yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] CoNsPiRiSiZe:
Well like I said. Wednesday night I'm your guy :)

Typed by ---- oh wait! I'm schizophrenic!
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] thrice43:
this has already been tried
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] CoNsPiRiSiZe:
read this

Typed by ---- oh wait! I'm schizophrenic!
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] thrice43:
I dunno. I was assuming OP was referring to hex edits to the misc.img.
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] Indirect:
I already got misc.img hacked. Keep up with progress! :p
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] thrice43:
I got a phone that I'm gonna send back to Tmobile. Its s-on. Don't care if it bricks.
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] Indirect:
Then just hop on irc.
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] thrice43:
Oh snap. 8/ I will be once I'm on a computer
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] Some_dude36:
whats all this gibirish about S=off I just checked my revolutionary bootloader and i had S=OFF since I rooted the device
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] Emmanuel U:
where have u been boy? :P the newest bootloader that came with the update cant be s-off'd yet
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] Blue6IX:
Revolutionary only works on the original retail release software version. Anyone with more current manufacturer software that is S-ON cannot get to S-OFF.

You are one of the lucky ones, most people now are just burnt until we figure it out.

Sent from a digital distance.
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] Some_dude36:
Really? was this a HTC issue not wanting people to run custom roms? Jees im really lucky I musta had one of the last devices with old software I only got this phone brand new maybe 2-3 months ago?

---------- Post added at 10:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 PM ----------

Ohh this was a OTA update for stock devices that caused the problem? Ive been around I mean Ive seen all these threads bout this and Just never looked into it as I had S=OFF and It just peaked my curiosity as to what it was all about .
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] Blue6IX:
Well, the HTC unlock process will allow people to change some things on their phone, like swapping stock recovery for clockworkmod and such, but they cannot change hboot or radio - and can't downgrade to a software that can get S-OFF because of it.

They ended up trying to be too clever for their own good and if you got an OTA update the unlock process is broken and can't be used, but we have a fix for that here so people can at least do that.

Until the new update starts again officially any devices you buy secondhand from craigslist or ebay or something are more likely then not on the original release software version or the tiny update from last year that doesn't make these problems.

Once the new update rolls out you should expect any device to be screwed until we figure out S-OFF since the update will come to the device instead of the owner having to manually seek it out.

Sent from a digital distance.
[T-Mobile myTouch 4G Slide] Some_dude36:
Crap can I turn updates off on my device so I dont lose S=OFF ?

Never mind I just looked at the HTC UPDATEs in about phone and it was checked to check for updates o.0 but i unchecked it thank goodness i woulda been pissed if it auto updated and I lost S=OFF thanks for the heads up
[Upgrading, Modifying and Unlocking] S2005x:
I have the BYOD Straight Talk plan.

I also have an LG Doubleplay that is from T-Mobile.

I put the sim in the phone, and it says Network Locked.

Is there a way to unlock the device?
[Upgrading, Modifying and Unlocking] sl4sh3r:
The thing is what straight talk phone did you take the sim card out of it. If you bought the cheapest phone, the sim will not work. a few of them dont work. give a little more info
[Upgrading, Modifying and Unlocking] PakAttack1994:
Yes you can unlock the device, you can purchase an unlock code or Ebay or a third party unlocking website. There might be a free guide somewhere out there but you'd have to look. Or you can get a AT&T phone and just use since you don't need to unlock them in order to use your Straight Talk sim.
[Upgrading, Modifying and Unlocking] kachmul2004:
.........................................................................
[Networking] cajunflavoredbob:
Ok, so here's the deal. US subscribers are in a pickle as far as unlimited data plans are concerned with tethering. Our plans suck (comparatively).

Some of it has to do with wording of contracts by carriers. Some of it has to do with the entitlement we feel when we purchased our respective unlimited data plans. Either way, we all feel hurt by this. As consumers, we want it our way. We want our unlimited data plans to cover our 2GB months to our 200GB months. We don't want to be told about limits on plans labeled and sold as unlimited.

