|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > March 2007 > VZW still disabling mp3 players?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
VZW still disabling mp3 players?
|
|
| David Matthew Wood 2007-02-08, 4:33 am |
| I have the Samsung SCH-A950 which I have re-enabled the MP3 player on,
because I was quite pissed to learn that my phone would only play WMAs
out of the box since Verizon purposely hides the player, and I refuse to
further lose audio quality by recomposing a lossy format (MP3) to
another lossy format (WMA)...not to mention that WMA isn't really what I
would call standard anyway, and I refuse to support the format (I'm also
very anti-Microsoft, but I'll skip that for now).
While I am aware that it can easily be re-enabled on the VCast version
of the firmware, I decided to downgrade the firmware on my phone because
I found it to run much faster without all the VCast crap which I never
use anyway.
Since I don't like carrying multiple things around, I am quite happy
using my cell phone to play MP3s when I'm in the car and such. Granted,
there is no EQ or anything else "fancy" about it, but it doesn't matter
since most of the time I listen to it through the car stereo anyway.
My question though is this. Is Verizon still doing this on their
phones? That is, are they still hiding the MP3 function so they can
"force" users to convert everything to WMAs if they wish to put music on
their phones memory cards? I know the LG Chocolate plays MP3s without
user modification, but what about Verizon's other new phones?
TIA
David
| |
| tscottme 2007-02-08, 4:33 am |
| "David Matthew Wood" < nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote in message
<snip>
>
> My question though is this. Is Verizon still doing this on their
> phones? That is, are they still hiding the MP3 function so they can
> "force" users to convert everything to WMAs if they wish to put music on
> their phones memory cards? I know the LG Chocolate plays MP3s without
> user modification, but what about Verizon's other new phones?
>
> TIA
> David
My brother just switched to Vzw and his LG 8300 phone(I think that is the
model he has) will play MP3s right out of the box. I think all the phone
does by default to discourage newbies from loading the phone with their own
MP3 files, rather than buying them from Vzw, is hide the folder in memory
where files are stored.
I don't think I would get very worked up on limited format playback on a
cellphone. It's a minimal player with minimal features. Few of them even
vaguely hint a customer might use it as their primary music player. If the
phones played 20 different file formats you can be sure there would be
someone whining that yes they can only be seen in public with the newest
phone and that phone must play the Bob&Fred format or the world will end and
Vzw is satan himself. It's a phone, if it does something else that's a
bonus. Swiss Army knives are great not because their scissors and their
tweezers are the best such tools on the face of the earth but because they
have some stuff in one place just in case it will be handy.
--
Scott
| |
| Martin Kallikak, Jr. 2007-02-08, 7:33 am |
| "David Matthew Wood" < nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote in message
news:nodmwood78-AB85DA.02361408022007@news.verizon.net...
>I have the Samsung SCH-A950 which I have re-enabled the MP3 player on,
> because I was quite pissed to learn that my phone would only play WMAs
> out of the box since Verizon purposely hides the player, and I refuse to
> further lose audio quality by recomposing a lossy format (MP3) to
> another lossy format (WMA)...not to mention that WMA isn't really what I
> would call standard anyway, and I refuse to support the format (I'm also
> very anti-Microsoft, but I'll skip that for now).
> While I am aware that it can easily be re-enabled on the VCast version
> of the firmware, I decided to downgrade the firmware on my phone because
> I found it to run much faster without all the VCast crap which I never
> use anyway.
> Since I don't like carrying multiple things around, I am quite happy
> using my cell phone to play MP3s when I'm in the car and such. Granted,
> there is no EQ or anything else "fancy" about it, but it doesn't matter
> since most of the time I listen to it through the car stereo anyway.
>
> My question though is this. Is Verizon still doing this on their
> phones? That is, are they still hiding the MP3 function so they can
> "force" users to convert everything to WMAs if they wish to put music on
> their phones memory cards? I know the LG Chocolate plays MP3s without
> user modification, but what about Verizon's other new phones?
>
> TIA
> David
Davey my boy, you must lead one hell of an empty, vapid life totally devoid
of responsibility, social interaction or obligation if this is what you
whine about...
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-02-08, 7:33 am |
| In article <ac2dnVCrI-Joj1bYnZ2dnUVZ_s-rnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Martin Kallikak, Jr." <noone> wrote:
> "David Matthew Wood" < nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote in message
> news:nodmwood78-AB85DA.02361408022007@news.verizon.net...
>
>
> Davey my boy, you must lead one hell of an empty, vapid life totally devoid
> of responsibility, social interaction or obligation if this is what you
> whine about...
Um....no, I just like to be able to use features that are supposed to
come with my phone, and not have them disabled because some business
wants me to use a different file format instead. The whole reason I
picked the a950 was because it was advertised as being able to play
mp3s. It's a cool thing to have built into your cell if you don't want
to carry multiple devices around.
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-02-08, 7:33 am |
| In article <kYKdnfV- CoyiclfYnZ2dnUVZ_uej
nZ2d@comcast.com>,
"tscottme" <blahblah@blah.net> wrote:
> "David Matthew Wood" < nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote in message
> <snip>
>
> My brother just switched to Vzw and his LG 8300 phone(I think that is the
> model he has) will play MP3s right out of the box. I think all the phone
> does by default to discourage newbies from loading the phone with their own
> MP3 files, rather than buying them from Vzw, is hide the folder in memory
> where files are stored.
From what I see, you still have to go into the phone's service menu to
enable the mp3 player on the LG 8300.
> I don't think I would get very worked up on limited format playback on a
> cellphone. It's a minimal player with minimal features.
And a minimal player with minimal features is exactly what I wanted when
I picked the a950, which by the way was originally advertised as being
able to play MP3.
> Few of them even
> vaguely hint a customer might use it as their primary music player. If the
> phones played 20 different file formats you can be sure there would be
> someone whining that yes they can only be seen in public with the newest
> phone and that phone must play the Bob&Fred format or the world will end and
> Vzw is satan himself.
MP3 is a pretty standard format. Why should I have to convert to a
different format when the phone is supposed to come with an MP3 player
in the first place (which it does, but Verizon disables)?
