Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Settlement Good News for MotorolaV710 Owners

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the sometimes-the-good-guys-win dept.

Communications 210

bluebanzai writes "When hordes of people bought up the Motorola V710 upon its release a year ago, Slashdot readers may remember many impressive features including the cutting edge Bluetooth features (picture/mp3 transfer, wireless syncing) as described on Motorola's website. However, when used with the popular Verizon Wireless cell phone service provider, many Bluetooth features were sadly crippled (apart from a wireless headset) because OBEX features had been purposely disabled by Verizon. Hundreds of people donated to a hacker rewards program to unlock the full features of the phone to the tune of $3000, but was never fully successful. Well, one year later, the Los Angeles Superior Court (PDF Warning) and Verizon have announced the initial steps of a Class Action Lawsuit that appears to be influenced by the user community allowing everyone who bought it before the start of 2005 a few options for compensation--including a refund up to the purchase price of another phone which, interestingly enough, is a lot easier to hack."

cancel ×

210 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How about... (5, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#13771948)

including a refund up to the purchase price of another phone which, interestingly enough, is a lot easier to hack.

How about Verizon just stop crippling their customers and unlock the locked features?

Re:How about... (5, Funny)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772008)

How about Verizon just stop crippling their customers and unlock the locked features?

If they did that, then you could easily create your own wallpapers and mp3 ringtones on your PC and transfer them to your telephone by Bluetooth. This is obviously wrong, and the sort of thing only pirates would do. Therefore the phone company locks down the features, and you can then pay a modest sum of money for professionally-created multimedia products of much better quality. Isn't the Company great, looking out for you like that?

Why don't you STFU (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772118)

Even better yet, How abotu Verizon charge you retail for the phone they are now subsidizeing.

That way, when you go to get cell phone, or go to get a new plan, you can expect to need at least $300 up front for anything other then a basic candy bar phoen with no features.

The MONOPOLY industry. (2, Insightful)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772384)

I don't know why your comment was mostly moderated funny. It is actually very insightful, and explains exactly how this things works.

Basically, we have an industry which makes loads of cash by preventing their customers from using technology to make things cheaper and more efficient. It is in the industry's interest to make sure that we download expensive ring tones and backgrounds from them, rather than simply using an MP3 or an image downloaded from the web.

In other words: This industry artificially maintains its profits by using what I consider to be highly immoral methods. If they did not have this choke hold on the market, the industry would shrink a lot and lots of people (investors, content owners...) would probably lose a whole lot of money.

It is almost like a cartel where various companies (content owners, mobile makers, etc.) get together to agree on how to squeeze the most money out of people and maximizing their own profits. Something like price fixing.

I am kind of wondering why no mobile maker has released a phone which lets the user do anything. Do they depend on content owners and network operators to make money?

Re:The MONOPOLY industry. (1)

nolife (233813) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772473)

I am kind of wondering why no mobile maker has released a phone which lets the user do anything.

The phone would not sell because the carriers would not activate it for you because it is not one of their phones. I have been pondering this exact point for years. The carriers will not support the "bring your own phone" until either the government or consumers can apply enough pressure. Cellular phone service will eventually become a base level commodity service but the carriers are trying everything they can to prevent that from happening. I believe we will eventually get to that point but it will take a long looong time. Number portability was the first step and without the continued pushing by consumers which got the attention of the government, that would have never happened.

Re:How about... (1)

swthomas55 (904301) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772498)

You mean like I can already do with my Motorola V551 from Cingular?

I'm annoyed at Cingular for some other things (coverage area doesn't include my parents' house, for example), but this one item makes me happy that I switched from Verizon. I would be really pissed at them for this.

Re:How about... (5, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772009)

How about Verizon just stop crippling their customers and unlock the locked features?

They don't just cripple the phones, they also cripple their customers? I didn't know that they are that bad ... :-)

Re:How about... (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772023)

I had the same thought after I posted my comment. I would have pointed out the double meaning myself, but I thought I'd get modded down (plus I was too excited about getting first post! Wooo!) And with what I've heard about the Telco's based on slashdotters, I wouldn't be surprised if they WERE crippling their customers. Obviously only from the waist down. Anything else would be bad for business.

Re:How about... (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772210)

Only if they don't pay their bills on time...

Re:How about... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772298)

How about a limit of five links to an article submision??!?

Re:How about... (1)

duncan (16437) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772516)

Well you've obviously never tried to change to a different provider have you.....

Re:How about... (1)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772338)

Shoot- the problem is figuring out what I paid for mine, as far a getting a refund. I got my v710 "free" under the new every two plan w/ verizon. Although I didn't actually pay for the phone, I am paying for it by being locked into my contract......

Cutting edge? (-1, Troll)

AirLace (86148) | more than 8 years ago | (#13771950)

I don't see how you can call any of these Bluetooth features "cutting edge".. my Sony-Ericsson T630, now over two years old supports OBEX and all, as did its six precursors in the line. I've never met anyone with a phone that has cut-down features either.

Re:Cutting edge? (2, Funny)

WhoDey (629879) | more than 8 years ago | (#13771988)

I've never met anyone with a phone that has cut-down features either.

Try closing the open /. window and walking out of your house. You'd be amazed what you learn when you meet actual people.

Re:Cutting edge? (1)

Tet (2721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772056)

I don't see how you can call any of these Bluetooth features "cutting edge".

That was going to be my comment. OBEX is hardly a new protocol, and it's been fully implemented on every bluetooth phone I've seen in the last few years. Indeed, even on pre-bluetooth phones, OBEX was supported over IR. Bluetooth just speeds up the transfer somewhat.

Re:Cutting edge? (1)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772403)

Aye, but the V710 was Verizon's first bluetooth capable phone. So, for Verizon customers, and for those where Verizon is the only major player (cingular tries, but just isn't that successful in our BFE neck of the woods), it was cutting edge.

Perhaps a bit misleading useage of the word, but taken from a certain point of view (ie: a verizon customer who has never had an option of bluetooth before), it's still correct.

I did have the V710, and I got my letter in the mail yesterday about it. However, I also canceled early - and paid the early termination fee. I don't know if I get anything back. All I know is that I'm never going back to Verizon. Or Cingular, for that matter. And those are my only two options, so, final result: no cell phone. I'm pretty sure I'll survive ;]

Re:Cutting edge? (2, Interesting)

Jozer99 (693146) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772287)

Its really not a new phone anymore, considering how fast the phone market moves. And you are right, OBEX is not really cutting edge, it is pretty much a standard feature that was removed.

