Will an "unlocked" 950XL work on Verizon?

[editguy]

Went to the MS store with my Lumia Icon, pulled my SIM and put it in a 950 (att&t), no go.
Also tried my SIM in a 640xl (unlocked), no go.

Unlocked 950 come out on the 26th(MS store opens at 6pm) , will try again at that time.

If it works (highly unlikely), it would require the unlocked version.

 

[tgp]

To me - I started this thread as a quirk and now at 93,000 + views and 37 pages = we STILL DON'T KNOW !!!

Some of us already know. No CDMA = no Verizon, at least not at this point.

AFAIK there has never been a non-CDMA device that fully worked on Verizon, and none that worked at all without a hack that is probably not possible on WP/W10M.

As it stands now, the only way this is going to work on Verizon is if the phones actually have CDMA capabilities, and they're just not listed in the specs.

And just to clarify, WCDMA ≠ CDMA!

 

[anywhereanytime]

I started this thread on Oct 5 = 43 days ago and interestingly enough - as best I know - we have STILL not heard any "official word from eithers Microsoft nor Verizon? We heard that "Paul Thurrott HEARD for some trusted Microsoft sources" blah, blah, blah! We have seen all kinds off technical theories about VoLTE, etc. but WHY does the 950 list Band 13 and NOT CDMA ... yet, there is NO Band 13 for the 950XL?

 

[Assassin 11B3P]

wishful thinking that verizon will ever carry wp again.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

wishful thinking that verizon will ever carry wp again.

I think they will. They just misread Microsoft's commitment to no exclusives and ability to update the phones. They thought Microsoft would fold and they guessed wrong. Clearly having exclusives and controlling updates is NOT a deal breaker for Verizon. Now that they understand MS' position, the next negotiation should mostly be how much MS wants for the phones. Either that or MS will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and let the carriers resume killing them by a million paper cuts. Either way, Verizon will probably be selling WPs.

 

[anon(7901790)]

I was at the MS store yesterday playing around with the AT&T version of the 950. I mentioned to a store rep that I'm on Verizon and not expecting the 950 or 950XL to work on Verizon. He mentioned the unlocked version. I had to explain how CDMA works and what has to be done and who does it for it to work on Verizon's (or Sprint's for that matter) network. For the record, he seemed new (I think he was a temp to help out during the Christmas holiday) and didn't know that the SP3, SP4 and Surface Book use the same charger.

As it stands right now, we KNOW that the unlocked and unbranded version will work on ANY GSM and LTE network worldwide as long as you have an activated SIM for that network. In the US, that means AT&T and T-Mobile and their respective MVNO's.

THEORETICALLY, it will work on Verizon's LTE network. However, since (as far as we know) the CDMA radio isn't enabled, then that is pointless. Right now, VZW handles its voice and SMS via 3G, and you can only use VoLTE (aka "Advanced Calling") when calling another VoLTE enabled device. Which means, if you enter any areas that don't have VZW's LTE coverage (and they do exist), you will lose ALL voice and data functionality of the phone, to include not being able to dial 911.

I saw somebody mention in an earlier post that maybe the 3G will be handled via roaming on AT&T's or T-Mobile's GSM spectrum. Not likely, since you would need a AT&T or T-Mobile SIM for that to work. It is the 4G spectrum that the FCC mandated that the carriers can't block. The 3G spectrum was not part of that deal. Which then goes into the reports that Verizon is actively blocking 950s from connecting to its LTE network. Those were rumors and there was no actually confirmed instances of that happening...especially since the 950 and 950XL hadn't even been released yet.

 

[Drew Neilson]

the SP3, SP4 and Surface Book use the same charger.

Quick correction: from what I heard from Paul Thurrott on TWiT's Windows Weekly podcast, the Surface Book cannot be charged by any of the Surface Pro chargers. He said that if you insert a Surface Pro charger into the Surface Book, it'll APPEAR as if it is charging, but it isn't.

 

[DoctorPizza]

This document outlines the open access provisions that govern Verizon's network due to its successful bid for part of the 700 MHz spectrum.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1108A1.pdf

Essentially, VZW cannot prevent a device from using its network under the open access provisions, as long as the device passes network compatibility tests. These tests are defined by Verizon, but conducted by third parties, and while it would cost some money (sub-$1 million, but not free either), the decision on whether or not to submit to the tests lies entirely with the manufacturer, which is to say, Microsoft.

These are Microsoft's filings with the FCC:

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repo...id=EJycD4glct9S7jZanvf7SQ==&fcc_id=PYARM-1105

The HAC Antenna Report describes the antenna configuration of the phone.