> It's a phone, if it does something else that's a
> bonus. Swiss Army knives are great not because their scissors and their
> tweezers are the best such tools on the face of the earth but because they
> have some stuff in one place just in case it will be handy.
I've never seen a store that purposely disables features on a Swiss Army
knife, have you? ;)
| |
| Evan Platt 2007-02-08, 10:33 am |
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:42:09 GMT, David Matthew Wood
< nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote:
>Um....no, I just like to be able to use features that are supposed to
>come with my phone, and not have them disabled because some business
>wants me to use a different file format instead. The whole reason I
>picked the a950 was because it was advertised as being able to play
>mp3s. It's a cool thing to have built into your cell if you don't want
>to carry multiple devices around.
Where was it advertised the 950 plays mp3's?
It's no longer on Verizon's site, at least for me.
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-02-08, 10:33 am |
| In article < bufms2peojsof5b7i1j1
mpccf2f5705rcm@4ax.com>,
Evan Platt <evan@theobvious.espphotography.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:42:09 GMT, David Matthew Wood
> < nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote:
>
>
> Where was it advertised the 950 plays mp3's?
>
> It's no longer on Verizon's site, at least for me.
Back when I was researching different phones, it was. Unfortunately, I
got mine just after Verizon started VCast, so unbeknown to me, it had
the new MP3 player disabling firmware on it already. All the 950s sold
prior to VCast had older firmware on them which had the MP3 players
intact.
If you look at the VCast FAQ now though, it says that the MP3 player is
removed when you put VCast on. This is BS. It's not removed, just
disabled. If you manage to find and download the settings utility and
use a data cable, you can enable the service menu on this phone and once
you're there you can turn the MP3 player back on. Verizon's public
reason for doing this is because "We wanted one music player on the
phone with a simple and consistent look and feel throughout the player.
If we were to leave (the MP3 support intact), then there would be two
players with different experiences."... meh I guess it's just me, but I
think that's a pretty lame reason. I mean what if a computer
manufacturer said that they wanted to simplify the interface for users,
and so they somehow made it so that the only media player that would
work on your PC would be Realplayer?
| |
| Pegleg 2007-02-08, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:42:09 GMT, David Matthew Wood
< nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote:
>Um....no, I just like to be able to use features that are supposed to
>come with my phone, and not have them disabled because some business
>wants me to use a different file format instead. The whole reason I
>picked the a950 was because it was advertised as being able to play
>mp3s. It's a cool thing to have built into your cell if you don't want
>to carry multiple devices around.
Yea, and the quality of the sound is so great too!!!!!!!!!!!
NOT!
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-02-08, 3:33 pm |
| In article < 15nms21802lf92jvfo0t
abuk3b4ktcjcja@4ax.com>,
Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:42:09 GMT, David Matthew Wood
> < nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yea, and the quality of the sound is so great too!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> NOT!
Actually for an MP3 player built into a cell phone, it sounds pretty
damn good if use high bitrate MP3s like I do! Not CD quality of course
since it is MP3 afterall, but still it sounds good! If anything I
thought it was going to be noisey, what with all the electronics in the
phone, but no, it outputs very clean audio. It's on par with the
quality you get out of any average MP3 player. There is no EQ of
course, but for what I do with it, I don't need it to have one anyway.
| |
| tscottme 2007-02-08, 3:33 pm |
| "Martin Kallikak, Jr." <noone> wrote in message news:ac2dnVCrI-
>
> Davey my boy, you must lead one hell of an empty, vapid life totally
> devoid of responsibility, social interaction or obligation if this is what
> you whine about...
Standby for more of this. With most children being only children this sort
of thing will become the norm.
--
Scott
| |
| tscottme 2007-02-08, 3:33 pm |
| The world is as it is. You can buy a gun and shoot everyone at the post
office because of some small annoyance or you can recognize even if Vzw
drove to your house and loaded your phone with all of your files, you would
stil have problems.
--
Scott
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-02-08, 3:33 pm |
| In article < v6ednVT2QsucGFbYnZ2d
nUVZ_segnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
"tscottme" <blahblah@blah.net> wrote:
> The world is as it is. You can buy a gun and shoot everyone at the post
> office because of some small annoyance or you can recognize even if Vzw
> drove to your house and loaded your phone with all of your files, you would
> stil have problems.
No, not if the phone was doing what it was supposed to do. This is
something that Samsung built into it and Verizon disabled. The ability
to use the phone as a wireless modem is another - granted it's easy to
re-enable it if you have the utility in hand, but still it's a feature
that should have been there from the beginning.
Bluetooth is yet another. Don't get me wrong, I do like their coverage.
That is why I have had Verizon since 02. But it is annoying that they
disable features that were there in the beginning. It's like what if
you got a car and it came with a really nice sound system (not as good
as say aftermarket, but in this case it works)? Say it came with a CD
player built in by the head unit's OEM, but the car dealer decided that
you should only listen to the radio and decided to disable the CD
player, making you pay extra for something that should already be there?
Same thing really.
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-02-08, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 9_WdncE3q5wNGVbYnZ2d
nUVZ_sapnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
"tscottme" <blahblah@blah.net> wrote:
> "Martin Kallikak, Jr." <noone> wrote in message news:ac2dnVCrI-
>
>
> Standby for more of this. With most children being only children this sort
> of thing will become the norm.
Wow...I was just asking a simple question, I didn't think that I'd get
replies from complete assholes. That's just the kind of thinking that
is making me want to leave Verizon in the first place.
| |
| trippy 2007-02-09, 4:33 am |
| In article <ac2dnVCrI-Joj1bYnZ2dnUVZ_s-rnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Martin
Kallikak, Jr." <noone> took the hamburger meat, threw it on the grill,
and I said "Oh Wow"...
> "David Matthew Wood" < nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote in message
> news:nodmwood78-AB85DA.02361408022007@news.verizon.net...
>
>
> Davey my boy, you must lead one hell of an empty, vapid life totally devoid
> of responsibility, social interaction or obligation if this is what you
> whine about...
