying that. Why would they lie? And the next question is if that was the truth, why would Google have backed out?
RogerPodacter said:
Verizon publicly came out and said they wanted the nexus but it was Google that did not come thru for unknown reasons. Who are we to believe, I agree I don't trust any of them. But its definitely weird that Verizon went on record saying that. Why would they lie? And the next question is if that was the truth, why would Google have backed out?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats true, no one really knows who was at fault. Google isnt know for their Dev phones coming to CDMA. Its also possible that Google turned it down when the CDMA carriers refused to offer the Nexus One full freedom.
ap3604 said:
Just saw on Engadget how Samsung accomplished the goal that Google failed at: Getting its Galaxy phone line on all 4 carriers
Why again didnt Google just play nice and be flexible to the carriers demands?
Why not allow Verizon and Sprint to have a little control over their versions of the N1 in order to ensure the N1 becomes a national success?
If Samsung can accomplish this, why couldnt Google?
Seems like such a waste of a perfect opportunity
Samsung is not the first! The touch pro 2s for example existed on all 4 networks!
Verizon ropes in Samsung Fascinate, US Cellular gets a Galaxy S too -- Engadget
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most of the normal customers will have no idea the phones are related directly. They are all a little different and have different names. Each carrier has say with software unlike the n1. That means no tethering etc. I dont see why US carries like to cripple phones and brand them... I get that they want their own image or to not look like just a network provider but customized phones blow... My htc pure has no front facing cam and all the td2s tp2s needed different skins/cases and that also means more expensive repairs and ****. Carriers around the world just stamp their logo and inject some crapware (sometimes) and leave everything else the same!
JCopernicus said:
Those phones are gonna be hindered by carrier approval for updates.
The main thing that will be gimped is the native tethering option of android.
Samsung is in the game for $$$ with a guaranteed business plan.
Google was attempting to change the typical business plan. It was always an gamble.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe someone will figure how to make a vanilla android rom for it.
I think the problem with the N1 is that the only carrier that subsidized it is T-Mobile. The two largest carriers are At&t and Verizon. Verizon doesn't carry it. For At&t, how many ppl are gonna shell out $529 for a phone, when you can get an iphone for like $199. All of us in this forum would, but for others it's too big of a difference.
well especially these days with this economy, $530 is a lot to swallow.
When did "US Cellular" become one of "the 4" carriers??? They're #7 according to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network_operators_of_the_Americas#United_States
Verizon got the HTC Desire
Sprint got the HTC EVO
If they got those phones, why would they want the N1 for? Those HTC phones are, in the carrier's eyes, better than the N1 and they aren't restricted to the plans that Google made T-Mobile customers switch over to in order to get the N1 for a lower price.
If those two phones came to Tmobile, I wouldn't have a N1 to be honest.
Blueman101 said:
well especially these days with this economy, $530 is a lot to swallow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quite ironically that's only true in western developed countries. And the major reason is that people are just too dependent on the whole contract and credit system. In India, we always pay for unlocked phone. There are no contracts. Therefore if we buy a smartphone we know what we are buying and how much that is worth. And in return we get cheap phone service (2 cents per minute). US carriers will give you "free" cheap phone and then charge you $45 for 450 minutes. That is $36 extra per month or $864 extra for the two year contract period.
$530 for a phone seems to be a reasonable price for us... even if we are still a developing country.
This is just the announcement right? In mid March 2010, Sprint and Verizon announced they were getting the N1, until they changed their mind. Like you guys said earlier something about the "Evo" and the "Moto shadow". Shadow is pretty sweet, 4.3 inch display plus QWERTY!
Wikipedia that **** "nexus one"
arkavat said:
Quite ironically that's only true in western developed countries. And the major reason is that people are just too dependent on the whole contract and credit system. In India, we always pay for unlocked phone. Their are no contracts. Therefore if we buy a smartphone we know what we are buying and how much that is worth. And in return we get cheap phone service (2 cents per minute). US carriers will give you "free" cheap phone and then charge you $45 for 450 minutes. That is $36 extra per month or $864 extra for the two year contract period.
$530 for a phone seems to be a reasonable price for us... even if we are still a developing country.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Excellent point. I much prefer that system to ours.
Sent from my Sexy Nexy, courtesy of the fine developers of Tapatalk
let me finance that sammich for you ...
Blueman101 said:
well especially these days with this economy, $530 is a lot to swallow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
$530 is too much? ok buy a g1 for 279. or a flip phone for 35 at a pawn shop. remember, this is something you OWN, not something that you lease with heavily financed contracts and etc s to mess with.
a potato chip is rediculously expensive if you compare it to the price of potatoes. cmon, find a logical argument folks or would you rather a company NOT profit, fail and leave you with no. support?
ohgood said:
$530 is too much? ok buy a g1 for 279. or a flip phone for 35 at a pawn shop. remember, this is something you OWN, not something that you lease with heavily financed contracts and etc s to mess with.
a potato chip is rediculously expensive if you compare it to the price of potatoes. cmon, find a logical argument folks or would you rather a company NOT profit, fail and leave you with no. support?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you missed his point a bit.
