Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #32355

Re: Unlocked == Rooted?

Show all headers | View raw

In article <1ppyo5f90k2y1$.gwvfq4mfgvep$.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

> 
> > here's how I understand it:
> > 
> > 1. Locked = the carrier (e.g., T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc.),
> > locks the phone so that it can only be used on their network (or via
> > roaming to their service).
> 
> Clarification: SIM-locked = the carrier providing the phone has arranged
> that that phone will only accept a SIM for that carrier's service, not a
> SIM from any other carrier. (A SIM-unlock code, or SUK, is a code that the
> carrier (or other agencies) can provide to defeat the SIM-lock.)

as usual, you're lost.

sim-locking is when the sim is locked to a particular phone and can't
be swapped to another phone. this is often done with prepaid phones
when a credit is included in the price so that people don't buy the
phone just for the credit and then use the sim in a different phone.

carrier locked, also called subsidy locked, is when a phone is locked
to a particular carrier because its price was highly discounted by the
carrier with a 2-year contract. inserting a foreign sim will generate
an error or simply say no service. unlocking the phone requires the
carrier to provide an unlock code (never called suk) or whitelist the
imei in their system, which later gets pushed to the phone.

there is also a sim pin code, sometimes called a puk (for personal
unlock code), which prevents the sim itself from being used in any
phone, but that's not commonly used anymore.

Back to comp.mobile.android | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Unlocked == Rooted? "tb" <nospam@example.invalid> - 2016-07-18 23:16 +0000
  Re: Unlocked == Rooted? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-18 19:17 -0400
    Re: Unlocked == Rooted? crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-19 07:53 -0600
      Re: Unlocked == Rooted? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-07-19 15:40 +0100
  Re: Unlocked == Rooted? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-19 00:42 +0000
    Re: Unlocked == Rooted? tb <nospam@example.invalid> - 2016-07-18 22:41 -0500
    Re: Unlocked == Rooted? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-07-19 07:30 +0100
      Re: Unlocked == Rooted? Aardvarks <aardvarks@a.b.c.com> - 2016-07-19 23:00 +0000
    Re: Unlocked == Rooted? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-20 05:32 -0400
      Re: Unlocked == Rooted? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
        Re: Unlocked == Rooted? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-22 03:01 -0400
    Re: Unlocked == Rooted? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-07-22 21:21 +0200
  Re: Unlocked == Rooted? Dave Doe <hard@work.ok> - 2016-07-19 14:20 +1200
    Re: Unlocked == Rooted? tb <nospam@example.invalid> - 2016-07-18 22:41 -0500
  Re: Unlocked == Rooted? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-18 22:37 -0500
    Re: Unlocked == Rooted? tb <nospam@example.invalid> - 2016-07-18 22:41 -0500
  Re: Unlocked == Rooted? Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2016-07-22 21:19 +0200

csiph-web