>
>
>
It's a legitmate complaint. Why should someone pay for functionality
that the phone already comes with?
--
trippy
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM
NP: "Back For More" -- Ratt
"Now, technology's getting better all the time and that's fine,
but most of the time all you need is a stick of gum, a pocketknife,
and a smile."
-- Robert Redford "Spy Game"
| |
| tscottme 2007-02-09, 4:33 am |
|
"trippy" < silverbells@tacoshel
ls.com> wrote in message
news:MPG. 2035cfcbf2078a4e989d
79@news.alt.net...
> In article <ac2dnVCrI-Joj1bYnZ2dnUVZ_s-rnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Martin
> Kallikak, Jr." <noone> took the hamburger meat, threw it on the grill,
> and I said "Oh Wow"...
>
>
> It's a legitmate complaint. Why should someone pay for functionality
> that the phone already comes with?
>
> --
> trippy
It's a legitimate complaint if the phone was advertised as playing mp3 files
and it doesn't play them. But it didn't provoke him to cancel his contract
during the trial period. Surely if mp3 playback was such an important
feature he wouldn't wait for weeks and weeks before attempting to play mp3
files for the first time? If cirmcumstances conspired such that he finds
himself with the phone, past the trial period, and bitter he could rip a
copy of all important files and play them on his phone. The absence of any
effort to cope with this grave injustice suggests this complaint is just a
excuse to complain about the evil phone company.
--
Scott
| |
| SlobbyDon 2007-02-09, 10:33 am |
| David Matthew Wood wrote:
> In article < v6ednVT2QsucGFbYnZ2d
nUVZ_segnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
> "tscottme" <blahblah@blah.net> wrote:
>=20
> Bluetooth is yet another. Don't get me wrong, I do like their
> coverage. That is why I have had Verizon since 02. But it is
> annoying that they disable features that were there in the beginning.
> It's like what if you got a car and it came with a really nice sound
> system (not as good as say aftermarket, but in this case it works)?=20
> Say it came with a CD player built in by the head unit's OEM, but the
> car dealer decided that you should only listen to the radio and
> decided to disable the CD player, making you pay extra for something
> that should already be there? Same thing really.
Can you play mp3s through bluetooth? I've tried to do that and it =
didn't work.
--=20
SlobbyDon
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-02-09, 10:33 pm |
| In article < Ob2dnRsExdlKp1HYnZ2d
nUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
"tscottme" <blahblah@blah.net> wrote:
> "trippy" < silverbells@tacoshel
ls.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG. 2035cfcbf2078a4e989d
79@news.alt.net...
>
>
> It's a legitimate complaint if the phone was advertised as playing mp3 files
> and it doesn't play them.
And it was when I ordered it, which is why I picked this phone as part
of "new every two".
> But it didn't provoke him to cancel his contract
> during the trial period.
Because as a subscriber since 2002, not to mention that there are other
phones on this account that are locked in by contract, I couldn't
cancel, that's why. There was no trial period.
> Surely if mp3 playback was such an important
> feature he wouldn't wait for weeks and weeks before attempting to play mp3
> files for the first time? If cirmcumstances conspired such that he finds
> himself with the phone, past the trial period, and bitter he could rip a
> copy of all important files and play them on his phone.
That's completely illogical. Why should I have to lose more quality by
converting one lossy format to yet another lossy format when the phone
already has the software to play MP3s on it anyway? Not to mention that
WMA is a proprietary format with extremely limited support on platforms
other than Windows, while MP3 is a STANDARD format which has TONS of
support and is cross-platform. You are aware that there are other
operating systems out there, and that not all of us run Windows, right?
> The absence of any
> effort to cope with this grave injustice suggests this complaint is just a
> excuse to complain about the evil phone company.
See, I love how you make these assumptions without first checking to see
if they're true or not.
At any rate, I asked a simple question since it is again almost time for
my "new every two". It plays a big part of whether or not I plan to
stay with Verizon or switch to someone else once this contract expires.
Does Verizon still disable features like this on their phones, yes or
no? I fail to see why you have to get so defensive about it and make it
so complicated. In fact, it is smart XXX replies like yours and
Martin's that make me want to switch even more.
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-02-09, 10:33 pm |
| In article <Q_0zh.22476$w91.1147@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"SlobbyDon" < slobby_NIXSPAMdon@ma
il.ru> wrote:
> David Matthew Wood wrote:
>
> Can you play mp3s through bluetooth? I've tried to do that and it didn't
> work.
I'm not sure if it's doable on the a950 or not, as I've never tried that
before. Usually I just use it to play MP3s through the car stereo using
this adaptor: http://www.cellularaccessory.com/aets43cseb.html
| |
| tscottme 2007-02-09, 10:33 pm |
| Switch companies, it makes no difference to me one way or another. If you
were posting exactly the same message about any carrier I would say the same
thing.
The darn music files can't be very important, despite your postings, if you
aren't willing to make them playable on your phone. You will be listening
to degraded sound whether you play 320 kbps ogg vorbis, MP3 or any format,
it's a phone not a studio monitor. It's only a very limited mp3 player,
it's a phone.
Even if the mp3 elves broke into your home and loaded the music files on
your phone and hacked the phone to accept telepathic file transfer of every
file format, the phone have limited capacity. I have been around usenet
long enough to recognize when someone is elevating one feature as the most
important feature only for the sake of comaplaining that feature doesn't
suit them. Every other shortcoming of using a phone as mp3 player is
suitable as a complaint. Current users on current phones are able to play
mp3 files. In my brother's case he simply loades them on the memory card
and install the memory card. That's a terrible effort, but somehow he
manages to overcome such indignity.
If the music was important you would lift a finger to put them where you
absolutely can hear them. The fact you won't lift a finger indicates the
truth of the situation.
--
Scott
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-02-10, 4:33 am |
| In article < GdadnXOP3vS_mlDYnZ2d
nUVZ_rWnnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
"tscottme" <blahblah@blah.net> wrote:
> Switch companies, it makes no difference to me one way or another. If you
> were posting exactly the same message about any carrier I would say the same
> thing.
