yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[HTC One S] aegentirony:
Yes it is Solavei , and it is Legit...it runs on Tmobile us...And the official device is the HTC One S....

Pm me your email address if you would like an invite....You can bring your own phone and just buy a sim....The more people you refer and sign up the more money you make...Eventually the service is free once you get a few people referred...I am at the top so sign up under me and lets make money!!!

Pm me your email address if you would like an invite!
[HTC One S] frdd:
Yeah...

Good luck with your trios and whatnot.

Solavei call their residual commissions that extend past the first two levels of your unilevel team the “Path Pay”. Note that while the Path Pay is paid out on levels 3 and below of your unilevel, it also includes the first two levels meaning it covers trios created on any level of your unilevel.
Trios counted to calculate Path Pay commissions are called ‘Overall Trios’.
Path Pay commissions still revolve around trios formed as in the Personal Trio commissions, however there are criteria that must be met with fifteen levels to qualify for.
[HTC One S] el_smurfo:
Why don't we have an "unthanks" button...this ain't Facebook...we should be able to be honest.
[HTC One S] frdd:
Oh and these too, from the XDA rules

11. Don’t post with the intention of selling something.

Don’t use XDA to advertise your product or service. Proprietors of for-pay products or services, may use XDA to get feedback, provide beta access, or a free version of their product for XDA users and offer support, but not to post with the intention of selling. This includes promoting sites similar/substantially similar to XDA-Developers.com.

Do not post press releases, announcements, links to trial software, or commercial services. unless you’re posting an exclusive release for XDA-Developers.com.

Encouraging members to participate in forum activities on other phone related sites is prohibited.

Off-site downloads are permitted if the site is non-commercial and does not require registration.

Off-site downloads from sites requiring registration are NOT encouraged but may be permitted if the following conditions are met:

A) the site belongs to a member of XDA-Developers with at least 1500 posts and 2 years membership who actively maintains XDA-Developers' support thread(s) / posts, related to the download,

B) the site is a relatively small personal website without commercial advertising/links (i.e. not a competitor forum-based site with purposes and aims similar to those of XDA-Developers.com.)

13. Advertising and Income Generation

Commercial advertising, advertising referral links, pay per click links and other income generating methods are forbidden. Do not use xda-developers as a means to make money.
[HTC One S] aegentirony:
Watch out! The XDa Nazi's are here! Take a chill pill, nobody asked you to buy anything...Its a signup at this point
[HTC One S] frdd:
Classy
[HTC One S] O_G:
Thread Closed​

Dont use XDA to make money! Get a proper job!​
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] sanglxagdm:
ROM: rootbox 2.0 Kernel: siyah 3.5.2

I have a problem with BLN. I disable BLN in the galaxy setting, after I lock and unlock the screen, the LED is turned on.

I change the time out to extweak to "disable", but when I lock the screen led continues on.

How do I turn off completely BLN.

sorry my english is bad, I plan to ask questions in Rootbox topic, but I did not have 10 posts
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Immortalis:
Uncheck "BLN" at bln card in extweaks, disable led-on-touch, apply settings and reboot.
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Sun90:
well you cannot completely turn off BLN ma8, all u can do is go to extweaks app

there under BLN tab you set BLN as follows

1) Tick the box under BLN

2) under Notification_timeout - select ur desired time out (1min is ideal)

3) under BLN effect - select it to be steady

4)under LED_timeout - agian select the desired time out (1.5sec is good)

5) under LED_fade out- tick the box

6)under LEDS On with Touch- u tick the same if u want led to be ON after u touch the screen else leave it blank

7)under Led voltage level- drag the bar back to set it 2700mv

after that hit apply changes button and ur done with:)
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] sanglxagdm:
I have set up as follows and reboot.

- Extweak.

BLN: uncheck

Notification_timeout: nevertimeout

LED_timeout: disable

led_fadeout: uncheck

led_on_touch: uncheck

- Galaxy setting.

tab sensors:

enable keys blacklight: uncheck

Reboot > LED is still on.
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Sun90:
set it as i have told u in my previous post and see
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] sanglxagdm:
@thank to Sun90.

I did not see post # 3, while I type post # 4.

Now I set it as you.

if i change other kernel (dream kernel), can i turn off completely?
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Sun90:
u cannot completely turn OFF the same ma8, u can disable it on touch,for notification etc. but if u touch the soft keys u see them light up thats why i told to reduce the led voltage so that u can hardly see the same
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] BlackZenith:
Isn't it possible to browse the external SD card from a PC (connected USB) while the phone is in Recovery mode?

