Carriers need to be held responsible

[recDNA]

Ok, so there are a few constant misnomers that are quickly becoming pet peeves of mine, because every seems to think the same load of garbage that some entry-level Tech Support rep told them.

Listen, repeat it to yourself, and then repeat it to your friends and family: ROOTING DOES NOT, I REPEAT NOT, VOID YOUR WARRANTY. It is actually technically illegal to void the warranty just by gaining extra permissions on a device YOU OWN. However, be aware that many of the customization available after rooting are not supported by any warranty.

Furthermore, if you rooted and flashed back to a previous version of your phone's unrooted software, in what warped world would you think your warranty is voided? No one at New Breed would begin to know how to look for that, much less be able to prove you rooted.

First, congrats to the op for initiating a very interesting discussion.

Second, to Mortiel..... I have read of cases of folks being billed the full retail value of a phone after sending back a rooted device and having it replaced by a refurb. They are charged because the phone was rooted and thus had no warranty so no right to return for refurb.

Are these stories untrue?

If they are true where does VZW get off charging full retail value for a lousy refurb?

 

[FrankXS]

My point is that choice #1 and #2 has never, and will never, be in Verizon's hands. The manufacturer of the phone dictates the programming of the update and the manner in which it is implemented. Verizon is solely there as a means of transport,

Really, I can't agree with this. Just because VZW hires HTC to design and manufacture a product that VZW sells to us does not give VZW the right to pass the buck to their "supplier" when it comes to responsibility.

I'm an IT consultant and I hire sub-contractors to do certain parts of the job for me (I don't like climbing through ceilings and attics running cable, so sue me! ). Anyway, if that part of the job is done wrong, I can't tell my customer, hey, it wasn't my fault, my contractor did it. Right?

-Frank

 

[jcastag]

Also keep in mind that we are not able to buy handsets to use on vzw that are not branded from vzw. there must be accountability from both the handset vendor and has if we are left with only one choice.

vzw saying they are not responsible for issues that are related to the hardware or software and only provide the wireless service is not acceptable.

I pay vzw for that hardware. I get locked into a contract with vzw for the subsidy of that hardware. they are in essence the retail channel for that hardware so they need to be responsible for support of that device.

 

[jcastag]

The only way they would be able to tell is if he read them a software number or kernel number that does not match the stock ROM.

This is BS. Sorry. Not sure whose BS, but BS.

Also, I don't think the point of your OP was overlooked. You recieved a number of replies directly addressing that issue. One from me.

-Frank

 

[Mortiel]

Really, I can't agree with this. Just because VZW hires HTC to design and manufacture a product that VZW sells to us does not give VZW the right to pass the buck to their "supplier" when it comes to responsibility.

I'm an IT consultant and I hire sub-contractors to do certain parts of the job for me (I don't like climbing through ceilings and attics running cable, so sue me! ). Anyway, if that part of the job is done wrong, I can't tell my customer, hey, it wasn't my fault, my contractor did it. Right?

-Frank

Here's the thing: Cell phone manufacturers are not sub-contractors or just suppliers. Verizon does not hire Apple to work on its towers, however Apple sells its phones in their stores and through every retailer willing to deal with Apple's demands. Apple has suppliers for some of their hardware, for which they cannot blame if their device malfunctions. Cell phone makers are and are not suppliers for product to carriers. See, its more or less a mutual agreement... we provide the water and the manufacturer makes a cup. We want them to make a cup sturdy enough to hold water, but otherwise we leave the shape, color, and size up to them.

Here's the best analogy I've heard: If you buy a car, and it breaks down, do you blame your local DOT/EPA responsible for maintaining the roads and giving the car maker rules on what the car can/cannot do? If your car is running superbly, but the roads in your area are horrendous, do you blame Ford?

Point is, place the blame with the party responsible: If Verizon is not providing you with cellular service that does not meet your expectations in any way, then do not blame a cell phone maker. If a phone maker is messing up phones with updates, do not blame Verizon. Instead. play the capitalistic route: Whatever product and/or service is not up to your standards, then go to a competitor: If Verizon service is poor, go to Sprint/AT&T/T-Mobile. If HTC makes poor update decisions, then buy Apple/Motorola/LG/Samsung/RIM.

 

[Mortiel]

First, congrats to the op for initiating a very interesting discussion.

Second, to Mortiel..... I have read of cases of folks being billed the full retail value of a phone after sending back a rooted device and having it replaced by a refurb. They are charged because the phone was rooted and thus had no warranty so no right to return for refurb.

Are these stories untrue?

If they are true where does VZW get off charging full retail value for a lousy refurb?

This is a myth. You are only charged full retail if you do not return your defective device. If anything, you would be assessed a "damaged device fee" of $299 for customer abuse/misuse. This *should be* clearly disclosed to anyone receiving a warranty replacement from Verizon, as per Verizon employee policy. The reason you are charge full retail for not returning your phone is because that's what Verizon gets charged for not providing the return to New Breed.

