ATT is even more hostile to UDP than Verizon is. Please keep us posted but I don't think ATT thinks letting anyone keep UDP is reasonable.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Part II - UDP For Life
- Thread starter jdougal
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Will do, but Verizon has been more successful than AT&T at getting people off UDPs, primarily since, unlike AT&T, they no longer subsidize phones for people on UDPs who renew contracts. And they are still throttling, at least for now. Let's see what the FCC pressure leads them to do.
The first day I can get a "quote" from Sprint is Friday, so I'll try then.
It's not the FCC that is suing ATT for throttling UDP - it is the FTC. HUGE difference. Unlike Verizon, the FCC can't stop ATT from throttling as ATT does not have any of the block C spectrum license restrictions - only Verizon does.
And all the FTC can make ATT do is advertise their throttling policy better and force them to change the name from UDP to something else. The FTC cause of of action is about deception of the consumer that is it. All ATT has to do to end that is agree to pay a fine, advertise their throttling policy more vigorously, and stop calling their plans UDP.
Verizon's situation is far, far, far different and involves the FCC and the block C license restrictions.
I hadn't realized which federal agency was going after AT&T. Thanks for the info.
Didn't T-Mobile just buy some of VZW's 700MHz spectrum? Was it Band C? If so, then maybe we'll get another "automatic" unlocking carrier. The February 2015 accord with the Big 4 has too many loopholes. The phones just need to be "unlockable." It will finally solve the Sprint problem (if I get the iPhone 6s next year) but won't do much else.
I wonder why the FCC imposed those terms only on the Band C spectrum and not the rest of 700MHz. Will they make the same requirement for all the 600MHz spectrum up for sale next year?
B/c Verizon was allowed to license virtually all of the block c spectrum which is the most desirable spectrum out there. When the analog to digital conversion occurred, Google intervened and pressured the FCC to not allow Verizon to have a monopoly on the most desirable part of the spectrum w/o the open access restrictions. Thus we have 47 CFR 27.16.
Well another loophole has been exposed on the SD thread.
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=72553810&postcount=14570
It works with either a TDP or a basic line to receive the upgrade and results in you getting to repeatedly upgrade the same line over and over again using the 4ever method. I don't have any upgrades to test it out, but in theory you shouldn't have to use a UDP line's upgrade - any line should be able to be the upgrade donor line in theory. But since the SD thread is about UDP upgrades, so far at least that is all that have been tried.
I have already warned others about my experience here and on SDs so proceed at your own risk if at all. After what I went through, I wouldn't do this. I don't have any upgrades to do it with anyhow but as I now know, Verizon can blacklist all of the IMEIs of the devices.
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=72555932&postcount=14572
I am just bummed that this loophole exists b/c people are going to abuse it and Verizon is going to fix it and when they do, they may fix all of the loopholes that allow us to upgrade our UDP lines.
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=72553810&postcount=14570
It works with either a TDP or a basic line to receive the upgrade and results in you getting to repeatedly upgrade the same line over and over again using the 4ever method. I don't have any upgrades to test it out, but in theory you shouldn't have to use a UDP line's upgrade - any line should be able to be the upgrade donor line in theory. But since the SD thread is about UDP upgrades, so far at least that is all that have been tried.
I have already warned others about my experience here and on SDs so proceed at your own risk if at all. After what I went through, I wouldn't do this. I don't have any upgrades to do it with anyhow but as I now know, Verizon can blacklist all of the IMEIs of the devices.
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=72555932&postcount=14572
I am just bummed that this loophole exists b/c people are going to abuse it and Verizon is going to fix it and when they do, they may fix all of the loopholes that allow us to upgrade our UDP lines.
Last edited:
Well another loophole has been exposed on the SD thread.
I have already warned others about my experience here and on SDs so proceed at your own risk if at all. After what I went through, I wouldn't do this. I don't have any upgrades to do it with anyhow but as I now know, Verizon can blacklist all of the IMEIs of the devices.
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=72555932&postcount=14572
I am just bummed that this loophole exists b/c people are going to abuse it and Verizon is going to fix it and when they do, they may fix all of the loopholes that allow us to upgrade our UDP lines.
To be fair, lots of us "abused" the Apple.com loophole, which led to Verizon formally ending AOLs of UDPs (though apparently not in practice).