When I mount /sdcard via CWM and connect my PC, I get a "Found New Hardware Wizard" dialog box on my PC. I have the Samsung drivers installed and they work properly when the phone is booted but when I enter Recovery mode via CWM, my PC starts asking about installation CDs...

I also tried mounting the USB storage but I get "Unable to open ums lunfile (No such file or directory)
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] LittleRedDot:
I never came across that option in cwm, and coming from among ra it was disappointing.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] BlackZenith:
First and last bump
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] pTeronaut:
I never got any form of mounting working in CWM.

TWRP on the other hand works like a champ.

Even without USB mounting, TWRP beats CWM for me.
[AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note I717] Agoattamer:
I also could never get my phone to mount correctly in CWM recovery. Tried USB, sd card, and emmc in every combination. Most likely this is why you never got a response because nobody has it working.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] morrowa2:
Seems like we've had a minor victory against big red thanks to the recent FCC ruling. I wonder if our government will come through on the bootloader issue. Goodness knows our government wants to regulate when we can take a piss...

Politics aside, I made a consumer complaint to the FCC a couple weeks ago regarding the bootloader issue, and yesterday I got a call from Verizon executive offices stating that they received my complaint and will be responding to the FCC and will send their response to me as well.

Anybody who has made such a complaint, have you received a communication like this? Not getting my hopes up, but its surprising to get such a response.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] AndroidGraphix:
Whoa, dude. You may have a good strategy. How do go about filing a complaint with them? What grounds would we have?

Good bye HTC Rezound, hello Galaxy S3!
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] PJnc284:
I'm sure the response will be their normal excuse about customer support, user experience, etc. http://www.droid-life.com/2012/02/2...tails-their-stance-on-bootloaders/#more-63166
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] xsteven77x:
Ditto
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] AlexDeGruven:
One thing will for sure happen, Verizon will make the same statements they have about security and network stability that they always have.

In order for something to be done about the bootloaders on already-shipped phones, 2 things MUST happen:

1. The FCC has to agree that locking the bootloaders on the phones is a violation of their Block C license (which would ONLY cover LTE-based devices, as those are the only devices that utilize Block C spectrum). This is a matter of quite some debate. In my readings of the issues, I feel like it could really go either way. Potentially, this most recent smackdown about tethering might swing things more in our favor.

AND

2. The FCC has to disagree with Verizon that locking the bootloaders is specifically for "Safety, security, and stability of the network" (their primary defense, and something that would give them an out), which is likely as other devices (Original Galaxy S, etc) have shipped with unlocked bootloaders and have not had any negative effects on the network, as well as Samsung's plans to drop a developers edition of the S3 with no lock.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] PJnc284:
yeah, I personally think Verizon's excuses are bull as they're cherry picking devices that either allow or don't allow it. Motorola has been the redheaded step child with every device after the OG droid being locked down while Samsung has been the opposite until the GSIII debacle. They even allow the unlock tools for certain HTC devices although those don't provide full S-OFF but the point is still there. Then you have the Galaxy Nexus which is easily unlocked and the mythical Developer GSIII coming soon.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] toddley:
Here is the story the OP is referring to for anyone confused: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/fcc-verizon-tethering/
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] morrowa2:
Www.FCC.gov. it wwould help to attach documentes supporting our stance, such as Verizon's b.s. excuse in their official statement, and the announcement of developer edition.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] morrowa2:
Here is my complaint:

"Of the major US cellular carriers, Verizon is the only one to have released the Samsung Galaxy SIII with a locked bootloader. This means slower development, and less customizability of the device. The devicce was purported by Samsung to be unlocked, so many people ordered this device under the impression that it would in fact be unlocked. There was nothing in Verizon's advertised specifications about a locked bootloader. Their explanation is that the device is locked to maintain the integrity of the network. That's all good, but we later learn that Samsung will be selling "developer edition" galaxy SIII's with unlockable bootloader for use on Verizon's network. How can Verizon say that and then allow such devices on their network. It appears that Verizon has swindled many customers to pay top dollar for a device that they cannot use to its full potential."

Again, I don't know if this will accomplish anythning but who knows?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] trafalger888:
-SmithTech- posted an article that sites the block C rules

Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee’s standards pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other providers’ networks.

