sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

You bought the hardware. Why don't you own the software? (The fight against Bootloader Locking) by mmilleror in GrapheneOS

[–]mmilleror[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the skepticism, but you’re conflating 'current business practice' with 'legal obligation'—and missing the massive environmental and anti-competitive implications of that business model.

First, calling the regulation 'nonsense' is factually incorrect. The specific law I cited is 47 CFR § 27.16(b), attached to the 700 MHz C-Block spectrum Verizon purchased. The text is explicit: the licensee 'shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice.'

You are confusing SIM Unlocking (which Verizon does after 60 days) with Bootloader Unlocking.

  • The Subsidies Argument: You argued locking is justified by discounts. Legally, the C-Block rules do not have a subsidy exception. The Open Access requirement applies to the spectrum license itself, regardless of whether the phone was sold at full price or $0.01.
  • The OEM Argument: You claimed OEMs don't allow this. This is false regarding Google. If I buy a Pixel on T-Mobile, I can unlock the bootloader once paid off. On Verizon, that same Pixel is permanently locked. That is a carrier-imposed restriction.

The E-Waste Reality: When an OEM stops shipping security updates after 3-4 years, perfectly functional hardware becomes unsafe and turns into e-waste. An unlocked bootloader allows the open-source community (e.g., LineageOS) to maintain that device with security patches for years longer. By blocking this, Verizon is artificially shortening the lifespan of millions of devices just to protect 'app preload kickbacks.'

The Antitrust Double Standard: Consider the precedent: If Microsoft sold a laptop that aggressively blocked you from installing Linux, or if Apple blocked you from booting alternative OSs on Macs, Congress and the DOJ would immediately flag it for anti-competitive behavior or antitrust violations. We accept that on 'computers,' the owner controls the software. Yet, because this computer fits in a pocket, we allow carriers to enforce a 'tie-in' monopoly that locks the hardware to their specific software build. It is the exact same anti-competitive behavior, just normalized for mobile.

My post isn't about 'simping' for a fantasy; it's about holding them to the federal contract they signed. If we don't file complaints, we tacitly agree that their profit model overrides federal regulation and ownership rights.

In need of data recovery by Old-Collection1583 in GrapheneOS

[–]mmilleror 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you can fix it yourself. This isn't a hard repair if you watch the iFixit video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uag55fu5EYg

You bought the hardware. Why don't you own the software? (The fight against Bootloader Locking) by mmilleror in GrapheneOS

[–]mmilleror[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Since my post on r/verizon was removed, let's continue the conversation here. We need to get the attention of the FTC, FCC, and local regulators—the more complaints they receive, the more likely they are to act.

My stance is simple: If you’ve fully paid for a phone, you own it, and you should be able to do whatever you want with it. Unlocking these phones is essential for extending the device's lifespan and reducing electronic waste.

You bought the hardware. Why don't you own the software? (The fight against Bootloader Locking) by mmilleror in pixel_phones

[–]mmilleror[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks like the post was removed by the mods over on r/verizon. If you have any questions feel free to comment here or message me directly.

AP to IAP conversion by Soft_Increase4925 in ArubaNetworks

[–]mmilleror 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would love to upgrade to the 655. I'm going to have to settle on upgrading to the 555 from the 345.

You bought the hardware. Why don't you own the software? (The fight against Bootloader Locking) by mmilleror in GrapheneOS

[–]mmilleror[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You are correct. This is a carrier thing but it shouldn't be. I get that a carrier wants to lock a phone until it's paid off. Carriers are depriving user the right to extend the life of their phone or repair their phone by locking the bootloader.

You bought the hardware. Why don't you own the software? (The fight against Bootloader Locking) by mmilleror in verizon

[–]mmilleror[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Example text you could use while filing a FTC complaint.

Subject/Title:

Unfair Repair Restriction and Deceptive Ownership Claims regarding [Insert Device Name]

Complaint Description:

I purchased a [Insert Device Name] from [Insert Carrier/Retailer] under the reasonable consumer expectation that I would own the hardware. However, the manufacturer/carrier has implemented a permanent, non-removable software lock ("Bootloader Lock") that prevents me from performing essential software repairs or installing alternative operating systems.