Google was attempting to do a few things with the N1. First, they wanted to offer a completely raw phone, free of all carrier branding and bloatware and crippling. To do so meant selling it themselves, or in stores like Best Buy or whatever. This would push the second item: showing those in the states how a lot of other countries operate, buying unlocked phones without a carrier subsidy and contract. I love this idea. Both ideas.
However, the timing was rather unfortunate. $530 in this economy is rough for a lot of people. Doesn't mean the idea is horrible, doesn't mean anyone is blaming Google. It simply means that there are a lot of people that won't buy the N1 (or any brand new completely unlocked phone) right now because of the economy. I personally have several friends that love my N1. They wish they could buy one but are either unemployed or under-employed (took jobs making much less than they're used to, simply to get a check coming in).
I love Google's approach on this. I think it's great that they (supposedly) told Verizon and Sprint go suck an egg, and that the N1 was not to be messed with. This is my first truly unlocked, unbranded phone and I don't think I'll ever go back to buying them from the carrier.
Plain and simple most carriers were not thrilled with the idea of a totally unbranded/un-carrier approved handset being activated on their network.
With the GSM variant, there is little that any carrier can do, but CDMA is a different animal and I am really not surprised that VZW/SPRINT said heck no.
Dan
arkavat said:
Quite ironically that's only true in western developed countries. And the major reason is that people are just too dependent on the whole contract and credit system. In India, we always pay for unlocked phone. There are no contracts. Therefore if we buy a smartphone we know what we are buying and how much that is worth. And in return we get cheap phone service (2 cents per minute). US carriers will give you "free" cheap phone and then charge you $45 for 450 minutes. That is $36 extra per month or $864 extra for the two year contract period.
$530 for a phone seems to be a reasonable price for us... even if we are still a developing country.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Same as in the UK, I have a cheap sim-only with unlimited data and just buy phones unlocked sim-free (no carrier restrictions) from the hundreds of stores (Play, Amazon etc). The money I save over the normal 18 months is enough to buy a Nexus One and have money left over.
But still some people in UK see the 'free phone' and sign up to a stupid long-term contract.
For all you folks complaining about AT&T capping your download speeds, it appears it's only going to get worse. The federal government so far has not made any progress toward getting additional spectrum available, forcing carriers to make do with what they've got. As the article in the link below notes, "Ultimately, carriers will have to get more creative about how they use their existing spectrum, which will likely result in stricter caps on usage. Consumers who use more data will likely be charged higher prices for that data."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-57379526-266/how-politics-inflame-the-spectrum-crisis/?tag=nl.e404
In the short run, you might jump to another carrier, but in the long run, it could get worse for everyone. Lightsquare has been effectively stopped (for now) from building a new wireless network because of the potential for interfering with GPS signals. AT&T has been stopped from acquiring T-Mobile which would have given AT&T more spectrum.
So, as bad as things seem now, this may be the best that they will be.
PS: Also see this article:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57...-suffer/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
The FCC really needs to figure out how they are going to auction off the spectrum. Also, the whole ATT/T-mobile merger should have gone through. ATT is the only company that is compatible with T-mobile's equipment and can afford them.
rft3ch said:
The FCC really needs to figure out how they are going to auction off the spectrum. Also, the whole ATT/T-mobile merger should have gone through. ATT is the only company that is compatible with T-mobile's equipment and can afford them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it was cited that the decrees in competition would hurt every one and the loss of high paying jobs was to great
Aww that's bull does the fed gov have contract with Verizon or somethin? Coz a merger like that would surely put them out of commission
Sent from my HTC Raider X710e using xda premium
Cingular. Aka ma bell was broken up before for having a monopoly. Monopolies are bad for consumers, if any of you have graduated high school you should know this. Cingular has thus bought all tel, at&t, and now wants t-mobile. Creating another monopoly would not net us any better prices.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk
Verizon bought alltel
So your saying Verizon is At&ts only competition ??? Lol
Sent from my HTC Raider X710e using xda premium
colonel187 said:
Cingular. Aka ma bell was broken up before for having a monopoly. Monopolies are bad for consumers, if any of you have graduated high school you should know this. Cingular has thus bought all tel, at&t, and now wants t-mobile. Creating another monopoly would not net us any better prices.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cingular was not Ma Bell, it was a seperate company that purchased the failing wireless portion of At&t. Which was then purchased back by att, which wad really a rebranded SBC
Also Verizon purchased Alltel.
Good story though.