There is support for GSM, WCDMA (which is to say, UMTS/HSPA), and LTE. There is no support for CDMA2000/EVDO.

If Microsoft elected, it could have built CDMA2000/EVDO support. It could have used the open access provisions to get its phone validated for use on Verizon's network, and Verizon would have had no choice, per FCC rules, to allow the phone onto the network. This does not mean that VZW would sell or provide tech support for the phone, of course, but the company would have been required to provide SIMs and activate the hardware for anyone with an unlocked handset.

Those are the facts. The information is in the public domain, and the open access rules are inarguable. Verizon simply cannot keep compatible devices off its network. The only requirement is that you build a compatible device in the first place, and Microsoft has not done so.

I do not believe that Microsoft has abandoned CDMA entirely. Although Verizon plans to turn off its CDMA2000/EVDO network by 2021 (IIRC), in the meantime it's still a necessary evil. But for this iteration it has fallen by the wayside. Most resources have been allocated to Windows on the desktop, not mobile, and many Nokia staff have been laid off, leaving Microsoft light when it comes to staff with deep telephony experience. GSM covers most markets, so is obviously the more important tech to support, and GSM is simpler in some regards (for example, there's no need for simultaneous 2G + 3G connections in the GSM family, since voice/SMS can be carried over UMTS/HSPA without issue). While Microsoft has done this work before, for Windows Phone 7 and 8, Windows 10 Mobile is arguably different enough that the support can't be lifted wholesale.

 

[MikeSo]

Essentially, VZW cannot prevent a device from using its network under the open access provisions, as long as the device passes network compatibility tests.

Can you point out where that is established? I have tried to find it and have not been successful in doing so. In fact, I have only found the direct opposite, explicitly stated:

700 MHz C Block licensees may not deny access to a customer’s device solely because that device makes use of other wireless spectrum bands, such as cellular or PCS spectrum. However, in accepting a multi-band device on its network, a 700 MHz C Block licensee is not required to extend the requirement for open platforms devices and applications to other spectrum bands on which the provider operates. The Commission did not require wireless service providers to allow the unrestricted use of any devices or applications on their networks.

Wireless service providers may continue to use their own certification standards and processes to approve use of devices and applications on their networks so long as those standards are confined to reasonable network management. Wireless providers have legitimate technical reasons to restrict particular non-carrier devices and applications on their networks, specifically to ensure the safety and integrity of their networks. In particular, it is reasonable for wireless service providers to maintain network control features that permit dynamic management of network operations, including the management of devices operating on the network, and to restrict use of the network to devices compatible with these network control features

So as I read that they can block CDMA devices to their heart's content "to ensure the safety and integrity of their network", which cripples any non-approved (LTE only) phone. Can you point to information that says otherwise?

 

[DoctorPizza]

Quick correction: from what I heard from Paul Thurrott on TWiT's Windows Weekly podcast, the Surface Book cannot be charged by any of the Surface Pro chargers. He said that if you insert a Surface Pro charger into the Surface Book, it'll APPEAR as if it is charging, but it isn't.

I'm not sure this is right.

However, I think it depends which charger you have. There are three current generation Surface chargers: 24W, 36W, and 65W.

Surface Pro 4 with Core m3 ships with the 24W charger; it's distinguishable by having no USB port on the charger.

Surface Pro 4 with Core i5 and i7 ship with the 36W charger. Surface Book without discrete graphics also ships with the 36W charger. This charger has a USB port, and it's identical regardless of which system it ships with. I have charged an integrated-only Surface Book with a "Surface Pro 4" charger. It charges fine, as one would expect.

Surface Book with discrete graphics ships with the 65W charger. This looks substantially the same as the 36W charger, but obviously has more power. This charger also has the USB port. The high power charger can charge the integrated-only Surface Book and the Surface Pro 4, and they appear to charge more quickly. It's also compatible with the Surface Pro 3, of course.

The combination I'm not sure of is the 36W charger (whether supplied with Surface Pro 4 or the integrated-only Surface Book) with the discrete GPU Surface Book. It's possible that this does not charge (or at least, does not charge quickly) which might be why Paul says it doesn't work; I suspect that he has the discrete graphics part. But if so, it's this that makes the difference, not whether the charger is a "Surface Pro" or "Surface Book" charger per se.

The Surface Dock (new style, not sure about old style) has a 90W power brick, and so I assume that with regard to charging, it's equivalent to the 65W part.

 

[DoctorPizza]

Can you point out where that is established? I have tried to find it and have not been successful in doing so. In fact, I have only found the direct opposite, explicitly stated:



So as I read that they can block CDMA to their heart's content, which cripples any LTE only phone. Can you point to information that says otherwise?

