[madcat72]

According to most CSR/Carrier isn't BlackBerry dead anyways? If BlackBerry can pull this off why not. Go for it, release whatever can pushed without the need of approval from Carriers. Aren't most users in the US still on 10.1 or something?! its a joke.

[yessuz]

I don't think people are questioning BlackBerry's capability of doing it but rather the carriers' willingness to allow it.



Posted via CB10

tell me: if you buy a phone from Canada (during a business trip let's say) and use it in at&t network in USA... and if u have any issues - so WHAT?! won't they give you the support? They'll say - we do not know the phone - f**off?

are you kidding me?

they could do it in only way, if BB10 devices would use BIS. they could block it somehow. Now - NOW WAY.

[yessuz]

They could stop selling Blackberries altogether if they lose the control they want.

like they are selling them now. lol

[Omnitech]

To those saying BlackBerry couldn't do it, in June, BlackBerry "accidentally" pushed the 10.1 update to Z10 users on AT&T, but it was quickly pulled. BlackBerry is entirely capable of pushing a global update, whether it be OTA or Link, BlackBerry can do it.

That was AT&T's decision, not BlackBerry's. Please don't just make things up and present them as "facts".

[ray689]

tell me: if you buy a phone from Canada (during a business trip let's say) and use it in at&t network in USA... and if u have any issues - so WHAT?! won't they give you the support? They'll say - we do not know the phone - f**off?

are you kidding me?

they could do it in only way, if BB10 devices would use BIS. they could block it somehow. Now - NOW WAY.

I didn't say that at all actually. Believe me I hope this is true but if it was this simple then why isn't a juggernaut like Samsung even allowed to update without going through the carrier?

Posted via CB10

[Omnitech]

The carriers have no way to prevent this if BlackBerry decides to do so; the technological capability to OTA update is already in there and BlackBerry controls the actual servers and gatewaying function. The carriers could ***** about doing it OTA but they have no right to complain if the update goes over WiFi as that's not their pipe. [...]

Further, at least in the US, if a particular radio rev has been FCC approved it has authority to operate and that's the beginning and end of it as far as legal issues are concerned.

I rather doubt this. Furthermore the legal issues are contractual - I would be extremely surprised if device makers do NOT have specific terms in their contractual agreements with carriers that specifically stipulate that firmware updates be vetted by the carrier before release.

There are plenty of things in the OS code (not radio code) that could have potentially negative impacts on the carrier's network.

[undone]

I didn't say that at all actually. Believe me I hope this is true but if it was this simple then why isn't a juggernaut like Samsung even allowed to update without going through the carrier?

Posted via CB10

Well I would say in Samsung's case they want you to buy a new phone, so why update it...unlike BlackBerry and Apple (MS too?), Android market place isnt owned by the various hardware manufacturers.

[joeldf]

If it's that simple then why doesn't everyone just push out updates? Why doesn't Samsung?

Posted via CB10

I'm using AT&T as an example, but it seems AT&T and Samsung are much friendlier to each other. Samsung actually holds updates themselves as they fork their Android with their own TouchWiz interface. But AT&T doesn't seem to wait nearly as long after Samsung makes the OS available. They just don't have as many updates in general.



Posted via CB10

[Omnitech]

They couldn't really stop an upgrade directly to the phone anymore than they could stop me from loading a leak.

Sure they could stop you, they just haven't chosen to do so. I'm pretty sure that as soon as you power up your device and it connects to their network it reports its software version. Which would make it trivial to block service for "unapproved" OS versions if they chose to do so.

I should do a little checking on that. It may not be part of the layer 2 handshake but something done after the basic link is established.

[Omnitech]

They could stop selling Blackberries altogether if they lose the control they want.

I was about to bring this up: in the US market, carriers are the main resellers of the hardware, and 3rd-party resellers almost never sell hardware outside of a carrier contract. (It's well documented that many resellers here just refuse to sell an off-contract device)

If people in the USA don't like that, they should bring it up with the politicians who allowed that system in the first place. Or switch to T-mobile, which has been undermining it with their aggressive promotion of non-contractual services.

But on the flipside of that, don't expect lots of handholding from carriers when they no longer have a financial incentive to perpetuate that device/service contractual lock-in. You and I as Crackberry power users may not care about that much, but rest assured many of your neighbors rely on that service.

And BlackBerry - especially these days - simply does not have the manpower to field support calls from all ~150 million US smartphone users 7 days a week, either.

[mjdimer]

It's not global. Australia's largest telco, Telstra, isn't releasing it until the 10th of March.

http://crowdsupport.telstra.com.au/t...14/td-p/234629

Posted via CB10

[Omnitech]

Well I would say in Samsung's case they want you to buy a new phone, so why update it...unlike BlackBerry and Apple (MS too?), Android market place isnt owned by the various hardware manufacturers.

Sure they want you to keep buying devices, but by the same token they certainly don't want customers that recently purchased a device with buggy firmware to get fed up with their brand entirely just because they were blocked from updating it due to carriers dragging their feet on a critical OS uodate either.