>
> The darn music files can't be very important, despite your postings, if you
> aren't willing to make them playable on your phone.
I did make them playable on my phone, by "modifying" my phone and
re-enabling the MP3 player. My point is though, I should not have had
to do this.
> You will be listening
> to degraded sound whether you play 320 kbps ogg vorbis, MP3 or any format,
> it's a phone not a studio monitor. It's only a very limited mp3 player,
> it's a phone.
Limited only in features. You'd be surprised with how good the audio
quality is actually. I myself thought it would be very noisy and
extremely lacking, but this isn't the case at all. It is very clean
audio.
> Even if the mp3 elves broke into your home and loaded the music files on
> your phone and hacked the phone to accept telepathic file transfer of every
> file format, the phone have limited capacity. I have been around usenet
> long enough to recognize when someone is elevating one feature as the most
> important feature only for the sake of comaplaining that feature doesn't
> suit them.
Did I ever say this was the most important feature of my phone? No, I
did not. It is however the reason I picked this phone, because I
thought it would be nice to have an MP3 player WITHOUT carrying extra
stuff around with me. Well after "hacking" my phone (although
technically I wouldn't really call it hacking - even though some people
would), it does exactly what I want.
> Every other shortcoming of using a phone as mp3 player is
> suitable as a complaint. Current users on current phones are able to play
> mp3 files. In my brother's case he simply loades them on the memory card
> and install the memory card. That's a terrible effort, but somehow he
> manages to overcome such indignity.
And that is exactly what I was asking.
> If the music was important you would lift a finger to put them where you
> absolutely can hear them. The fact you won't lift a finger indicates the
> truth of the situation.
Huh???!! If you even bothered to read my original post, you would know
that I did get my phone to play them, by downgrading the firmware. The
point is though, I should not have had to.
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-02-10, 4:33 am |
|
> The darn music files can't be very important, despite your postings, if you
> aren't willing to make them playable on your phone. You will be listening
> to degraded sound whether you play 320 kbps ogg vorbis, MP3 or any format,
> it's a phone not a studio monitor. It's only a very limited mp3 player,
> it's a phone.
Do you even read my posts before replying?
1, yes it's degraded, such is the nature of lossy compression..but there
is no sense in degrading it more when I should be able to play the
format they're already in.
2, WMA which is the format that Verizon wants people to convert to (read
the Vcast FAQ, it's all there), has extremely limited support for other
platforms. Oh yeah, it's easy, right? Download WMP 10 and re-encode my
music to WMA right? Well guess what, WMP 10 is ONLY available in
Windows XP! Again, Windows is NOT the only OS in the world!
At any rate, it may be a very limited MP3 player, but once I re-enabled
it using the phone's utility and then finally the phone's service menu,
it does exactly what I want - it plays MP3s off my memory card and it
does a pretty damn good job of it too. In fact, I continue to surprise
people by telling them that the music they are hearing is being played
off my cell phone.
| |
| trippy 2007-02-10, 3:33 pm |
| In article <nodmwood78-7914FF.02124710022007@news.verizon.net>, David
Matthew Wood took the hamburger meat, threw it on the grill, and I said
"Oh Wow"...
> In article < GdadnXOP3vS_mlDYnZ2d
nUVZ_rWnnZ2d@comcast
.com>,
> "tscottme" <blahblah@blah.net> wrote:
>
>
> I did make them playable on my phone, by "modifying" my phone and
> re-enabling the MP3 player. My point is though, I should not have had
> to do this.
>
No. No, you shouldn't.
>
> Limited only in features. You'd be surprised with how good the audio
> quality is actually. I myself thought it would be very noisy and
> extremely lacking, but this isn't the case at all. It is very clean
> audio.
>
>
>
> Did I ever say this was the most important feature of my phone? No, I
> did not. It is however the reason I picked this phone, because I
> thought it would be nice to have an MP3 player WITHOUT carrying extra
> stuff around with me. Well after "hacking" my phone (although
> technically I wouldn't really call it hacking - even though some people
> would), it does exactly what I want.
>
>
> And that is exactly what I was asking.
>
>
> Huh???!! If you even bothered to read my original post, you would know
> that I did get my phone to play them, by downgrading the firmware. The
> point is though, I should not have had to.
>
--
trippy
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM
NP: "Back For More" -- Ratt
"Now, technology's getting better all the time and that's fine,
but most of the time all you need is a stick of gum, a pocketknife,
and a smile."
-- Robert Redford "Spy Game"
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-02-11, 4:33 am |
| In article <MPG. 2037f5e86be39250989d
a8@news.alt.net>,
trippy < silverbells@tacoshel
ls.com> wrote:
> In article <nodmwood78-7914FF.02124710022007@news.verizon.net>, David
> Matthew Wood took the hamburger meat, threw it on the grill, and I said
> "Oh Wow"...
>
>
> No. No, you shouldn't.
Thanks. At least someone supports my point of view...
| |
| Andrew Duane 2007-02-13, 12:33 pm |
| I have a Nokia 6315i (which is actually re-branded Pantech).
It plays MP3s just fine, and in fact is sold as an MP3 player - it has
play/pause/etc on the front cover so you can easily navigate.
I dropped a few MP3s on my SD card and they are just fine. I haven't
dabbled with the "Sync" stuff yet, to get playlists from a PC. That's
as much my hatred of Windows PCs as much as anything else ;-)
On Feb 8, 2:36 am, David Matthew Wood <nodmwoo...@verizonspam.net>
wrote:
> I have the Samsung SCH-A950 which I have re-enabled the MP3 player on,
> because I was quite pissed to learn that my phone would only play WMAs
> out of the box since Verizon purposely hides the player, and I refuse to
> further lose audio quality by recomposing a lossy format (MP3) to
> another lossy format (WMA)...not to mention that WMA isn't really what I
> would call standard anyway, and I refuse to support the format (I'm also
> very anti-Microsoft, but I'll skip that for now).
> While I am aware that it can easily be re-enabled on the VCast version
> of the firmware, I decided to downgrade the firmware on my phone because
> I found it to run much faster without all the VCast crap which I never
> use anyway.