It's true that the open access provisions technically only apply to the open access network (700 MHz) but in practice Verizon does not seem to have applied the rule in that way. Devices that forced the issue, such as the Nexus 7, do not appear to have been restricted to 700 MHz.

I concede that this may now have changed. It looks as though the compliance tests were updated earlier in the year to fully support CDMAless devices (an extra provision or two was added). I think the HTC One A9 was due to be the first CDMAless device that would be supported (by HTC) on VZW (using pure VoLTE/LTE with no cdma2000 fallback) but that has been delayed for some reason. HTC was/is apparently doing this without any explicit support from VZW, so I assume the plan was/is to use open access provisions.

Of course, this doesn't really shift the burden from Microsoft. Worst case, they could have built a Band 13 device and got it certified and forced VZW to authenticate it on the network. In principle that should give +/- nationwide coverage on VZW. C-block has national coverage (contiguous states + Hawaii, not sure about Alaska) and VoLTE should be available across the network now so losing the fallback may not matter.

Beyond that the question is only how unpleasant VZW wants to be to its paying customers--it could restrict the phone to 700 MHz or it could suck it down and allow it to access the full range of services.

 

[RumoredNow]

[NOTE]Thanks for all the Surface Charger debate. It really has no place in this thread though.

Please stick to the topic of the thread: "Will an "unlocked" 950XL work on Verizon?"

There is a whole forum devoted to Surface products: Microsoft / Nokia - Windows Central Forums

Further comments along the Surface line will simply be expunged as an expediency. If you wish to debate Surface charging take it to the appropriate forum.[/NOTE]

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Of course, this doesn't really shift the burden from Microsoft.

Yes, because it was never on them! LoL

 

[sprtfan]

Of course, this doesn't really shift the burden from Microsoft. Worst case, they could have built a Band 13 device and got it certified and forced VZW to authenticate it on the network. In principle that should give +/- nationwide coverage on VZW. C-block has national coverage (contiguous states + Hawaii, not sure about Alaska) and VoLTE should be available across the network now so losing the fallback may not matter.

Beyond that the question is only how unpleasant VZW wants to be to its paying customers--it could restrict the phone to 700 MHz or it could suck it down and allow it to access the full range of services.

I think it is still a case of we really don't know who to blame. Microsoft could force VZW to authenticate the device on the network but Verizon would still be able to basically cripple it and give the user a poor experience. The normal user at that point would think that this Microsoft phone sucks and I never had these problems with my Android/Apple phone. Since Verizon doesn't support the phone, I'd believe all customer service inquires regarding the problems would end up going to Microsoft also.

Microsoft and Verizon could have had discussions about the phone being on Verizon and Verizon could have told Microsoft they would do this or could do this if certain demands were not met. VZW and MS have not always had the best relationship and don't see this being out of the realm of possibilities. MS also wouldn't have the power to force the issue as well as the Nexus phones would. MS might have been left in a position that it was best to leave out CDMA to save themselves from these possibilities.

I'm far from an expert in this area though and please let me know if I'm interpreting the information wrong. But from what I have read, it at least looks like VZW would be with in their rights to do this.

 

[anon(7901790)]

Microsoft could force VZW to authenticate the device on the network

No, Microsoft can't force Verizon or any other network to authenticate or allow any of its devices. The network is owned by the carriers and the SIMs are managed and activated by the carriers, not the OEMs.

Here's how the conversation would go:

Microsoft: "You will activate our devices or else."
Verizon: "Or else what? Have a nice day."

 

[HoosierDaddy]

No, Microsoft can't force Verizon or any other network to authenticate or allow any of its devices. The network is owned by the carriers and the SIMs are managed and activated by the carriers, not the OEMs.

Here's how the conversation would go:

Microsoft: "You will activate our devices or else."
Verizon: "Or else what? Have a nice day."

No, more like:

Verizon: "I got your activation....right here!"

 

[DoctorPizza]

I think it is still a case of we really don't know who to blame. Microsoft could force VZW to authenticate the device on the network but Verizon would still be able to basically cripple it and give the user a poor experience. The normal user at that point would think that this Microsoft phone sucks and I never had these problems with my Android/Apple phone. Since Verizon doesn't support the phone, I'd believe all customer service inquires regarding the problems would end up going to Microsoft also.