Pity about Linux Users (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13771952)


Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.

Re:Pity about Linux Users (-1, Offtopic)

FinestLittleSpace (719663) | more than 8 years ago | (#13771967)

Can you PLEASE fix the typo in that troll? It's 1%. Christ. If you're gonna troll, do it right ;-)

Re:Pity about Linux Users (1)

strider44 (650833) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772007)

you have to use &lt; like this: < otherwise it doesn't show. Just a little hint to the troll, I'm not sure whether I chuckle or get annoyed that the arsehole still pastes >1%!

Re:Pity about Linux Users (-1, Offtopic)

dascandy (869781) | more than 8 years ago | (#13771972)

Linux is user friendly. When you tell it in its language how to do something it does that.

Windows is not user friendly. Even when completely understanding the entire model of windows including all setup and so on, it blatantly doesn't work or does something else altogether.

Re:Pity about Linux Users (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772092)

idiot! That's a FEATURE!!!!

thats the problem with US phone networks (5, Insightful)

riflemann (190895) | more than 8 years ago | (#13771991)

This seems to be a unique problem to US mobile phone markets. Why the hell do they require the phone company's own phone?

In any other part of the world, you buy your own phone from wherever you choose (even another country) and just plug in a sim card from your chosen provider and it just works.

If any provier here tried to pull those tricks, the market would take care of the problem very quickly.

Is GSM actually getting any foothold in the US market?

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (4, Interesting)

ianbnet (214952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772030)

This is not so much a uniquely US problem, as a uniquely Verizon problem. Their CDMA network is huge, but T-Mobile and Cingular are just two examples of nationwide GSM networks, complete with SIM-unlocked phones. Verizon has great coverage across the US, but for the technically inclined or anyone wanting "cutting edge," they're rarely the best choice, with outdated, locked phones and limited, expensive data capabilities.

Still, it's great to see them getting their due. Their attempt to lock up basic features in the US market is ridiculous, and hopefully this practice will end soon.

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772304)

Verizon has great coverage across the US, but for the technically inclined or anyone wanting "cutting edge," they're rarely the best choice, with outdated, locked phones and limited, expensive data capabilities.

That's right. They are heirs to the Bell System and so had many cell sites from the early days. Their coverage is way better than anyone else's. Theirs are the only phones that will reliably work at my house, so that's what I've got.

I'm moving next year, to a house on a hillside with any number of cellular options. I can't wait to ditch Verizon and their feeble crippled phones and their shitty proprietary software.

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772365)

Interestingly, Sprint, which is also CDMA-based, has the cheapest data access I've seen - $15/mo unlimited access.

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (3, Informative)

Derlum (216320) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772412)

Verizon has great coverage across the US, but for the technically inclined or anyone wanting "cutting edge," they're rarely the best choice, with outdated, locked phones and limited, expensive data capabilities.

    Not true at all. I work for a wireless engineering firm in the DC area and have done quite a bit of work with a wide range of cellular equipment from all carriers. Verizon's EV-DO data service with a burst max of 2.4Mbps is the absolute best available right now, period. It will likely continue to be so even after Cingular rolls out UMTS (burst max 2.3Mbps). Only when Cingular starts applying the system software upgrade to go to HSPDA (8-10Mbps) will they stand a chance of being the best mobile data service, but Verizon could easily be well on their way to EV-DV by then. And at $60/mo. for a service on which I've personally seen sustained data rates of 700-800kbps (at 80mph no less), I wouldn't call it expensive either. On top of that, Verizon's data service gives you an open public IP address, while Cingular firewalls their data customers without exception.
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put Verizon on a pedestal. They've got plenty of problems. I'm a v710 owner and the Bluetooth crippling issue is absolutely ridiculous. I fully intend to be a member of the class action settlement. But I wanted to clarify that poor choice of phones != bad service.

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (1)

Cyn (50070) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772477)

Their CDMA network is huge, but T-Mobile and Cingular are just two examples of nationwide GSM networks, complete with SIM-unlocked phones.

Just for the record - T-Mobiles phones do not come unlocked. After 3 months of paying your bill you can contact them and request the unlock code. You also can NOT get this code past 3 months out of service with them (as I learned the hard way). I've had two phones with them, both were locked.

My Cingular phone came with no lock, but that doesn't mean all their phones do.

* All phones bought through Amazon.com with contract, YRMV.

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (1)

SimilarityEngine (892055) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772036)

In the UK, it is still possible to buy handsets that will accept any SIM card. However, a lot of shops are selling phones that will only work with one network (for example mine only works with Vodafone, my partner's only works with Orange). I believe with some effort (i.e. cost) you can get them "unlocked" though.

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (1)

6*7 (193752) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772078)

Bundeled phones/provider are normal, but over here (NL) the phone regulations thingy has ruled that phones must be unlocked on a customer's request (after one year of purchase). YMMV

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772216)

As far as I know, Vodafone doesn't charge for unlocking once you are out of contract, usually a year. Ring 191. Of course they'll offer you another phone with another year's contract, but it's not a heavy sell.

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (1)

SimilarityEngine (892055) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772511)

Cheers :-)

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (4, Informative)

ForestGrump (644805) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772049)

Yes, GSM is getting a foothold in the US market. I myself have been with Cingular/ATT (both GSM) for almost 5 years now.

Like CDMA carriers, GSM isn't problem free.

For example, if you buy a GSM phone, it is most likely locked to the carrier you bought it from. Why do they do this? Because most phones are either "free" or "discountted" with the signing of a contract.

Now, I figure they lock phones for 3 purposes:
1. If your family member destroys their phone somehow, your "locked" phone won't work because they have a different carrier. Thus, they'll be forced to buy a new phone.
2. So you can pay their roaming/international charges when you travel (because a locally bought SIM doesn't work on the locked phone).
3. Profit!

Thankfully, unlock codes/reflashing can easily be done if you know where to find a code calculator, or willing to buy a $10 data cable.

Grump
Unlocked Siemens S40, Mot V400.
Unlocked half my family's nokia phones.