> Since I don't like carrying multiple things around, I am quite happy
> using my cell phone to play MP3s when I'm in the car and such. Granted,
> there is no EQ or anything else "fancy" about it, but it doesn't matter
> since most of the time I listen to it through the car stereo anyway.
>
> My question though is this. Is Verizon still doing this on their
> phones? That is, are they still hiding the MP3 function so they can
> "force" users to convert everything to WMAs if they wish to put music on
> their phones memory cards? I know the LG Chocolate plays MP3s without
> user modification, but what about Verizon's other new phones?
>
> TIA
> David
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-02-22, 7:33 am |
| In article <1171389744.055346.101100@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Andrew Duane" < andrew_l_duane@yahoo
.com> wrote:
> I have a Nokia 6315i (which is actually re-branded Pantech).
>
> It plays MP3s just fine, and in fact is sold as an MP3 player - it has
> play/pause/etc on the front cover so you can easily navigate.
> I dropped a few MP3s on my SD card and they are just fine. I haven't
> dabbled with the "Sync" stuff yet, to get playlists from a PC. That's
> as much my hatred of Windows PCs as much as anything else ;-)
Thanks, that's exactly the kind of thing I wanted to know!
| |
| Dodge Ramses 2007-03-02, 4:33 am |
| On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:39:16 GMT, David Matthew Wood
< nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote:
>In article <MPG. 2037f5e86be39250989d
a8@news.alt.net>,
> trippy < silverbells@tacoshel
ls.com> wrote:
>
>
>Thanks. At least someone supports my point of view...
I support your point of view as well. I am probably going to switch
to verizon because they have better coverage in my area, (I recently
moved), and I would also like to play ordinary mp3 files without
having to jump through any extra hoops. I frequently change the the
music on my current mp3 player, and changing them to an inferior
format would be time consuming and irritating.
I do not understand why any company would cripple their phones, it's
idiotic. Why not make them easier to use and make them more
competitive. Especially if the features already existed to begin with.
| |
|
|
| Pegleg 2007-03-02, 12:33 pm |
| On 2 Mar 2007 03:36:01 -0600, Dodge Ramses <Dodge@home.net> wrote:
> I do not understand why any company would cripple their phones...
Very simple...it forces you to go to "pay" features! Not a real
brainer...its business!
| |
| George 2007-03-02, 12:33 pm |
| Pegleg wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2007 03:36:01 -0600, Dodge Ramses <Dodge@home.net> wrote:
>
>
> Very simple...it forces you to go to "pay" features! Not a real
> brainer...its business!
Exactly, its also the same reason why you don't get free popcorn in the
movies.
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2007-03-02, 3:33 pm |
| In article <RrCdncN3BrVp- 3XYnZ2dnUVZ_hzinZ2d@
adelphia.com>,
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Pegleg wrote:
>
> Exactly, its also the same reason why you don't get free popcorn in the
> movies.
logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
| |
| George 2007-03-02, 10:33 pm |
| james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> logic isn't your strong suit, is it?
Before you insult someone consider that you couldn't figure out a simple
analogy.
The movie theater is fitted with a popcorn machine. I purchase a ticket
to see a movie but I can't access the popcorn without paying an
additional overpriced fee which subsidizes the operation of the theater.
I buy a phone and a wireless plan. I can make and receive calls but
can't access some of the additional features of the phone without paying
an overpriced fee in order to subsidize the basic features.
| |
| xPosTech 2007-03-02, 10:33 pm |
| On 3/2/2007 4:58 PM, George wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
>
> Before you insult someone consider that you couldn't figure out a simple
> analogy.
>
> The movie theater is fitted with a popcorn machine. I purchase a ticket
> to see a movie but I can't access the popcorn without paying an
> additional overpriced fee which subsidizes the operation of the theater.
>
> I buy a phone and a wireless plan. I can make and receive calls but
> can't access some of the additional features of the phone without paying
> an overpriced fee in order to subsidize the basic features.
Not exactly. In our case, the tickets purchased elsewhere come with
free popcorn.
--
Ted
I wasn't born in Texas but
I got back here as soon as I could
(Don't forget to take out the trash)
Until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore,
you will not know the terror of being forever lost at sea.
| |
| james g. keegan jr. 2007-03-02, 10:33 pm |
| In article < oK2dnbnDB9iUMXXYnZ2d
nUVZ_qOpnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
>
> Before you insult someone consider that you couldn't figure out a simple
> analogy.
at least you had the courtesy to delete your non-analagous analogy
before you misrepresented it.
| |
| Dodge Ramses 2007-03-03, 4:33 am |
| On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 09:34:33 -0800, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil>
wrote:
>On 2 Mar 2007 03:36:01 -0600, Dodge Ramses <Dodge@home.net> wrote:
>
>
>Very simple...it forces you to go to "pay" features! Not a real
>brainer...its business!
Dude, I get it.....Nevermind, it was a rhetorical question anyway.
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-03-04, 3:33 pm |
| In article < oK2dnbnDB9iUMXXYnZ2d
nUVZ_qOpnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
>
>
> Before you insult someone consider that you couldn't figure out a simple
> analogy.
>
> The movie theater is fitted with a popcorn machine. I purchase a ticket
> to see a movie but I can't access the popcorn without paying an
> additional overpriced fee which subsidizes the operation of the theater.
>
> I buy a phone and a wireless plan. I can make and receive calls but
> can't access some of the additional features of the phone without paying
> an overpriced fee in order to subsidize the basic features.
I see your analogy, but there is a key difference.
The features (in this case, MP3 playback) came with the phone
originally. The popcorn on the other hand did not come with the ticket,
and the popcorn as well as the machine were not supplied for free to the
movie theater - nor were the man hours required to keep this popcorn
machine going.
| |
| Pegleg 2007-03-04, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:06:40 GMT, David Matthew Wood
< nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote:
>I see your analogy, but there is a key difference.
>The features (in this case, MP3 playback) came with the phone
>originally.
