Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

AT&T behind the refusal to unlock iPhones

bigjnyc said:
I totally agree, I dont want to get over on these companies and unlock my phone or terminate contract before my time is up. I understand they lay out money up front so I can get a subsidized price and I'm all for honoring the contract and paying that money back.... But once that obligation is fulfilled I should be able to do what I want with the device.
Click to expand...

That's why in many countries, including my own, cell providers are required by law to unlock the device after the contract is over if the customer requests it.

Anyway, if I were to live in the US, AT&T is one company that would never get a single dime from me. I've been a member here for a couple of months, and reading these forums I can't help getting the impression that they squeeze their customers to the bone, and get away with it too.


It's time carrier locking is banned globally. Contracts have to be served out anyway.
 
bigjnyc said:
I totally agree, I dont want to get over on these companies and unlock my phone or terminate contract before my time is up. I understand they lay out money up front so I can get a subsidized price and I'm all for honoring the contract and paying that money back.... But once that obligation is fulfilled I should be able to do what I want with the device.
Click to expand...

Generally your ownership of the phone is NOT linked in any way to the contract, because that establishes the notion that if your phone became faulty/lost/stolen/damaged then you wouldn't be able to fulfil your end of the contract.

The potential for that to happen means that carriers (all over the world) don't link the two together.

As such, when you take out the contract, the phone is yours as soon as you take delivery of it. You have the legal right to sell it, give it away, throw it off a cliff etc.

You have a contractual obligation to pay the carrier x per month for their service for 12/18/24/36 months, but that's entirely separate from your device.

If the carrier were to unlock your phone part of the way through the contract (as many do), then that does not in any way change your contractual obligation. Carriers that state otherwise are simply "stalling for time" to make using the device on another carrier undesirable.
 
You are 100% correct, excellent point, but I am sure there will be people not fulfilling that contract and sending no money to AT&T once they're unlocked.

So I can understand them locking it for the term of the contract, though I don't agree with it.

Daveoc64 said:
Generally your ownership of the phone is NOT linked in any way to the contract, because that establishes the notion that if your phone became faulty/lost/stolen/damaged then you wouldn't be able to fulfil your end of the contract.

The potential for that to happen means that carriers (all over the world) don't link the two together.

As such, when you take out the contract, the phone is yours as soon as you take delivery of it. You have the legal right to sell it, give it away, throw it off a cliff etc.

You have a contractual obligation to pay the carrier x per month for their service for 12/18/24/36 months, but that's entirely separate from your device.

If the carrier were to unlock your phone part of the way through the contract (as many do), then that does not in any way change your contractual obligation. Carriers that state otherwise are simply "stalling for time" to make using the device on another carrier undesirable.
Click to expand...
 
ericrwalker said:
I am guessing there was as little bit of teasing in that post.

I agree that while your phone is subsidized that they should be able to keep it locked, but once it's paid off (contract done) they should allow an unlock.

Part of the purpose of keeping it locked to AT&T is that when you resell your phone, they are hoping to gain a new customer to sell data too.

I have been a loyal customer of AT&T for several years, and I have no intention of leaving them (unless something drastic changes), but I wish my phone was unlocked for foreign travel.
Click to expand...

With you 100%.

They have unlocked iPhone 4s at the Apple store but they cost even more. I, too, am a long time AT&T user and they have treated me well. As long as I get good coverage with htem, I have no need to leave. If I did Verizone would be top of my list.
 
@JakeT85, I sent an email to the FCC. I think all people should send an email to the governing bodies to change how cellphone service providers operate.

Who was the idiot who down rated Jake's post?
 
I have been wondering about getting my iPhone unlocked for some time. My contract on my iP4 is up in June and I intend on buying the next iPhone when it comes out. I want to give my iPhone to my brother but he is on T-Mobile and refuses to change carriers. I want to get it unlocked for him but I am not going to pay for it. I feel like ATT should unlock it if I am going in with full intention of signing a new 2 year contract for a new iPhone. If they refuse I might just switch to Verizon. It all depends on how the two companies LTE coverage in my area (both marginal right now) look when the iPhone comes out.