While I hate the way fanboys tend to try to put a positive spin on the low market share, bad reviews, etc., I do feel this is one area where the low usage could, if not exactly work in Microsoft's favour, at least protect them from the worst of the complaints here.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that nobody would ever buy an unlocked 950 or 950XL from the Microsoft store with the intent of using it on Verizon by accident. The only people who'd be buying such a thing would be die-hard fans. As such, it feels to me like it'd be feasible to actually explain the limitations--"You'll get LTE and VoLTE, but if you're an area with no LTE service, you won't be able to fall back to 2G or 3G". Make sure that people are aware of the limitations up front. That puts the ball into VZW's court: how good a service do they want to offer their customers?

And of course there's a good chance that the 700 MHz coverage is sufficiently fast and widespread that there isn't even a problem, and that the lack of 2G/3G fallback would never be noticed. That's a big part of why Verizon bought the spectrum in the first place; national coverage, high performance, good range and building penetration.

I'm far from an expert in this area though and please let me know if I'm interpreting the information wrong. But from what I have read, it at least looks like VZW would be with in their rights to do this.

Sure, but the question is, how much of a **** do Verizon want to be to their paying customers? I mean, sure, they're not using a Verizon-preferred handset, but they'd still be Verizon subscribers. Verizon customers that, incidentally, have a handset that'll work perfectly on AT&T and T-Mobile should Verizon treat them too badly. Now of course, this isn't possible; Verizon is a horrible company, and treating customers badly is the kind of thing we expect from them.

 

[DoctorPizza]

No, Microsoft can't force Verizon or any other network to authenticate or allow any of its devices. The network is owned by the carriers and the SIMs are managed and activated by the carriers, not the OEMs.

The point of the 700 MHz C spectrum is that it has open access provisions. Microsoft can, in fact, force Verizon to authenticate its devices. The network is owned by the carriers, but the spectrum is owned by the people and licensed by the FCC, and the FCC can and does impose usage constraints.

 

[anon(7901790)]

This document outlines the open access provisions that govern Verizon's network due to its successful bid for part of the 700 MHz spectrum.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1108A1.pdf

Essentially, VZW cannot prevent a device from using its network under the open access provisions, as long as the device passes network compatibility tests. These tests are defined by Verizon, but conducted by third parties, and while it would cost some money (sub-$1 million, but not free either), the decision on whether or not to submit to the tests lies entirely with the manufacturer, which is to say, Microsoft.

That just means that Verizon has to provide roaming coverage for other networks and vice versa. What does that mean? That means if you are an AT&T customer and you go outside of AT&T's LTE footprint, then Verizon, T-Mobile, or Sprint, provides roaming coverage. The determining factor is whether or not the device supports the bands being used in that area. That does NOT mean Verizon HAS to activate an AT&T or T-Mobile device on its network.

 

[DoctorPizza]

That just means that Verizon has to provide roaming coverage for other networks and vice versa. What does that mean? That means if you are an AT&T customer and you go outside of AT&T's LTE footprint, then Verizon, T-Mobile, or Sprint, provides roaming coverage. The determining factor is whether or not the device supports the bands being used in that area. That does NOT mean Verizon HAS to activate an AT&T or T-Mobile device on its network.

It does not mean that.

From the document I linked previously:

[the FCC] Determined that for the commercial Upper 700 MHz Band C Block, licensees will be required to
allow customers, device manufacturers, third-party application developers, and others to use
devices and applications of their choice, subject to certain conditions.

"devices of their choice" such as C Block-compatible smartphones.

The Commission determined that for one commercial spectrum block in the 700 MHz Band – the Upper
700 MHz Band C Block – it will require licensees to allow customers, device manufacturers, third-party
application developers, and others to use or develop the devices and applications of their choice, subject
to certain conditions. It was concluded that it would not serve the public interest to mandate, at this time,
requirements for open platforms for devices and applications for all unauctioned commercial 700 MHz
spectrum, or to impose broader requirements, such as wholesale or interconnection requirements, for the
C Block.
The Commission will require only C Block licensees to allow customers, device manufacturers, thirdparty
application developers, and others to use or develop the devices and applications of their choosing
in C Block networks, so long as they meet all applicable regulatory requirements and comply with
reasonable conditions related to management of the wireless network (i.e., do not cause harm to the
network). Specifically, a C Block licensee may not block, degrade, or interfere with the ability of end
users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the licensee’s C Block network, subject to
reasonable network management. The Commission anticipates that wireless service providers will
address this requirement by developing reasonable standards, including through participation in standards
setting organizations. Finally, the Commission did not impose additional requirements on the C Block,
including wholesale and interconnection requirements.

The requirement is that licensees (i.e. Verizon) allow customers (i.e. Verizon customers) to use the devices (i.e. smartphones) of their choice. This is plainly not just roaming (because people roaming aren't Verizon customers).