Sent from my HTC Raider X710e using xda premium
How does the merger or buy out of T-Mobile from AT&T help the consumer in any sense? Less companies out there competing, the higher your prices are gonna be, simple as that. If verizon goes, all those consumers have to go somewhere....
PakAttack1994 said:
How does the merger or buy out of T-Mobile from AT&T help the consumer in any sense? Less companies out there competing, the higher your prices are gonna be, simple as that. If verizon goes, all those consumers have to go somewhere....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One reason AT&T wanted to buy T-Mobile was to use its network to more rapidly expand its LTE network. Also, the two systems are compatible in some ways, making a transition easier.
As to competition as a way hold down prices, the major carriers (AT&T and Versizon) already control most of the market with T-Mobile and Sprint dividing a much smaller portion. Price comparisons I've seen usuaally show Verizon higher than AT&T for similar plans.
The main point I was making in the original post was that prices are likely to rise for all carriers in the long run as demand increases faster than the ability of the government and the carriers to provide adequate spectrum. The main concern should not be how many carriers there are, but whether the carriers (2 or 20) can meet the growing demand for high-speed services.
You got me about all tel, its another company I can't quite get off the tip of my tongue. Anyway.
Yes Verizon is the only real completion at&t has, tmo and sprint are too small. AT&T wireless was formed by by AT&T
AT&T wireless was doing so well they split into their own company. Sbc acquired Cingular which. At&t & Cingular were the two major companies in competition with Verizon but norther had the customer base alone to match Verizon.
Cingular bought at&t wireless and sbc bought at&t landline. Owning the rights to the name now Cingular and sbc changed their name to at&t thus gaining the same or a little more customers over Verizon. Sbc and at&t came to be when ma bell was forced to split due to monopoly.
Gobbling up the missing prices of ma bell and some small stragglers is creating another monopoly.
Just like the cable companies in many areas. There is only one and they raise there prices almost every other month. Only competition its satellite that forces you to sign contacts.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk
This is why I'm glad the Tmobile merger was stopped or else things would've only gotten worse. The Government actually needs to break up Verizon and AT&T now since they are too big as it is and doing price fixing with each other.
NIKKG said:
This is why I'm glad the Tmobile merger was stopped or else things would've only gotten worse. The Government actually needs to break up Verizon and AT&T now since they are too big as it is and doing price fixing with each other.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
However, that does not really address the basic issue here -- as data usage grows with more people using more wireless devices, the available spectrum/band-width (as it exists now) probably will not be able to keep up with the demand.
Economics 101: when demand exceeds supply, prices go up. Increasing the number of companies selling wireless service will not necessarily increase the amount of bandwidth available.
My point, is that the government, which ultimately controls wireless frequencies, has not acted in a timely manner to address the issue (with the exception of stopping a company that wanted to add more bandwidth).
..
Very interesting article
Australia is just as bad with a lazy government. This NBN (National Broadband Network) appears to be nothing more than a spin from the Labor government, which can be an example of people who use lots of data suffering at the hands of lazy morons who really have no excuse for it.
---------- Post added at 02:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ----------
I feel sorry for those on AT&T's old unlimited plan who are getting throttled.
Capping plans appears to only benefit the carrier as they make millions off those who go over the capped amount.
I used 2GB in a two days on Telstra's 4G network.
So AT&T tries to buy T-mobile for $35 BILLION, but cant afford to upgrade their network. What a bunch of ****.
How can I see if Im getting throttled? I can do a speed test and get a good speed, but browsing is slow.
Telstra is looking to shaping customer when they go over their limit in a couple of months. This was announced last year. As per existing solution it will Text you when you are near the cap. I beleive that once you are capped you can purchase once off topups.
So examples are:
$49 Plan gives 1G for month, with $450 for Voice SMS
$59 gives 1.5G with $550 for Voice (free SMS /MMS)
etc
Once the shapping solution is deployed you can:
1. Not spend any more and manage to how much data you have for the month.
2. Purchase a once off data top up .
$10 = 1 Gig
$20 = 2 Gig
etc
3. Move to a offer that provide more data each month
Once implemented there will no longer be bill shock. You can then choose eactly how much you spend on data.
so when will they do this for home internet.. haha
In Australia Fixed broadband for Telstra has been capped for several years for consumer plans. So no bill shock possible on Fixed data.
As per previous post need to wait a couple more months until this capping is available for Mobiles. Then bill shock will be removed for fixed.
I don't beleive any smart long term techo believes Bill shock generates revenue it just drives loyal customers away, that might choose to use them for the next 30 years.
Alright so I've been looking around on various Android forums and people seem to be very upset that there is no CDMA variant of the Nexus 4 announced so far. Coming from the Sprint/Verizon Galaxy Nexus, I am glad that they're not bothering this time around because CDMA goes against what the Nexus brand stands for, openness.