Here's where you come in. How would you change the terms of the agreement as an AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, or other carrier's customer if you were in charge? Keep in mind that you may have limited network resources, funds, or staff to carry out the extreme plans. You still need to generate income for your investors. What would you do to make your customers happy as well as the investors? Is it possible? Is there any sort of reform that is possible in our wireless industry?
[Networking] thebobp:
Ban contracts all-together. The bundling of phones with network vastly distorts both markets; phones are no longer truly competing on price (e.g. apple's strong position with the iPhone allows them to dictate high carrier subsidies, whose costs must be paid off by effectively taxing everyone else on the network) while carriers are instead competing on phones (rather than the quality of their service).

On the other hand, without subsidies (which essentially hide the costs for the average person who doesn't think it through), manufacturers would have to actually worry about choosing a price low enough to be attractive. This is something that is sorely missing under the current regime.

Not to mention, contracts themselves are effectively anti-competitive, locking in users who don't really know how to properly evaluate their choices. The way to ensure the best service for the user is to allow them to quit at a moment's notice.

Now, I notice you might be thinking more specifically about how the service agreements can be modified, rather than the "contracts" per se. Do the above, and this woud automatically happen. The carriers will have to actually compete for better service (rather than just drawing in people with new shiny phones in order to lock them in). If their service is not up to par with their advertisements, people would just quit the next month. Hence, no more random throttling of plans, etc.
[Networking] cajunflavoredbob:
I understand your position, but I have doubts that this would be possible to implement in our market. T-Mobile's CMO made a statement about device subsidies contorting what the devices actually cost. T-Mobile actually has a line of Value plans that are kind of on par with what you're thinking about. The rate plans are considerably cheaper than the ones with a device subsidy. The real problem is convincing the other carriers to follow suit.

See, by doing this, it put investors at risk. It's all a money making game. If an idea isn't profitable, then it generally never sees the light of day. What about a sales model similar to what T-Mobile is offering? Could you see a way to make this model profitable to both carriers and consumers alike?
[Networking] leo321:
I think it should be handled like the european networks handle their service agreements. You sign up for service when you buy a phone, and you pay full retail price for the phone. Then you pay a relatively lower price for service. Instead of paying say, 59.99 for a phone that retails for 399.99 and then paying 100$ give or take a little each month, you pay full price for the phone, and then get your bill for 50ish a month. Which one sounds better?
[Networking] cajunflavoredbob:
I agree that this would benefit us more as consumers, but we would need to come up with a marketable solution to the current situation that would be agreeable to the carriers as well.
[Networking] luftrofl:
This.

Blaming carrier greed is easy but really doesn't solve anything. Carriers want to make more money and contracts make them more money - I can't fault them for that.

I don't see the US market becoming like Europe's. Although T-Mobile USA is trying to change things, I can think of two things in the way:

-Americans are too stupid to save money~~ Everyone thinks short term savings, hence the persistence of contracts.

-Carrier incompatibility~~ Verizon and Sprint are CDMA. T-Mobile and AT&T run on (mostly) different 3G bands. Buy a phone for full retail and you're probably going to be stuck with one carrier anyway.
[Networking] cajunflavoredbob:
The incompatibility is changing this year, at least with AT&T and T-Mobile. T-Mobile is currently refarming their spectrum to rollout a network on the 1900MHz PCS spectrum. This will be used for their HSPA/+ network, while the existing 1700MHz network will be used for LTE. This move makes their network inter-operable with AT&T devices.

Other than that, I agree with your points. I don't feel that T-Mobile is going to make contracts as we know them go away. I admire the bold move, but I doubt it will ripple the waters much. That being said, I'm hoping we can come together and brainstorm a bit to think of a way to benefit carriers and customers alike. Our market NEEDS to change.
[Networking] juzz86:
Pentaband unlocked handsets for everybody! :D Then you can choose whatever retarded WCDMA bands you like!
[Networking] 4ktvs:
A list of things I would do:

1) Bring back the unlimited data plans, but only for LTE. (bandwith limits 3g unlimited plans)

2) Have them start rolling out LTE v10 or LTE advaned right now.

3) Voice over LTE.

