AT&T Unlocking In-Contract iPhones for Deployed Service Members

[NMF]

Yeah, but lots of cell service in the UK, Germany, Italy, Turkey and any number of other countries where the US military is sent.

The US military is deployed throughout the globe, not just Afghanistan.

Those aren't deployments though, those are just duty stations. The only actual deployments going on these days are to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, and maybe a handful of others. Italy, Germany, etc are just duty stations.

When those guys are called upon to serve in an active warzone they should get their iPhones unlocked.

 

[Mazeman]

God Bless our troops!

Thanks AT&T

 

[rrollin]

When those guys are called upon to serve in an active warzone they should get their iPhones unlocked.

These guys and women, DEFINITELY DON'T need unlocked iPhones when they are in a warzone . You got to be kidding saying that they should be able to get them unlocked because of that???

The guy that goes abroad outside of a native ATT coverage area and does not choose to pay the high roaming rates should get his phone unlocked too.

 

[PaintTheSkyGrey]

i don't have any problem with my phone being locked, but i do have a problem with people who think they are entitled to more than others.

I'm not sure I understand. You're complaining about AT&T not offering this service to every customer. That would be AT&T's decision, and their decision only. I don't quite see how you're equating complaining about their business practice to having a problem with people with entitlement mentalities. It's AT&T's decision to decide what they do or don't do. If you don't like it, you don't have to use them.

 

[LivingLarge]

I think this is a wonderful thing to offer this to our brave Soldiers

Maybe ATT will be gracious enough to extend the offer to everyone else when this whole process gets a little more streamlined. One can hope .

 

[miles01110]

you're right, it doesn't make business sense to unlock phones that are in contract. that means att is willingly losing money by providing these service men and women with the unlock. does that make business sense? like i said, just shows how crappy ATT is as a company to only allow the option to the select few when there are many deserving people here who should have the option as well.

"Deserving" is a subjective term, and it's up to the carrier to decide who "deserves" an unlock. In AT&T's case (and probably others to follow), the "deserving" few are those active-duty military serving overseas. AT&T clearly disagrees that moving outside of the service area for other, non-military reasons does not justify an unlock if still under contract.

BTW: ATT already started unlocking out of contract phones 2 days ago. have you seen any major news headlines about ATT losing millions of customers?

No, but then again you wouldn't expect to see any such news because out of contract phones don't belong to AT&T customers. They might belong to former AT&T customers, but that's irrelevant.

 

[MR1324]

I'm not sure I understand. You're complaining about AT&T not offering this service to every customer. That would be AT&T's decision, and their decision only. I don't quite see how you're equating complaining about their business practice to having a problem with people with entitlement mentalities. It's AT&T's decision to decide what they do or don't do. If you don't like it, you don't have to use them.

please read the entire thread.

----------

AT&T clearly disagrees that moving outside of the service area for other, non-military reasons does not justify an unlock if still under contract.

hence why i posed my original question. right away, some people were quick to say that deployed service members deserved this because they are 'protecting our rights,' which i very much disagree with.

 

[miles01110]

hence why i posed my original question. right away, some people were quick to say that deployed service members deserved this because they are 'protecting our rights,' which i very much disagree with.

Fair, but this doesn't change the policy. The policy is in place for the military only. Maybe they decided that they liked the military's boots, or maybe the military gave AT&T a large contract. In either case the policy isn't going to change, regardless of the mentality it's based on.

 

[MR1324]

Fair, but this doesn't change the policy. The policy is in place for the military only. Maybe they decided that they liked the military's boots, or maybe the military gave AT&T a large contract. In either case the policy isn't going to change, regardless of the mentality it's based on.

that's really unfortunate for those who need the unlock for whatever reason and are not military.

 

[Zxxv]

Awesome, I always hated having to buy a new phone - but finding a microsim might be difficult.

Sim cutter eBay. £3 uk price probably same US. So small, It's easy luggage

 

[miles01110]

that's really unfortunate for those who need the unlock for whatever reason and are not military.

If they "need" the in-contract unlocked phone they can often buy it directly from the carrier, or from Apple.

 

[MR1324]

If they "need" the in-contract unlocked phone they can often buy it directly from the carrier, or from Apple.

.....and don't want to pay an extra $400+ knowing others are getting the unlock for free. i guess tim cook needs to step in again and slap this nonsense out of att:

http://www.cultofmac.com/154873/tim-cook-forces-att-to-unlock-customers-phone/

 

[28monkeys]

Good luck for Taliban militant that pick one up!

 

[r.j.s]

... pretty much the same, if you think different, not much to argue, but work is work.period.

Except you can quit McDonalds when you don't like it any more ... and there is very little risk of death or injury at McDonalds. They are no where near the same.

The main question [that nobody asked or answered yet] What does ATT require for the military in-contract unlock?? Can I just tell them I'm a soldier and then get the unlock or what?

Since they are only unlocking off-contract for "everybody" else, what are their procedures for these (IMO undeserved) lucky few that are in a military service by choice??