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772603)

I am guessing that unlocking phones != chick magnet

Not just US, UK too (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772053)

In the UK you can buy a phone SIM free, but most people who want good handsets get a contract phone where you buy a phone for less than its cost and pay rental which also pays for the remainder of the handset cost.

Each operator seems to tailor some of the interface for their network. Vodaphone are well known for butchering the interface, many people are known to flash back to manufacturer sourced firmware where possible as the interface mods can be annoying.

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (2, Insightful)

dan the person (93490) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772124)

Where is "here"?

Doesn't seem quite so bad, but they still do annoying things in the UK.

IE. you get a free phone from vodafone, it is locked to the vodafone network so you have to pay 10 quid down the local corner shop to get it unlocked if you want to use it on another network.

Then vodafone put firmware on it that maps various function keys to automatically launch the browser and go to their "live!" website, and you can't map the button to more useful functions, e.g. launch new txt msg.

Of course you can always pay full retail for non-network branded phone and just put your sim in that.

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772136)

In any other part of the world, you buy your own phone from wherever you choose (even another country) and just plug in a sim card from your chosen provider and it just works.

What planet are you from? Finland?

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (3, Informative)

Adlopa (686151) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772140)

Well, that's not strictly true. In the UK, you have two choices -- 1) 'buy' a phone from a provider or 2) from the manufacturer. In the case of 1), phones are sold at much, much less than the manufacturer's RRP but you're forced to sign up to a 12 month contract with the provider. The phone is also locked to that provider and another provider's SIM won't work. Essentially, the phone's low cost is subsidised by your 12 month subscription. Once the contract is up, you can often get the provider to 'unlock' the phone for use with any provider's SIM for free or a small fee. Or, you can go to a back street unlocking shop at any time and pay around £10 for them to unlock it. With 2),you pay the full RRP, which is not inconsiderable for a mobile phone. The phone is free for use with any SIM though. Oh and most UK providers customise the phone's interface to suit their particular service, but I'm not aware of any case where features were disabled -- they're merely presented differently.

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772179)

Not strictly true. Not in all cases at least. I own a Motorola V3 bought from O2 when I extended my contract last January. I've succesfully used it with Vodaphone and T-Mobile SIM cards (still has the horrible O2 interface though).

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (1)

indytx (825419) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772165)

In any other part of the world, you buy your own phone from wherever you choose (even another country) and just plug in a sim card from your chosen provider and it just works.p

In the US, it depends on the provider. We recently switched to Cingular (uses SIM cards) from Sprint PCS. We had a nice, new Nokia phone from AT&T that had never been used. It was a simple matter to take the phone to Cingular and pop in one of their SIM cards.

It is important to note that even on US mobile carriers who use SIM cards, the phones can be partially disabled or crippled. There are unlock codes available on the web for many brands/models of phones, if you look hard enough.

Re:thats the problem with US phone networks (1)

Brobock (226116) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772267)

In any other part of the world, you buy your own phone from wherever you choose (even another country) and just plug in a sim card from your chosen provider and it just works.

This is no longer true. Leading edge mobile companies such as ones in Sweden do lock the phone to the service after seeing how successful this market plan was in the United States.

The REAL winners (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772005)


are the lawyers with (fta) 6.3 million dollars + 60k expenses

seems everyday to a lawyer is like winning the lottery except you win every time !
now all they need to decide is which to buy , a speedboat or a Lear jet..hmmmm decisions decisions

steps to profit (for lawyers only) (2, Insightful)

jurt1235 (834677) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772248)

Step 1: Advise company to alter features in such a way that they can make more profit, and let them pay you.
Step 2: Find group of disgruntled customers and file class action suit, and let them pay you.
Step 3: Profit from step 1 & 2, with in step 2 the added bonus of a percentage of the settlement.

Re:The REAL winners (2, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772344)

Highly amusing really, in many ways. This is actually a consumer-relations fiasco, not a legal fiasco, but as many businesses purposefully make their products and services more complex, as they try to squeeze more revenues while hoping the customer will not know better, they lose sight of the whole "keeping your customers happy" thing. It's not always deliberate on their part, it's just if your primary attitude is "How can we squeeze a little more money from a supposedly "extra" service without our customers realising until they've signed up", then you already have a customer-hostile attitude and it's going to be obvious however much money you invest in feel-good advertising, friendly corporate logos, and determining whether to have your sales and CS reps greet customers with "MobileMegaCom, how can I help you?" or "On behalf of MobileMegaCom, I'd like to wish you a very fine morning, what can WE do to make YOUR life more pleasurable, right now?"

Money that used to be spent on marketing and customer service gurus is now being spent, ten fold, on lawyers to handle extremely disgruntled customers, who are rarely, in their entirety, the complete techno-illiterates these companies assume they are.

Unfortunately, with so many companies either ex-monopolies or attempting to work in such a mode, for the most part legal threats are becoming the only real way customers can voice their dissatisfaction and expect changes.

I hate telephone companies, or at least I hate their marketing departments. They're all dishonest. They all lie about charges, and they lobby the FCC to give them get-outs when they do. They always try to push contracts that are absurdly long. They pretend they're selling one thing (as in this case) when they're actually selling something lesser. They push contracts that are inherently unfair and one-sided. (No, it doesn't take two years to recover a phone subsidy, indeed with tariffs usually around $50 a month, it usually barely takes two months. More to the point, if the issue is subsidies, why don't you just let early cancellers return their subsidized phones, in working condition, if they want to cancel before the end of the contract? And why not make it easy for those who already have compatable equipment to sign up on a month-to-month basis, maybe even with - *gasp* a discounted talk plan given they've just saved you your precious subsidy - I'll tell you why, because the idea the two year contracts have anything to do with subsidies is complete and total bullshit.)

I'd like to think some kind of free-market darwinism will fix this. It's hard to tell. Mobile carriers are so varied in quality that people will shun the best, most reasonable, because, for example, it has 1900MHz licenses and thus, through no fault of its own, has poorer indoor coverage. So, ultimately, people are going to resort to lawsuits to fix these issues. In this case, I say good luck to the lawyers. Once the operators start acting decently again, maybe I'll start whining about frivilous lawsuits, but the big operators are not doing so, so screw 'em, and throw every complaint they're not prepared to deal with honourably back at 'em in court.

And if it makes a few lawyers rich, that's great. If someone's doing a public service, I don't have a problem with them earning money from it.

