yashsingh1/xdaforums huggingface dataset:
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] newuser134:
I know there are a few people here that say otherwise, but I think I have the majority of the people behind me here if I say we WANT the boot loaderunlocked, we want to figure out a way to beat Verizon, otherwise why would there be a $3,000+ bounty for having it unlocked, obviously that must mean even though we appreciate the dev's workaround (even most of the devs agree), an unlocked bootloader is better and preferable in the long run for dev purposes. So I think I have a lot of people behind me here when I say please help us to find a way to get Verizon to unlock this bootloader, those of us that agree, we will try to the best of our ability to gather together and help complain or what we can to help. Those who want to help, please say that you agree with me, those who don't want it unlocked, I don't know why you post anything here anyway, it's not like you go to the bootloader unlock thread and state your opinion that you don't think the devs should work toward unlocking the bootloader so I don't know why you would do that here.

I'm sure others also agree if you get through with this, you deserve that bounty.

---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 PM ----------

No it doesn't. If Samsung or Verizon unlocked it out of their own free will, I would agree, but if an attorney who is a member of this forum, forces Verizon through legal battle to unlock the bootloader against their will, I'd say that work is as good as physically unlocking it, I think most devs would agree it would make their work easier, so that would not defeat the purpose, and that person should get the bounty like anyone else that would unlock it.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] EDNYLaw:
I appreciate the sentiment, but that thought never even crossed my mind. As i said before, I'm no fool and i don't turn down money if someone wants to give me some. But at no point did it enter into my thought process or provide motivation. Hell I'd just like enough to get a phone to dev on so ican make some kickass ROMs and give the rest to other deserving developers who have helped with work arounds and who have given to the community.

I look at this as a challenge, and I like challenges. Plus at this point, I'm taking credit for the FCC's decision, though they won't share I'm sure. But in my mind I cost Verizon (or perhaps influenced the FCC through some pretty damn convincing arguments) $1.25 million. Which, granted, is .0005% of their profit. But it's still a lot of money to us average folk. But I want to make a bigger impact. And I think with the right support it can be done.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] AtLemacks:
In regards to the PC w/ cell card post. That is an awesome post. I am going to go out on a limb and say it is because Verizon doesn't have the power to influence MS/Apple/Google/Linux in their desktop business as Verizon doesn't cost or benefit their profits. Verizon only has influence over their Mobile sector because Verizon is THE big kid in the game. But, that would be a very valid point that could be brought to light. Also, why aren't Cable/Fiber/Satellite providers concerned if that is the case? Comes back to Verizon milking it's cash cow. They know a lot people are using VoIP services for voice, there is no benefit to charge for text because there are apps for that, so where do they get their money? They get their money from you lacking WiFi when you need it, when you are on their network. VoIP uses data, apps use data, everything is moving to requiring a digital/data connection. This "limit" won't last long. At least in my opinion. I believe we should pay for speed tiers, not data consumption caps. They should adopt the policy of the cable providers. 300GB or whatever it is on Comcast, but you pay for the speed. LTE is capable of the average Cable subscriber speed, and Verizon could EASILY steal customers away from cable providers if they went to a speed based policy rather than capped data policy. But, I am rambling, lol.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] trparky:
I have a Galaxy Nexus myself, a phone that I love having. Though it comes from the factory with a locked bootloader, you can unlock the bootloader with a series of Fastboot commands at the command prompt. As you may have guessed, I have unlocked the bootloader and I have done what I please on my phone. Hell, I have Jellybean on my phone and it's not even out yet for any other phone.

As for your fight against Verizon, I do really hope that you win. Not only for yourself but for the rest of the community.

Locked bootloaders limit innovation on these phones. Not only that, but we bought these phones, they are our devices; not Verizon's! If I wanted a walled garden I would've bought a damned iPhone. I want freedom, freedom to do what I please with my devices. That's why I chose Android. To have a locked bootloader my freedom to do what I want is limited.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] skennelly:
A thought just occurred to me. It may be irrelevant and not even remotely apply. If so, please remove this post. However, has anyone considered the Maguson-Moss Warranty Act? My limited understanding to this Act is regarding equipment manufacturers like John Deere, Caterpillar, Vermeer, etc. For example, it is my understanding that an equipment manufacturer (John Deere) cannot tell the consumer, that in order to maintain their warranty on their equipment they must use John Deere Plus 50 motor oil. If using this lubricant is necessary for maintaining the warranty then John Deere must provide that lubricant at no cost to the consumer.

If my understanding of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is accurate, is it possible that Verizon demanding that you must run VZW approved software on their devices be a violation of M-M?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Pete7ate:
My battery life is not good. I have mist notifications turned off
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] AtLemacks:
Interesting, however, I wonder if it would apply to OEM or provider in this circumstance. If it's OEM and Verizon implemented the lock it's no good. If it's provider and OEM did the lock this is no good. At least that's how I read it. It would have to apply to OEM placing an OEM lock.

Your avatar must be you in real life...
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] droidstyle:
Bath salts much?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] skennelly:
True.

Again, I am certainly not an expert and I am not exactly sure of the relationship between John Deere OEM (Samsung so to speak) and John Deere Dealer (Verizon). John Deere manufactures the equipment, sells it to the dealer, and the dealer sells it to the end user. Any warranty work/repairs are done by the dealer and then paid for/reimbursed by the OEM. Not sure this is even relevant. Most likely doesn't apply, but may be another avenue.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] EDNYLaw:
I like the "outside the box" thinking, however I can't see how this would apply to VZW. Even if the Act applied to electronic manufacturers and carriers (which I'm not sure that it would), based on your example, and I haven't had time to research it on my own, VZW, by demanding a lock and requiring VZW software, just has to provide free maintenance (or whatever is needed) which they do. VZW gives "maintenance" in the form of OTA updates.

Perhaps though, there's a property rights argument to be made. In that, because you are not leasing/renting the property, instead you own the property, a 3rd party cannot control how you interface with that property. However, because it connects to THEIR network, there might be some leverage they can use.

C Block regs provide the greatest argument against what VZW is doing, the problem is, C Block is unique (as far as I know) and so there is little to no precedent on the issue. The best thing going for us right now is the FCC's 7/31 decision. When (yes when because I've decided that when I get a free minute I'll amend my brief to make it more effective) I amend my brief I will hammer on this fact. Additionally, I will argue that the regulations need to be expanded to include unlocked bootloaders. I think VZW's biggest fail is they argue that unlocked bootloaders could affect other customers, yet allow certain devices to be unlocked and allow their LTE cards on any computer that'll accept them. They negate their own argument. It's like a prison citing safety concerns while giving each inmate a handgun. It's logically inconsistent and it will be their undoing. We just need to raise the issue enough times with the FCC and eventually they'll agree.

However, there is one caveat I can think of that would certainly be a disappointment. Pointing out this logical inconsistency, VZW may say fine, in light of our policy that unlocked bootloaders may affect other customers, no device on our network will be unlockable. I would hope it won't come to that, but VZW does seem to be a bit Draconian in their policies on occassion (usually).
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] AndroidGraphix:
Hi EDNYLaw,

I completed the word.doc then exported it via PDF. I'm going to mail it off to FCC and my local senators. Do I just need to mail this complaint form out by itself?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] EDNYLaw:
Yep, I just faxed it to everyone but mailing is probably nice since everything is electronic nowadays, paper stands out.

I'd also suggest sending it to all the commissioners and the chairman of the FCC. Though I wouldn't waste the postage, just email them.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] AndroidGraphix:
Here's my proof. Going to the Post Office in about an hour. Thanks.;) At least I have Arizona covered. Anybody else?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] EDNYLaw:
Haha, good man! I hope more follow suit!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] yosterwp:
I am not too familiar with laws and regulations, but would the situation be different if Verizon sold a phone (released after the Samsung Galaxy SIII) that runs android but has an unlockable bootloader? Perhaps the "Pantech Marauder"?

What I am suggesting here is if this "Pantech Marauder" had an unlockable bootloader (or has, I haven't seen anyone attempting it yet...), then wouldn't that make Verizon's arguments for locking bootloaders moot?

Again, I have not studied laws and regulations to a fine degree, so if there is something to say about this, I do want to know.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] trafalger888:
They had locked phones prior x2 for example than unlocked nexus then back to locked with s3 so they have a mix of unlocked and locked now
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] EDNYLaw:
The OG Droid had an unlocked bootloader, but every subsequent Motorola device released on VZW has had a locked bootloader. They released the GNex which by it's very definition (Nexus) has an unlocked bootloader. They flip flop with the bootloaders and in my complaint I devote an entire section to how VZW's argument holds no water because they can't say an unlocked bootloader may affect their network, then selectively release devices with unlocked bootloaders.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Farabomb:
Don't forget the Droid Charge. Unlocked 4LTE Samsung phone... that they quickly abandoned. That's what I came from expecting a unlocked BL on a 4LTE phone that I might be able to keep for a few years.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Karl:
please keep this going even though we have unsecured bootloaded it wasn't officially done and not to mention Google wallet is still blocked by Verizon(yes i know there is a work around)
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] IHaveAWeaknessFor:
It has been 2 weeks since the last reply, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the locked bootloader is still an issue? Any updates?
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] digitalsynner85:
bootloader has been unlocked but not officially by verizon or samsung, the issue is that it shouldn't have been locked in the first place by verizon when every other carrier received an unlocked, untampered version of the phone
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] JohnnyTToxic:
I hope something still comes of this on principle alone. Thanks for "lawyering" up, guys. :)
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] EDNYLaw:
Keep spreading the word. It would seem the FCC is finally starting to catch on, fining Verizon $1.25 million for not allowing Google Wallet and Tether Apps. Now that we have a little precedent as to what constitutes a violation of C Block and we now know that the FCC will in fact enforce their regulations (up until this point they hadn't made a single move on C Block regs which were established in 2007) we can argue to extend the violations to locked bootloaders. I think that in order to succeed, one has to successfully (obviously) argue that an OS is no different than an app, in terms of C Block regs. The regs prevent Verizon from blocking an install of anything that competes with their "telephony" services/products.

Therefore, the argument could be made that a custom ROM "competes" with their telephony services/products and is therefore in violation of the C Block regs. The argument is significantly easier now that there's some precedent. When I did the original research, there was nothing except some committee notes regarding ISPs and policies concerning them, but there was really nothing (certainly no affirmative action by the FCC) regarding mobile carriers and competing products.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] AndroidGraphix:
If you have something new, please post it. I sent in what you recommended. I haven't heard anything back but then again. It was only three or so weeka ago.
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Mulox:
Keep it up!

Awesome work, keep it up!
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] EDNYLaw:
I haven't had time to get anything new out yet, been swamped as of late. When I do I'll post it here, no worries. :)
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] EDNYLaw:
Hey guys, I've started a blog on my website jasonklimek.webs.com and I invite everyone over there to discuss technology and legal topics and follow the latest developments with the laws. I will also be continuing the bootloader fight, there should be an upcoming article on aosp.us by me with some speculation regarding bootloader policies. Hope to see you all there!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2
[Verizon Samsung Galaxy S III] Karl:
Thank you

Sent from my Galaxy S III using Forum Runner
[T-Mobile LG G2x] FeloHFP:
well i havent use my g2x in like, i dont know 4 to 5 months, and is really outdated, i want to know what rom is the most stable one that i can use right now, needs to have wifi calling, is a must, i dont care if i have to stay on GB

back when i was using it , i was using weapon 3.0, is that an option still? thanks
[T-Mobile LG G2x] bg1906:
I was on Weapon too, but now I prefer CM7.2 with Faux123 v50. I OC to 1.2 and its stable and I like it a lot. Still occasional SOD and every so often a random reboot but other than that is cool.
[T-Mobile LG G2x] veyka:
Closed, read, flash, and find out for yourself.
[Atrix 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Darkvlaad:
Does the OTA updates change the bootloader if this one is unlocked?

Envoyé depuis mon MB860 avec Tapatalk
[Atrix 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] upndwn4par:
You should not do OTA updates with an unlocked bootloader.
[Atrix 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Darkvlaad:
why?? ota update incluse a bootloader?
[Atrix 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Darkvlaad:
Include*
[Atrix 4G Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] tatperson:
You may face a hard brick.

Sent from my undervolted, underclocked, power saving Motorola Atrix.
[Samsung Galaxy R i9103] ankitpsaraogi:
I have 2 email accounts.

I am using the default email client and in my second account I don't get the option of push service.

However there is an option of checking email frequency, which I have set to 15 mins but it doesn't check. I have to manually Check it. Please help me to set push service to it.

Here r the settings for my first account

Here r the settings for the second account
[Samsung Galaxy R i9103] 'cooleagle':
You have not set it as a premium account when you added it to the device.

Delete that second account & add it once again but this time remember to tick on the field / option which says set it up as a premium account. This option is there where you input the email ID & password, actually it's just below the password field.

Hope this helps. :)
[Samsung Galaxy R i9103] ankitpsaraogi:
Thanks alot.

It I help and now I am getting the sync option. But the issue is that the push mail isn't working. Is it something to do with the pop settings?

Also the email sent from both the accounts show the email as display name and not my actual name (first name last name') as is the case when I send through Web. So it will be a great help if u help me solve that too..

:)
[Samsung Galaxy R i9103] 'cooleagle':
I think you should check your pop mail settings as it used to work for me when I had used this app in the past but I don't think it would be as good / fast as Blackberry Push Mail.

Cheers !
[Samsung Galaxy R i9103] ankitpsaraogi:
I tried but unsuccessful
[Samsung Galaxy R i9103] ankitpsaraogi:
And how to setup that my name instead of my email address appear to the recipient????
[Samsung Galaxy R i9103] selva.simple:
For Yahoo mail, open ur mail box in web. Got to Options >> Advanced Options >> Mail Accounts >> Sending name. Check whether it has your name or the email address. If Email address, change it to ur display name. :)
[Samsung Galaxy R i9103] ankitpsaraogi:
That I have done already but it works only for mails sent from the Web and not from my Android email client. This is a feature of email client and not the email provider.
[Samsung Galaxy R i9103] ankitpsaraogi:
Yeah it's working now... Thanks:):thumbup::cool:
[Samsung Galaxy R i9103] Nephilim983:
I was wondering the same thing...and how do i do that? where?
[Samsung Galaxy R i9103] ankitpsaraogi:
Set display name in Social hub email app.

There is no option to set the display name which will appear in the in box of the recipient.

http://www.4shared.com/photo/6K-5NBfy/Screenshot_2012-10-08-09-44-59.html

And am unable to change the topic name from my app.

Pls help
[Samsung Galaxy R i9103] ankitpsaraogi:
Pls help fellas
[Galaxy Tab 2 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Chuckles960:
I flashed CM9, but I really liked the original Samsung notification popup---more information, larger, more helpful. How can I reproduce it under CM9?

I should note that this is NOT connected to the Samsung launcher (I had replaced it with the stock ICS launcher while still using the Samsung ROM, and the notification layout was unchanged). I also foolishly purchased a Touchwiz theme from Google Play, but it didn't do anything for the notification layout.
[Galaxy Tab 2 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] scottx .:
You can't.
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] rommark:
Hello,

Whats best JB Kernel and Radio for International S2?

Please vote for:

- Radio

- Kernel for JB

For international Galaxy S2,

Ty :) Will help many newbies and wondering ppl!
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] beston94:
You've been on this site for 4 years and you still didn't find the common sense to read sticky's and find out that these kinds of threads aren't allowed?

With regards,

Beston94
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] rommark:
Some times giving the freedom beyond the rules is what makes the forum into more friendly to NEW guys who got no clue in this things but looking for easy, instant information.
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] kilometers4:
A. You're not allowed to post a "what is the best_____" thread

B. Radio is location dependant, so you can start trying them out. (they take a few cycles for them to settle, just like flashing roms and kernels)
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] theunderling:
He looks like he didnt read your new thread Kilometer.But at least he put a ? in his topic title(unlike I do).

Sent from my GT-I9100
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] kilometers4:
Why do you think this is the best place to post this?
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] beston94:
This really isn't the place to ask questions... And you could ask that question in the siyah discussion thread. Rather than the development thread.
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] CrashUK:
Ok m8

I am using Dorimanx v7.33 for JB.. on android v4.2.1 - cm10.1 I am using this so I can undervolt to get the battery to last longer. Doing the same thing I can get 2 days on ICS.

I dont know about radio but try out GetRIL so the RIL and Baseband are the same on every one they never match.
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Donnie Sins:
It's better for new guys to read for themselves, so they know what they are flashing. Otherwise you get dozens of annoying questions afterwarts about their rom, because they blindly follow advise about roms that are based on personal preferrences (which maybe don't match their own expectations).

Sent from the Matrix
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] Paulius7:
People...

Why you can't read stickies threads for 10 minutes it's not hard ? Isn't it ?

Merry christmas and Happy new year

Paulius
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] adderxp:
just updated to ics 4.0.4 on galaxy s2 and keeps randomly dropping the wifi any ideas for a cure :good:
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] snebop:
ICS 4.0.4 - wifi dropping randomly

mine 2, after upgrading from 4.0.3 to 4.0.4 today (norwegian, LQ6). have no idea why. might try elixir2/alogcat, but dunno what to look for. anyone else got an idea?

br

Svein Idar
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] joshwuk:
Bump, same thing. Was fine with the stock gingerbread and seemed fine with ICS 4.0.3 (though many people have been reporting problems)

After updating via kies to 4.0.4 yesterday my wifi is nulled.

Wifi analyzer is reporting great signal strength but it hardly loads any pages/apps and cuts out in under 40 secs.

*Want to downgrade back to 4.0.3*

Edit: I have a Virgin Superhub if thats a common denominator with you guys
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] snebop:
In my case, this problem persists on every wifi access point I connect to: work, home, train, supermarket... this is not related to router/hub brand.
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] joshwuk:
I haven't tested mine on any other network so i assume its not functional anywhere,

I don't have the first clue about how to downgrade it back to 4.0.3 though I would love for that to be an option in Kies, 'flash previous Rom'

It might be, as I say I haven't looked into it yet, give it another week with no Wifi and I'm sure it'll be bugging me though. This could be a blessing in disguise, I might end up with a bloatware free cooked rom, yey!

:D:cool:
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] joshwuk:
http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1792463

This thread may assist those who wish to 'solve it themselves'
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] oddlyshapedstickman:
Try another kernel.
[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] joshwuk:
Ok I went to the official firmware section : http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1544487

Downloaded android I9100XWLPT (4.0.4) [the same version which was already installed]

Reflashed with odin (make sure kies is closed or it won't work) now my Wi-fi is working perfectly with 4.0.4.

weird.
[Sony Ericsson XPERIA X10 Mini] alkeymacpot:
Hey guys and thank you for all your help. New to all this and its been going good.

I installed custom rom GingerDX v21b on my girfriends x10 mini pro for her. and now she seems to not beable to find out how to activate the front facing camera.

how do we activate the front facing camera?
[Sony Ericsson XPERIA X10 Mini] demoniacs:
what front facing camera?
[Sony Ericsson XPERIA X10 Mini] UchihaDareNial:
There is no front facing camera for x10 Mini Pro
[Android Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] landwomble:
Where's Google listen gone to? I can't see it on Play on any of my devices anymore!
[Android Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] gagdude:
They stopped supporting it. Haven't you heard?