4) Unlimited voice and text added to a data plan like this:

Plan1) Unlimited voice and text+2gb of data for $

plan2) Unlimited voice and text+5gb of data for $$

plan3) Unlimited voice and text+10GB of data for $$$

plan4) Unlimited voice and text+Unlimited data for $$$$ (LTE only)

They are just ex and I hope the pricing is better than that, but I am trying to be real here.

And verizon needs to fix this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDxJoGv3FLA&feature=player_embedded
[Networking] cajunflavoredbob:
This isn't really a plan. It's more of a wish list. I was hoping that some of the people around here might actually have better ideas of how to do things than the carriers. This isn't a wish list thread. I intended it more as a brainstorming thread.
[Networking] synaesthetic:
Well, before anything I want to happen will even be possible, we'd have to see real net neutrality laws in this country...
[Networking] bfroehlich:
I would like to see wireless carriers charge for internet access the same way that most ISPs charge. You pay for speed and have unlimited data. Say I have an LTE device. I can pay $50 for unlimited data at 10 Mbps or $100 for 20 Mbps. This makes much more sense to me.

Also, carriers need to be dump pipes. That's just how it has to be. I know they all fear that and will do everything in their power to stop it but I think it's inevitable.
[Networking] 4ktvs:
#2 was more of a wish, but the rest of it is not. Let me try to put it in a better way:

1) give 4G LTE users a higher cap/unlimited data, becuase there is more bandwith. They could charge a bit more for the new Data plans, but over all save $ for the buyers. In turn, this would likely help the push for LTE and kill 2g and 3g sooner, so that the bandwith can be used for 4G.

2) Voice over LTE( 3 will be why)

3) When Voice over LTE is done, then make voice/text/data all one plan, Like:

1) 2GB for $60. ( Voice and text would use data)

2) 5GB for $80.

3) 10GB for $100.

4) 20GB/unlimited for $120.

Any way I am not a CEO and I don't have the # for everything, so this "plan" of mine may not work/be good, but I tryed.

I have both AT&T and verizon unlimited data plans and don't like the low bar they have set of 2-5gb plans, but really most don't use more than about 5GB. Now I bet they would if they used a crap load of voice at 50mb per 60 min. ( If you used 900min per bill then you would use about 750mb or about bit less 1/2 of the 2GB plan and then a few e-mails, some text and bam over the limit.)
[Networking] synaesthetic:
Mobile voice is surely not 50Mb for 60 minutes. That'd be close to 128kbps MP3 quality, which our phones certainly are not!
[Networking] 4ktvs:
I read that on verizon, that voice would be about 45mb per hour. I don't know all the #, but think it may work. They may up the voice quality to make this work and I think it's one of there goals with voice over LTE.
[Networking] cajunflavoredbob:
That's actually a much better way of saying it. It's not a bad idea. Going all data would seem to be the way to go for the future. That problem is going to be getting carriers to realize this and make adjustments accordingly. They keep saying that they don't have enough bandwidth to service everyone, but this plan makes exclusive use of data. It requires a nationwide "4G" footprint. Verizon is the closest to this right now. T-Mobile is close behind with its HSPA+ rollout. AT&T has a large HSPA+ footprint as well, but it's not any/much faster than their 3G in my testing. We won't even go into Sprint's "4G" services....

I think that Verizon and T-Mobile would be the biggest players in this. T-Mobile currently has the bandwidth and lower customer base to make this a reality. Verizon may still have quite a way to go, though. CDMA technology really needs to hurry up and die already.

In any case, this is any interesting plan, that would indeed be beneficial to both parties. The biggest hurdle is that their are still large parts of the country that do not have high speed wireless access. Within the next three years, I can see this being put into play.

EDIT: Also, GSM networks use the G.729 codec (as far as I recall) for voice calls which compress the call to roughly 6-8Kbps. This makes it about 3.6MB per hour on a normal, non VoIP GSM call. I have no idea what CDMA uses.
[Networking] luftrofl:
... you're not trying hard enough :p

Seriously though, that list is unrealistic. "I want more advanced tech and I want it released and working now." is not a useful answer for "How would you change the wireless market?"