Verizon is horrible about this (5, Interesting)

fmwap (686598) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772016)

Verizon has consistantly pissed me off since I got their service, they've killed Kannel [kannel.org] on their network, upgraded to prevent hacking the GetItNow service, and the only way to add custom anything is to locate an impossible to find cable & hack it using BitPim [sourceforge.net]

Sure, you CAN add custom photos and ringtones, which I might do if I had to pay ONCE for, but Verizon charges a monthly fee just for having them on your phone. It's a blatent ripoff and I got tired of being fucked by Verizon.

I don't have any input on them crippling bluetooth, but frankly it doesn't suprise me. This company is a shit providor and I don't understand why anyone has their service. I'm sure they will offer better Bluetooth enabled devices, with many new features, as long as you pay X amount per month to have them enabled, and a fee for using them, and the fee for airtime, and the activation fee, and ...

Re:Verizon is horrible about this (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772054)

I have verizon simply because they provide the best coverage in my area. All the other providers have large dead spots, and poorer coverage. I used to be AT&T Wireless, but TDMA voice quality sucked. When they upgraded to GSM, they just put GSM equipment on their existing towers, but failed to add new ones (GSM is a lower power system than TDMA, requiring more towers and having them closer together) This resulted in almost unusable GSM service. That's when I switched. Sprint only had digital service and Analog was important to me because I traveled, and Cingular wasn't here then (until they merged with AT&T). That left T-Mobile and a few others, none of which I liked either for various reasons.

Verizon simply has the best network, even though their policies suck.

Re:Verizon is horrible about this (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772392)

Sprint has analog service.

You just have to pay $5/mo to get "free" roaming. Otherwise, you have to pay out the nose for roaming.

(*looks at his Sprint phone, which said "Analog Roaming" not too long ago*)

Re:Verizon is horrible about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772569)

Verizon simply has the best network

You can not make that blanket statement. It depends on where you are. My wife has a Verizon phone for work and my Sprint service is consistantly better in just about every part of the mid atlantic that we have been in the last 5 years. I can not provide enough details or provide enough details with the total experience with both carriers in a /. post but to sum it up, she users her own Sprint phone whenever possible instead of her Verizon phone.

Re:Verizon is horrible about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772199)

Verizon has the best coverage by far. They are the only company who's phones work in my office building. Fancy ass ringtones are great, but when my phone won't ring because I can't get service there is no point.

Re:Verizon is horrible about this (1)

Skater (41976) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772411)

Wait - you're mad in part because they upgraded their pay service (GetItNow) to keep from being ripped off?

Re:Verizon is horrible about this (1)

anothy (83176) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772452)

upgraded to prevent hacking the GetItNow service
are you honestly putting forward as a serious complaint the fact that Verizon doesn't sit back and let people hack their commercial, money-making service? if you don't like the service, don't use it.
This company is a shit providor and I don't understand why anyone has their service.
then you're just not paying very close attention. the primary reason is that they have simply the best network in the United States. The've got equal or better coverage in most urban areas (not all, especially out west, but certainly most), far better coverage in most of the more sparsely-populated regions, and at least decent coverage in almost the whole country. as secondary reasons, they've also got the second largest subscriber base (was the largest until the Cingular buyout of AT&T, and it's on track to be the largest again soon), which is nice since in-network calling is free, and their customer support, while certainly not worry-free, isn't total crap.
beyond that, there's the differences between CDMA and GSM. while GSM has some nice points (the biggest two being better inter-operator competition and vastly superior international roaming), CDMA has a number of fundamental technical benefits. the two that impact consumers most (like me) are the fact that equal generation data services (i.e. 1xRTT vs GPRS, EV-DO vs EDGE) tend to be up to twice as fast in real world environments on the CDMA side, and CDMA networks handle the handoff between cells much, much better, dramatically reducing the cases of dropping a call, looking at your phone, and finding you've got full or nearly-full coverage (particularly noticeable when traveling at high speeds, for example on a train).

i understand you don't like Verizon because their business model is based on charging for lots of little things, subscription services, and the like. i agree there's some serious problems with the business model, and i certainly don't use any of these subscription services, and minimize the use of their other charge services (i bought a transflash card so i could get pictures off without paying them). but this is, in fact, their business model. we have no inherent right to hack their service which they're getting in the way of, and these are all strictly optional services. if all you care about is phone (or especially data) service, Verizon is still the best choice in most of the country. and while the comparison between Verizon and the GSM operators is a valid one, acting like there's no valid reason to deal with Verizon just makes you sound, um, dumb.

Re:Verizon is horrible about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772587)

I got a V710 when they were first released (in fact, I think I got it the day it hit the shelves). OBEX is locked out, but dialup networking works fine, which was the main thing I wanted the phone for (so I could use it as a wireless modem for my Palm Tungsten). I've also added custom photos/wallpapers and custom ringtones via the TransFlash card. Unfortunately Verizon saw what some of us early V710 owners were up to and locked out TransFlash transfer capabilities in a later version of the phone's firmware. (And they wonder why I never came in to have my phone reflashed...)

It would be nice to have OBEX enabled just so I could sync my phone with my computer or transfer files without using the TransFlash card, but it's not that big a deal. Overall the phone does what I need it to, and its reception is vastly superior to the LG phone I had previously. So I'm not sure yet what I'll do with this class action settlement -- probably just take the refund. I don't see much point in swapping my phone for an E815 -- I'd have to get a data cable and immediately hack the seem in order to get back some of the functionality I've already got on my early V710 (eg, TransFlash transfer).

So why do I have Verizon service? Mainly because I don't really have any other choice. I live in Vermont. Verizon's network is by far the best up here. Sprint and Nextel offer service here, but their networks are not as widespread. The only other game in town is Unicel, and they're a small, regional provider who only recently switched from TDMA to GSM, and their plans suck. I could get Cingular service out of Albany or Boston or someplace, but up here Cingular just uses Unicel's network, so there's not much point.

I got the mailling (4, Insightful)

bblazer (757395) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772018)

I bought 2 of these phones from Verizon and was so upset with the situation I cancelled the service even-though I had to eat the cancellation fee. In the settlement mailing there are 3 options.

1) Current Verizon customers that want to keep the phone and the service may get a $25 credit to their bill.

2) Current customers who want to keep their service but not their phone may send it in for a refund.