These carriers are very self-contained. You can only purchase phones to use on their network from them. Want a unlocked phone? You're out of luck BUT you can purchase the phone from their website off contract or you can go and get one from eBay or Craigslist. Because of this, the carriers have manufacturers by the balls, especially when it comes to updating phones. Want to get an update? You'll have to wait until these carriers "inspect" the update to ensure that it is not "harmful to the network" and all that PR crap they go on and on about.
Anyways, CDMA would mean that Google/LG would have to make a 4G LTE variant since these carriers only sell 4G phones now and Google doesn't seem too happy about how the CDMA variants of the GNex turned out last time. The updates were untimely to say the absolute least and the battery life was horrendous. I'm sure that the guys at Google had one hell of a time disputing against the crapware that Verizon/Sprint wanted to put on their phones so they could get a quick buck from Blockbuster and whatever other useless advertisements and applications they put on there now days.
If you want a Nexus phone, jump over to another carrier. I'm finally going over to T-Mobile and I'm getting unlimited data/text and a hundred minutes (which won't be used because I use GrooVe for voice over data/WiFi) for $30 a month. The entire move is going to cost me less than $400 and I'm sure you all have phones that you could sell to get over here. It really is the better move and the HSPA+ is amazingly fast without the battery drain.
My only option for a carrier is Verizon or sprint. At&t and T-Mobile only have gprs where my grandparents live, and I need internet for work. I'm upset there isn't a CDMA variant.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
I'm pretty excited about making the move to GSM and prepaid service. Any smartphone I've ever had was either Sprint and now Verizon. I can't even get an hour and a half of on-screen time with my Verizon gnex. It'll constantly switch from 3g to LTE and most of the time get stuck in the middle, looking for signal and draining the battery, it's horrendous.
I'm glad that there isn't a CDMA variant because CDMA is dead-end technology, and anything that brings about its demise sooner is a good thing IMO. Whatever the original technical merits were that CDMA held over GSM have pretty much become nonexistent as I understand it, and you give up the huge advantage of being able to easily switch carriers without purchasing a new phone. Anyone who's spent time outside the US and in an open GSM phone system knows how nice it is to be able to switch carriers at will.
But also Google's rationale for not including LTE makes a lot more sense with no CDMA variant. As the OP mentioned, a CDMA variant would absolutely HAVE to have LTE. Verizon's EV-DO network is still Rev. A, right? That's disgustingly slow in today's day and age, and while it makes sense that the CDMA carriers would have skipped over later revisions of EV-DO and go straight to LTE, it also means they're in an "LTE or bust" situation right now. GSM networks have a much better upgrade path, and 42mbps HSPA+ is more than fast enough for just about anything you'd want to do on a phone.
Personally I'm happy with the decision, because as a GSM user I see no need to frantically jump on the LTE bandwagon. I'd much rather take better battery life and a lower phone cost than have a transmission standard that is overkill for the vast majority of phone applications forced down my throat.
You all don't remember that GSM Nexus devices always come out first. CDMA phones will most likely come out months later, and with higher storage to generate buzz. Google knows better than to shut out ~20 million subscribers.
I'm pretty confident they are offering such low priced unlocked phones to try and get as many people into their ecosystem as possible. Ignoring CDMA users is not consistent with that, so just like before, it'll likely be 1 to 5 months before we see 32gb CDMA phones later on.
disynthetic said:
You all don't remember that GSM Nexus devices always come out first. CDMA phones will most likely come out months later, and with higher storage to generate buzz. Google knows better than to shut out ~20 million subscribers.
I'm pretty confident they are offering such low priced unlocked phones to try and get as many people into their ecosystem as possible. Ignoring CDMA users is not consistent with that, so just like before, it'll likely be 1 to 5 months before we see 32gb CDMA phones later on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I get where you're coming from, I completely disagree. Of course, I'm with a GSM carrier (and always have been), so I couldn't care less if they come out with a CDMA Nexus 4. Then again, I'm one of those people that don't believe the Galaxy Nexus offered by Verizon and Sprint was an actual Nexus device. If a phone's updates are coming from a carrier and not straight from Google...that's not a true Nexus and, frankly, you get what you deserve for thinking it is (in general terms...I'm not talking about you specifically).
I think all the reasons listed earlier are correct. I think Google got a bad taste in their mouths from having the carriers (re: Verizon and Sprint) dictate to them what they were going to do instead of the other way around. I also agree that CDMA is a dying technology and I'm also all for anything that bring that about faster. Wireless companies in the US need to get their #[email protected]% together and agree on a standard. All this GSM/CDMA/LTE crap is just confusing to consumers (not to me, but to uneducated consumers).
I firmly believe, though, that if you want a Nexus phone you need to get with a GSM carrier. Period. If by some miracle Google does release a CDMA version of the Nexus 4 later, I'll still believe you don't have a "true" Nexus phone. Only when the carriers have their hands off the updates can you actually make me believe a CDMA Nexus is a "real" Nexus.
