The FCC and your 8.1 Cyan Update

[MadDogFL62]

"We welcome your complaints and concerns.  Please use the www.fcc.gov/complaints Website as this is the most expedient way to file a complaint.  After doing so, we will assign an FCC Agent to your complaint.  It is the goal of the FCC Agent to work with Verizon to establish some kind of resolution."

And so went my conversation with the FCC today regarding these "irregular", "illegal", "useless", "annoying" and other such-defined complaints that we have all been told "aren't worth filing". 

The FCC said that all complaints are considered "real" and that all are assigned to FCC Agents.  The FCC Agent then contacts Verizon to try to find a solution - then brings the customer into the loop to see that either (A) the problem is solved, or (B) the customer decides to escalate because they do not feel that the problem is solved.

"Escalate" was a fresh option so I asked my Rep to explain.  I was told that if you are not satisfied with what the Verizon Rep tells you during their call, that you can contact the FCC and ask for a Mediation Specialist to step in.  This request must be made in writing, must include your complaint number, and must be sent via mail or fax.  A request for mediation is an aggressive step, therefore the FCC can no longer receive electronic correspondence regarding the complaint.  This sounded extremely "official" - making the request in writing, etc. - but a legitimate option nonetheless as complaints in the past have gone nowhere with Verizon.

My FCC Rep was eager to know what my concerns with Verizon were and confirmed that they were legitimate complaints.  She also said that since the Verizon Customer Contract could come into play during mediation, that they always suggest that the consumer's State Attorney's Office receives communication about the complaint as well.  I was told that the State Attorney's Office would take a serious look at the complaint - especially after seeing that I took the time to go through the FCC complaint process and that I am asking for mediation.

I planned on going to the State Attorney's Office with a pile of paperwork after this round of complaints, but the whole idea about FCC mediation may accomplish the goal of getting someone to pay attention at Verizon.  It may accomplish something simple like a documented public update schedule for Windows Phones from Verizon (as has been discussed out here in the past), or it may be something big like a resolution that involves Microsoft working more closely with Verizon to participate in pre-release testing programs. 

Do you have your 8.1 Cyan Update yet?  Do you have a better plan to promote you getting your update (or future updates) faster?  If you answered "no" to both, then please join me by filing your complaint.  Feel free to ask for mediation when Verizon calls to ask how things are going and by all means, be sure to let your State Attorney's Office know as well.  No one is looking to sue anyone.  No one is looking for fees or fines.  There is nothing illegal happening here that we are the whistleblowers on.  Just looking for a change that benefits the paying customer when it comes to updating our Windows Phone devices.  Please join me.

FCC Consumer Line:  1-888-225-5322

Federal Communications Commission

Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau

Consumer Complaints

445 12th Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20554

FAX:  1- 866-418-0232

FCC Complaints:  File Complaint | FCC.gov

State Attorney's Offices throughout the US:  NAAG | Current Attorneys General

[Tidbits]

CDMA is completely different than GSM. CDMA requires more code and also more signed keys than GSM. This also requires testing by Qualcomm to get their signed key. Just because they look the same and act the same doesn't mean they are the same

[BDub43]

I am open to be corrected only if you have facts to support it, I think the 930 works on CDMA and GSM, the LTE Bands are different

[Tidbits]

CDMA when active requires what I said above. If not then it doesn't need to go through the CDMA process. That alone makes the two devices different.

[Tepid]

Prove it, where are the documents that state this?

Till then, your posts are meaningless.

[Tidbits]

You like attacking my information, but not actually reading your fellow "I want the update now" people.  One of them cut and pasted their response from Nokia which specifically targets the "special" radio needed additional testing... Qualcomm only makes 2 radio's now...  Both are universal radios with CDMA in them...  It's a layman term to make it easier to understand that the radio itself needs to be differently because CDMA requires more than GSM.  If you don't use the CDMA portion you don't need to worry about the additional testing.

[BDub43]

No need to be difficult, read the Qualcomm information. You will notice that the L735 will be release on Verizon and then a GSM carrier later this year. Just look at the specs' for the chip. Older chips had two part numbers newer chipset like the SD800 do not.

Sent from my Windows Phone

[BDub43]

If you look at the specs both the LUMIA ICON and the LUMIA 930 support CDMA the active LTE channels are what's different. The chipset is universal. The difference is the ICON is licked to Verizon the L930 is not locked but the LTE channels are not active for data on Verizon.

Sent from my Windows Phone

[Tidbits]

BDub43 wrote:

If you look at the specs both the LUMIA ICON  and the LUMIA 930 support CDMA the active LTE channels are what's different.  The chipset is universal. The difference is the ICON is licked to Verizon the L930 is not locked but the LTE channels are not active for data on Verizon.

Sent from my Windows Phone

I am aware, but the CDMA itself needs signed packages from Nokia as well as Qualcomm to make the radio work.  You do not treat CDMA the same as GSM in that regard regardless if it's a universal radio being used.  When the person told that person about the "special" radio being in the devices was for the fact CDMA development and requirements are different.  I was merely pointing that out.  If you say it in layman terms is saying it without getting overly complicated.