3) Customers who cancelled their service and paid the cancellation fee can get a refund of the fee.

I am not sure why they just don't enable OBEX?! That is what everyone wanted in the first place.

Re:I got the mailling (1)

Takeel (155086) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772251)

I am not sure why they just don't enable OBEX?! That is what everyone wanted in the first place.

That would require Verizon to admit that they did something wrong.

Re:I got the mailling (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772486)

That would require Verizon to relinquish their very lucrative middle-man spot in the multimedia transfer chain.

It's all about the money. Once you realize that, all these seemingly convoluted legal tactics and marketing ploys make sense.

Tough choice... (-1, Flamebait)

dangitman (862676) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772028)

It's hard to decide who to feel the most pity for. The mobile phone owners for being conned, Motorola for being so dumb, or the people who discuss the issue on Slashdot...

Re:Tough choice... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772176)

ass.

Fix the Blackberry please (2, Interesting)

The Mutant (167716) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772034)

I've got a Blackberry 7100t, and it supposedly has Bluetooth. But the OBEX implementation is crippled as well, and only supports headsets.

I've heard that RIM did this because of security implications; maybe so. But it said Bluetooth on the box, not partial Bluetooth.

Re:Fix the Blackberry please (2, Interesting)

anothy (83176) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772500)

and it has bluetooth, not partial bluetooth. unless it listed specific bluetooth profiles that it doesn't have, there's no issue with the labeling here. what, you're upset that it doesn't implement all the profiles? like, um, the mouse one? yeah! my phone can't act as a mouse, clearly the bluetooth is crippled!

and yes, of course things like OBEX are better fits than the mouse profile. but "bluetooth" does not inherently imply any given set of profiles. if you wanted a specific capability, you should have asked for it, or bought a product specifically labeled to have it.

Nice, weak microphone addressed by Lameware cool (3, Interesting)

WarmNoodles (899413) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772038)

I own a V710, and Beside the FA's observation that lameware nerfed Bluetooth functionality, my main complaint is that people can not hear me when I use the device.
The complaint was personally confirmed as a common grief experienced by V710 Verizon phone users.
The solution which did not work was to reset the phone using the stencil.
Glad I'll be able to get something for the piece of junk.
I stopped using the phone about 6 months ago due the bad microphone sound quality.
I would pick the 3rd option on the claim form. I hope they offer a phone of equivalent function and price/value.
The first claim form option was for $25 which in no way near covers the $430 cost of the junk phone.
Another complaint is that when I purchased a replacement, Verizon had no way of transferring Contact phone #'s to another phone.
--
Avian flu dosen't kill people, people kill people.

Re:Nice, weak microphone addressed by Lameware coo (1)

thc69 (98798) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772141)

My biggest problem with the v710 (apart from the issue at hand) is the power connector. It's the same connector that worked fine for years on my v60i, but on this phone, it's only intermittently functional. I often have a dead phone because it wouldn't charge.

Re:Nice, weak microphone addressed by Lameware coo (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772234)

I have the same problem with my v300 phone.. The power connector is really finicky.

Re:Nice, weak microphone addressed by Lameware coo (1)

matth (22742) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772325)

My v710 will sporatically, when I plug it in, just say "Unable to Charge"... unable to charge?!?!?!

This is still bogus... (4, Interesting)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772055)

Why don't they just enable OBEX file transfer, syncing and basically give you all features of a phone with bluetooth?? Why should they have to hack the replacement phone either?? Verizion is just screwed up on a great many things. Why must I pay 79 bucks or even 59 for 1XRTT or even EVDO?? Can't they have a unlimited plan that's a little more economical? How come I can get a GPRS connection via T-Mobile for HALF of Verizon's 1XRTT?? If they would just look at the POTENTIAL market, they could definitely lower thier price.

Also,with regards to EVDO, they SHOULD allow you to plug the card into that switch unit(forget the name of it). IF Verizon did this, then some people just might use this as thier ONLY connection to the web. When at home, plug it into the switch, when on the road, take another switch or just plug it into the laptop. Verizon could make TONS of cash if they were to do this, however they want to FORCE you to do things their way because they are afraid the network may not be able to handle it or some other stupid reason.

Re:This is still bogus... (1)

sirwired (27582) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772236)

Why don't they just enable OBEX file transfer, syncing and basically give you all features of a phone with bluetooth?? Why should they have to hack the replacement phone either??
Good question. However, the rest of this post demonstrates zero understanding of basic business or economics.

Verizion is just screwed up on a great many things. Why must I pay 79 bucks or even 59 for 1XRTT or even EVDO?? Can't they have a unlimited plan that's a little more economical?

Verizon currently has almost a monopoly on high-speed long-range wireless data transfer. (Nextel's high-speed network is very tiny.) This service costs them a fortune in capital to build, and they are still spending a fortune building it. They won't lower the price just yet because apparently they are getting plenty of customers on this "uneconomical" plan. Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean the price doesn't make sense. Your argument is like saying: "If only a Ferrari didn't cost over $100K, they would sell a lot more!". Well, sure, they would, but what would be the point? They make plenty of money selling at the price they do.

How come I can get a GPRS connection via T-Mobile for HALF of Verizon's 1XRTT?? If they would just look at the POTENTIAL market, they could definitely lower thier price.

Apparently they have some reason for keeping the price where it is, possibly including, but not limited to, the following:
1) They already have as many customers as they can handle. (demand)
2) There is no alternative wireless data service available in the area. (supply)
3) Folks seem to be willing to pay the price. (demand)

If you think T-Mobile's service is so much better, why are you complaining about Verizon? You could be gloating about the great deal you got with T-Mobile instead...

Also,with regards to EVDO, they SHOULD allow you to plug the card into that switch unit(forget the name of it). IF Verizon did this, then some people just might use this as thier ONLY connection to the web. When at home, plug it into the switch, when on the road, take another switch or just plug it into the laptop. Verizon could make TONS of cash if they were to do this, however they want to FORCE you to do things their way because they are afraid the network may not be able to handle it or some other stupid reason.

Gasp! They want to avoid overloading their network! The horror! How dare they! No further comment on that paragraph is necessary. You answer your own question.

It's a good thing that Verizon has budding business tyccoons like yourself to tell them how stupid they are...