I've been looking at the pre paid services but I have two lines since I pay for my mothers phone.
With the 1000 minute family plans it ends up making more sense for me to go that route since I'd get 2 free galaxy S2's.. One for her and I'd sell the other + my Sprint Galaxy s2 on eBay for my N4...
Very excited about moving back to T-mob after being on Sprint with **** service in my area for almost a year.
Please use the rant thread here or post in one of the review threads.
General section is for news/tips/tricks/guides/etc, not really for everybody to create a new thread every time they have a thought on this and that.
Closed
I did something like this for the GS3, back in 2012. It's likely that nothing will come of it, but it certainly doesn't hurt to let Verizon know that its tech savvy customers are not happy with the restrictions on devices for which we pay top dollar, ie locked/encrypted bootloader. Strength in numbers! I encourage everyone to take a minute to file a consumer complaint.
Go to: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us?return_to=/hc/en-us/requests
Here is the language I used:
"I filed a similar complaint in 2012 on Verizon Wireless, for locking and encrypting the bootloader on the Samsung Galaxy S3, at the time, the best phone money could buy. Here we are in 2015, now with the Galaxy S6. I pay full retail price for my smartphones, so expect to be able to modify, customize, and optimize my devices, to my liking, particularly to remove useless Verizon software, and removing ads. Once again, Verizon has forced Samsung to encrypt the bootloader making it virtually impossible to take advantage of all the device can do. This slows down the device, forces consumers to use Verizon's preinstalled apps, stalls development of software, and ultimately, when Verizon halts the updating of its own software, pushes consumers to pay top dollar for the next flagship device. Verizon often claims that is to protect the integrity of the network. But then why are developer editions available for a select few models? As our smartphones move closer and closer to being our sole computing devices, the restrictions placed on those devices need to be lifted, especially at the price consumers pay for both the devices and the service. I've been with Verizon for 9 years, and have no intention of switching carriers, but I do not believe loyal customers should be treated this way. Please investigate!"
Sent from my One using XDA Free mobile app
morrowa2 said:
I did something like this for the GS3, back in 2012. It's likely that nothing will come of it, but it certainly doesn't hurt to let Verizon know that its tech savvy customers are not happy with the restrictions on devices for which we pay top dollar, ie locked/encrypted bootloader. Strength in numbers! I encourage everyone to take a minute to file a consumer complaint.
Go to: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us?return_to=/hc/en-us/requests
Here is the language I used:
"I filed a similar complaint in 2012 on Verizon Wireless, for locking and encrypting the bootloader on the Samsung Galaxy S3, at the time, the best phone money could buy. Here we are in 2015, now with the Galaxy S6. I pay full retail price for my smartphones, so expect to be able to modify, customize, and optimize my devices, to my liking, particularly to remove useless Verizon software, and removing ads. Once again, Verizon has forced Samsung to encrypt the bootloader making it virtually impossible to take advantage of all the device can do. This slows down the device, forces consumers to use Verizon's preinstalled apps, stalls development of software, and ultimately, when Verizon halts the updating of its own software, pushes consumers to pay top dollar for the next flagship device. Verizon often claims that is to protect the integrity of the network. But then why are developer editions available for a select few models? As our smartphones move closer and closer to being our sole computing devices, the restrictions placed on those devices need to be lifted, especially at the price consumers pay for both the devices and the service. I've been with Verizon for 9 years, and have no intention of switching carriers, but I do not believe loyal customers should be treated this way. Please investigate!"
Sent from my One using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I filed a complaint.
Perhaps nothing came of it because the FCC has no control or say in locked bootloaders? Locked bootloaders has nothing to do with radio emissions or broadcasts. It is a security feature.
The other thing to consider is that a locked bootloader does not prohibit in any way the use that the carrier or manufacturer intended.
There are also many phones out there with a locked bootloader that still have root and are customizable. The real issue is you have no root.
You should be on complaints.com or some consumer oriented site, not the FCC.
KennyG123 said:
Perhaps nothing came of it because the FCC has no control or say in locked bootloaders? Locked bootloaders has nothing to do with radio emissions or broadcasts. It is a security feature.
The other thing to consider is that a locked bootloader does not prohibit in any way the use that the carrier or manufacturer intended.
There are also many phones out there with a locked bootloader that still have root and are customizable. The real issue is you have no root.
You should be on complaints.com or some consumer oriented site, not the FCC.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for clarifying. I guess my main point is to encourage everyone to speak up in one form or another, and if the FCC has some oversight on mobile phone companies, it's as good an avenue as any. If you can suggest better language to use, I'm sure there are many of us that would want to make their voices heard.