I wish I could afford to buy an unlocked phone just so the carriers had no control over me.
 
brendu said:
I have been wondering about getting my iPhone unlocked for some time. My contract on my iP4 is up in June and I intend on buying the next iPhone when it comes out. I want to give my iPhone to my brother but he is on T-Mobile and refuses to change carriers. I want to get it unlocked for him but I am not going to pay for it. I feel like ATT should unlock it if I am going in with full intention of signing a new 2 year contract for a new iPhone. If they refuse I might just switch to Verizon. It all depends on how the two companies LTE coverage in my area (both marginal right now) look when the iPhone comes out.

I wish I could afford to buy an unlocked phone just so the carriers had no control over me.
Click to expand...

Get ready to switch to Verizon then. AT&T will not unlock an iPhone under any circumstance..... Unless the CEO of Apple asks them to lol (there is a thread floating around where Tim Cook had AT&T make an exception for a customer)
 
surma884 said:
@JakeT85, I sent an email to the FCC. I think all people should send an email to the governing bodies to change how cellphone service providers operate.

Who was the idiot who down rated Jake's post?
Click to expand...
His post was a more rant than a well written complaint.
He had valid points, but many came off as opinion rather than fact.

Also, not once was it mentioned that AT&T will unlock ALL other devices except for an iPhone. This can be used in a collusion argument and this practice does need to be investigated.
This particular complaint should also be forwarded to the DOJ.
 
surma884 said:
@JakeT85, I sent an email to the FCC. I think all people should send an email to the governing bodies to change how cellphone service providers operate.

Who was the idiot who down rated Jake's post?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the speaking up surma, hopefully if enough people write in this practice will be reviewed and corrected.

rjohnstone if you agree with my points, but do not believe the post came across well written, please take some time and write a complaint that comes across more factual. The more people we can get to write in the better. I will be the first to admit, I am no amazing writer.
 
From those from the US, why do you think you need to wait until the end of the contract? I think you all are entitled to have the phone unlocked in the first place.

Here in Australia, phones are locked, but you can request an unlock free of charge from your carrier in you're on contract. I mean, you're LEGALLY required to pay the contract for whatever years so the carriers here don't really care what you do with the phone.

I really hope you guys can win AT&T over I really hate carrier locked device, ugh.
 
JakeT85 said:
Thanks for the speaking up surma, hopefully if enough people write in this practice will be reviewed and corrected.

rjohnstone if you agree with my points, but do not believe the post came across well written, please take some time and write a complaint that comes across more factual. The more people we can get to write in the better. I will be the first to admit, I am no amazing writer.
Click to expand...
I've already filed no less than 5 complaints with the FCC and FTC.
Haven't gone the DOJ route as that really requires and attorney to get any movement.
My complaints were short and direct. Leave emotion and anything not as a matter of fact out of it.

I'll see if I can dig them up in my email later. I filed them last year and pretty much gave up due to no action and only a token response saying my complaint was received and will be reviewed.

Tea-Aholic said:
From those from the US, why do you think you need to wait until the end of the contract? I think you all are entitled to have the phone unlocked in the first place.

Here in Australia, phones are locked, but you can request an unlock free of charge from your carrier in you're on contract. I mean, you're LEGALLY required to pay the contract for whatever years so the carriers here don't really care what you do with the phone.

I really hope you guys can win AT&T over I really hate carrier locked device, ugh.
Click to expand...
AT&T will do that for ANY phone other than an iPhone after you have been in your contract and it's in good standing for at least 90 days.
Takes 5 minutes via an online support chat with an AT&T rep to unlock a phone.
They just won't do it for an iPhone. That is the whole issue right there.
Why all the others and not the iPhone?
 
copied and sent as well. I also sent a seperate letter to Tim Cook and have a call in to a Manager of AT&T, not that the latter will do anygood.

*UPDATE* So the Manager and I spoke, didnt get very far except that basically AT&T, Apple would blame each other for not unlocking iphones and probably wouldnt change until they were forced to by FCC. I received a response from the FCC email requesting an official complaint form be completed, which that attached. Completed and submited. Will have to wait and see...
 
Last edited:
-aggie- said:
Uh, who else would it be?
Click to expand...

This was my thought. Someone in a thread the other day said it was Apple.....huh???

----------
bigjnyc said:
If that was the case then they would allow you to unlock once you have fulfilled your contract and paid back the subsidy discount.
Click to expand...

Nope, AT&T never wants those phones going to another carrier. It's to their advantage to keep them locked.

----------
chambone said:
It's time carrier locking is banned globally. Contracts have to be served out anyway.
Click to expand...

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I sold cell phones, there was no such thing as carrier locking. The fact that it has been allowed to happen in the first place is criminal in my opinion. The Gov't should have outlawed it long ago. More proof that big business runs our country more than we do.
 
rjohnstone said:
His post was a more rant than a well written complaint.
He had valid points, but many came off as opinion rather than fact.

Also, not once was it mentioned that AT&T will unlock ALL other devices except for an iPhone. This can be used in a collusion argument and this practice does need to be investigated.
This particular complaint should also be forwarded to the DOJ.
Click to expand...

It's because when a law was passed requiring all phones be unlocked after the contract terms were fulfuilled, the iPhone was excluded for some assinine reason (A PAC stuffing the coffers of some politicians most likely).
 
The iPhone is like a three-course meal. Your third course, if you choose to eat it, is restricted to one item - your carrier.
 
I was happy for the person who got their phone unlocked by AT&T. I would hope that it will eventually signal a change of policy. However and not to be a jerk, I think it's a bit unfair for AT&T to unlock the iPhone for one customer. Shouldnt everybody get a one time exception for now? Do we all have to write a letter to Tim Cook? I have no problem fulfilling my contract but it is my phone and I should be able to use it when and where I want after my contract is up.
 
lordofthereef said:
At best it's some agreement between AT&T and Apple preventing unlocks. Apple has the power to unlock any and every one of their phones that they want. I suspect they have an agreement with AT&T not to do so, though.
Click to expand...

I don't think Apple has anything to do with it. If that were the case then none of the carriers would give their customers an unlock. I'm with O2 here in the UK and I just have to fill out an online form requesting them to unlock my phone and it's unlocked within 2 weeks. They don't even require me to finish my contract first.
 
Geckotek said:
Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I sold cell phones, there was no such thing as carrier locking. The fact that it has been allowed to happen in the first place is criminal in my opinion. The Gov't should have outlawed it long ago.
Click to expand...

I agree, but we seem to be going the opposite way. In Belgium for example, tying sales -and hence sales of subsidized phones- have been prohibited for decades, but under pressure of the EU meddlers and their suffocating regulations, that law has now been changed.

On the other hand, we should realize that it could become a double-sided sword, as manufacturers will sell expensive models more easily when subsidized. In the hypothetical case of global banning of subsidized phones, more advanced models could have more trouble selling because of higher retail price, leading to r&d budgets being cut, innovation being stifled, and less high end devices being released in the long run.
 
chambone said:
I agree, but we seem to be going the opposite way. In Belgium for example, tying sales -and hence sales of subsidized phones- have been prohibited for decades, but under pressure of the EU meddlers and their suffocating regulations, that law has now been changed.

On the other hand, we should realize that it could become a double-sided sword, as manufacturers will sell expensive models more easily when subsidized. In the hypothetical case of global banning of subsidized phones, more advanced models could have more trouble selling because of higher retail price, leading to r&d budgets being cut, innovation being stifled, and less high end devices being released in the long run.
Click to expand...

You are confusing subsidising sales w/ locking devices. We still subsidised the sales of the devices back in my day. I remember very well the first "free" ($1) phone. Our greatest sales of the year came from the $1 Nokia 100 that benefitted Ronald McDonald House.

Locking devices should be illegal despites sales subsidies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back