Comments on: About that Verizon and Bootloaders and FCC Violation Story That is Floating Around

By: Kevin Lewis

Kevin Lewis — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:18:00 +0000

A lot of VZW smartphone users don’t know and don’t care about locked bootloaders.
But most consumers don’t like having anything on their devices that devices that may be intrusive, invasive, can’t opt out and can’t get rid of it!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:43:00 +0000

I think women should also have the right to vote! Oh, wait…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 03:41:00 +0000

So you’re comparing unlocking phone bootloaders to a major U.S. labor milestone? You are taking this WAY too seriously!

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:53:00 +0000

Not going to happen. The people on this website and the romming and rooting community take up about 15% of the Android population. That 15% is insignificant. Everything will still continue because most people don’t care. Instead you may miss out on a great phone. The general consumer doesn’t care about that stuff. You won’t be hurting Moto or Vzw in anyway.

Sure you can still fight with your wallet, but you won’t win, because you are the minority. A very SMALL minority at that.

By: EC8CH

EC8CH — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:39:00 +0000

Nope disabling… Google added native tethering into Android starting with Froyo. Carriers have forced this feature to be removed before allowing devices onto their network. The question is does this violate the terms of their lease with the FCC?

“Because we want to charge extra for that” is not a valid defense.

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:34:00 +0000

Other than No NFC, changeable battery or HD screen…

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:12:00 +0000

Only problem with your complaint, is that is states some obviously incorrect facts. I have a Droid 2 (which has a locked bootloader) and I can do the following which were listed in your complaint:

“remove apps that limit the ability to fully utilize the phone with respect to memory allowance and choice of services” – Just needs root
“take a full back-up of a device.” – just needs root

I agree that these should be possible without root. BUT, you do not need an unlocked bootloader for them

I do however agree with this statement:
“Verizon also blocks access to free apps that compete with their own services like tethering or mobile hotspot.”
and I’m wondering if that violates recently passed Net Neutrality laws. The Net Neutrality laws haven’t actually been put into effect yet though, so they can continue to do that at least until those laws take effect.
EDIT: Blocking apps may actually hinder competition, and be violating anti-competition laws.

By: Jeff Simpson

Jeff Simpson — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:09:00 +0000

There is some interesting wordplay in the situation. Did Verizon *force* Motorola to lock the bootloader? Or did Verizon *request* that Motorola lock the bootloader? Motorola blames it on Verizon, but you make a good point about other manufacturers that do not lock the bootloader. Verizon clearly does not have this as a blanket policy, so to call it a “requirement” can’t be right. Unless the requirement for Motorola is not the same as the requirement for Samsung/HTC/etc

By: Jeff Simpson

Jeff Simpson — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:06:00 +0000

Not true. The RAZR will have an unlocked bootloader on every other global carrier. Just not Verizon.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:05:00 +0000

You, my friend, need to be our lawyer in this case! You should represent the people of the United States! (Or Motorola, FCC, whoever is going against Verizon)

By: Jeff Simpson

Jeff Simpson — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:04:00 +0000

Err, no. There’s no FCC agreement about what Verizon may charge for service.

By: Jeff Simpson

Jeff Simpson — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:03:00 +0000

Not disabling – just charging for. That pricing agrement doesn’t violate anything, as much as I wish we could claim that.

By: Jeff Simpson

Jeff Simpson — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:02:00 +0000

How does this have nothing to do with Block C? Using that block of frequencies came with the agreement that they would not restrict devices or applications on it – and that is exactly what they are doing by requiring motorola to lock the bootloader. It restricts the applications (and the built-in features of the device).

When the devices were 3G-only (and not in that frequency block) there was no such requirement that Verizon was required to adhere to. Seems to me that it has EVERYTHING to do with Block C.

By: Jeff Simpson

Jeff Simpson — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:58:00 +0000

Motorola complied with Verizon’s request. They didn’t have to, and they didn’t even have to offer that as an option.

By: Jeff Simpson

Jeff Simpson — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:57:00 +0000

Motorola still played a part by agreeing.

I’m glad they finally grew a pair and called Verizon out on it, at least. They should have just said it right in the product announcement to get the most coverage.