Sent from my One using XDA Free mobile app
morrowa2 said:
Thank you for clarifying. I guess my main point is to encourage everyone to speak up in one form or another, and if the FCC has some oversight on mobile phone companies, it's as good an avenue as any. If you can suggest better language to use, I'm sure there are many of us that would want to make their voices heard.
Sent from my One using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you are better off with consumer complaint type sites like complaints.com. The thing is, the community that wants to root their phones are less than 1 percent of Verizon's sales....and they have increased their sales to military and corporate by more than 10% by drastically increasing the security. There really is no venue that has any power to push Verizon to change this policy. Smartphones are personal computers where people are doing all their financial business now. 99% of the customers want them as secure as possible.
I got a response. They said Verizon will be responding to me.
I know it won't make a diff. But they are in some violation of some FCC stuff in terms of limiting how we use our unlimited data as they ruled its our data we can use it as we want.
Atleast its some unwanted attention. FCC can not do anything but Verizon does not want to hear from the FCC. Know they can't do anything but some times you have to use everything you can get. I look forward to Verizon response of why I can not unlock my bootloader. My phone bought off contract and I should be able to install Ubuntu on it if I want.
If nothing else these carriers (Verizon at&t among others) could offer the option of developer or retail version device...best of both worlds. Theirs my 2 cents.
Sent from my SM-G920V
stealyourface1 said:
If nothing else these carriers (Verizon at&t among others) could offer the option of developer or retail version device...best of both worlds. Theirs my 2 cents.
Sent from my SM-G920V
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or do what HTC did, allow you to unlock it via the HTC Dev website. That way people who want it secure can keep it secure, and those that want to tinker with it have the choice.
bignazpwns said:
I got a response. They said Verizon will be responding to me.
I know it won't make a diff. But they are in some violation of some FCC stuff in terms of limiting how we use our unlimited data as they ruled its our data we can use it as we want.
Atleast its some unwanted attention. FCC can not do anything but Verizon does not want to hear from the FCC. Know they can't do anything but some times you have to use everything you can get. I look forward to Verizon response of why I can not unlock my bootloader. My phone bought off contract and I should be able to install Ubuntu on it if I want.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. I still would like to see more people do this.
Sent from my One using XDA Free mobile app
I also added a bit about the fcc rules on the block c action (700MHz lte band verizon uses)
Also does this practice interfere with CFR 42 Section 27.16 Paragraph b (Use of devices and applications), explicitly "restrict the ability of their
customers to use the devices and applications
of their choice on the licensee’s
C Block network" where the choice of the OS(ROM) is an application of the customer's choice?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The argument being on a pc you have the choice to install windows or linux which is, in large, a software application.
Cheers
geoff5093 said:
Or do what HTC did, allow you to unlock it via the HTC Dev website. That way people who want it secure can keep it secure, and those that want to tinker with it have the choice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon blocked that as well.
bignazpwns said:
I got a response. They said Verizon will be responding to me.
I know it won't make a diff. But they are in some violation of some FCC stuff in terms of limiting how we use our unlimited data as they ruled its our data we can use it as we want.
Atleast its some unwanted attention. FCC can not do anything but Verizon does not want to hear from the FCC. Know they can't do anything but some times you have to use everything you can get. I look forward to Verizon response of why I can not unlock my bootloader. My phone bought off contract and I should be able to install Ubuntu on it if I want.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please keep us informed as to what they say.
Complete waste of time. The FCC has no control of device security. Even if they did, do you really think anything will come of it? Comcast and Time Warner, multi billion dollar companies couldn't get the to make a decision for nearly 18 months. What do you think your chances are?
sqeeky wheel gets the oil. Verizon does not want the fcc saying there name due to how they limit how you use your unlimited data and the fcc already said your data you can use itt how you please. locked bl and no root i am unable to use my tethering option of choice to use my data how i please. So if we want yes the fcc can get involved.
bignazpwns said:
sqeeky wheel gets the oil. Verizon does not want the fcc saying there name due to how they limit how you use your unlimited data and the fcc already said your data you can use itt how you please. locked bl and no root i am unable to use my tethering option of choice to use my data how i please. So if we want yes the fcc can get involved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed... may not accomplish anything for this device, but it doesn't harm anything to file a complaint. The more people do it, the stronger our voice.
Sent from my SM-G925V using XDA Free mobile app
Why are you buying a known locked device.
morrowa2 said:
Agreed... may not accomplish anything for this device, but it doesn't harm anything to file a complaint. The more people do it, the stronger our voice.
