Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CDMA RAZR coming

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 10:12:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Charles C. Shyu wrote:
> http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=1142
>
> Presumably for Verizon...

The best practice is to take the advertised list of functions, mark them
all out, and as info is available, add back the one or two that will
actually work. The v3 will be another v710 debacle when Moto acceeds to
Verizon's slash and burn policy denying users the phone's functionality.

Q

Q
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 5:14:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Charles C. Shyu wrote:
> http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=1142
>
> Presumably for Verizon...

End of '05 to early '06. That's like getting the latest CPU for your
computer, but having to wait 18 months to install it. I wonder how
"cool" the phone is going to look in another 12 months. probably won't
at all...

I would like to see a replacement for the well-aged Samsung i600
Smartphone that for some reason, despite all reasonable predictions, is
still $400 after being on the market close to 2 years.




--
David G.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:52:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Why would verizon pay Motorola to put features in a phone that are not
compatible with verizon's services?
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:52:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Why would verizon pay Motorola to put features in a phone that are not
> compatible with verizon's services?

It has nothing to do with compatibility. It has everything to do with
limiting user access to Verizons for-$$ conduits. Vz pays Moto to
*remove* access to basic phone functions that are available to users of
the same phone on other services. Review the Moto v710 threads.

Q
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:52:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Why would verizon pay Motorola to put features in a phone that are not
> compatible with verizon's services?

You designed a phone that has nifty features, including an electrolysis
attachment, gumball wrapper recognition and a camera with naked women
alert. Someone calls you and says, "We'll take 100,000 if you disable
the naked women alert." What do you do?
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 3:52:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

clifto wrote:
> Jerome Zelinske wrote:
>> Why would verizon pay Motorola to put features in a
>> phone that are not compatible with verizon's services?
>
> You designed a phone that has nifty features, including
> an electrolysis attachment, gumball wrapper recognition
> and a camera with naked women alert. Someone calls you
> and says, "We'll take 100,000 if you disable the naked
> women alert." What do you do?

Well. I'd first ask: "If I refuse to do that will it effect the
future sales of the 7 million other phones with custom
firmware that I'm selling you each year?".

-Quick
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 6:25:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Quick wrote:
| clifto wrote:
|| Jerome Zelinske wrote:
||| Why would verizon pay Motorola to put features in a
||| phone that are not compatible with verizon's services?
||
|| You designed a phone that has nifty features, including
|| an electrolysis attachment, gumball wrapper recognition
|| and a camera with naked women alert. Someone calls you
|| and says, "We'll take 100,000 if you disable the naked
|| women alert." What do you do?
|
| Well. I'd first ask: "If I refuse to do that will it effect the
| future sales of the 7 million other phones with custom
| firmware that I'm selling you each year?".

Waste of time - the market is driven by focusing on the target market,
thirteen year old girls. As I've said before, if you aren't a thirteen year
old girl, you most likely find the "gadget laden" phones less than
compatible with your tastes and less than responsive to your needs.....

Such is the nature of the way the market is approached and managed.......

PC
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:21:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Charles C. Shyu" <charles_shyu@nymc.edu> wrote in news:4B5_d.5731$qW.1976
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=1142
>
> Presumably for Verizon...

Motorola has not made good CDMA phones like Nokia has not as well. They
don't want to buy Qualcomm chips and pay royalties to Qualcomm so they wind
up with a louse CDMA phone IMHO.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 5:49:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> Why would verizon pay Motorola to put features in a phone that are
> not compatible with verizon's services?

Because Verizon does not pay Motorola to develop handsets. However,
when Verizon chooses to purchase handsets from Motorola, it may choose
to have some features disabled for whatever reason, and those features
should be available when you purchase the handset directly from Motorola.

TH
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 10:53:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

They are not basic to verizon's service. 'Vz pays Moto' to make phones
that work with their services. Again, why would verizon pay Motorola to
put in circuitry that is not part of their services. It would be a
blatant waste of money. verizon does not pay Motorola to '*remove*'
access to gsm functions, or java functions, or any other functions that
are not part of verizon's services. They are just not put in in the
first place.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 11:03:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Ah, but as far as I know, you can not purchase verizon phones directly
from the manufacturer.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 11:03:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Ah, but as far as I know, you can not purchase verizon phones
> directly from the manufacturer.

I believe it depends on the manufacturer.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"
--New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 12:47:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> They are not basic to verizon's service. 'Vz pays Moto' to make
> phones that work with their services. Again, why would verizon pay
> Motorola to put in circuitry that is not part of their services. It
> would be a blatant waste of money. verizon does not pay Motorola to
> '*remove*' access to gsm functions, or java functions, or any other
> functions that are not part of verizon's services. They are just not
> put in in the first place.