If, in some way, you having root access could have caused the defect at hand, they will call it your fault, even if you did absolutely nothing to you phone aside from just having root access. Why? Because New Breed does not dig into the programming to separate what really caused software/hardware issues, and furthermore HTC does not allow warranty coverage for issues potentially stemming from non-OEM software.

That is why I say to flash back on stock software and S-ON bootloader, and you never even risk such things. Again, it comes back to doing your homework.

 

[FrankXS]

Point is, place the blame with the party responsible:

The only recourse the consumer has is to place the blame on the retailer that took the money from him.

-Frank

 

[Jude526]

I cannot agree with the consumer on this. You change your phone and it breaks. It is your fault. Not the manufacturer or the carrier. When I worked fir an indirect we paid a price for the phone. It is not the consumers business how much a product cost. It is expensive and indirect retailers pay the same for a phone as a corporate store. There are guidelines set when getting a phone. Geez. Its like anything else. If your mechanic told you you needed to use A oil instead of B oil wouldn't you follow his advice. Carriers have to protect themselves. They don't make the phones and some people think they actually do. I had a customer call me a liar when I told her Verizon is the carrier. Motorola makes her phone. Oye! Cars have warranty specifics. Same with phones. You void the warranty you are at FAULT. Not the carrier.
Carriers also get the updates from the manufacturers.
Be responsible. I am glad to not sell anymore. People take advantage and they are damn sneaky about it sometimes. Customers who have legit issues and who are honest get the brunt if it too. The bad guy ruins it for everyone. I am a manager for a sunglass company now. We have a generous warranty. People will take advantage too. But with us if it becomes an issue we black list them. They can't buy anymore. And that comes from corporate! There will always be a rotten apple in the crop.


Sent from my Thunderbolt using Tapatalk

 

[bulldogmoe7]

my 2 quick points. i agree with Mortiel, another analogy on the warrenty part. you buy a new car, you put a new engine it, engine breaks,rear end brakes etc is it the manufactures responsibility to cover it now? NO you made changes to the phone as like changing out an engine in a brand new car.
2nd i believe in my opnion, correct me if i am wrong, YOU DO NOT OWN THE PHONE. unless you paid cash full price for it. that is why you sign a 2 yr contract, part of that 2 years your are paying the "rest" of that phone. 2yr contract phone is $199, full price i say $599, so for the next 2 years your paying $400, your basically renting the phone. its not your till paid off. now do i agree with that no, in my eyes its MINE!! all mine. but truth is its not.
plus people its only a phone, why get in such an up-roar over this? we have options and choices in life we are allowed to make. cell phone companies are only the middle men,
you buy a dell laptop at best buy it breaks is it best buys fault?? no, not at all. its dells. but best buy will help and honor the "problem" with the dell product

 

[FrankXS]

my 2 quick points. i agree with Mortiel, another analogy on the warrenty part. you buy a new car, you put a new engine it, engine breaks,rear end brakes etc is it the manufactures responsibility to cover it now? NO you made changes to the phone as like changing out an engine in a brand new car.

I don't know how people can read the same post and get so many different interpretations ot of it.

The OP was not talking about changes the USER made to the phone. He was talking about the changes Verizon made to the user's phone. With no choice by the user. OTA updates.

Here is the OPs first sentance...

I think all carriers need to be held responsible of the updates that are sent to our phones.

-Frank

 

[FrankXS]

I cannot agree with the consumer on this. You change your phone and it breaks.

No, "you" did not change your phone. Verizon did. Without your consent. Via OTA updates. Totally different animal.

Here is the OPs first sentance...

I think all carriers need to be held responsible of the updates that are sent to our phones.

-Frank

 

[Mortiel]

No, "you" did not change your phone. Verizon did. Without your consent. Via OTA updates. Totally different animal.

Here is the OPs first sentance...


-Frank

My point still stands: Carriers do not make the updates. Carriers do not offer the warranty. Why should a carrier be held responsible for the actions/policies of manufacturers?

And to respond to a previous comment: While you do technically own the phone when you buy it on contract, if you cancel service early you get charged an early termination fee to compensate the carrier for the difference they are offering you in price on the device. We don't reclaim the equipment.

 

[fire125k]

Wow I am so glad that this has started so much. Here is the point if. If you lease a car technically you don't own it. Lets say you have the car for 3 months and you have no problems with it. You get a letter that you need to bring it in because of a recall. After you get the car back it has lots of problems. It shuts off without warning and the radio station changes by its self lol. The dealer tells you that the company is working on the problem and will have it fixed in a month or two. But you have a mechanic that can fix your car now. So you need the car fixed ASAP so you bring it to him to fix. Car is fixed and working great only problem is something goes wrong with it 3 months later and you bring it to the dealer and they tell you because a mechanic worked on it it voided the warranty.

If you buy a dell laptop and after 9 months you need a new hard drive the send you one. But if that hard drive doesn't work when you get it they will keep sending you new ones. They won't tell you that you need to wait 2 months without a computer till they come up with a fix....