No they did not! When Verizon contracts with the phone manufacturer for
the phones the specs say the feature will not be an option and the
manufacturer follows those specs in accordance with the contract. It is
called business.
The consumer has choices...learn how to enable the features or choose
another carrier.
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-03-04, 10:33 pm |
| In article < vasmu2lgq28h4misv4r2
uhn9jnegg6j6po@4ax.com>,
Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:06:40 GMT, David Matthew Wood
> < nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote:
>
>
> No they did not! When Verizon contracts with the phone manufacturer for
> the phones the specs say the feature will not be an option and the
> manufacturer follows those specs in accordance with the contract. It is
> called business.
Yes they did! Case in point:
It is well known that the Samsung SCH-a950 came from Samsung with a
built in MP3 player, that was later disabled by the VCast software.
Verizon says that the MP3 player was "removed" when VCast was put on.
This is BS! It was not removed, it was DISABLED.
The ability to use DUN? Also came with the phone, but disabled by
Verizon.
The ability to transfer data which EVERY PHONE should do? Also
disabled. Yes, there is always BitPim (which is a great program), but
for obvious reasons, I don't count this.
The Moto 710? heh.. well we all know what happened there.
>
> The consumer has choices...learn how to enable the features or choose
> another carrier.
And that was the entire point of this thread, and why I started it in
the first place. It is replies exactly like yours that make me want to
do the latter. I pay for the hardware. It should do exactly what it
was made to do!
Suppose you were to buy a VCR from Best Buy, and then found out that due
to modifications on Best Buy's part, it doesn't read HiFi audio tracks,
even though it was originally intended to by the OEM? Same deal.
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-03-05, 12:33 pm |
| On 2007-03-05, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:06:40 GMT, David Matthew Wood
>< nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote:
>
>
> No they did not! When Verizon contracts with the phone manufacturer for
> the phones the specs say the feature will not be an option and the
> manufacturer follows those specs in accordance with the contract. It is
> called business.
>
> The consumer has choices...learn how to enable the features or choose
> another carrier.
It doesn't bother me that Verizon limits features on the phones it sells.
Verizon can sell whatever it wants. What bothers me is that I can't
go somewhere else, buy a phone with the features I want, and use it on
Verizon's network. Verizon is, for example, perfectly happy to provide
service to roamers from other countries with whatever phones and whatever
features they happen to have, but won't allow this for their own customers.
I'd point out another feature that Verizon doesn't spec for the phones
they sell. In Asian countries (China, Japan and (I think) Korea at least)
CDMA phones have SIM cards which allow you to use your service with any
CDMA phone by inserting your SIM into the phone. I assume we don't have
this in the US because this might free you from having to buy branded
CDMA phones.
I'm sure this is also called business, as was AT&T's restricting phones
you could attach to their landline network to those AT&T manufactured
until forced to do otherwise in the late 1960's. Verizon's behaviour
with respect to controlling features on the phones they permit you to use,
particularly those that have nothing to do with the phone's on-air
performance, may be good business for Verizon but it is at the expense
of consumers' choices and does, I think, result in unjustifiable stifling
of inovation and competition in the handset market.
Oh, and the advice to "find another carrier" is a bit bogus. The cell
phone service market may not be a monopoly, but it is an oligopoly
with a few large players who between them have monopoly control over
most of the limited spectrum available to support wireless service,
at the expense of possible additional competitors, and who all behave
more or less the same way. Freeing the handset manufacturers to compete
with each other without their offerings being constrained by the operators
would at least make this part of the market more competitive and
innovative.
I don't mind paying more for a phone I really want; my GSM phones are
almost all unbranded, unsubsidized phones which I bought to ensure I
wouldn't lose features (like network selection menus) I want to have.
I would like to buy CDMA phones like this as well.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| Larry 2007-03-05, 12:33 pm |
| Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote in
news:vasmu2lgq28h4mi
sv4r2uhn9jnegg6j6po@
4ax.com:
> choose
> another carrier.
>
Alltel - Problem solved....(c;
Larry
--
If the damned government isn't going to enforce
immigration laws, can they at LEAST park an ICE
paddy wagon in front of WalMart so I can find
a parking place and make the checkout line SHORTER?!
| |
| Pegleg 2007-03-05, 12:33 pm |
| On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:24:12 GMT, David Matthew Wood
< nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote:
>Suppose you were to buy a VCR from Best Buy, and then found out that due
>to modifications on Best Buy's part, it doesn't read HiFi audio tracks,
>even though it was originally intended to by the OEM? Same deal.
That is where due dilligence and thorough research come in! Before you
buy find out what you are getting!
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-03-06, 4:33 am |
| In article < 5umou2l8h6e7phhpdkor
gdf9mos2t94s2q@4ax.com>,
Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 03:24:12 GMT, David Matthew Wood
> < nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote:
>
>
> That is where due dilligence and thorough research come in! Before you
> buy find out what you are getting!
Good point, but that also sometimes does not work with Verizon. As I
already mentioned in this thread some time ago, I did a ton of research
on phones. I specifically picked out this one because it was at a price
I could afford, and it was specifically listed (and even reviewed) as
being able to play MP3s. This was RIGHT BEFORE VCast rolled around, and
I happened to get my phone right after VCast was launched. I didn't
think I would have to re-research phones just a couple of days later
after, just to make sure this same phone still had this same feature
that it did a couple days ago. Would you have?
And then again, lets not forget about Bluetooth and the Motorola V710.
| |
| Pegleg 2007-03-06, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:46:34 GMT, David Matthew Wood
< nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote:
>And then again, lets not forget about Bluetooth and the Motorola V710.
I knew about the BT issue before I got my 710 so was prepared to hack it
and change the BT stack and to know how to lie to MotoPhoneTools to
activate the multimedia features.
Understand that you got caught in a bad spot with your situation.
I will be changing phones later this year (SEP) so have already started
my research and scrutiny...realizing that it isn't 100% full proof as
your case points out.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-06, 4:33 am |
| At 05 Mar 2007 10:05:55 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
> That is where due dilligence and thorough research come in! Before you
> buy find out what you are getting!