Including this I think is a better route when filing the complaint. I currently hold licenses with the FCC and find that when you site specific rules with them it can make the process much easier
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] niv3d:
So I guess the "Developer" edition VZW GS3 doesn't fall under verizons safety, network experience bullcrap then because it doesn't have a locked bootloader...
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] xsteven77x:
basically Verizon is full of **** and everyone knows it and we just have to find the best way of phrasing that legally.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Karl:
found this about the droid x

http://www.droid-life.com/2012/02/2...tails-their-stance-on-bootloaders/#more-63166

so if you file a complaint make sure that you cite the lte device without locked bootloaders and that those dont negative effect their network.. and we might want mention the release of the developmental version and that it is the same damn phone just with unlocked boot and the lack of that unlocked device effecting their precious network.. we might push some type of fraud agenda by making us by the same phone twice if so maybe we can get the Department of Consumer Affairs in on the fun
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] trafalger888:
I also think Google wallet should be included as a violation either in the same complaint or a separate one since that also violates block c
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] TechSavvy2:
How does Google Wallet tie into LTE spectrum? Lol.....
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Karl:
"it violates an FCC regulation. You see, Verizon owns a special segment of spectrum at 700 MHz. The purchase came with a rule: Verizon had "to allow customers to freely use the devices and applications of their choosing."

http://gizmodo.com/5930610/verizon-...pay-20-for-tethering-anymore?comment=51441897
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] trafalger888:
Quite simply really exactly the reason they have to now allow tethering apps as per the FCC ruling and also as the poster above pointed our
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] joshbates15:
csntqu few

You guys should see the thread: http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1779074

I think it has a good strategy when making your complaint to the FCC. Verizon is required to allow you to take your device to another carrier (US Cellular) and the locked bootloader prevents that.

Here is the complaint that I came up with that fits within the 1000 character limit:
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] unique77:
I like how you worded that. Hopefully we can make some lee way. Reading all this after just switching to Verizon and finding out they have locked the boatloader really is disappointing.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] unique77:
We should flame their Twitter account as well. This needs lots of press. We should try contacting a couple editors of tech blogs like gizmodo or pc mag....
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tonu42:
You're wrong. You can put in another sim and use it on another network. Bootloader has no effect right now on that. So you're statement is completely void. Check the thread out on it. we got att, tmobile, page plus, european carriers working.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] joshbates15:
Yes, but if I were to take my phone to US Cellular and leave Verizon, like I should be able to do per section (e), then when US Cellular releases any update or if I have them flash my phone with their software it will brick my phone, thus prohibiting me to fully move my phone to another carriers network.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] matt19dax:
I did an FCC complaint a couple weeks back and got a letter yesterday that started the same reasons as before...network stability, security, it could make your service worse, and you could break your phone nothing has changed
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tonu42:
Really? You do realize EVERY phone will do that......... like I can't believe you right now. If verizon offered the one X, and I brought it to say US Cellular, they dont even offer then phone. So they dont have said "flash my phone with their software". So you're really confused as to what you're saying. What your asking for is not possible, and its been that way for a while man.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] joshbates15:
thank you for setting me straight.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Bleelas:
I'm not sure if anything will come of the FCC complaints, but there's really no harm in trying. It will probably depend on technicalities within the agreement, like what the definition of "application" is.

Regarding Verizon's "concern" about network security. There argument is that unlocking the bootloader would compromise network security, BUT the license states that "(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees...shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications...except: (1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network."

These "Standards" must be either 1) established by an independent body (which obviously isn't the case) OR 2) published by the licensee "no later than the time at which it makes such standards available available to any preferred vendors, so that the standards are readily available to customers" (which I don't think they did...i.e. it was not public knowledge they were locking the bootloader until AFTER Samsung knew about it)

Finally, the "Standards shall include technical requirements REASONABLY necessary for third parties to access a licensee's network via devices or applications without causing objectionable interference to other spectrum users or jeopardizing network security." It could be argued not only that the locked bootloader is unreasonable (because other carriers and phones are not locked) but also that unlocking the bootloader would not allow users to create any more "objectionable interference" than a locked bootloader.

Just my take...
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Karl:
i dont see how it be could be about network stability, security when they are going to to allow the S3 developmental version on their network
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Bleelas:
Agreed. I was going to say this in my post above but it was already long enough.According to the FCC agreement, the only way to they can limit something is with predetermined technical standards. It's not much of a "standard" when it applies to some devices but not others. That's the way you can phrase "Verizon is full of ****" with legal speak (as a xsteven77x put it above.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] xsteven77x:
Allot of people are saying we need to do this and that. Are any of you ACTUALLY emailing or calling these people or just expecting everyone else to do it (which means no one is)?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Karl:
i would have to say no

i would bet over half in this thread haven't did a GD thing to actual help
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] trafalger888:
I have filed two complaints one as it pertains to the bootloader and mine as it pertains to applications such as wallet
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Karl:
im not pointing fingers i would say anyone over a feedback score over 100 have probably emailed the fcc
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] trafalger888:
I understand
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] MrBrady:
I too filed a complaint with the FCC a couple weeks back. Got a call from a VZW Executive (went to voicemail) saying they received the complaint and is mailing a response to me. Still waiting to receive it.