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens as LTE-Advanced starts taking shape over the next few years. 1GB could be used up in seconds, but at the same time network capacity will increase. We may see significant increases in data allowances, if not a return to UDPs in the future. Or perhaps T-Mobile and Sprint will shut off the UDP spigot once they realize that there is heavy demand being placed on their systems.
Given all the cold water that analysts and tech writers are pouring on Sprint's "half price" program, I'm less convinced AT&T will offer concessions, but will still give it a shot tomorrow. Apparently you need to turn in a "current" phone or pay $200, but they don't define what that means. A 5c is still "current" but goes for $200 on Swappa. A 4s is no longer offered by AT&T or Verizon, but in theory I could have purchased one from AT&T or Verizon on contract 2 years ago, or even 1 year ago and still have an ETF to pay.
But as I wrote over on SD, Verizon was not harmed by the add a new UDP line - every subsidized phone resulted in a binding 2 year contract.
With this loophole, Verizon IS harmed b/c they do not get a new 2 year contract for every subsidized phone. HUGE difference.
True. This is essentially a $450 giveaway every time someone "repeats." I don't think it will take Verizon 2 months to close down this loophole.
Also as I wrote on SD, Verizon was actually helped by the add a new UDP line method b/c many of us brought new customers to Verizon.
This new glitch is terrible for Verizon and if they get wind of it, I am sure they will shut it down quickly. I just hope they don't shut down all of the other loopholes when they do. And I hope no one goes through what I went through b/c it was awful. And I am not sure Verizon would be as sympathetic to someone who repeatedly uses an upgrade as they were eventually to me. I did nothing wrong - I paid for a subsidized phone and bound myself to a 2 year contract for each subsidized phone. Then I found another person to assume liability on the line and Verizon OKed them taking over the line by doing a credit check.
----------
Yes, it is a $450 giveaway with nothing in return for Verizon.
I think it was first discovered in September after the August policy change and the throttling notice when we were all trying to get back on contract by 10/1/14. I think what happened is that Verizon did intend to shut down the 4ever method but whoever in their IT department implemented it, screwed up. So instead of losing UDP when you do the 4ever method, you just don't get your contract renewed.
Verizon has no one but themselves to blame for this b/c instead of them taking the PR hit and risking the possibility of a mass exodus by eliminating UDP, they chose all of these other punishments for UDP subscribers. And since they don't have IT people who know what they are doing, they can't even implement them correctly resulting in the loopholes.
Last edited:
Yes, it is bad, and I suspect it will be shut down quickly if they suddently see a spike in "repeat" upgrades from customers.
That said, I think we'll start seeing an even bigger increase in competition over the next few years. SIM swapping is a reality for Verizon now. The interoperability agreement goes into full force in February 2015, and they have said they want to start selling LTE-only devices by 2016. At that point they are essentially a "GSM" carrier that happens to be running a legacy CDMA network for old devices until 2020. At that point there is no more "activating" or "whitelisting" going on (other than the actual device activation, which is the same with AT&T or T-Mobile). Sprint will be an outlier for a few more years, but at least with new phones developed after February 2015 (including the next iPhone and Samsung Galaxy models) they'll be unlockable. That will make it easier for people to switch. As T-Mobile and Sprint improve their networks, and AT&T launches carrier aggregation, it will put pressure on Verizon to reduce prices or improve data allowances.
Well another loophole has been exposed on the SD thread.
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=72553810&postcount=14570
It works with either a TDP or a basic line to receive the upgrade and results in you getting to repeatedly upgrade the same line over and over again using the 4ever method. I don't have any upgrades to test it out, but in theory you shouldn't have to use a UDP line's upgrade - any line should be able to be the upgrade donor line in theory. But since the SD thread is about UDP upgrades, so far at least that is all that have been tried.
I have already warned others about my experience here and on SDs so proceed at your own risk if at all. After what I went through, I wouldn't do this. I don't have any upgrades to do it with anyhow but as I now know, Verizon can blacklist all of the IMEIs of the devices.
http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=72555932&postcount=14572
I am just bummed that this loophole exists b/c people are going to abuse it and Verizon is going to fix it and when they do, they may fix all of the loopholes that allow us to upgrade our UDP lines.
I wonder after Verizon caught a whiff of this, what will they do?
Blacklist the devices or try to charge you full retail for the device. I would have to read through all of the Verizon docs to know if they have a legal leg to stand on to do the latter, but I know they can do the former. You could argue for a refund of the subisidzed price you paid and the upgrade fee if any if they blacklisted the devices. The problem is that people are selling them and if they sell them, it would be their buyers who suffer this.