My understanding is that Samsung has been pushing to be unbound from that traditional carrier restriction (at least in the USA) for a long time now, but as of yet have not gotten anywhere with that.

[Omnitech]

It's not global. Australia's largest telco, Telstra, isn't releasing it until the 10th of March.

http://crowdsupport.telstra.com.au/t...14/td-p/234629

What an interesting document that is. I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like that released to the public by a major carrier.

[joeldf]

That was AT&T's decision, not BlackBerry's. Please don't just make things up and present them as "facts".

As I recall, the update notices went out to all AT&T phones that there was an updated OS. Some were able to load the update. Everyone started reporting it. Then, a few hours later, it was no longer available. BlackBerry actually sent out a press release apologizing for the premature release - not AT&T.

A week or so later, the update was made available again. This time, a slightly higher build.

That tells me BlackBerry has the updates. They just control who can get it based on the SIM in the phone.

Posted via CB10

[Phi Nguyen]

https://mobile.twitter.com/bbugmy

Twitter feed. Looks like its gonna be a newer release than 10.2.1.1925

Z30, Q10, Z10, iP5, SGS3

10.2.1.1925 is a beta

Every leak you load Is a beta
So of course anything they release will be a higher number unless the carrier doesn't support it

[Omnitech]

As I recall, the update notices went out to all AT&T phones that there was an updated OS. Some were able to load the update. Everyone started reporting it. Then, a few hours later, it was no longer available. BlackBerry actually sent out a press release apologizing for the premature release - not AT&T.

A week or so later, the update was made available again. This time, a slightly higher build.

That tells me BlackBerry has the updates. They just control who can get it based on the SIM in the phone.

The updates are distributed from Blackberry's servers. But they need to be approved by the carrier the device is connected-to before they are distributed. Blackberry cannot override that.

That is precisely why some people choose to circumvent the OS release their carrier officially supports by inserting a SIM from a different carrier into their device, whereupon they can then receive the version of OS that that carrier supports instead. On a GSM-based device, the SIM (specifically, the carrier whose SIM this is) controls which release is offered to the device.

[anon5781939]

A Global Update would be a wonderful step as some carriers are not providing a good support to Blackberry 10 phones.

[moosbb]

Just imagine if there was no leaks and no info regarding 10.2.1 and we got this plethora of information today. We'd be off our rockers.

That why imho, if they was at 10.3 builds, they would want to keep little of secret/surprise that time.

That one of the only little dowside about leaks

Who knows!

[yessuz]

Sure they could stop you, they just haven't chosen to do so. I'm pretty sure that as soon as you power up your device and it connects to their network it reports its software version. Which would make it trivial to block service for "unapproved" OS versions if they chose to do so.

I should do a little checking on that. It may not be part of the layer 2 handshake but something done after the basic link is established.

BS mate. in such case noone could use roaming, lol

[mjdimer]

What an interesting document that is. I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like that released to the public by a major carrier.

Yeah it's a great idea and they've been doing it for at least a year - keep your customers informed, better service.

Posted via CB10

[joeldf]

The updates are distributed from Blackberry's servers. But they need to be approved by the carrier the device is connected-to before they are distributed. Blackberry cannot override that.

That is precisely why some people choose to circumvent the OS release their carrier officially supports by inserting a SIM from a different carrier into their device, whereupon they can then receive the version of OS that that carrier supports instead. On a GSM-based device, the SIM (specifically, the carrier whose SIM this is) controls which release is offered to the device.

Is it possible that the "Wi-Fi update" that is now in 10.2.1.1925 (a subset page of the software update page in Settings) may be a way around that?

Now, I'm really just asking the question, but is it possible that BlackBerry always had control, but just allowed the carriers to have a say in who got what based on the fact that that's just how they always did it - and perhaps because of manufacturer/carrier agreements?

Even the old BBOS update distribution method simply consisted of the user going through their carrier portal on the BlackBerry website and downloading the update file. And, really, one could - and I often did - just click their way to another carrier who may have a newer OS for whatever phone one had than what ones actual carrier offered. Once over-the-air updates were offered, then you were really limited to only your carrier's "official" OS. But, you weren't limited to only OTA updates.

I do realize that I'm kind of arguing just for the sake of arguing - hopefully without getting nasty about it (it's not that important). Just airing out all possibilities.

And, we will all know for sure next week.

Posted via CB10

[hf199]

Can someone from Crackberry just answer this prolonged question?

Posted via CB10

[ray689]

Can someone from Crackberry just answer this prolonged question?

Posted via CB10

They clearly don't have an answer or it would have been answered by now. Best way to answer this question is wait till the release and see.

Posted via CB10

[Razor8Tie]

US BlackBerrys will get updated around if not on the 28th.

Posted via CB10

[ray689]

US BlackBerrys will get updated around if not on the 28th.

Posted via CB10

Source?

Posted via CB10