Sent from my SM-G925V using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Out of curiosity, wouldn't all this energy be best directed at the cause? If 1000's of people could give Verizon a good enough reason to offer a bootloader unlock like HTC does for other carriers, perhaps they would consider it...even if it was a pay service...like $20 and your warranty is void kind of thing.
bignazpwns said:
sqeeky wheel gets the oil. Verizon does not want the fcc saying there name due to how they limit how you use your unlimited data and the fcc already said your data you can use itt how you please. locked bl and no root i am unable to use my tethering option of choice to use my data how i please. So if we want yes the fcc can get involved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not how it works. The FCC can NOT tell a company how to secure or not secure its devices. It can only regulate COMMUNICATION, not boot loaders.
Yes but verizon has to comply with regulations attached to the 700MHz band which says that they cannot deny access to the network and have to allow customers to choose how to use their devices (47 CFR 27.16).
jmstumme said:
Yes but verizon has to comply with regulations attached to the 700MHz band which says that they cannot deny access to the network and have to allow customers to choose how to use their devices (47 CFR 27.16).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That does not mean requiring unlocked bootloaders.
I checked the US Samsung website and confirmed that the S21 had a working eSIM before buying - but, of course, it doesn't.
I understand there is the eSIM hardware on the phone, but Samsung has disabled it.
Is there any way to get it working - or, if I want an eSIM, I need to sell the S21 on Swappa and buy a Pixel?
For now there isn't a way to get it working on Snapdragon models, there have been workarounds but it needs Root and even once accomplished features like VoLTE and Wifi Calling don't work. Samsung claims a future update will enable it, but they said the same thing about the S20, one year later, still no update.
I have Exynos model, when I try to scan the arcade for the e-sim it says I might contact the operator... My operator says it's not supposed to work...
It seems that it depends on the region. I have an Exynos model in Europe and I successfully activated the old/new eSIM by using carrier´s app.
buddy66 said:
It seems that it depends on the region. I have an Exynos model in Europe and I successfully activated the old/new eSIM by using carrier´s app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct. It’s a US thing. The wireless carriers in the US have not allowed Samsung to enable it. Currently eSIMs in the US are only supported on Apple devices, while some also support Pixel devices.
US carriers have a long history of disliking eSIMs becuase they fear they will make it easier for subscribers to switch carriers.
works fine on my UK unlocked s21 ultra
in fact thats the only one i use atm
T-Mobile uses eSim on a few devices but not many.
myphone12345 said:
Correct. It’s a US thing. The wireless carriers in the US have not allowed Samsung to enable it. Currently eSIMs in the US are only supported on Apple devices, while some also support Pixel devices.
US carriers have a long history of disliking eSIMs becuase they fear they will make it easier for subscribers to switch carriers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's time we begin legal action against the carriers over this -- massive class action lawsuit that benefits Android users from the past 10 years.
I'm prepared to start contacting congress over this trash.
The iPhone gets to get away with this, no questions asked, because it is the plurality of the US market and the carriers dare not mess with daddy-Apple with $2T market-cap which is 10x the market-cap of any one of these damn carriers.
With Android OEMs, because they're weak and atomized, they have to cave into these carriers or risk reducing over-the-counter sales at carriers' shops.
Most of congress uses iPhones and doesn't care that they're supporting a bigger monopoly than Microsoft ever was.
Apple's influence is so pervasive that it's getting kind of ridiculous and annoying now.
Think Different foreal -- reduce your purchasing of Apple products, I certainly have.
T mobile now 20 getting esim capability in latest update:
New update brings eSIM functionality to T-Mobile’s Galaxy Note 20
Samsung had started rolling out the March 2021 security patch to the unlocked variants of the Galaxy Note 20 last ...
www.sammobile.com
ekerbuddyeker said:
T mobile now 20 getting esim capability in latest update:
New update brings eSIM functionality to T-Mobile’s Galaxy Note 20
Samsung had started rolling out the March 2021 security patch to the unlocked variants of the Galaxy Note 20 last ...
www.sammobile.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wonder if that means they'll disable the physical SIM, LOL.
Just for kicks I chatted with Scamsung Canada support online... asking why the Canadian product page advertises eSIM support when it's not there...
"Oh we're not responsible for what carriers do"
nixnixnixnix4 said:
It's time we begin legal action against the carriers over this -- massive class action lawsuit that benefits Android users from the past 10 years.
I'm prepared to start contacting congress over this trash.
The iPhone gets to get away with this, no questions asked, because it is the plurality of the US market and the carriers dare not mess with daddy-Apple with $2T market-cap which is 10x the market-cap of any one of these damn carriers.
With Android OEMs, because they're weak and atomized, they have to cave into these carriers or risk reducing over-the-counter sales at carriers' shops.
Most of congress uses iPhones and doesn't care that they're supporting a bigger monopoly than Microsoft ever was.
Apple's influence is so pervasive that it's getting kind of ridiculous and annoying now.