SirWired

I wish I was that lucky (4, Interesting)

Tidal Flame (658452) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772059)

I was just in Japan for two weeks, and everyone there over the age of 5 has a really awesome cell phone. Being a techie, I got a bit jealous, so I decided I'd buy a new one when I got back. I needed to switch providers anyway as my old provider was really ripping me off.

So, I get back, read up on providers and such. I eventually decided that Virgin Mobile worked best for me, since I don't use my cell phone a whole lot but do find it a useful gadget. Their rates are pretty good for people who don't need to use their cell phones every day.

Now, here's where I screwed up: I did a Google for "Virgin Mobile" to see what kind of features the plan offered. This of course brought up the Virgin Mobile USA website. I live in Canada. There's no obvious indication on the site that it's the Virgin Mobile USA site, so I figured it was just a general Virgin Mobile site. These days most corporate sites redirect you to the appropriate page based on where your IP is located anyway, right?

So I'm looking at the features and I see that they have internet access and instant messenger support, among other things. So I go out and buy a phone (Audiovox CDM8910). Not a top of the line model, but it's got a camera, superphonic ringtones, and all that. Pretty nice, I think.

Of course, to my horror, when I open the package there is no data cable. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Instead, I discover, Virgin wants me to pay 50 cents per picture to get my pictures off of the phone, up to $4 per ringtone to download new ringtones (normally I wouldn't mind, but the phone's default selection is pathetic - none of them are suitable for anything, really), and up to $2 per picture to download new "wallpapers." Yeah right!

It is possible to purchase a data cable for this phone, and I've done so. The problem is that there's no software that really supports the phone, and of course the phone's firmware is completely undocumented... so I CAN get my pictures and upload new ringtones without paying Virgin's outrageous fees, but because of the shoddy, undocumented firmware, there's a good chance I could completely wreck my phone in the process. I doubt I'd have an easy time of getting a replacement, either...

Honestly, the cell phone market in North America is absolutely pathetic. I'm sick of being locked in by providers and being promised features that I don't receive. To be fair, I should have been more careful about my research in this case, but I'm sure several Slashdotters have experienced similar letdowns with cell phones. A lot of people seemed to think that the "Cell Phone User's Bill of Rights" was ridiculous. Maybe it was. But we all know that when North American cell phone providers aren't outright lying to their customers, they're crippling the phones they provide so that the only way to make use of all of the technology in the phone you buy is to pay outrageous fees.

Re:I wish I was that lucky (3, Informative)

indytx (825419) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772197)

But we all know that when North American cell phone providers aren't outright lying to their customers, they're crippling the phones they provide so that the only way to make use of all of the technology in the phone you buy is to pay outrageous fees.

This is both true AND inaccurate. It is true because you do get charged outrageous fees for ringtones, wallpapers, etc. However, it is inaccurate because, in Europe, callers pay to make phone calls to a mobile phone. Try calling a European mobile phone from the US. You'll be astounded just how expensive it is. Someone has to pay for all those fancy services. In Europe, it's the caller. Europeans can send SMS messages for 5-10 cents, and those cost nothing for them to receive.

If I call from Belgium with a French SIM card, I'm roaming. If I call to Belgium with a French SIM card, I pay more. Try comparing a service mape from a large, U.S. mobile provider to what is available in Europe. You'll be shocked. Also, European mobile carriers cannot bundle phones with mobile contracts.

It is simply different in the U.S. Americans can talk much more on their mobile phones because it is much more economical to do so. Most Americans would rather have cheap minutes than gee-whiz features that don't add much value to the average consumer. If you want the gee-whiz features, order a GSM phone, pay the full, unsubsidized price, and get a contract with Cingular. Case closed.

CDMA and SIM card question (1)

amerinese (685318) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772073)

i realize that the current market is setup (with phone subsidies) so the carriers have incentive to keep you from using phones with another carrier.

but is there any technological barrier? is there any reason that cdma cell phones couldn't be paired with SIM cards?

Re:CDMA and SIM card question (4, Informative)

tomreagan (24487) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772098)

i realize that the current market is setup (with phone subsidies) so the carriers have incentive to keep you from using phones with another carrier.
but is there any technological barrier? is there any reason that cdma cell phones couldn't be paired with SIM cards?


no, there is no technological barrier. further, some people believe that the importance of supporting next-generation provisioning and wi-fi/3g roaming will lead more of the carriers to support gsm on their networks. you could easily support the gsm provisioning/billing/roaming features on top of a cdma transport. in fact, i believe that some cdma phones with gsm/tdma chipsets built-in for global roaming have been announced/discussed.

it will be interesting to see how long verizon can maintain this technological provincialism. based on their dominance in the marketplace, i would imagine they'll be able to maintain for some time.

Re:CDMA and SIM card question (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772416)

in fact, i believe that some cdma phones with gsm/tdma chipsets built-in for global roaming have been announced/discussed.

In fact, I can order one today from Sprint.

However, the only problem is, I can get a (subsidized) Treo 650 for less money than the cheapest (again, subsidized) CDMA/GSM hybrid phone that they sell.

Re:CDMA and SIM card question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772121)

my Cingular phone, a Sony Ericson z500a has a sim card. THank god too, cause this phone sucks and keeps breaking :/

Re:CDMA and SIM card question (1)

confusedwiseman (917951) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772418)

Part of the problem with the US cell market is that carriers here market phones not services. If I buy a verison phone it will be on the CDMA technology. If they further incorporate GSM technology that will enhance the roming capability of the phone and lead to increased fees that they would have to pay for using another providers tower. (the new thing now is not charging customers for roming) I have always bought a higher end cell phone (v3 razr and LG vx8100) I much prefer my non verizon phone because it is completely unlocked. (I payed dearly for it, but I can pop in any sim card and I get service) To those considering Verizon I ask you one question: "How DO you feel about being nickle and dimed for EVERYTHING?" The other service provider that I have allows (free with any plan) 500kb data transfer (monthly) all incoming txt messages free and 500 outgoing txt messages before they start charging me for it. I can buy games for my phone for $3-$7 one time fee -- they are mine to keep and love forever. Verizon: send/recieve pic or video - $.25 each send/recieve txt - $.10 each web on phone - $4.99 mo games/programs (getitnow) - monthly subscription for about $4 or purchase for up to $14 video on demand (vcast) $15 monthly and don't forget base service starting at $35 a month

have they learned their lesson? (1)

boomerny (670029) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772086)

Will this change Verizon's stance on bluetooth connectivity? I hope so, because I am long overdue for a new phone and have been waiting for the CDMA RAZR. I'm afraid what Verizon may do to the bluetooth and even the mini-usb port on the razr, since they've already replaced the entire Moto GUI with the new standard Verizon interface(this even meant removing the menu button from between the soft keys). Unfortunately in my area if you're not on Verizon you'll have spotty service, I know people with Cingular who do not have coverage in their own homes.