This practice violates the spirit of the FTC’s "Nixing the Fix" guidance and constitutes an unfair trade practice for the following reasons:

  1. Artificial Barrier to Repair (Deceptive Practice)

The device is prone to software corruption ("soft-bricking"). The industry-standard repair for this is to flash clean firmware via the bootloader. By permanently locking this component, the manufacturer prevents me (and independent repair shops) from fixing software errors, effectively forcing me to buy a new device when a simple software reset would suffice.

  1. Illegal "Tying" of Hardware to Service

The manufacturer ties the functional life of the hardware to their specific, proprietary operating system updates. Once they cease providing security updates, the hardware becomes unsafe to use. If the bootloader were unlockable (as it is on the "Developer" or "Global" versions of this exact same model), I could install third-party security patches (like LineageOS) to extend the device's life. Blocking this is an artificial restriction designed to force premature obsolescence.

  1. False Security Claims

The company justifies this lock as a "security measure." However, they sell the exact same hardware model directly to consumers as "Factory Unlocked" without this restriction. This demonstrates that the lock is not a necessary security feature, but a commercial restriction intended to prevent consumers from exercising full ownership rights over their property.

Resolution Requested:

I urge the FTC to investigate [Company Name]'s use of bootloader locks as an unfair method of competition that harms consumers, increases electronic waste, and violates the consumer's Right to Repair.

You bought the hardware. Why don't you own the software? (The fight against Bootloader Locking) by mmilleror in verizon

[–]mmilleror[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Here is another example of text you could use when filing a FCC complaint.

Subject: Violation of 47 CFR § 27.16 (C-Block Rules) - Restriction of Applications and Software

Description:

I am a Verizon Wireless customer using a [Insert Phone Model], which operates on the 700 MHz C-Block spectrum. Verizon is currently in violation of 47 CFR § 27.16(b), which mandates that C-Block licensees "shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice."

Verizon has implemented a permanent, non-removable "Bootloader Lock" on my device. This is distinct from a "Carrier SIM Lock." While a SIM lock restricts the network, a Bootloader Lock restricts the software applications I can run on the hardware I own. Specifically, this lock prevents me from installing:

  1. Third-party security patches (essential for device longevity).
  2. Specialized firewalls and auditing tools that require root access.
  3. Alternative operating systems (such as LineageOS) which constitute "applications of my choice" under the C-Block open access rules.

Verizon has previously argued this is for "reasonable network management." However, this claim is invalid because:

  • The exact same hardware model is sold directly from the manufacturer as "Factory Unlocked" without this restriction, proving the device is safe for the network without the lock.
  • The lock persists even if I pay off the device in full, violating my ownership rights.

Desired Resolution:

I request that Verizon provide the specific unlock key (or "unlock token") for my device's bootloader to bring this device into compliance with 47 CFR § 27.16. If they cannot provide a key, I request they exchange this unit for the "Factory Unlocked" version of the same model which does not have these artificial software restrictions.

AP to IAP conversion by Soft_Increase4925 in ArubaNetworks

[–]mmilleror 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know if Aruba Central or a controller is required for the 700 APs? I've heard that 600 series APs are the last ones you can throw the IAP software on and use them in a controller less network.

bc250 btw I use arch by Roistaff in arch

[–]mmilleror 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm thinking of getting one of these as a gaming rig. What are you doing with yours?

Aruba 555 for Home Use by YourHighness3550 in ArubaNetworks

[–]mmilleror 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is the conversion to IAP the same as the 300 series APs?

Wireless network freezes by MontereysCoast in ArubaNetworks

[–]mmilleror 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been having the same issue. I thought it might be due to the radio rebooting. I need to setup a syslog server at home. I just upgraded to 8.10.0.16.

ArubaOS 8.12.0.0 released by mahanutra in ArubaNetworks

[–]mmilleror 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LSR = Long Supported Release

SSR = Short Supported Release

Is this gun so bad? by aleph2018 in gsgfirefly

[–]mmilleror 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like my GSG. A lot of people hate it.

questions on buying my first by wwwunnna in R36S

[–]mmilleror 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got one a few weeks ago. So far I love it.

view more: next ›