# Verizon Violating Fcc Regulations With Every Thunderbolt Sold



## admiralspark (Sep 26, 2011)

http://www.xda-developers.com/android/it-is-illegal-for-verizon-to-lock-some-bootloaders/

Interesting, no? Looks like Verizon is in direct violation of FCC regulations. I filed a complaint but I'm not going to count on the FCC being able to take it hard to Verizon.

Discuss


----------



## jaredsk74 (Jul 21, 2011)

I only hope the FCC shafts Verizon =)


----------



## Mattes (Sep 2, 2011)

That is a very interesting article (Thanks btw), as much as I prefer Verizon this kind of thing is really in murky waters; I wanna see if this brings about any changes good or bad, I see it going a couple of different ways.


----------



## Mustang302LX (Jun 28, 2011)

Reading android police they actually provide points showing VzW is NOT violating those guidelines. They have the right to keep their network secure and can make points to show rooted phones can cause issues with that. I don't agree with VzW just stating other sides to the argument.

http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/10/24/psa-verizon-locking-bootloaders-on-lte-devices-likely-does-not-violate-fcc-block-c-spectrum-rules/


----------



## imneveral0ne (Jun 18, 2011)

Mustang302LX said:


> Reading android police they actually provide points showing VzW is NOT violating those guidelines. They have the right to keep their network secure and can make points to show rooted phones can cause issues with that. I don't agree with VzW just stating other sides to the argument.
> 
> http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/10/24/psa-verizon-locking-bootloaders-on-lte-devices-likely-does-not-violate-fcc-block-c-spectrum-rules/


You beat me to it lol


----------



## Mustang302LX (Jun 28, 2011)

imneveral0ne said:


> You beat me to it lol


I'm kind of bored at work that's probably why lol.


----------



## g00s3y (Jul 12, 2011)

Nothing to see here, move along


----------



## Mustang302LX (Jun 28, 2011)

g00s3y said:


> Nothing to see here, move along


Yeah not to bash XDA but doesn't seem like he is in the know enough on this topic but I'm no lawyer either.


----------



## altimax98 (Jul 14, 2011)

Stupid article and xda is risking a lawsuit if Verizon had a mind to


----------



## Mustang302LX (Jun 28, 2011)

Also his criticism about Samsung devices having unlocked bootloaders is simply wrong. They lock them they just don't encrypt them like Motorola does to where the CIA couldn't bypass it lol. HTC locks their bootloaders but also makes it fairly easy to bypass just like Samsung.

You would think since he deals with XDA on a regular basis he would know a little bit more of what he is talking about but apparently not. I'm just about over them now after the blatant ignorance by some over there.

*end rant lol


----------



## g00s3y (Jul 12, 2011)

Well we all know how bad XDA has gotten, this just shows the direction hasn't changed.


----------



## hall (Sep 29, 2011)

Like others, as I read it, I felt it was a lot of "interpretation" issues. Verizon could be in the wrong, but they may also be in the clear. It's all a matter of how one interprets things....


----------



## Jaxidian (Jun 6, 2011)

1) Let's make sure we don't start bashing in here.

2) I believe there is something here even if the article didn't exactly point it out. The loophole that I'm sure AP is referring to is that unlocked bootloaders are a risk to their network. That's a fine argument until you start allowing unlocked bootloaders. Once you start allowing them then you change the bar of entry. And we all know the Xoom and Nexus are/will be unlocked. Given that an unlocked device had been allowed and they're continuing to allow some other unlocked devices, that argument starts to fall apart. There is no longer a standard that they do not allow unlocked devices for network security reasons. The standard is that they only allow them when they feel more money can be made. That blows the network security argument out of the water - you can't have it both ways. Perhaps the Xoom was a fluke or was different because it was a tablet but with the Nexus coming out, they are redefining their standards and I believe their loophole no longer holds true.

Try thinking about it in this way.


----------



## Veridor (Jun 10, 2011)

Good points, Jax, and well-written as always.


----------



## Grnlantern79 (Aug 12, 2011)

Bigger issue would be how long Verizon saves our text, phone calls logs, and sites we have loaded from our phones. Verizon saves these for a few years....better not be texting anything bad.


----------



## hopesrequiem (Aug 10, 2011)

Mustang302LX said:


> Also his criticism about Samsung devices having unlocked bootloaders is simply wrong. They lock them they just don't encrypt them like Motorola does to where the CIA couldn't bypass it lol. HTC locks their bootloaders but also makes it fairly easy to bypass just like Samsung.
> 
> You would think since he deals with XDA on a regular basis he would know a little bit more of what he is talking about but apparently not. I'm just about over them now after the blatant ignorance by some over there.
> 
> *end rant lol


+1 mustang! Show em who's boss!!


----------



## dstu03 (Aug 2, 2011)

Seems like this is only half true most companies like HTC. Motorola and others lock phones so people don't break them and claim warranty issues.


----------



## admiralspark (Sep 26, 2011)

HTC now unlocks their phones, unless specified otherwise by the vendor, as listed on htcdev.com. My issue here has, and always will be, that I should be able to do what I want with products that I purchase. But since Verizon hasn't called me to tell me I'm bad and to revert my phone to stock, they technically aren't stopping me from rooting.

Sent from my SHIFTAO5P using RootzWiki Forums


----------

