AT&T Early Termination Fee When Moving Abroad

[kdarling]

As stated above, I agree that AT&T is entitled to recoup its subsidy from iPhone customers who do not fulfill their full two-year contracts. However, customers who pay this fee should be entitled to legally use their iPhones on other networks. To both (1) charge the ETF and (2) refuse to unlock the phone leaves customers with useless devices. Do you not see that as inequitable and punitive?

It's especially silly since ATT will unlock other phones even while under contract if you're a good customer and going overseas.

However, ATT has publicly stated that they will not unlock the iPhone. Which of course negates one the main reasons to use a GSM phone. Not that Apple really cared about GSM to start with. If they did, they'd include a way to transfer contacts back onto a SIM.

The eternal carrier locking is one way that Apple actually "changed the industry" for the worse.

 

[joebobthehob]

Unless AT&T has had a major policy change in the last month they absolutely will waive the ETF if you move out of AT&T's coverage area. OP, were you talking to customer care or retentions (customer relations)? If it was CC, call back and get retentions. Either way I think I'd call and try again with retentions. Remember to be calm and polite. Be sure you're presenting this as a move (long term) rather than temporary travel. Emphasize that you'd like to return AT&T if/when you return to the US (if you don't want to, lie).

As far as unlocking the iPhone, take that one up with Apple. AT&T is perfectly happy keeping all iPhones locked to them, sure, but Apple actually holds the reigns as far as providing the unlock.

 

[vizkiz]

I've read that if you have an iPhone on any carrier and are in Europe, you can go into an Apple store (or maybe iPhone service provider store) and they can legitimately unlock it for you in a matter of minutes. Then all you have to do is sync with iTunes for it to be unlocked through Apple. I think the person that did this though, was in the UK.

 

[foxnews1]

They are required to release you from your contract if you move someplace they don't provide service. I got out of my Sprint contract early because I moved to someplace they didn't service

what is this zip code? I want to get out of my sprint contract.

 

[aristobrat]

The OP feels (and so do I) that if the ETF is paid, then the contract is fulfilled and he should be able to legally activate his phone on whatever carrier he likes.

I agree with how you and the OP feel, but the contract that the OP signed states nothing about AT&T's obligation to unlock the phone.

So, let me ask another question... Have you read the TOS lately? I just did read the full TOS on AT&T's site...
<snip>
Then go on to say, "oh yeah, BTW at the advisement of my attorney I'm recording this phone call." You will then state again, that it's not mentioned in the TOS, and *IF* you were to go to court and play this recording, clearly depicting lying on the part of a corporation to a consumer - "think how the jury would decide that outcome?"

I think when the jury reads this part of the contract that the OP signed, there's really no arguing with it:

"Service Availability and Access/Coverage: AT&T does not guarantee availability of wireless network."

What it boils down to is AT&T gave the OP a $400 discount on the purchase price of the iPhone, in return for the OP agreeing to pay AT&T for 24 months.

If the OP is leaving early, then I think AT&T is rightful to charge the ETF, which makes up for a portion of the lost months of payments the OP won't be making.

I also agree that the OP should get the phone unlocked after his obligation to AT&T is paid off.

The best thing in this situation, unless the OP wants to tilt at windmills, is to sell the iPhone. The OP will make more than the ($175-($5 x the number of months the OP has been with AT&T)) ETF fee that he owes AT&T.

 

[goosnarrggh]

That's different. That is against the hacking of the baseband. Which, based on an ammendment to the DMCA is legal (or at least was for 3 years from 2006...not sure if it was renewed).

It wasn't really an amendment to the DMCA, but rather, a regulatory framework that was built into the law right from the start, whereby certain classes of activities that would otherwise have been deemed as infringements would be exempted. The authority to create such exceptions was vested in the Librarian of Congress.

Every 3 years the LoC is supposed to publish a new list of such regulations; the most recent list was published in 2006. It would have expired in 2009, but the LoC had not yet reached a decision on what the new list of exceptions should be -- so they decided to temporarily extend the previous list until a final decision could be made.

So yes, hacking your iPhone's software to unlock it is still not a violation of the DMCA, provided your sole intention in doing so is to connect to a willing 3rd party network.

 

[Geckotek]

It wasn't really an amendment to the DMCA, but rather, a regulatory framework that was built into the law right from the start, whereby certain classes of activities that would otherwise have been deemed as infringements would be exempted. The authority to create such exceptions was vested in the Librarian of Congress.

Every 3 years the LoC is supposed to publish a new list of such regulations; the most recent list was published in 2006. It would have expired in 2009, but the LoC had not yet reached a decision on what the new list of exceptions should be -- so they decided to temporarily extend the previous list until a final decision could be made.

So yes, hacking your iPhone's software to unlock it is still not a violation of the DMCA, provided your sole intention in doing so is to connect to a willing 3rd party network.

Cool, thanks for the clarification. I was too sleepy last night to research how that came about so I just threw in "amendment".

 

[zoomad]

No they can legelly hold you to a contract if you move out of their service area. The contract was signed when you were under the correct service area. You moving out of it is the contract holders problem. It is pay ETF or eat the cost of it. No way around that issue. Contract was signed for a reason.

Is it fair to expect AT&T to eat the $400 subsidy because want out of the contract or moved out of the area? No it is not. You should pay the ETF.

Clearly, you do not know the law. There's a remedy called "frustration of purpose," which allows parties to a contract to void the contract if the purpose for which the contract was entered into no longer exists. In this case, if you move out of AT&T's service area (including overseas), then the purpose of the contract has been frustrated and thus void. This is something you learn in 1st year contracts courses.

AT&T offers a subsidy on the basis that you will uphold your contract, but it it at their own risk. Having said that, AT&T may be able to argue that you were "unjustly enriched" by canceling service and receiving a discounted phone. When it comes down to it, whoever is the more stubborn (AT&T v. YOU) will probably win, but be nice since CSRs tend to listen to calm people rather than hotheads. Or you can sue and see how it plays out.

 

[trevorcobb]

has anyone had any success getting out of the ETF?

I was just made aware of the new Jan 2010 TOS update in which AT&T states that they "cannot guarantee service" and because of this they will no longer make any exceptions to the ETF waivers previously provided to customers who could prove they had moved out of the country. I understand there are probably a lot of people who called in and claimed to move out of the country, but as of a year ago, AT&T would waive the fee for anyone who could fax or mail in a copy of a utility bill from the foreign country with the responsible party's name on it.

This sucks.

 

[RafaelT]

One thing, we as Americans hate, are big greedy abusive companies. If they try to state that you cannot record the call and it's a violation of some blah-blah law, respond with "according to:"

What this will do at the very least is have them back peddling even more. It then puts you into a better position for arguments sake.

You need to be a little more careful about giving out legal advice when it may not be correct. There is more then likely a state law about this where the OP is that may very well say something different.