Bootloader Info

[huskerkate]

It doesn't have to be an ALL or NOTHING sorta deal though. VZW Corp customers can have a fully locked and impossible to unlock device if that is what they want. Selling such a device to them shouldn't stop the REST OF US from getting an unlockable version. And there is no reason even an unlockable version can't be more or less JUST AS SECURE as a locked one so long as you don't unlock it. And really there should be a means for us to load our own stuff up and lock it back down if you ask me so we can have custom software loads that are then locked up by us with our own personal keys to the BL and such.

I really see this as VZW spitting on the whole agreement they made when they won the old TV spectrum and promised to make their LTE network and devices on it more open. It's all probably technically legal, but obviously soils whatever promises and agreements they made quite badly. And the only way to change it is to demand it change. Technically with LTE we are supposed to be able and go buy something like the RAZR FULLY UNLOCKED off contract without VZW having anything to do with it at all. I figure such things will happen eventually when the VZW network is ALL LTE and your device doesn't need on the CDMA network as VZW will then have less control over such things.

i don't quite understand (because of lack of knowledge) how locking the BL is still technically "legal," even tho the FCC requires that devices utilizing C block frequency must be open - can you explain that to me a little more?? why isn't it just flat out wrong? is it because it's not a "pure" 4G device, and still utilizes 3G?

edit: after doing some more reading, it appears that the reason VZW can lock the BL is because it subsidizes the price of the device - is that it?

 

[redraider1]

It doesn't have to be an ALL or NOTHING sorta deal though. VZW Corp customers can have a fully locked and impossible to unlock device if that is what they want. Selling such a device to them shouldn't stop the REST OF US from getting an unlockable version. And there is no reason even an unlockable version can't be more or less JUST AS SECURE as a locked one so long as you don't unlock it. And really there should be a means for us to load our own stuff up and lock it back down if you ask me so we can have custom software loads that are then locked up by us with our own personal keys to the BL and such.

I really see this as VZW spitting on the whole agreement they made when they won the old TV spectrum and promised to make their LTE network and devices on it more open. It's all probably technically legal, but obviously soils whatever promises and agreements they made quite badly. And the only way to change it is to demand it change. Technically with LTE we are supposed to be able and go buy something like the RAZR FULLY UNLOCKED off contract without VZW having anything to do with it at all. I figure such things will happen eventually when the VZW network is ALL LTE and your device doesn't need on the CDMA network as VZW will then have less control over such things.

I agree but verizon and moto would probably say it would be to difficult to update and have two different for one unlocked and one that isnt everytime. it already takes long enough for updates as it is.

 

[jasaero]

i don't quite understand (because of lack of knowledge) how locking the BL is still technically "legal," even tho the FCC requires that devices utilizing C block frequency must be open - can you explain that to me a little more?? why isn't it just flat out wrong? is it because it's not a "pure" 4G device, and still utilizes 3G?

edit: after doing some more reading, it appears that the reason VZW can lock the BL is because it subsidizes the price of the device - is that it?

I don't think it's even the subsidy. Probably any device THEY sell can be configured how they want. This rule only applied to allowing consumer acquired open devices by their customers onto their customers accounts really. Once they sell(and I am guessing any subsidy through a third party technically means VZW is the seller of the device at some level) it, it can be configured however they want. What I am getting at is I am quite sure it goes against the intent of the law if they are making back door deals with the OEM device producers where they get these OEMs to PROMISE not to sell unlockable devices for their network through other channels. IF such things are going on as I am guessing they could be, that could be argued as against this requirement for their LTE network dictated by the FCC. Proving they are somehow leveraging their sales channel to ensure devices are configured the same through all other sales channels would probably be difficult and even that may not be 100% illegal so much as working against the intent of the law through a loophole of sorts as the OEMs are allowed to sell the devices locked through all channels if they so please. VZW shouldn't be forcing or pressuring them too though in my understanding of this requirement.

Not to mention ZERO smartphones have ever been included in their open device certification for whatever reason when I am pretty sure that should just be a quick document signing once a device is actually approved for sale.

I agree but verizon and moto would probably say it would be to difficult to update and have two different for one unlocked and one that isnt everytime. it already takes long enough for updates as it is.

They might, but I really don't think that would be a lot more difficult as the base builds would be the same and I am guessing the automated update regime for a locked device would be the same as unlocked. If you have unlocked and loaded a custom ROM of sorts chances are you don't expect or even desire access to these updates anyhow.