As for me, I want American cell networks to be more compatible with other networks - right now AT&T and T-Mobile are the only carriers with anything close to this. Maybe there's hope for this with LTE developments, but I don't know.

If this happens, maybe cheaper postpaid plans will be available - I really like this - it's why I'm on T-Mobile. I wish AT&T would have discounted plans if you're not on contract - it's not like they need to subsidize a phone. :(
[Networking] cajunflavoredbob:
You're answer is similar to the one you jest about. How would such a move benefit the carriers? If it is not beneficial to them, it will not happen. What would be their motivation to make their networks or devices interoperable? Customer loyalty, or doing it to make customers happy isn't a reason, unfortunately. Generally, there needs to be financial motivation to make changes to the market.
[Networking] synaesthetic:
Thank you, I couldn't remember the exact bitrate but I knew it was really very low. :)

Adaptive Multi-Rate Speech (AMR) is the codec used by WCDMA voice and it tops out at 12kbps.
[Networking] 4ktvs:
Now I know were I got 45mb/hour. I read it in the mobile broadband part of a verizon mag.

It list Voice call(VoIP) as 45MB/hour over 4G LTE.
[Networking] luftrofl:
We get it. You like to tell everyone who's replied that their solution isn't marketable - and yes, that might be true.

Of course carrier interoperability is not profitable. Of course the wireless carriers don't want to (except T-Mobile, actually). However, I don't expect them to do it on their own - the FCC might be able to make it happen - American consumers would benefit if it can. (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-Starts-Exploring-700-MHz-Interoperability-Rules-118926)

Back to "I am" answer on more postpaid options. The primary reason that I don't pay AT&T because T-Mobile's price for the same service is much better. If AT&T cares about my business, they can create an option that competes with T-Mobile's. Admittedly, I don't think AT&T cares - goes back to my point about Americans being too dumb to save money.
[Networking] cajunflavoredbob:
My post wasn't attacking you. The point of this thread has been missed by most of the posters here. I am not interested in anyone's wishlist. I was hoping to spark a brainstorm of how other people would change things if they could. You have to keep in mind that it isn't about just pleasing yourself. You have to have an idea that would be beneficial to the carriers and their investors as well as consumers.

Everyone loves to complain about how unfair the market is. Okay, well, here's a thread dedicated to asking other users how they would change things. Save for one single response, the result is grossly underwhelming.
[Networking] luftrofl:
"I'm good at communicating but everyone else is bad at listening." :D

The question you've asked is "How would you change the wireless market?" and you're getting responses to that question. To put it lightly, adding the caveat that responses must be beneficial to carriers, investors,

and

consumers is pointless. Very few changes can actually appeal to everyone and I imagine that a vanishingly small number of those are worth talking about.
[Networking] cajunflavoredbob:
You've made two of my points for me. One was that no one was reading the OP where I posed the question. The second was just that it isn't as easy as it seems. I'd still love to hear thoughts and opinions on this, but the market wouldn't last at all with some of the posts made in this thread. It is just frustrating to hear complaint after complaint about the wireless market being unfair. I know that fact as well as the next person. The only way things are going to change is with a push from the government at this point. I'd love to see a more European-like business model take hold. I'm thrilled that T-Mobile is leading the charge. However, they are up against impossible odds, it seems. The US wireless market is broken.

Fun Fact: Verizon and AT&T control over 80% of the wireless market in the US. The top two "two-big-to-fail" banks collectively control 20% of the market. This looming duopoly wouldn't fly in any other market.
[Networking] bfroehlich:
I made a post on the last page that I think would benefit mostly everyone. It would take a lot of pressure off of the networks as well as give consumers more choice as far as which speed they would like to have. Personally, I can do without the fastest speed, but some can't. The fact of the matter is that tiered data is probably not the answer and probably won't last for very much longer. People are using more and more data, and most people don't even understand the difference between HSPA+, LTE, UMTS, EvDo, etc. Most people probably don't even know how to do a speed test, or if they did, they probably still think Mbps is megabytes per second and not megabits...What I'm getting at is when you put limits in place as to how fast someone is accessing that data, the amount of throughput at any given time should be increased. All you do when you put limits on how much data can be accessed in any given time is rape consumers because they either cautiously use data (which is a good thing for the business, but takes away from the overall experience of owning a smartphone) or get charged extra for using extra data than they agreed to (which also benefits the business, but forces people into thinking about data usage, which they shouldn't have to do in my opinion).

