So, I guess VZW can terminate our service for modding our phones?

[LtKen]

I would argue that technically, it is stealing. That being said, I have no problem with it in this particular instance.

 

[Aceunderfire]

Throw an aftermarket suspension on your Corvette, garuntee you the warranty is gone, try the exhaust, same thing, i'm not arguing that its a good practice, it shouldn't be like that, but you have to see where the company is coming from

Sent from my DROID RAZR using DroidForums

I do see their point to an extent, you can mod ur vette without loosing warranty all part and service must be done by dealer. When your parts are warrantied u get brand-new dealer parts. They need to. Do the same like for example. If you mod your phone you get the refurbished replacement. If you don't then you get a new replacement. Mark my words when Verizon figures out how to capitalize the Modding community for a profit they will have a mod department. I doo see their side but it is unfair in the way customers are treated. For example I had them warranty replace my dx2 after a day of running it I bought the d3. A month went buy and I wanted to go back to my dx2 because root wasn't obtained on d3 yet. When I got my dx2 out it was dead. Would not turn on for nothing. Verizon tried to not warranty replace it again because they said once a phone is removed from the account it was on it can no longer be warrantied replaced. After arguing with them for awhile they warrantied it. I had the dx2 for 2 months and went through three. The origanl dx is by far my favorite. But love the keyboard on the d3

Sent from my DROID3 using DroidForums

 

[Arodnum1]

I do see their point to an extent, you can mod ur vette without loosing warranty all part and service must be done by dealer. When your parts are warrantied u get brand-new dealer parts. They need to. Do the same like for example. If you mod your phone you get the refurbished replacement. If you don't then you get a new replacement. Mark my words when Verizon figures out how to capitalize the Modding community for a profit they will have a mod department. I doo see their side but it is unfair in the way customers are treated. For example I had them warranty replace my dx2 after a day of running it I bought the d3. A month went buy and I wanted to go back to my dx2 because root wasn't obtained on d3 yet. When I got my dx2 out it was dead. Would not turn on for nothing. Verizon tried to not warranty replace it again because they said once a phone is removed from the account it was on it can no longer be warrantied replaced. After arguing with them for awhile they warrantied it. I had the dx2 for 2 months and went through three. The origanl dx is by far my favorite. But love the keyboard on the d3

Sent from my DROID3 using DroidForums

I do see where your coming from and I do agree, Verizon is all about what can I do that will make Verizon the most money, if they can finagle their way out of a replacement or warranty they will go to the ends of the earth, it sucks we must deal with them

Sent from my DROID RAZR using DroidForums

 

[RETG]

Hmm... (c) "spam," or engage in other abusive messaging or calling.... (d) modify your device from its manufacturer's specifications

So tweeting (via my Bionic) that VZW's idea of charging two dollars for paying my bill via phone or online with a credit card could cause me to have my service cut?

or

That the locked bootloaders infringes on my freedom as an American, and that using a contract to withhold my constitutional rights is un American and evil! lol

I see your tweeting or messages as being a constitional right to state anything you want so long as it is not threatening; however, trying to figure out where the constitution states you can unlock a bootloader.

 

[MdicnMan]

Throw an aftermarket suspension on your Corvette, garuntee you the warranty is gone, try the exhaust, same thing, i'm not arguing that its a good practice, it shouldn't be like that, but you have to see where the company is coming from

Sent from my DROID RAZR using DroidForums

Not to derail the thread, but I thought it was worth mentioning that this is not actually true. The Magnuson-Moss act protects owners from their [full] warranty being voided by adding after market equipment unless that equipment directly casues a failure.

 

[rbw62]

True enough.

Sent from my ADR6400L rusing DroidForums

 

[oldguy]

I would argue that technically, it is stealing. That being said, I have no problem with it in this particular instance.

You haven't made a logical argument based on the service provided. The WiFi is manufactured into the device. The capability to activate it is in the Android OS. Both of those you are paying full price for in the contract (as demonstrated by their ETF). And, you are paying for the bandwidth in your data contract (or they will charge extra if you exceed it). So, the only service that they can identify an additional cost for is to activate the built-in capability for you. If you do it yourself, then you have relieved them of any cost assoicated with providing that service. Ergo, nothing of value was misappropriated. Turning it around, you could logically argue that, by crippling functionality already built in to a device that you are paying for, they should be obligated to discount the device to compensate you for the loss of value that functionality provides. Which is where they can legitiimately claim that you don't have to buy their broken device. However, they don't have a logical argument for claiming that by repairing what is broken, you have stolen services from them. The most they can do is say that any self-repair work voids their warranty--which appears to be their practice. On the other hand, I do think that bricking your device by fooling around with it and then taking it back and "playing dumb" about how it got bricked so they give you a free replacement actually is "theft of services." What they could legitimately do in that case is refuse to replace it. More reasonably, since they can easily reflash the device to stock, they could just charge a nominal refurb fee (say, $25-$50) for any soft-bricked device to cover the cost of restocking.