That's not entirely fair. I remember buying an old TDMA Nokia 3360 on
eBay once. Nokia's website said the phone had a WAP browser. The one I
bought didn't, because unbeknownst to me, AT&T Wireless disabled it in
AT&T versions.
If a manufacturer says model XYZ has feature so-and-so, it would seem to
me that I'd expect that model to have that feature without having to
confirm that with the carrier!
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-03-06, 4:33 am |
| In article < 30apu21geiprpujhvv0o
tsf70a28un8r9v@4ax.com>,
Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:46:34 GMT, David Matthew Wood
> < nodmwood78@verizonsp
am.net> wrote:
>
>
> I knew about the BT issue before I got my 710 so was prepared to hack it
> and change the BT stack and to know how to lie to MotoPhoneTools to
> activate the multimedia features.
>
> Understand that you got caught in a bad spot with your situation.
>
> I will be changing phones later this year (SEP) so have already started
> my research and scrutiny...realizing that it isn't 100% full proof as
> your case points out.
And yet a lot of people did not know about this, hence the resulting
class action lawsuit against Verizon. The Moto V710 was heavily
advertised for its BT.
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-03-06, 4:33 am |
| In article <esida3$n86$2@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 05 Mar 2007 10:05:55 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
>
>
> That's not entirely fair. I remember buying an old TDMA Nokia 3360 on
> eBay once. Nokia's website said the phone had a WAP browser. The one I
> bought didn't, because unbeknownst to me, AT&T Wireless disabled it in
> AT&T versions.
>
> If a manufacturer says model XYZ has feature so-and-so, it would seem to
> me that I'd expect that model to have that feature without having to
> confirm that with the carrier!
EXACTLY!!
| |
| Dodge Ramses 2007-03-06, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:14:43 -0600, Dennis Ferguson
<dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On 2007-03-05, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote:
>
>It doesn't bother me that Verizon limits features on the phones it sells.
>Verizon can sell whatever it wants. What bothers me is that I can't
>go somewhere else, buy a phone with the features I want, and use it on
>Verizon's network. Verizon is, for example, perfectly happy to provide
>service to roamers from other countries with whatever phones and whatever
>features they happen to have, but won't allow this for their own customers.
>
>I'd point out another feature that Verizon doesn't spec for the phones
>they sell. In Asian countries (China, Japan and (I think) Korea at least)
>CDMA phones have SIM cards which allow you to use your service with any
>CDMA phone by inserting your SIM into the phone. I assume we don't have
>this in the US because this might free you from having to buy branded
>CDMA phones.
>
>I'm sure this is also called business, as was AT&T's restricting phones
>you could attach to their landline network to those AT&T manufactured
>until forced to do otherwise in the late 1960's. Verizon's behaviour
>with respect to controlling features on the phones they permit you to use,
>particularly those that have nothing to do with the phone's on-air
>performance, may be good business for Verizon but it is at the expense
>of consumers' choices and does, I think, result in unjustifiable stifling
>of inovation and competition in the handset market.
>
>Oh, and the advice to "find another carrier" is a bit bogus. The cell
>phone service market may not be a monopoly, but it is an oligopoly
>with a few large players who between them have monopoly control over
>most of the limited spectrum available to support wireless service,
>at the expense of possible additional competitors, and who all behave
>more or less the same way. Freeing the handset manufacturers to compete
>with each other without their offerings being constrained by the operators
>would at least make this part of the market more competitive and
>innovative.
>
>I don't mind paying more for a phone I really want; my GSM phones are
>almost all unbranded, unsubsidized phones which I bought to ensure I
>wouldn't lose features (like network selection menus) I want to have.
>I would like to buy CDMA phones like this as well.
>
>Dennis Ferguson
Careful, or you're going to get a business lecture from the wooden
legged one...
| |
| Pegleg 2007-03-06, 10:34 am |
| On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 17:39:50 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>If a manufacturer says model XYZ has feature so-and-so, it would seem to
>me that I'd expect that model to have that feature without having to
>confirm that with the carrier!
>
Very poor assumption to make since it has been common knowledge for
years that the same model phone may be configured in various profiles
with various carriers.
When you buy off of e-bay..."you pays your money and takes your
chances"!
| |
| Pegleg 2007-03-06, 10:34 am |
| On 6 Mar 2007 02:10:01 -0600, Dodge Ramses <Dodge@home.net> wrote:
>Careful, or you're going to get a business lecture from the wooden
>legged one...
Hah! No lecture just telling it like it is. I'm just expressing what is
pretty clear in the business world and specifically in the cell carrier
world. If nothing else it should serve as "caveat emptor".
I in no way like what Verizon or other carriers no with regard to
consumers but it is an acceptable practice and until that changes,
either by consumer outrage or some regulation, we all need to "arm"
ourselves with the knowledge that allows us to make educated decisions
as to carrier and hardware.
If you regard that as a lecture so be it! You have a delete key and
probably the ability to implement filters.
| |
|
| Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote in
news:h81ru2dch2ss2pv
2ku13cdihetj8d6l0cj@
4ax.com:
> If you regard that as a lecture so be it! You have a delete key and
> probably the ability to implement filters.
>
Yeah, but that doesn't defend the company's shitty business practices of
eliminating normal features. Some of them will defend Verizon to the
death, I think! Why remains a mystery....
Larry
--
Have a little fun in the checkout line....
Ask the nearest American, "Did you see the ICE
agents chasing those Mexicans out the back door?"
....Shortens that checkout line right up...(c;
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-06, 3:33 pm |
| At 06 Mar 2007 07:12:52 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
to[color=darkred]
> Very poor assumption to make since it has been common knowledge for
> years that the same model phone may be configured in various profiles
> with various carriers.
True, but that is only "common knowledge" because many of us have
discovered it the hard way!
>
> When you buy off of e-bay..."you pays your money and takes your
> chances"!
Of course. In my case, I received a refund because the seller copied the
phone's feature list right off the Nokia website, advertising that the
phone had the features ATTWS stripped off. I then bought an "uncrippled"
Cingular version of the phone and the problem was solved.