If ISPs ran their business like the wireless carriers, we'd be buying computers that are only operable with Comcast and you have to buy a whole new computer if you want to switch to Time Warner Cable. Then you'd have some interoperability with some computers, but they'd generally cost a little bit more. I just think that if the tiered speed model works for ISPs, then it might work for wireless carriers as well.

I pay $40/month for 10 Mbps/1 Mbps internet from Time Warner Cable and it's just fine for me. I use a large amount of data and would be in a world of pain if they started capping my usage. I would have to think twice before watching that Netflix movie, or listening to that song on Pandora, which would put a damper on the way I use data.

What I'm suggesting is that businesses and consumers alike can have what they want with the tiered speed model. I don't have to think about how much data I use, and the carrier doesn't have to provide people with speed that they might not be necessarily need if they had the option to pay less for slower access.

One thing that prevents things from changing rapidly is that there is a lack of competition. The only competition most carriers face is that of their MVNOs, which they likely have a lot of control over. It's expensive to build and maintain these nationwide networks, so maybe the answer is something that nobody has even thought about yet.
[Networking] 4ktvs:
ISP and cell phone towers do not Work the same, so true "unlimited" does not work even if you slow them down. I think they could bring back the unlimited data plans, but You won't likely be able to do 100-300GB per bill like you would to your ISP. I wish Time Warner cable did not suck so bad for me, becuase I have the same plan, but I get 3-5mbsDL and 1-1.2UL on avg. The part that realy sucks is when gos under 2mbsDL and netflix starts stoping.

I would love this model if it could work, but I don't think it would.
[Networking] thebobp:
I don't want to be the negative person here, but unless you're secretly some bigtime CEO, a posted plan that benefits carriers is just as far from being implemented as a posted plan that doesn't. It has to go all the way to the top of these giant (and therefore, inefficient) companies. Furthermore, it has to be one such that they can't make more profit by modifying it slightly to screw over the usual customers with loose wallets (or who get too easily locked in).
[Networking] Babydollll:
Instead of a prix fixe type of setup (1000 min 59.99$ a month then, add on data and SMS)....

I'd make it so you can mix and match a little.

Say I want allot of Data and SMS but a moderate amount of minutes.

50$ 10GB data, add unlimited SMS for 5$ and pay say....idk 10$ for 500 min getting charged a little more if I use more and, less if I used less. Or only minutes or only SMS or, both but no data...base it on the customers, needs and price things reasonably

Also contracts are optional and device upgrades yearly once a certain amount of time (and a minimum bill) threshold, are met

Call me crazy....go ahead. :p
[Networking] synaesthetic:
The carriers don't like a la carte systems because they make a significant profit off forcing people to buy minutes and SMS packages. Especially with things like Google Voice and instant messaging, it would be simple enough to retain all normal mobile phone functionality with only a data plan, and no minutes or SMS messages.

Calls and SMS are way cheaper for the carrier than data.
[Networking] Babydollll:
True.

However, the title of the thread was HOW WOULD YOU CHANGE THE WIRELESS MARKET....not WOULD THE CARRIERS LIKE IT??!!....
[Networking] cajunflavoredbob:
I explained the rules in the OP. I was asking how you would implement a plan that would benefit both consumers and carriers alike. This isn't a make a wish thread. If you have a plan that would work better than the current model, then please share it. Otherwise it's just the same old "I wish..." that everyone says. Any plan you share must be one that would actually be able to be put into play. Carriers will not implement a plan that cuts profits.

Saying things like "I would do this or that" makes no sense. Everyone this far had apparently been working on a fictitious unlimited budget.
[Networking] synaesthetic:
Oh I agree, and eventually when LTE becomes more widespread and the spectrum used by previous generation networks get recycled into the LTE networks, we may yet see a big "bucket" where your messaging, calls and data all come out of the same bucket of bits.