Will some one please buy Verizon (1)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772120)

out form under them. To this day, they are the one company that leads the North East to believe there is no other option for service providers. In that, they are, daily, adding prices, adding hidden costs, retracting quality options, and ultimately, giving subscribers less with their increasing monthly premiums.

e.g. Once upon a time, a customer could change ESNs at no fee charge backs. These days, within the last 2 months VZW has released a memo to all retailers about charging $15 per ESN chnage done within an account that is not repair related. As of Yesterday, that cost has been raised to $20. About two weeks ago, another memo was released. Customers will not be charged a $35 for the primary line and $25 for any consecutive additionl lines for activation fee (previously $20 for all lines on a 2 yr agreement). With the addition of activation fee increases, as one might expect, there are no service advancements or added features to your just-increased-service fees.

What is the motivation behind it? Is it a straw grasping measure to hold on to a slipping market share? Has the Sprint/Nextel merger got them shaking in their shoes? I can only hope. I can only hope that VZW gets bought out and swept up by Sprint/Nextel so we can actually preogress wireless network technology to the next level instead of keeping the entire newengland region that digital/analog are the only options for you. Move over and let the people who know COM do it.

Don't even get me started on what they do to the LG vx6100 as a pre-pay phone. Wonderful phone with all the options, yet they are crippled when one activates it as a pre-paid handset, thereby devaluing the phone to merely payphone status at a $.10-.70/min high end premium.

Re:Will some one please buy Verizon (1)

keefebert (535583) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772181)

According to Forbes, Verizon is the 18th largest company in the world, with over $7 billion in profit and $166 billion in assests. Not many companies around that can buy that out. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/03/30/05f2000land .html [forbes.com]

Greed IS Verizon's business model (3, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772127)

"Q. Well, these features are available in phones from many other carriers, and people feel cheated.
A. Verizon does business unlike any other carrier, and we make no apologies for that. ... [Those features] don't work with our business model. Every customer is certainly entitled to their own feelings. "

'we make no apologies for that' =Translation= We do what we want, when we want, and you do not matter.
'don't work with our business model' =Translation= It is much more profitable for us this way
'Every customer is certainly entitled to their own feelings.' =Translation= F You!!!

Dear Motorola (1)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772132)

Dear motorola,

I love your phones. In my eyes, you guys invented 2 way communications. But will you please fix or redesign your fucking charge port? Jeeeeeeeesus that thing sucks.

Your Friend and Motorola Retailer,
mb

Re:Dear Motorola (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772432)

Amen to that.

We got fucked by Nextel because we had to get a new phone, and they screwed up on the contract, and refused to fix it. That's why we're on Sprint now.

All this because they can't make a charge connector, and it broke on the phone. Also, we had gone through countless car cords.

Compare that to the Nokia car cords we've had. Out of four or five, ONE has died, and that was because it was dead out of the box. Two or three of the others have simply gone missing.

Up to... (1)

RehabDJ (691857) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772144)

Just got my settlement form and the BEST deal on it is to get a $25 credit on your Verizon bill. Don't be fooled that the consumer ever wins.

Yay Free Market Capialism! (1)

Tryfen (216209) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772158)

If the US had gone down the GSM route - without messing around with the band allocation - you wouldn't have this problem.

Over here is "Socialist Europe" I can buy a phone direct from the manufacturer and use it on any network, if that's what I want to do.

Instead you have half-a-dozen incompatible phone standards, poor coverage, restricted phones and dreadful service.

Sometimes cooperation and capitalism go hand in hand.

Re:Yay Free Market Capialism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772406)

Instead you have half-a-dozen incompatible phone standards, poor coverage, restricted phones and dreadful service.

Half-dozen? Look again. There is GSM in the US. Any unlocked eurotrash GSM world phone will work in the US. There is also CDMA, and TDMA. TDMA is being phased out. AT&T won't activate any more customers on TDMA since it is a dead-end technology.

Re:Yay Free Market Capialism! (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772458)

GSM is available in the US, but for all practical purposes is a new thing. T-Mobile USA is a merger of various GSM carriers around the US that used to operate in specific markets and nowhere else (imagine if Orange only worked in Wales, Cellnet in Southern England, Vodafone in Scotland, and one2one in Northern Ireland, and people in Northern England were out of luck - that's how the situation used to be in the US from a GSM user's point of view.); Cingular is a merger of several old Bell cellphone divisions and AT&T's mobile division, and they've manually been switching over to GSM, poorly and crappily, for the last four years.

As a result, relatively few Americans are used to the concept or the full ramifications of GSM. In my experience, relatively few realise you can use the SIM card in other phones, and even fewer realise you can go outside of the carriers themselves to buy compatable phones.

To make matters worse, there's been a FUD campaign against GSM for the last ten years by Qualcomm, the patent holders for CDMA. Qualcomm's complaints vary from a somewhat misleading (and hypocritical) set of claims that the EU forced GSM upon European carriers to deliberate obscufication of the differences between standards and air-interface technologies. Many Americans think that GSM is a version of IS-136, because they both use a TDMA air interface. IS-136, needless to say, is relatively poor in features (until recently, it pretty much resembled IS-95, the Qualcomm CDMA telephony standard, from an end-user standpoint), or that GSM is being replaced by CDMA, because UMTS (3G GSM) uses a "WCDMA" air interface.

Qualcomm, allegedly, has a version of IS-95 that supports SIM-like cards, that they sell in other countries. No US carriers actually support these versions. It'll be interesting to see what the consequences of Cingular's adoption of GSM, and eventually UMTS, will do to spur Verizon, Sprint, and others, into adopting this enhanced version or switching to UMTS. I'm guessing, ultimately, it'll depend on how whether a significant number of Cingular and T-Mobile users simply find the loss of freedom in switching to the IS-95 carriers so unacceptable they're no longer willing to do it, or if they do, they switch back in large numbers.