You're condescending attitude aside, you need to provide a copy of your deployment orders and suspend service. Your contract gets put on hold until you get back (and they have paperwork to show roughly when that will be).

 

[celo48]

This should not be a news. They should have done the unlock automatically for the people who serves the country.

 

[miles01110]

This should not be a news. They should have done the unlock automatically for the people who serves the country.

No, they have not. Read the article.

 

[rrollin]

Except you can quit McDonalds when you don't like it any more ... and there is very little risk of death or injury at McDonalds. They are no where near the same.

Re-read my post please, you don't take into account that i said the enlistee did that by choice and that made him/her essentially sign a contract with the service arm of choice to not leave until they are discharged. Risk of death working at a restaurant has nothing to do with it. Not everybody wants to play Rambo.

You're condescending attitude aside,

not meaning to be condescending at all, just stating my thoughts .

you need to provide a copy of your deployment orders and suspend service. Your contract gets put on hold until you get back (and they have paperwork to show roughly when that will be).

Thanks for the info on the process.

 

[r.j.s]

The guy that goes abroad outside of a native ATT coverage area and does not choose to pay the high roaming rates should get his phone unlocked too.

And if they are going to be outside the AT&T service area for a LONG period of time, then AT&T may unlock their phone - they need to ask though ...

Deployments are not some weeklong business trip ... they can last up to half the length of an AT&T contract - and what good is an AT&T locked phone during that time?

----------

Re-read my post please, you don't take into account that i said the enlistee did that by choice and that made him/her essentially sign a contract with the service arm of choice to not leave until they are discharged. Risk of death working at a restaurant has nothing to do with it. Not everybody wants to play Rambo.

Which goes to further prove my point - they are no where near the same thing ... no job compares. Period. (I'm not saying one is better than the other either, I'm just saying that it isn't possible to make a valid comparison because there is nothing equivalent.)

 

[rrollin]

And if they are going to be outside the AT&T service area for a LONG period of time, then AT&T may unlock their phone - they need to ask though ...

Many have tried this to no avail. maybe now with all the unlocking of iphones, maybe at&t's stance will change.

Deployments are not some weeklong business trip ... they can last up to half the length of an AT&T contract - and what good is an AT&T locked phone during that time?

Yes, i understand that aspect of deployment well, I know many active duty folks, but the unlock being more valid or deserved my military is nonsense. Open it up to all and then we can all get along .

 

[miles01110]

Many have tried this to no avail. maybe now with all the unlocking of iphones, maybe at&t's stance will change.

Yes, i understand that aspect of deployment well, I know many active duty folks, but the unlock being more valid or deserved my military is nonsense. Open it up to all and then we can all get along .

Seems to make sense to me.

What I don't get is why you all are crying about this one particular (relatively minor) kindness AT&T is extending to active duty service members. Complain about something actually important - like extending the benefits of the GI bill to everyone. Just make sure to do it in PRSI.

 

[MR1324]

Seems to make sense to me.

What I don't get is why you all are crying about this one particular (relatively minor) kindness AT&T is extending to active duty service members. Complain about something actually important - like extending the benefits of the GI bill to everyone. Just make sure to do it in PRSI.

LOL because we are closer to getting unlocks for everyone then extending GI benefits to everyone. If we can't even get a free feature distributed to all, do you really think we would be able to provide something that would cost millions-billions of dollars to implement?

Someone on Engadget made a really good point; This isn't news after all since all handsets should come unlocked in the first place. You're still going to pay for the 2 year contract, So what does locking the handset have to do with it?

 

[miles01110]

LOL because we are closer to getting unlocks for everyone then extending GI benefits to everyone.

Really? Doesn't seem like it.

 

[MR1324]

Really? Doesn't seem like it.

That's right. Let's start complaining about something that's even further out of reach like gi bill for all

 

[rrollin]

Seems to make sense to me.

What I don't get is why you all are crying about this one particular (relatively minor) kindness AT&T is extending to active duty service members. Complain about something actually important - like extending the benefits of the GI bill to everyone. Just make sure to do it in PRSI.

I don't care about the gi bill, i care about getting my iphone unlocked without paying the factory unlocked price equivalent. Kindness is not what this is. It is a media stunt to get support from the people that feed into the hype and in turn makes ATT more money. They are a business in business to make money right?

If they gave everyone an unlock, and I am on a contract they still get their money from me to fulfill my contract whether i have an unlocked phone or not, because they are in business to make money, not be kind

 

[Surreal]

Why is this a pissing match? There are are many jobs that are difficult and demanding enough that they afford what some might consider preferential treatment. While some of us may doubt the merit of that preference, it really is disparaging to STATE that doubt without obvious and careful consideration.

It is hard to doubt that deployed soldiers deserves some preference. Maybe a stateside profession deserves preference AS WELL, but that doesn't have to take away from this small gesture if we just agree that this is a perfectly reasonable and appreciable gesture on the part of AT&T.