There is no "circuitry" involved. It's all done through software
switches. As an example, again of the v710, v265, there is one switch
for prohibiting upload/download of pix and tones. There is presumably
another for the new prohibited access to pix and tones via the
transflash card. "Presumably" because the recent software flash removed
the ability in the original v710 release. If all the user wants is the
visual style of the phone for the price, then that's a consumer choice.
I believe that one of the attractions of the v3, for example, is its
bluetooth connectivity that is disabled except for the headset on the
v710 and likely will be similarly disabled on the v3. It would be nice
if Vz detailed the capabilities of its phone releases so the consumer
has that information up front when purchasing the phone. Vz, however,
is on record that the consumer has 15 days to return the phone and there
is no need to be honest about the capabilities at the time of purchase.
This is not being up-front about their practices with regard to
restricted access. It's a form of opt-out rather than opt-in. Again,
perhaps most people don't care if the phone they buy from Vz is crippled
at the same price as a fully-capable model.

If you are happy without the ability to move your own pix and tones via
cable or bluetooth, synchronizing your phonebook, etc, then nothing more
needs to be said. The consumer should be aware at time of purchase that
Vz restricts users to their own for-$$ services. The consumer will not
get that information from Vz.

Q
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 6:13:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Sure it does. You can't say a razr is a razr is a razr. Even if you
were able to activate a CDMA carrier A phone on CDMA carrier B, all the
services from carrier B may not be accessible, and vice-versa. That is
certainly true between the two major CDMA carriers. If you want
services that one carrier does not offer, then switch carriers.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 6:23:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

That is just the generic design. The phones actually made, are made
with only the components/features that the customer (the carrier) wants
included. If you want a feature/capability that the your carrier does
not support, switch to a carrier that does.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 10:54:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> Sure it does. You can't say a razr is a razr is a razr. Even if
> you were able to activate a CDMA carrier A phone on CDMA carrier B, all
> the services from carrier B may not be accessible, and vice-versa. That
> is certainly true between the two major CDMA carriers. If you want
> services that one carrier does not offer, then switch carriers.

It's one thing to disable features such as Java because VZW used BREW
instead. It's a bit more annoying to have features (such as uploading
audio files from the transcard and various Bluetooth profiles) disabled
which would work just fine on the VZW system, but they want to force you
to use their $$$ services instead.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 10:54:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

CharlesH wrote:
> Jerome Zelinske wrote:
>> Sure it does. You can't say a razr is a razr is a
>> razr. Even if you were able to activate a CDMA carrier
>> A phone on CDMA carrier B, all the services from carrier
>> B may not be accessible, and vice-versa. That is
>> certainly true between the two major CDMA carriers. If
>> you want services that one carrier does not offer, then
>> switch carriers.
>
> It's one thing to disable features such as Java because
> VZW used BREW instead. It's a bit more annoying to have
> features (such as uploading audio files from the
> transcard and various Bluetooth profiles) disabled which
> would work just fine on the VZW system, but they want to
> force you to use their $$$ services instead.

What's your point?
They don't allow you to bring your own food and
drinks into bar either. or bowling alleys or movie
theaters, or baseball games, etc. It's because they
make money on the concessions. VZW plans to
make money on services. Are you griping about
that or that you think they are being deceptive?

-Quick
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:37:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Quick wrote:
> CharlesH wrote:
>>It's one thing to disable features such as Java because
>>VZW used BREW instead. It's a bit more annoying to have
>>features (such as uploading audio files from the
>>transcard and various Bluetooth profiles) disabled which
>>would work just fine on the VZW system, but they want to
>>force you to use their $$$ services instead.
>
> What's your point?
> They don't allow you to bring your own food and
> drinks into bar either. or bowling alleys or movie
> theaters, or baseball games, etc. It's because they
> make money on the concessions. VZW plans to
> make money on services. Are you griping about
> that or that you think they are being deceptive?

One of the nice things about going to theme parks when my child was an
infant was that it was easy to smuggle in adult food along with the
bulky baby supplies. The security people at theme parks seem to react to
people trying to bring in food in the same way as airport security
people if they discover weapons.

