CDMA RAZR coming

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

http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=1142

Presumably for Verizon...
--
Charles C. Shyu
http://home.earthlink.net/~shyuc/shyu.html
42 answers Last reply
More about cdma razr coming
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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
  5. 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?
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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"
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  34. 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).
  35. 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
    >
    >
  36. 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).
  37. 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.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

    Who's gonna be the first to buy it?


    --
    Bert
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cell Phone Forums: http://cellphoneforums.net
    View this thread: http://cellphoneforums.net/t169785.html
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  42. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Verizon HTML Internet Service Providers Product