[BDub43]

Again you can activate a 930 on Verizon but the LTE wouldn't work. You can activate the ICON on T-Mobile but the LTE will may not work. Get it? Read additional info before replying jet saying...... By the way this is my industry before you blindly debate without reading additional information.

Sent from my Windows Phone

[Tidbits]

Go back and reread the 10 threads if you read all my posts I have already explained this more than once... If you got everything in context you'd agree with what I was saying but since this guy replies off tangent in different threads the information gets lost.

So for the second time. I said what you said in a different thread... HOWEVER CDMA is different than GSM regardless of the radio is universal or not. CDMA NEEDS signed packages from Qualcomm and to get those packages it requires testing from them. GSM does not need this. So testing requirements are different regardless if they are the same radio hardware being used. So in layman terms used by Nokia reps when they said special they were specifically talking about the CDMA requirements... Get it?

[BDub43]

Either way whether testing should have been done since both phones works on CDMA and GSM. I can activate a 930 on a CDMA network carrier.

Sent from my Windows Phone

[Tidbits]

No...  It doesn't work that way...

If the phone doesn't need to work on CDMA it will not be required to go through all that.  Why pay extra licensing fees if the device isn't going to be used on a CDMA network.

No you can't activate the 930 on Verizon...  There's various reasons why it's fundamentally false with the way CDMA works...

[Tidbits]

Just read about the Nexus 5 got Verizon for an example if you don't understand.  It supports the exact same things as the 930.

[BDub43]

At the end of the dat testing is testing. Microsoft already tested the firmware, if ATT can release it so can Verizon bottom line. If they had issues with the firmware state it. The issue is that there is a history of not releasing firmware without explanation. Why would a manufacture release a forward update that would not or have been tested in the first place? They wouldn't.

Sent from my Windows Phone

[Tidbits]

AT&T doesn't have to go through Qualcomm CDMA testing because they are a GSM carrier. Of course with less testing then you'd expect them to release it quicker don't you? Also the software numbers are not the same which shows different development cycles and teams.

[jharris326]

From the Nokia site it appears the 930 WILL be coming to Verizon but this being Verizon we are talking about I would not expect it until after AT&T starts selling it.  The ones claiming it will not work on Verizon know nothing.  It has dual radios just like the 822 and that DOES work on AT&T!

[Tidbits]

CDMA devices will NOT work on a CDMA network without the IMEI being in their database... That's why you can't activate the Nexus 5 on Verizon for example. Any Sprint device for another example... The 930 will not be different, and the software will be different because CDMA radio activated vs. GSM radio activated. Just because it's one radio GSM and CDMA are different in terms of software.

[jharris326]

You really don't know your facts please do some research to find them!  A number of people have found legitimate ways to run dual radio Nokia's from Verizon on the AT&T network.  They first must be unlocked.  After that it is relatively easy.  Dual radio phones like a number of Nokia's are licensed for BOTH radios not just one.  Locking it prevents use of one.

[Tidbits]

jharris326 wrote:

You really don't know your facts please do some research to find them!  A number of people have found legitimate ways to run dual radio Nokia's from Verizon on the AT&T network.  They first must be unlocked.  After that it is relatively easy.  Dual radio phones like a number of Nokia's are licensed for BOTH radios not just one.  Locking it prevents use of one.

Look I already told you this in another thread...  You passed it off as hearsay...

I specifically TOLD YOU.  The radios are all homogenized, but the way CDMA and GSM are coded differently.  RIL, and HALs have to be coded differently.  GSM is more open sourced while CDMA are proprietary in the majority.  Hardware matters little in terms of the radio.  Surf through all the previous threads about this and you'll see what I said multiple times... and will continue to say it.

CDMA requires additional testing and signed packages from Qualcomm to work.  Without this FCC will not have anything to test.  This is something GSM doesn't have to do.  You can get GSM working with test keys.  Ask Cyanogenmod team about the hack they use to bypass this requirement.  This is something a corporation which signs a licensing agreement to use CDMA can't do.

Anyway have fun.  Build you own devices and you'll see what I am talking about.  peace out.

[BDub43]

I don't think I disagree with you however all of that is taken care of when the phone pass FCC approvals which this device has no issue there. As for firmware update we are not talking about replacing hardware in the phone, we are talking enabling software features.

Sent from my Windows Phone

[Tidbits]

Just because the radio can do both doesn't mean you are licensed to do both. Licensing to do both affects the price you pay out of pocket for the end users. Manufacturers for the longest time cut corners in this regard because they don't want to pay all the licensing fees and know consumers won't spend more for things they don't need.

Also why would Verizon or Qualcomm affect the way AT&T and T-Mobile do updates. Without their signed package they couldn't update their devices. This is why they use different RIL/HAL...