Not that companies are obligated to conduct business the same way, but
somehow other companies such as most GSM providers don't have a problem
with the functionality that VZW is all money-grubbing about. Motorola
and other manufacturers would not have implemented the features in the
first place unless they felt that having them was a selling point for
their phones. Obviously, VZW is within their legal rights to restrict
such features, but I can see people being upset about finding out that
some otherwise useful feature on their phone has been disabled for the
sole reason to force you to use their pay service if you want to use
those features.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:59:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

OK, circuitry and/or software. I do not know if Motorola made, for
example a razr, for Sprint PCS and verizon and USCellular, that the
physical hardware inside would be all the same or different, but I think
it could be quite different.
You go to a verizon store or RadioShack or some other place that sells
them. You look at a phone. You look at the info. on the display and in
the brochures. You look at the manual. You ask the Sales Associate.
All the information as to how the phone works on verizon's system is
available to potential buyers before purchase. Which carriers carry
this "fully-capable" model, and what are their prices?
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 7:37:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

verizon phones don't have disabled/crippled java in them. They don't
have java at all. Sprint PCS phones don't have disabled/crippled brew
in them. They don't have brew at all. Each carrier, including verizon,
chooses which services, technology, features they want to be part of
their system/service. The phones are part of their system. Therefore,
they choose which services, technology, features will be in the phones.
Those file xfer features you speak of will not work just fine on the
VZW system, because they are not what verizon is willing to do. If you
want to do something that is not part of your carrier's system, look for
a carrier that includes it.
Maybe if there was such a carrier, and enough people left verizon to go
to them, then verizon would change it's tune. But don't hold your
breath. There is no such carrier, and not imho likely to be.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 7:52:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

What I just said did not make sense. If you purchase a verizon phone
from the manufacturer, it is still a verizon phone, built the way
verizon wants it built. And you would be paying full price. I guess I
meant to say that you can not buy a non verizon phone from the
manufacturer that will work on verizon's system that verizon will
activate. It is verizon's system, they have control of it, and the
phones are part of the system. And if you somehow hack a verizon phone
to be a non verizon phone, when verizon finds out they could terminate
your service and take action against you.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:25:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> What I just said did not make sense. If you purchase a verizon phone
> from the manufacturer, it is still a verizon phone, built the way
> verizon wants it built. And you would be paying full price. I guess I
> meant to say that you can not buy a non verizon phone from the
> manufacturer that will work on verizon's system that verizon will
> activate. It is verizon's system, they have control of it, and the
> phones are part of the system. And if you somehow hack a verizon phone
> to be a non verizon phone, when verizon finds out they could terminate
> your service and take action against you.

Too bad Verizon doesn't support something like the R-UIM (similar to
SIM). The constrictiveness of CDMA (and TDMA).

TH
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:33:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> Sure it does. You can't say a razr is a razr is a razr. Even if
> you were able to activate a CDMA carrier A phone on CDMA carrier B, all
> the services from carrier B may not be accessible, and vice-versa. That
> is certainly true between the two major CDMA carriers. If you want
> services that one carrier does not offer, then switch carriers.

It's different in terms of user hardware. It's like saying that if you
buy a Ford directly from Ford and have it shipped, the radio will work
fine, but if you buy a Ford from an authorized dealer (Ford dealership),
then you will have to pay a monthly fee to use the same radio that's
free from the manufacturer.

The limitation of bluetooth has nothing to do with Verizon Wireless
infrastructure. I'm not sure why they made the decision, but I doubt
it's because bluetooth enabled phones will not functions with Verizon
Wireless's network.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:37:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> Those file xfer features you speak of will not work just
> fine on the VZW system, because they are not what verizon is willing to
> do.

I somehow doubt that's true. That's like saying using a clamshell phone
will not work fine on a Verizon Wireless system, but it will work fine
with all other carriers. Clamshell phones are not compatible with
Verizon Wireless's infrastructure.

It has nothing to do with compatibility.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:37:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Tropical Haven wrote:
>> Those file xfer features you speak of will not work just
>> fine on the VZW system, because they are not what
>> verizon is willing to do.
>
> I somehow doubt that's true. That's like saying using a
> clamshell phone will not work fine on a Verizon Wireless
> system, but it will work fine with all other carriers.
> Clamshell phones are not compatible with Verizon
> Wireless's infrastructure.
>
> It has nothing to do with compatibility.

Right. Why don't you extend you argument a little
further and say that VZW shouldn't be able to
say what phones can be used with their service?
They should have to allow customers to use
*any* CDMA phone with their service. VZW does
allow CDMA phones that they do not carry and
they do allow CDMA phones sold by other carriers.
This is more than some of the other carriers.