I know htc pushes and makes the updates but my contract is with Verizon. Verizon tests the software before its released. Verizon needs to hold htc or any manufacture accountable. If the phone had all the problems when you first bought it you would return it within the 15 days. The 15 day return policy should be for non smartphones. They don't get updates and are for he most part used just for phone calls. These smartphone need to have a different policy.

Thanks and lets keep this going. I will be making a Facebook page because I feel strong about this and want to show all company's that we want what we are paying for.....

 

[FrankXS]

My point still stands: Carriers do not make the updates. Carriers do not offer the warranty. Why should a carrier be held responsible for the actions/policies of manufacturers?

I don't know about your Thunderbolt, but mine says Verizon on it.

-Frank

Sent from my HTC ThunderBolt 4G/LTE using Tapatalk

 

[recDNA]

This is a myth. You are only charged full retail if you do not return your defective device. If anything, you would be assessed a "damaged device fee" of $299 for customer abuse/misuse. This *should be* clearly disclosed to anyone receiving a warranty replacement from Verizon, as per Verizon employee policy. The reason you are charge full retail for not returning your phone is because that's what Verizon gets charged for not providing the return to New Breed.

If, in some way, you having root access could have caused the defect at hand, they will call it your fault, even if you did absolutely nothing to you phone aside from just having root access. Why? Because New Breed does not dig into the programming to separate what really caused software/hardware issues, and furthermore HTC does not allow warranty coverage for issues potentially stemming from non-OEM software.

That is why I say to flash back on stock software and S-ON bootloader, and you never even risk such things. Again, it comes back to doing your homework.

The problem is often the defect itself may prevent returning to stock. Like one guy wrote that his phone would no longer connect to a computer as a disk drive due to a problem in the charging port. He could charge his batteries only with a separate charger. The problem is you cannot unroot without a computer connection. This means he had to return a phone that cursory examination would reveal was rooted (revolutionary recovery screen) The defect is hardware related so should he (will he) be charged $300 for "abuse"?

 

[jcastag]

your point is not complete though. The carrier does not "make" the update. BUT THE CARRIER TEST THE UPDATE, APPROVES THE UPDATE, AND PUSHES THE UPDATE!!

And lets not forget they add their BLOATWARE!

They are the reason for the delays in software updates!! Why should they not have ANY responsibility?

 

[Mortiel]

your point is not complete though. The carrier does not "make" the update. BUT THE CARRIER TEST THE UPDATE, APPROVES THE UPDATE, AND PUSHES THE UPDATE!!

And lets not forget they add their BLOATWARE!

They are the reason for the delays in software updates!! Why should they not have ANY responsibility?

Bloatware is requested by the carrier in most cases... in rare cases its added by the manufacturer... but it is always implemented by the manufacturer. Verizon does not have a smartphone programming division.

And this is where it always comes. Yes, Verizon tests an update and has to approve it. In fact, Verizon tests updates more than any other carrier to ensure there is minimal negative impact. Yes, that actually is part of the reason why a select few updates are so slow in coming to phones. But which you prefer Verizon just lets the updates pass through?

Also, Verizon does NOT push the updates. The manufacturer pushes the update over our network. Personally, I would not even have it that way if it were me. I would honestly go Apple's original update path... use some kind of RUU tool that backs up user data, wipes the device, installs the new software clean, then restores the compatible user data back. The failure rate is much much lower.

The is my problem with the testing we do to updates: We take a test device, we take a device with a clean install of the said update.

What's the problem with that, you ask? How many of you stock users are using a clean install? I can at least guess less than 1%. Nope, the vast majority are installing over top of older software with tons of tiny little corruptions, which was likely installed over top of a yet older and more corrupt software.

The ONLY thing that irks me to know end is that a manufacturer programs an update with the explicit knowledge that there will be a 3%-5% failure rate in the OTA update process. Yes, they assume that 3%-5% of their active devices will fail. That's normally no problem, except when a manufacturer releases the update with said knowledge over a year after the device was launched... meaning that a good 50% of the phone users will be out of warranty. Now THAT is something I think Verizon should put their foot down on, but they likely will not, because they would prefer to just offer you an upgrade instead, locking you into another contract. Its not whether your phone gets bunked by an update, its when the manufacturer pushes out an update after the majority of the users are out of warranty knowing some of the customers will get screwed. Software updates should come with an automatic 90-day stand alone warranty to account for such situations.


But I digress... My point is that the carrier has plenty of responsibility: Its cellular services. You think that's not enough? Try looking over our engineer work orders for just one day... they number in the tens of thousands.

 

[Mortiel]

I don't know about your Thunderbolt, but mine says Verizon on it.

-Frank

Sent from my HTC ThunderBolt 4G/LTE using Tapatalk

So if you buy a newer Ford vehicle with a Microsoft Sync system, and a tire blows out, please call Microsoft and complain.

My Thunderbolt also says Google on it, as well as LTE. So should I start talking Google and the ITU aswell?

No offense, but when it comes to taking an issue to the source, I prefer the actual source, not a proxy. If I want my computer fixed, I would prefer to deal with someone who actually builds/fixes computers, not company that provides my internet service.