 

[LtKen]

It seems pretty straightforward to me. You bought the device and service based on a set of capabilities and an agreement that you would use your device on their network in a certain way. No more, no less. Tethering isn't on the list.

Ergo, by enabling tethering on your phone, you are using the device on their network in a way that is outside the bounds of the contract. You're stealing.

Again, I don't care, and I do it to, but don't try and convince yourself that you're somehow righteous and on the right side of the law.

Robbing the rich to give to the poor is still robbing. Don't confuse morality with legality.

 

[oldguy]

It seems pretty straightforward to me. You bought the device and service based on a set of capabilities and an agreement that you would use your device on their network in a certain way. No more, no less. Tethering isn't on the list.

Ergo, by enabling tethering on your phone, you are using the device on their network in a way that is outside the bounds of the contract. You're stealing.

Again, I don't care, and I do it to, but don't try and convince yourself that you're somehow righteous and on the right side of the law.

Robbing the rich to give to the poor is still robbing. Don't confuse morality with legality.

I see where we are divided. I am certainly not confusing legality with morality. I am also not confusing two different kinds of immorality. You appear to be categorizing any kind of contract violation as "theft." I draw a distinction between theft (which is taking by stealth or force that for which you have not paid) vs. rule-breaking, which is doing something that you may have explicity or tacitly agreed (with or without reservations) not to do. I have made the argument that the functionality of the hotspot and the bandwidth it uses has already been paid for so the act of turning it on is the only added value service--which you can do for yourself without costing the vendor a cent (at the cost of voiding your warranty). The law allows for some rule-breaking (violation of consumer agreements, for example) in the case where there is an imbalance of power between the consumer and the supplier--which is certainly the case with the wireless carriers. Whether you view all rule-breaking (violating the speed limit, crossing lines in a parking lot, etc., etc., where you tacitly agree to the rules by driving in that location) as immoral, let alone, actual theft, greatly depends upon your ethical framework. I have an ethical framework that presumes that rules do not perfectly define morality in all cases and keeping all the rules al the time is neither, moral, rational nor ultimately safe. So, I reserve the right to define some rules as deriving from a morally bereft motive. And, in this case, I argue that relieving the vendor of the expense of provisioning the hotspot on a device that you paid for so you can use a data service you paid for is neither legal nor immoral--even if by doing so, you circumvent the vendor's usurious charge for this simple one-time service. Similar cases have gone to court and been won in the consumer's favor--for example the ability to feed self-generated power back into the electricity grid (thereby reducing the electric bill or even creating a negative bill). The power monopolies made the same arguments as VZW would make and they lost (coerced consumer agreements notwithstanding). I respect your right to categorize all violations of a consumer agreement (written by the vendor without any actual opportunity for consumer negotiation, I might add) as "theft." However, I choose to maintain a more granular perspective--and not simply to justify my choice, either, but more importantly to set the stage for coerced consumers to ultimately prevail in court--should VZW choose to press the issue. That they don't press the issue as a legal one indicates to me that they are afraid that, by risking a court ruling for us few, they will lose their revenue opportunity for the entire paying class. That also indicates where VZW fears the moral line could lie. By your implied ethical framework, turning off bloatware is even more directly theft of services, since VZW is compensated for the advertising value of keeping those apps active and they also provide little money-traps for the unwary who might fall into paying for them. Not to mention the CPU cycles that you steal back for yourself in the process--cycles that, by your logic, VZW implicitly has an ownership right to based on their "no modifications" restrictions. My framework leaves my conscience free on those counts because I believe that VZWs unfair "agreement" contains inequities that allow them a "free ride" which encroaches on my ability to get full value from the device unless I can lighten the gratuitous load.

 

[Arodnum1]

Not to derail the thread, but I thought it was worth mentioning that this is not actually true. The Magnuson-Moss act protects owners from their [full] warranty being voided by adding after market equipment unless that equipment directly casues a failure.

Should've told dodge lol, they, quite categorically, told me that if I put a stack on my truck they would void the warranty, I have a couple years to wait

Sent from my DROID RAZR using DroidForums

 

[Primevyl]

Oldguy I agree. If contracts were meant to be for the customer's benefit they would be two lines long. "You pay your bill. We'll give you whatever services are available on the phone you own."

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using DroidForums

 

[oldguy]

Oldguy I agree. If contracts were meant to be for the customer's benefit they would be two lines long. "You pay your bill. We'll give you whatever services are available on the phone you own."

Exactly! Functionality and services on the phone that you bought. And that don't require provisioning any additional services on the carrier's side. That is where there is a bright line for me.

 

[metalspring]

define modifying your device beyond manufacturer specifications...dont forget the manufacturers make the phone hardware, not the OS (at least not the core of the OS) so if unlocking bootloaders, rooting and romming was to be pinned to a "manufacturer" then the manufacturer would be google who obviously fully supports and encourages all of that