-Quick
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 7:10:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

What part of verizon being in control of their network and the way they
structure their services, do you not understand? Their network is part
of the way they do business. The phones are part of the network. What
they allow in the way of file xfers is a part of the way they do
business. It is their network and services not your's. That
information is available before a person subscribes to their service.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 8:39:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> What part of verizon being in control of their network and the way
> they structure their services, do you not understand? Their network is
> part of the way they do business. The phones are part of the network.
> What they allow in the way of file xfers is a part of the way they do
> business. It is their network and services not your's. That
> information is available before a person subscribes to their service.
>

Last time I checked, when you *purchased* a phone, the phone belonged to
you, and not to Verizon Wireless. Therefore, if your phone has
capability of bluetooth file transfer, that ability should be at *your*
discretion, and not at that of Verizon Wireless.

However, in regards to the information, I somewhat disagree. The first
time I heard that bluetooth file transfer was disabled on the V710, I
looked at the VZW website, and I saw that it listed "Bluetooth" as a
feature (and as a link). When I clicked on the "Bluetooth" link, it
mentioned that bluetooth is a technology that allowed wireless headsets
and file transfers. However, shortly after, VZW updated to explain
profiles, and not all profiles are available on all bluetooth devices.

Therefore, when I first read about the V710, VZW was giving me the
impression that file transfer was available.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 8:39:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Tropical Haven Wrote:
> Last time I checked, when you *purchased* a phone, the phone belonged
> to you, and not to Verizon Wireless. Therefore, if your phone has
> capability of bluetooth file transfer, that ability should be at *your*
> discretion, and not at that of Verizon Wireless.

You are correct in that when you purchase a phone, it's yours. But, you
are at the mercy of the provider you are getting the services from to
use that phone.

That's like saying my Harley will do 140 mph, and because it's mine I
should be able to go that fast at my discretion, and not what the law
says.


--
bossdragon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t169785.html
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 8:39:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Tropical Haven wrote:
> Jerome Zelinske wrote:
>> What part of verizon being in control of their
>> network and the way they structure their services, do
>> you not understand? Their network is part of the way
>> they do business. The phones are part of the network.
>> What they allow in the way of file xfers is a part of
>> the way they do business. It is their network and
>> services not your's. That information is available
>> before a person subscribes to their service.
>>
>
> Last time I checked, when you *purchased* a phone, the
> phone belonged to you, and not to Verizon Wireless.
> Therefore, if your phone has capability of bluetooth file
> transfer,

But it doesn't.

-Quick
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 7:36:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

That would pretty much be the end of the carriers subsidizing the cost
of phones. Although that might mean lower rates.
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 4:50:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

> That would pretty much be the end of the carriers subsidizing the
> cost of phones. Although that might mean lower rates.

No, I doubt that. Cingular still subsidizes phones, so does T-Mobile
USA, so does SunCom, Cellular One/Dobson, and Unicel. They are all GSM
carriers.

It would, however, be the end of a carrier requiring that you use a
carrier branded phone, as you'd be able to use any compatible equipment.

TH
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 4:50:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Tropical Haven wrote:
>> That would pretty much be the end of the carriers
>> subsidizing the cost of phones. Although that might
>> mean lower rates.
>
> No, I doubt that. Cingular still subsidizes phones, so
> does T-Mobile USA, so does SunCom, Cellular One/Dobson,
> and Unicel. They are all GSM carriers.
>
> It would, however, be the end of a carrier requiring that
> you use a carrier branded phone, as you'd be able to use
> any compatible equipment.

I don't think this is true. You can "lock" a SIM based phone
to a carrier.

-Quick
March 22, 2005 2:10:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:20:29 -0800, "Quick"
<quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>I don't think this is true. You can "lock" a SIM based phone
>to a carrier.

It's trivial to unlock a SIM on most GSM phones. Many manufacturer's
phones even have places where you can download the unlocking code
generator or even have online unlock calculators.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 12:43:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Rich Pierson wrote:
>
> You got that right, I traded in my startac for an LG 2
> years ago, POS. Dislike the color LCD, hard to read in
> the daylight while driving or walking. Was considering
> that V60 with it's monchrome but want the bluetooth
> wireless headset. Want somthing that is bang proof when
> I'm crawling around network racks, LG phone cracked the
> first 3 months I had it. The startac had a couple of
> shiny spots from where I had to superglue it but it
> always worked. Looking at the 710 w/hardwired in car and
> bluetooth headset for out of vehicle and plan on
> armouring the faceplate about 5 min if/after I get it...

My startac has a green led display... no problem in daylight.

