This resolves the issue of this specific circumstance, but it doesn't resolve the issue of the real overall problem on network control (and the lack of control on our side) of our phones. For what I'm talking about, see my posts above.

Lockstocked: Thanks for the vote of support.

Mike: I'm not sure you really get the my point here. It's the difference between the phone and the network. Think of your computer at home. You pay someone for internet service and you own your computer that you use to access it. Would you want your internet provider having the ability to go into your computer and execute programs, change settings, or implement updates without your knowledge? Of course not. No company in the world would be able to get away with that. Yet it is considered ethically acceptable for almost the same practice to happen on phones which really aren't that different from your desktop. In fact, if you run android or the iPhone it has linux or Unix core. The same one used in Ubuntu or OS X respectively.

Your argument of what we send over that network service is valid, but it's not a valid counter-argument to what I'm saying. It's another category. With my computer at home I take on a level of risk every time I send an email, browse the web, or download a file. We all decide if that is an acceptable risk in some way.

However, when our network service provider has rights to access our hardware, that is something else entirely and is (though not currently recognized as such in the industry) completely unethical. Imagine if we could only purchase our internet enabled computers from our service provider. Imagine if we had to rely on them for any updates and were locked out of controlling and managing them ourselves. Imagine if they decided what we could and couldn't do with that computer. That's the reality we are living in with cell phones today and for some reason no one is raising hell. I'm starting to think I just might.

Anyone besides me unnerved by the fact that it was completely silent and there was no way for the user to know about or prevent it? Sure, it was good for the phone, but if this was my phone I don't want anyone having control over it to install something silently without even letting me know. I'm still holding out hope that (like desktop computers) we'll be able to have complete control over our phones without letting any outside body have any security rights or access to it through the network. IMHO, that is just not right and it brings into question the true ownership of the device. If we truly own it, then our networks shouldn't have any access rights to it.

Now the question is, will it be as efficient on older software as normal Windows 7? For my TP2 that is :)

You know you're an engineer when you can't spot the spelling mistake.

Sooner or later Verizon and some of the other providers are going to get Sued over this so called "Unlimited" data plans. It is at best questionable and at worst unethical to advertise "unlimited" when you really have a cap of 5GB. That's just messed up.

reports on that are a big no. it has touchflo 2.1. You'll need to load a custom rom to get 2.5.

my money's betting that we won't see the US carrier versions of this update until November. I love Sprint, but it sucks not yet having the HardSPL completed for ROM flashing.

So, does it have a 3.5mm headphone jack? I'm guessing not.

Also, I knew it wouldn't take long to get a comment about the keyboard :-). Glad my provider is sprint. Only real downside for me is that I can't use internet at the same time.

if it has 6.5 then were is touchflo v2.5? Are we not going to get that on our updates? :(