Think Different foreal -- reduce your purchasing of Apple products, I certainly have.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The government actually already warned Verizon and AT&T regarding an evil scheme they tried to concoct a few years ago with regards to eSIMs. As a result, the carriers stepped back from their plans but have not widely adopted eSIMs widely.
https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-27-doj-att-verizon-esim-investigation.html
it’s good to see that TMO will enable it in the S20.
I heard that there is new update on Note 20U U1 and esim is now enable. Hope it will be enable on S21U U1 soon
kunkun2113 said:
I heard that there is new update on Note 20U U1 and esim is now enable. Hope it will be enable on S21U U1 soon
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the OEM Unlocked version you're talking about right?
If so, that's fantastic.
I find it curious e-Sim functionality is such a hot topic in the US. If one leaves their coverage area often or is a business man or woman who travels frequently it's a valuable feature. Also in Europe you are more likely to leave your service provider's footprint since many countries are part of the same region. The dominant service provider's in the US offer free coverage in Mexico and Canada so where's the necessity for most US consumers and who really wants the added cost for two service providers? I'll agree it's the big carrier's who are blocking the feature but for most customers in the US it's a moot point. If on a rare occasion you need a second SIM it takes about ten seconds to swap it. No big deal.
varcor said:
I find it curious e-Sim functionality is such a hot topic in the US. If one leaves their coverage area often or is a business man or woman who travels frequently it's a valuable feature. Also in Europe you are more likely to leave your service provider's footprint since many countries are part of the same region. The dominant service provider's in the US offer free coverage in Mexico and Canada so where's the necessity for most US consumers and who really wants the added cost for two service providers? I'll agree it's the big carrier's who are blocking the feature but for most customers in the US it's a moot point. If on a rare occasion you need a second SIM it takes about ten seconds to swap it. No big deal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
international travel for data usage . . . because roaming data speeds suck ... and you can get your account terminated if you over-use it
second line for business vs personal
a single sim is a non starter for me.
varcor said:
I find it curious e-Sim functionality is such a hot topic in the US. If one leaves their coverage area often or is a business man or woman who travels frequently it's a valuable feature. Also in Europe you are more likely to leave your service provider's footprint since many countries are part of the same region. The dominant service provider's in the US offer free coverage in Mexico and Canada so where's the necessity for most US consumers and who really wants the added cost for two service providers? I'll agree it's the big carrier's who are blocking the feature but for most customers in the US it's a moot point. If on a rare occasion you need a second SIM it takes about ten seconds to swap it. No big deal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unique mobile subscribers US 2010-2025 | Statista
The statistic depicts the total number of unique mobile subscribers in the United States from 2010 to 2025.
www.statista.com
US mobile cellular subscriptions 2000-2021 | Statista
The number of mobile-cellular subscriptions in the United States increased from 2000 to 2021.
www.statista.com
Population of the United States 1610-2020 | Statista
In the past four centuries, the population of the United States has grown from a recorded 350 people around the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1610, to an estimated 331 million people in 2020.
www.statista.com
In 2019, the number of mobile subscriptions in the U.S. was at 442.46 million.
In 2018, the number of unique mobile subscribers in the United States was at 278 million.
In 2020, the US had a population of ~331M.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even after accounting for some of the more exotic uses of cellular service, like: IoT, GPS/Cellular tracking, certain medical devices, etc., you can tell that there are more subscriptions than there are people.
So, clearly, there are many people who have 2 plans. Why? Work, usually.
Many working people are required to keep their work number active/online at all times or during set times.
Carrying 2 phones gets old really fast.
If you want Android to stand a chance against Apple's impending monopoly in the US -- you're going to need dual-SIM.
Many working people have cited Apple's iPhone dual-SIM acceptance as a reason for using iPhone.
Can someone tell me how Samsung can just not enable it and "blame the carriers" I travel a lot, and I bought it because I saw the eSIM. I don't care if the US carriers do not use the eSIM as the ones where I travel can. But because I have the US model they cannot utilize it. This makes no since to me.
ZerkerEOD said:
Can someone tell me how Samsung can just not enable it and "blame the carriers" I travel a lot, and I bought it because I saw the eSIM. I don't care if the US carriers do not use the eSIM as the ones where I travel can. But because I have the US model they cannot utilize it. This makes no since to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is going to change.
But, the reason is because the carriers have leverage over Samsung.
Many smartphones are sold through carriers.
If Samsung does not "comply" with what the carriers want, then, the carriers will simply start boosting the sales of Samsung's Android competitors like OnePlus, Pixel, etc. through subsidies and deals.
nixnixnixnix4 said:
This is going to change.
But, the reason is because the carriers have leverage over Samsung.
Many smartphones are sold through carriers.
If Samsung does not "comply" with what the carriers want, then, the carriers will simply start boosting the sales of Samsung's Android competitors like OnePlus, Pixel, etc. through subsidies and deals.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correcta mundo , well said. However Apple never bent over for the USA carriers, I wonder why LOL JK.