-Quick

Why don't you just get a decent case like one made by
Rugged Equipment (tm).
March 23, 2005 7:37:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

PC-----you forgot the most important part-----

"13 year old girls whose daddies pay the (basic+4000 text messages+200
ringtones @ $2.99 a pop) bill!!!!

Dean
______________________________________
"Proconsul" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:IrJ_d.116442$FM3.95181@fed1read02...
> Quick wrote:
> | clifto wrote:
> || Jerome Zelinske wrote:
> ||| Why would verizon pay Motorola to put features in a
> ||| phone that are not compatible with verizon's services?
> ||
> || You designed a phone that has nifty features, including
> || an electrolysis attachment, gumball wrapper recognition
> || and a camera with naked women alert. Someone calls you
> || and says, "We'll take 100,000 if you disable the naked
> || women alert." What do you do?
> |
> | Well. I'd first ask: "If I refuse to do that will it effect the
> | future sales of the 7 million other phones with custom
> | firmware that I'm selling you each year?".
>
> Waste of time - the market is driven by focusing on the target market,
> thirteen year old girls. As I've said before, if you aren't a thirteen
> year
> old girl, you most likely find the "gadget laden" phones less than
> compatible with your tastes and less than responsive to your needs.....
>
> Such is the nature of the way the market is approached and managed.......
>
> PC
>
>
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 8:35:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

CellGuy wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:59:34 -0800, Steve Sobol wrote:
> If someone would come out with a new basic StarTAC-performance phone today
> I'm sure many business users would jump on it.

VZW will never do it. The $$ are in VCast, picture messaging, GetItNow,
IM, etc. Which is why I suspect we will never see a Bluetooth phone
without a camera. The camera generates $$, Bluetooth doesn't (and in
fact, will subtract from revenue, unless certain profiles are disabled).
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 5:03:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Rich Pierson wrote:
> CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote:
>> If someone would come out with a new basic StarTAC-performance phone
>> today I'm sure many business users would jump on it.
>
> You got that right, I traded in my startac for an LG 2 years ago, POS.

Funny you should mention. I traded in the very last LG I will ever have
owned for a StarTac two-plus years ago, wife too. Wife's died and was
replaced for $50. Hardly a mark on either phone, unlike the cracked and
marred LG cases. Battery life is better, range/RF is better, feel is
nicer, and the only accessory we could find locally for the LG was a
12V battery-charge cable.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 4:27:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Quick wrote:
> Tropical Haven wrote:
>
>>> That would pretty much be the end of the carriers
>>>subsidizing the cost of phones. Although that might
>>>mean lower rates.
>>
>>No, I doubt that. Cingular still subsidizes phones, so
>>does T-Mobile USA, so does SunCom, Cellular One/Dobson,
>>and Unicel. They are all GSM carriers.
>>
>>It would, however, be the end of a carrier requiring that
>>you use a carrier branded phone, as you'd be able to use
>>any compatible equipment.
>
>
> I don't think this is true. You can "lock" a SIM based phone
> to a carrier.

Yes, that is true. However, if you could pop out your R-UIM card and
pop it into another phone, it would be easy to get a phone from the
manufacturer or an unlocked one to use.

TH
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 4:31:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

>>I don't think this is true. You can "lock" a SIM based phone
>>to a carrier.
>
> It's trivial to unlock a SIM on most GSM phones. Many manufacturer's
> phones even have places where you can download the unlocking code
> generator or even have online unlock calculators.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

But, you most likely want to unlock the *phone*. Most network operators
who use GSM are willing to release the PUK and PUK2 codes to customers
who accidentally locked their SIMs, but most are not willing to *just*
release the lock code due to request by the customer.

TH
March 24, 2005 7:59:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:31:08 GMT, Tropical Haven <user@example.net>
wrote:

>But, you most likely want to unlock the *phone*. Most network operators
>who use GSM are willing to release the PUK and PUK2 codes to customers
>who accidentally locked their SIMs, but most are not willing to *just*
>release the lock code due to request by the customer.

Unless it's T-Mobile who routinely provide the unlock code for all
their phones and devices provided you've been a customer in good
standing for at least 90 days.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 9:00:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

The few people I know that have one aren't as happy now when they got
it. Not to say unhappy at all. Many people with Verizon I know want
one. I think this phone has done tons better than Motorola thought is
why they are have to do a CDMA verison. I wonder if the hype can last
long enough so that CDMA providers won't lose so many customers to a
GSM providers, and the phone does not sell that well since the people
who wanted one got one with Cingular or any other GSM provider?


--
agentHibby
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t169785.html
!