That experience taught me to confirm feature sets of carrier versions of
phones to the manufacturer's specs, but I shouldn't have to!
| |
| David Matthew Wood 2007-03-06, 3:33 pm |
| In article <eskguk$bps$1@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> At 06 Mar 2007 07:12:52 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
>
> to
>
>
> True, but that is only "common knowledge" because many of us have
> discovered it the hard way!
>
>
> Of course. In my case, I received a refund because the seller copied the
> phone's feature list right off the Nokia website, advertising that the
> phone had the features ATTWS stripped off. I then bought an "uncrippled"
> Cingular version of the phone and the problem was solved.
>
> That experience taught me to confirm feature sets of carrier versions of
> phones to the manufacturer's specs, but I shouldn't have to!
adding to that, nor should I have had to check with Verizon to see if a
particular feature was still on the phone, even though I had verified
this on Verizon's web site just a few days earlier.
| |
| Pegleg 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:54:27 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>That experience taught me to confirm feature sets of carrier versions of
>phones to the manufacturer's specs, but I shouldn't have to!
Why not? You buy a Chevy you make sure it has the features you want...
correct?
| |
| Pegleg 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:11:07 -0500, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:
>Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote in
> news:h81ru2dch2ss2pv
2ku13cdihetj8d6l0cj@
4ax.com:
>Yeah, but that doesn't defend the company's shitty business practices of
>eliminating normal features. Some of them will defend Verizon to the
>death, I think!
Like I said...
"I in no way like what Verizon or other carriers do with regard to
consumers"
| |
|
| Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> wrote in
news:18jsu2lm3s2h63v
b7co2vrenldsde8sjhk@
4ax.com:
> "I in no way like what Verizon or other carriers do with regard to
> consumers"
>
>
I've posted a plea over on the Alltel group trying to stir up some kind
of activity, even if it's a fake flamewar....(c;
I've asked them to find SOMETHING to XXXXX at Alltel about as the group
is just flat dead for weeks on end...
So far, no takers....hee hee....
I think tomorrow I'll start a thread entitled:
"OT - Idle Chitchat for Alltel users"
I must admit, it's lots more fun on Verizon where everyone has an
"issue" to discuss...(c;
Larry
--
Have a little fun in the checkout line....
Ask the nearest American, "Did you see the ICE
agents chasing those Mexicans out the back door?"
....Shortens that checkout line right up...(c;
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| At 06 Mar 2007 21:25:08 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
>
>
> Why not? You buy a Chevy you make sure it has the features you want...
> correct?
Correct- And if Chevy says a particular pickup has a heavy-duty
suspension as standard equipment, I shouldn't have to confirm that my
dealer didn't replace those HD springs with plastic "Slinky" toys.
Likewise, if Nokia or Motorola tells me the model XYZ has a "built-in
modem," "bluetooth PC sync" or "MP3 Player" I shouldn't have to ask
Verizon if they removed those features in a sh*tty attempt at an extra
monthy revenue grab to use Verizon substitute versions of those standard
features.
If Verizon wants to strip off features, they should strip the original
manufacturer's name and model number off it as well, and sell it as a
Verizon-brand phone, just like Sears rebadges an OEM's appliance as
"Kenmore." My Kenmore fridge, for example, has a different set of
features than the virtually identical Amana that was sitting next to it
when I bought it. But Sears didn't have the stones to strip off a few
features and silkscreen "Sears" under the Amana name. They commissioned
a separate model with the features they wanted to include and gave it a
DIFFERENT brand-name and model number.
If Verizon wants to strip features off a Moto RAZR and call it a "Verizon
Twin-Blade," that's fine. But don't say it's the same RAZR on the
Motorola website unless it has the same feature set.
| |
| Dodge Ramses 2007-03-07, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:21:11 -0800, Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil>
wrote:
>On 6 Mar 2007 02:10:01 -0600, Dodge Ramses <Dodge@home.net> wrote:
>
>
>Hah! No lecture just telling it like it is. I'm just expressing what is
>pretty clear in the business world and specifically in the cell carrier
>world. If nothing else it should serve as "caveat emptor".
>
>I in no way like what Verizon or other carriers no with regard to
>consumers but it is an acceptable practice and until that changes,
>either by consumer outrage or some regulation, we all need to "arm"
>ourselves with the knowledge that allows us to make educated decisions
>as to carrier and hardware.
>
>If you regard that as a lecture so be it! You have a delete key and
>probably the ability to implement filters.
See? Another lecture. Thanks however for the longwinded advice,
pointless as it is. Any body who says "caveat emptor" is just somebody
who is usually trying to sound more educated than they probably are. I
think I'll try that filter thingy on you, bye bye.
| |
|
|
| Pegleg 2007-03-07, 12:33 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 23:48:51 -0700, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>If Verizon wants to strip off features, they should strip the original
>manufacturer's name and model number off it as well, and sell it as a
>Verizon-brand phone
That would be illegal since the original manufacturer voluntarily agreed
under contract to provide that phone with Verizon's (or some other
carriers') specifications.
The manufacturer disables the features per Verizon's specs.
It would be up to the manufacturer to execute a contract that says "we
will manufacture the phone with the original specs only".
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-03-07, 12:33 pm |
| At 07 Mar 2007 08:05:06 -0800 Pegleg wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 23:48:51 -0700, Todd Allcock
> < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> That would be illegal since the original manufacturer voluntarily agreed
> under contract to provide that phone with Verizon's (or some other
> carriers') specifications.
I'm not suggesting it should be a law- I'm suggesting Verizon should do
it because it's the right thing to do!
> The manufacturer disables the features per Verizon's specs.
> It would be up to the manufacturer to execute a contract that says "we
> will manufacture the phone with the original specs only".
True. This again illustrates the power the carriers wield over
manufacturers in our wireless system.
Makes me glad I use GSM. Sure, Cingular and T-Mo hide menus and block
features on some carrier-branded handsets as well, but at least they
don't restrict what equipment I can use. If I choose to buy a non-
carrier-branded version of a handset to have all the features God
intended it to have, I can, without my carrier telling me "sorry, we only
allow handsets purchased from us..."
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|