I'd love to see them unlock the bootloader, but since they are already planning on offering a "DEV" version of the phone, I don't see them doing that anytime soon unless they can somehow spin the DEV version as something more than just an unlocked bootloader.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Karl:
thanks for email the fcc...

the fact that they are releasing a dev version makes this even more important in my eyes..

the excuse they give us and the fcc for not unlocking the S3 we have now is that its for better network stability or security etc etc

but they are going to allow the same device with unlocked boot to be sold by Samsung that will be allowed on Verizons network so the reason they give the FCC is bull.........:confused:

so i hate to say it but i think Samsung and Verizon worked out a business deal to try sell more S3's nuthing more
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] piiman:
Then ask them why they sell unlocked phones. Then tell them you're running custom software on it anyways and they wasted their time. :)

I display my "Lock" boot screen like a badge of honor lol

---------- Post added at 12:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 AM ----------

1. LTE block C is good for s3 owners

2. They will have a hard time selling that fairytale to the FCC since they sell unlocked phones for use on their network. Dev phones, Gen Nex, Xoom allowed unlocking, most HTC devices can be unlocked with help from HTC etc etc. Virtually EVERY phone they sell has been hacked to a certain degree and as far as I can tell they haven't had any security issues from it.

If the s3 is on Block C we may very well see it getting unlocked.

---------- Post added at 12:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 AM ----------

Might want to have them call a CSR and find out that VZW support sucks as is and that anyone that knows how to flash a ROM probably knows 10 times more than a VZW CSR anyway. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 12:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 AM ----------

They don't even claim its for security They are claiming its so they can provide good customer service. Really? have you ever talked to a CSR? lol all they'd need to do if you are running a non standard ROM is say. "Flash back to stock and if you still have the problem call us back." easy enough.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tonu42:
No no, I totally understand where you're coming from. My post was directly related to the US Cellular part of it. Its total bs what verizon is doing and I dont see why this thread needs to go on any more. In a few points here is everying summarize very very simply.

1. Our phone is on a locked bootloader that is a violation of the FCC agreement with block c because it limites our device. We bought this phone, we own it, we should be able to do what ever we want to it.

2. Verizon doesnt want us to have it unlocked because they simply dont give two ****s, and want to make us angry. Simple.

3. They are releasing a developer version with an unlocked bootloader, this is a slap in our faces because they said previously their network's security is endangered. Well thats Bs cause they are allowing this new device on their network.

Number three basically is the end all statement basically of all this whining.

*And I fully support this thread, the whining is necessary when I say it like that. Cause I'm whining too guys trust me :)*
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] TheDiabolicaL1:
:cool:
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] AtLemacks:
Tools that we develop to bridge the gap are not Verizon letting us take the phone to another carrier. Guy below me here basically wrote the extended version of what I want to say.

And for those counting. I complained about my X2 to the FCC(different complaint obviously), my Rezound, AND my S3. All to no avail. We have been trying this tactic for a long time around XDA. Hasn't changed anything yet, doesn't mean it wont, but we have made zero progress.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tonu42:
As I said, this all comes down to verizon just sucking. All there is to it really.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] TheDiabolicaL1:
I appreciate the point you're making but I like Verizon. I like them a lot. I just wish they wouldn't **** with my phone.

I only want Verizon for the pipe they provide and that's it. I don't want anything more from them.

Could you imagine if your home internet provider said you could only run Internet Explorer because your ISP locked it's connection via some ****ed up encryption and if you didn't use IE, you didn't access the internet?

It wouldn't work.

Yet it works here.

VZW operates in the grey area of the law. The area of the law in which the law hasn't caught up to the technology. They'll only have to answer if we keep pushing it. Eventually it'll land in someone's lap who goes.. "Wait.. they're doing WHAT?"
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] speedylad:
I actually just did this the other day and found this forum just now. I really hope more people are putting complaints in. This is also very relevant to Google Wallet
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Imatoasta:
I filed a complaint with the fcc but it wasn't as pleasant as other people's. Lots of profanity because frankly I have no respect for the fcc AT ALL since they literally let these companies break the laws blatantly. It's embarrassing that we have an organization like this in the US.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] tekhna:
It'll be a cold day in hell when Verizon allows their network to be thought of as dumb tubes, unfortunately.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] jmcharles:
Submitted my complaint to the FCC today. Took only a few minutes. Come on everyone...do it!
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] androidaddict23:
If and when they unlock the bootloader let the mass bricking of galaxy s 3's begin.