The one guy who was doing this on SD is selling them to go overseas, but like I said, if they are iPhones, they have to be activated through Apple's servers and Apple could cooperate with Verizon but idk if they would or not.
With the added UDP lines, Verizon has no legal leg to stand on to blacklist the devices. No one did anything wrong. Apple offered this option to us, we paid the price Apple said to pay and we were bound by a 2 year contract during which time Verizon can recoup the subsidy. And we found people who Verizon approved their credit to take over the lines. Verizon has no argument that anything fraudulent was done to justify blacklisting the devices when we added new UDP lines through apple.
The only argument they would have with the Apple.com UDPs is that Apple's official terms say that they won't sell to resellers through their retail stores or online. However, that's up to Apple to choose to enforce or not, which they sort of did through the 10-device limit. And since every one of those devices resulted in Apple receiving full price, and the vast majority of those devices were re-sold to US customers (and were not sold on the "gray market" overseas) they probably don't have any issue with it.
There is nothing Apple can do about that after the fact except bar you from ever buying from them again. So no, it is not an argument.
They can't do anything about it once they sell you the device except bar you from buying from them in the future.
Turbo charger is back in stock but power pack micro is still OOS.
http://www.motorola.com/us/accessor...Turbo-Charger/motorola-turbo-charger-pdp.html
I've posted several threads here and at HoFo, and the general consensus is that people aren't interested in switching. It doesn't bode well for my negotiating power with Retentions.
Someone posted an interesting idea at HoFo, though. I wonder if Sprint would "halve" one of the loyalty $45 UDPs to $22.50. Since the deals all come with unlimited voice and text, it's an interesting thought.
Anyone with a $45 UDP care to upload a bill to Sprint tomorrow and see what they offer? I still have the first "double-bill" with a 450 minute plan and several AOLed lines outstanding for 1-2 days, so it would probably take the Sprint rep forever to figure out what their "half price" offer would be.
Even with all other methods you're still bound to a two year contract extension. Whatever that guy is doing just doesn't feel right.
Like you said before I hope 1. Verizon doesn't close all the loopholes 2. I hope Verizon doesn't retrospectively punish people who already got a phone with one of those methods.
Highly highly doubt they would halve the loyalty plans with UDP. Plus at least with Verizon you can use any device you want. Not really worth it IMO.I've posted several threads here and at HoFo, and the general consensus is that people aren't interested in switching. It doesn't bode well for my negotiating power with Retentions.
Someone posted an interesting idea at HoFo, though. I wonder if Sprint would "halve" one of the loyalty $45 UDPs to $22.50. Since the deals all come with unlimited voice and text, it's an interesting thought.
Anyone with a $45 UDP care to upload a bill to Sprint tomorrow and see what they offer? I still have the first "double-bill" with a 450 minute plan and several AOLed lines outstanding for 1-2 days, so it would probably take the Sprint rep forever to figure out what their "half price" offer would be.
Verizon isn't going to spend the money to hand audit accounts looking for this kind of stuff. If you trip a suspicious activity flag, then a human being in the fraud department will review your account. Using the loopholes once isn't going to trip any flags. Using them multiple times may.
Dumb question perhaps, but it is better to actually send an email to a higher-up at VZW letting them know of the specific loophole and how unfair it is? You risk having them "over-correct" but at the same time it might just wind up being fielded by someone in middle management who will close the egregious loophole but leave the others in place either out of ignorance or a calculated evaluation.
I've sent emails to CEOs of airlines and other companies, and have gotten responses from people in positions to do something more than symbolic. Sure, the CEO never saw it, but someone did.
Not sure why. It's going to be middle management who figures this out sooner or later. Point them in the specific direction now, or have someone figure out the whole story later. Plus, you'll get on the good side of someone next time they run a fraud check.
If you don't understand why that is a dumb idea, you won't be able to understand my explanation.Not sure why. It's going to be middle management who figures this out sooner or later. Point them in the specific direction now, or have someone figure out the whole story later. Plus, you'll get on the good side of someone next time they run a fraud check.
Dear Verizon CEO,
Bichigo at SlickDeals just wants to let you know that he's prepared to buy 20 iPhone 6+ 128GB for $499 to sell in China for $1000 by exploiting a loophole in your upgrade system. Just thought you'd like to know. I can give you some more info for another UDP line, just in case you're asking.
Sincerely, your friend
Jules
Last edited:
- Status