backtop


Print 22 comment(s) - last by jRaskell.. on Mar 5 at 9:47 AM

Carrier's response to the FCC is unappologetic

Google Inc. (GOOG) is supposedly a champion of developer rights and software freedoms.  So it seems highly curious that while the majority of Android manufacturers like Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KS:005930) and HTC Corp. (TPE:2498unlock their bootloaders, Motorola Mobility's phones (such as the popular Droid RAZR) are still locked up tighter than Fort Knox.

Unlocked bootloaders allow for custom ROMs and the removal of unwanted carrier "bloatware".  This is particularly handy for independent developers, who may wish to test apps on several different versions of Android, on one device.

I. Motorola: Locked up Tight

On the other hand, a locked bootloader can be a daunting obstacle to enthusiasts.  It takes a lot of effort to reverse engineer one.  Although unlocking the bootloader via exploits is legal, the difficulty factor means it is done for only a handful of the top selling phones such as Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) iPhone.  And even in these cases, the exploitation process creates security risks, which the company and unlockers must patch.  All of this is less ideal than in the case where the carrier provides a secure, authorized bootloader unlock.

Motorola in posts to Twitter indicated that its phones were "locked per carrier".  

Droid RAZR boot loader

But was this really the case?

II. Verizon Defends Locking

It appears so.

A reader of the site Droid Life filed a complaint with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission about the bootloader locking of Motorola phones on the network of Verizon Wireless, a joint venture between Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) and Vodafone Group Plc. (LON:VOD), and AT&T Inc. (T).  The user complains to the FCC that the provisions of Verizon Wireless's government "Block C" spectrum license prohibit such actions.

In response to the complaint Verizon Wireless, the largest U.S. carrier, strongly disagrees with that sentiment.  It wrote the following letter to the FCC:

Verizon Droid Unlocking

Verizon's statements echo Apple's who has long fought ardently with unlockers.

III. With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

In reality, Verizon and Apple are right to an extent -- greater freedom of unlocked hardware means more risk (the digital analogy of getting your drivers license) that third-party ROMs might allow malware or interfere with the fundamental network hardware, such as data transfer utilities or the phone's antenna-dependent signal strength algorithms.

However, it's also an excuse for control.  Some of this control -- such as fighting pirated apps -- is at least mildly pro-developer.  Other aspects of control, such as user monitoring and punishing unauthorized tethers, are more questionable, given that it can detract from a user's experience and or endanger them.

The issue of user monitoring was especially noteworthy, given that it was recently found that HTC's smartphone were printing sensitive information via a monitoring app.  And aside from the HTC-specific security risk, the revelation raised privacy concerns about how much data was being collected, and who it might be shared with.  The scandal appeared to be part of what pushed HTC to unlock its bootloader.

Verizon Wireless claimed via Twitter that it did not use Carrier IQ.  But domain lookups looks show that Verizon Wireless owns IPs associated with Carrier IQ domain names, according to sources.  Some have speculated that Verizon may have simply rebranded the app, disguising its name (which would make its above denial technically correct in literal terms).

And that's not to mention that unlocking allows Verizon to lock consumers to its network by disallowing their handsets to work on other networks -- an anti-competitive technique.

And ultimately the biggest point is that locking makes a developer unable to test their product broadly on one handset, locking out small developers from the process -- or more likely convincing them to pick a less restrictive carrier/OEM.

The decision definitely makes Verizon Wireless the carrier not to choose for those considering Android development.

Verizon expensive
Verizon is the most expensive carrier and one of the least friendly U.S. carriers when it comes to developer boot unlocking. [Image Source: Flickr/Exif]

For average customers, it's one more factor to weigh.  Verizon has industry leading customer service ratings and the nation's largest LTE (4G) network, but also charges more than any other carrier for its data plans.

Source: Droid Life



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Carriers need to go to school
By Freddo on 3/1/2012 3:11:23 PM , Rating: 5
Carriers need to learn that they are network providers, nothing more. They have no business in tinkering with the phones.

Just as internet providers have no business in tinkering your home computer.

Good thing never buy my phones directly from the carriers but unlocked to begin with.




RE: Carriers need to go to school
By dgingerich on 3/1/2012 6:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
Er, well, kinda wrong. It's their network, and they do whatever they can to make more money from what goes on with their network. If they could make money selling demographics info (men aged 34-50 visit these sites most often on their phones) they definitely will, and do, without you knowing a thing. If they want to gather info on the location of your phone to sell along with that demographic information, they will, and do. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but I doubt we'll ever be able to do anything about it without tearing down this whole country.


RE: Carriers need to go to school
By Lifted on 3/1/2012 10:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you've never heard of the breakup of AT&T for this very reason.


RE: Carriers need to go to school
By someguy123 on 3/2/2012 12:09:15 AM , Rating: 2
Well, wireless is a different beast. Having a few people who don't know what they're doing load up a virus while trying to swap OSs can end up causing headaches for verizon and its network. It's not like verizon is running landlines to each phone and can simply pump up infrastructure. These companies are all out trying to obtain more spectrum. Hell lightsquared just recently got taken down out of concerns of interference with GPS. It's not quite as simple as tossing more money at the problem when it comes to wireless networks.


By jRaskell on 3/5/2012 9:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, wireless is a different beast.


No, it isn't.

quote:
It's not quite as simple as tossing more money at the problem


Nothing is ever as simple as tossing more money at the problem.


RE: Carriers need to go to school
By GmTrix on 3/2/2012 2:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just as internet providers have no business in tinkering your home computer.


This actually makes me surprised that internet providers don't offer laptops at a discount when you sign up for internet (i.e. combine the laptop price into your monthly payment). It could make laptops [seem] very cheap for people who are willing to sign up. (Think $0 laptops!) And then they'd let you upgrade your laptop after 2 years.

Definitely not saying I want this to happen. AT ALL. It just surprises me that it hasn't.


By PitViper007 on 3/2/2012 3:13:00 PM , Rating: 3
IIRC, this was tried some years back. It obviously didn't do so well since it isn't being done any more.


RE: Carriers need to go to school
By MrWho on 3/2/2012 5:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe not in the US, but I bought a nice netbook for my wife a couple of years ago for €150 with a two-year mobile internet subscription contract. Saved around €200 on the netbook, and I'm paying around €20 per month for the service. Or, if you prefer to see it from a different angle, it's like I bought the netbook at full price and got two years of mobile internet almost free.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki