[Verizon Galaxy S 5 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] dreamwave:
I just posted a reply to the complaint thusfar, and it reads as follows:

"In summary, I specifically demand of Verizon, as a company and as an entity, *direct* and *factually supported* responses to the following questions/complaints I currently have previously mentioned:

1. The stance that it is an accepted standard that constitutes "reasonable network management":

Across the industry, the average phone is released with a system initiation/execution system (bootloader) that is possible to modify by the user after accepting that doing so will make the warrantee "null and void," and that after doing so modification, its consequences, and the repairs that may be required are the burden of the user.

Across all devices Verizon offers, there are several that have had bootloaders that have been possible *by design and original intent* to modify, notably the Galaxy Nexus. This lack of any continuity nullifies the argument that it provides for an increase in the security of the carrier's network systems as such devices would be readily available to users with mal-intent, however they are not used for that reason, primarily because of the following question/complaint I have

2. A device with an unlocked bootloader does not, above what is offered by similar devices with restricted bootloaders, pose any significant *demonstratable or previously demonstrated* risk to the security of the host network. I have failed, in extensive research and with contact with Verizon over the matter, been shown any case or hypothetical example that would allow for a phone to compromise the security of the host network by a method that an unrestricted bootloader would serve a role beyond trivial, passive, involvement. On a whole, due to the unrestricted nature of the application ecosystem of Android, the execution of dangerous code on a network would not be affected by an unrestricted bootloader even if it were at all possible to directly execute any such code on a network that makes use of modern protocols and standards for server operation.

3. I still find no supported objection to, or exception from, the contents of paragraph 222 and footnote 500 of FCC-07-132A1 that would allow for the restrictions mentioned

4. As mentioned in the original phone call from Verizon, one argument they provided was that they were allowed choice of operating system based on footnote 502. Although I do not currently have access to the document directly at the current time due to the FCC undergoing server renovation/upgrades, to the best of my memory it carried meaning as follows: the carrier may be allowed to implement and use their choice of software such as to not require modification of the host network. This allows for the preinstallation of endorsed applications and the modification of the /system partition of the phone to interface with update protocols that Verizon has established, along with various modem/radio firmware modifications to accommodate the network bands and protocols in use. This does not specifically allow for undue burden on the consumer, and as it is modification that does not affect the ability of the phone to interface with the network to avoid network modification, it is not protected under this clause.

5. The protection (on the part of the end user) that is provided by wording to the effect of the following: "the installation of applications on the part of the user may not be impinged or disrupted by the host carrier outside of existing laws and regulations or reasonable network management.

I make these demands of defense on the part of the carrier as demands based on the fact that the regulations pertaining to Block C place the burden of proof on the part of the licensee, and any direct challenge to the licensee's adherence to Block C regulations requires that the licensee prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are, indeed, following these regulations."