Why only before 2005? (1)

matth (22742) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772186)

I purchased by crippled v710 in June of 2005, why on earth am I not entitled to some sort of compensation?!?!

Re:Why only before 2005? (1)

spinfire (148920) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772293)

The settlement wasn't over the crippling of bluetooth. It was made because Verizon didn't adequately alert people the OBEX functionality was disabled. As a result of the settlement, Verizon now puts a note on all their Bluetooth phone material indicating which profiles are active.

If this information was right there, and you still purchased the phone, you are in no way entitled to any compensation.

Re:Why only before 2005? (1)

matth (22742) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772314)

That makes sence. I didn't purchase the phone for OBEX capability, I purchased it because it rocks on reception, and has some other neat features (ie. tethering), but definately not for the OBEX. However, as can be seen in my other post, my phone has now crashed. Why are consumer electronics so cheap?!?!

Re:Why only before 2005? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13772465)

You haven't suffered long enough.

European cellphones (1)

freaker_TuC (7632) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772209)

I do not know how the cellphone market is in the States but here in Europe you can buy a cellphone at any shop, put your sim card in it and the phone just works. Wether it is Nokia, Motorola or the oldest Ericsson; it will always work. If you buy a phone with reduction (like 50 euro for the phone with subscription) there is mostly a SIM LOCK on the phones which prevents another provider sim card to be put in the phone without unlocking.

I've never seen or heart about any phones being crippled (in the literal sense) that badly. I'd feel royally f*cked if I'd get a phone like that.

I even wonder, does Verizon even announce the crippled functions on their cellphones? Because if you go to the manufacturers website you get a phone with full specs - are these specs also similar on the operators website(s)? Such wouldn't be even legal in Europe and would be called "misleading information before sale".

I like the phone but.... (1)

matth (22742) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772227)

Don't get me wrong, I like my v710... but here are my list of issues, for which reason I am taking it back to Verizon Saturday to try to get it fixed...

* When plugged in to charge will say "Unable to Charge"

* If I open the phone to turn an alarm on, then close it, the backlight
stays on (that's normal), however, if I now plug the phone in to charge it,
the backlight never goes off (or into it's reduced brightness mode).
I have to wait untilt he backlight goes off, THEN plug the phone in.

* The camera says "BUSY" when I try to use it. BUSY?!?! Who else is using
my camera?!

* The phone locks up totally when I try to access the camera.

* After opening the phone, if I close it, after the timeout period, the
text will go off the phone, but the backlight remains on, draining the
battery.

* After being on for several days, the phone begins to run sluggish,
especially when accessing audio files, recording voice, or taking pictures.

Re:I like the phone but.... (1)

spinfire (148920) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772315)

You have a defective phone. They should give you a replacement, if they don't, stick it to them until they do. It isn't that common, but it happens. I know several people with the V710 and they love it -- no issues,

T-Mobile and Motorola (2, Informative)

qazwart (261667) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772246)

I got my cell service from T-Mobile. Not only are they a GSM provider (and I can even get a phone from them that works outside of the U.S.), but they don't disable their Bluetooth at all.

I am fully able to transfer files back and forth between my computer and my Motorola RAZR phone. I even sync my addressbook between my phone and my computer (and it was one of the big reasons I went T-Mobile and bought this particular phone).

I bet you could probably go to Japan, get one of those ultra-cool phones they have there, then use it with T-Mobile in the U.S.

BTW, I think it is a very bad sign that the U.S. is no longer the first country to get the latest technilogical doodads. Heck, we're not even one of the first. A lot of the really high tech stuff never even hits the U.S. markets. Many tech firms are beginning to treat us like a third world market. It's not just cell phones, but video game consoles, and even watches.

What about me? (1)

midmopub (922286) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772250)

Why the January cut off date? Verizon continued to sell these V710 phones up until the new Motorola E815 rolled out recently. I purchased to V710's in August in fact without knowing about the limited functionality.

I guess I am just out of luck.

Phones... (1)

EddyPearson (901263) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772292)

I never heard about this, pretty underhand! No doubt Verizon took a nice cut from selling those handsets before they mentioned that most of it would work :p

v276 next? (1)

stanswx (791587) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772323)

It'd be nice if we could get a group like that together for their new v276 phone. At least we could hack the v265, but no one has found a way to unlock the file transfer stuff in the v276. I like Verizon's coverage and phones, but I really wish they wouldn't cripple their phones. Most non-geek/tech people will still pay for ringtones cause they're not going to know how or want to spend the time to hook up a cable to their computer.

Sue T-Mobile too! (2, Interesting)

LinuxGeekMobile (700015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772355)

The Sidek!ck II from T-Mobile is horribly hobbled compared to it's original form, the Danger HipTop2. T-Mobile locks out any form of transfer of ringtones, whether from the end-user or a third-party company. The only way to install any is through their "catalog" application... the vast majority of which are "ghetto". They do the same with applications. Many, many apps are available for this device, but you're limited to about 15 from their catalog, many of which are beta quality at best and poorly maintained. No refunds for your alarm clock app when it doesn't work. Now if you live in Canada, you have multiple providers supporting this device, who do not lock it down in this manner. Unfortunately, T-Mobile seems to have an exclusivity contract with Danger (the company that designed the device and provides the back-end) in the U.S.

Re:Sue T-Mobile too! (1)

LinuxGeekMobile (700015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772394)

I forgot to mention that their advertized "DSL Speeds" are far closer to 9600bps modem speeds.

sucks to be me (1)

g0nk (782884) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772372)

I got my v710 in April.. it's still crippled.. i'd LOVE to get outta my contract and go to someone else.

Telus cripples phones too (1)

phizman (742537) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772460)

The V710 is crippled though Telus as well. Tried a number of hacks I've read and none seem to work...likely disabled in the Telus branded firmware.

Switched (1)

sacrilicious (316896) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772466)

I ditched Verizon because of this crippled bluetooth business. Approximately the same week that the hack contest announced failure, TMobile published the first ever street-level map of their coverage. That was all I needed. I switched to TMobile, got a much more fully featured phone than Verizon had available, and have been a happy camper ever since.

After January 2005??? (1)

JavaTHut (9877) | more than 8 years ago | (#13772563)

What about those of us who bought one of these things after January 2005? Ours are just as crippled as everyone elses!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>