Good for AT&T and my Brothers In Arms.... It's the little things that make a difference to each and every solder.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T Unlocking In-Contract iPhones for Deployed Service Members
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I still don't understand AT&T not wanting to unlock any phone under request.
If someone under contract wants their phone unlocked, why not unlock it?
If someone under contract goes to another carrier, this person will be charge an early termination fee, so AT&T never looses. If AT&T provides good affordable service, people will not want to switch carriers.
This was never an issue, until AT&T started to sell the iPhone I got more greedy than ever.
If someone under contract wants their phone unlocked, why not unlock it?
If someone under contract goes to another carrier, this person will be charge an early termination fee, so AT&T never looses. If AT&T provides good affordable service, people will not want to switch carriers.
This was never an issue, until AT&T started to sell the iPhone I got more greedy than ever.
Not sure about the others, but mine was pure sarcasm. AT&T are a pack o' thieves.
So the AT&T rep at businesscare I spoke to wouldn't do it and was extremely rude about the situation. She got really defensive after I asked for the unlock. Pissed me off and I started to say F it & cancel my entire account. That's ok, I'll cancel in 2 weeks when I get on the plane.
don't knock a&tt too much, as far as iPad goes i thought i was making the right choice choosing verizon but that seems to be a bad move, at least for me. first you get less for your $30 then if i'm not in an area with 4g i get a message about roaming charges!! that's a lot of the time. my iPhone is att. should have stuck with them, especially after seeing how they are supporting all the troops around the world.
Sweet! Now if they'd just refund the $500 they charged me after wrongly cancelling my contract (after I provided them a copy of my orders and confirmation) while I was in Korea for a year that would go a long way with me. It is good they're helping others, though - I'm not 100% negative against them. 
This statement clearly shows you have no clue what my point was and if reading what I wrote a few times doesn't get it in your head, it never will. Like I've already said I'll take the word over those that actually KNOW what they're talking about over yours..... Sorry if you feel that's condescending but you'll get over it.
Last edited:
I'm going to simply respond with the definition of condescending. If after reading that you still can't comprehend how all of your posts in this thread (and possibly other threads, I haven't really paid attention to you) are condescending, then you really aren't as smart as you think you are. The entire post above is almost a perfect example to use in a dictionary entry.
Oh one more thing. From what I gather, your main point seems to be that all active duty personnel are superior to all other Americans, and that no other sacrifice made by anyone else can ever measure up. If that makes you feel better at night, then so be it.
Last edited:
Just my $.02 as a former AT&T employee --
AT&Ts unlocking policies have always been pretty reasonable -- including for deployed service personnel. It's the iPhone that has been the problem. Without Apple having your IMEI in their "whitelist" database, you don't have an officially unlocked phone no matter what a carrier does. Apple has, in some countries where the law is much more definitive that they must unlock phones, worked with carriers to do this for awhile now. No carrier, though, has the ability to set the encrypted key in the phone itself to allow alternate carrier SIM cards to be used. That is set by Apple at "activation" when your IMEI is in said database.
Here, they've been reluctant to greatly expand the number of unlocked phones in that database. They loosened up that stance greatly when they started offering unlocked phones to those who bought without a contract, and now they're properly allowing AT&T to request the unlocks through their system.
I always found it funny that people thought AT&T was the one preventing the unlock. Trust me, as easy it is for AT&T employees to get & unlock every other phone offered on the carrier, unlocked iPhones would have been all over eBay if we could have unlocked them.
Still, very glad to hear for service members out there. As for the people complaining that they have to travel abroad for work, too -- I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. Any large company that is sending employees out of the country is going to have a policy in place for covering international roaming charges incurred by those employees -- or will be paying for the phone and plan anyway.
And if you're traveling overseas for personal reasons or for your own small business, I just don't think you get to complain about your heavily subsidized phone not being free to be used with other carriers until you meet the terms of your contract or buy it out (paying the ETF).
It's not like your AT&T phone doesn't work on other networks anyway -- you just don't want to pay roaming rates to do so. That's fine, but then jailbreak and unlock it yourself. Don't expect your carrier to just give up their revenue on a phone that they paid quite a bit of money for.
AT&Ts unlocking policies have always been pretty reasonable -- including for deployed service personnel. It's the iPhone that has been the problem. Without Apple having your IMEI in their "whitelist" database, you don't have an officially unlocked phone no matter what a carrier does. Apple has, in some countries where the law is much more definitive that they must unlock phones, worked with carriers to do this for awhile now. No carrier, though, has the ability to set the encrypted key in the phone itself to allow alternate carrier SIM cards to be used. That is set by Apple at "activation" when your IMEI is in said database.
Here, they've been reluctant to greatly expand the number of unlocked phones in that database. They loosened up that stance greatly when they started offering unlocked phones to those who bought without a contract, and now they're properly allowing AT&T to request the unlocks through their system.
I always found it funny that people thought AT&T was the one preventing the unlock. Trust me, as easy it is for AT&T employees to get & unlock every other phone offered on the carrier, unlocked iPhones would have been all over eBay if we could have unlocked them.
Still, very glad to hear for service members out there. As for the people complaining that they have to travel abroad for work, too -- I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. Any large company that is sending employees out of the country is going to have a policy in place for covering international roaming charges incurred by those employees -- or will be paying for the phone and plan anyway.
And if you're traveling overseas for personal reasons or for your own small business, I just don't think you get to complain about your heavily subsidized phone not being free to be used with other carriers until you meet the terms of your contract or buy it out (paying the ETF).
It's not like your AT&T phone doesn't work on other networks anyway -- you just don't want to pay roaming rates to do so. That's fine, but then jailbreak and unlock it yourself. Don't expect your carrier to just give up their revenue on a phone that they paid quite a bit of money for.
An Ignorant Shill
What a load of bullish*t!!
I always found it funny that people thought AT&T was the one preventing the unlock.
You must have a very poor sense of humor. Apple has always been ready to unlock iPhones if the carrier agreed. AT&T was the one with the policy against unlocking iPhones even after they were paid off. Don't even try to blame Apple for this mess.
I just don't think you get to complain about your heavily subsidized phone not being free to be used with other carriers until you meet the terms of your contract or buy it out (paying the ETF).
AT&T is getting its subsidy, and more, back over the term of the contract. As long as the customer meets his obligations under the contract, i.e. pay the bill for 2 years, AT&T has no right to prevent the customer from using his iPhone anyway he chooses. The decision to prevent the use of local SIM cards is simply a reflection of AT&T's greed.
...you just don't want to pay roaming rates to do so. Don't expect your carrier to just give up their revenue on a phone that they paid quite a bit of money for.
They are get in their money over the course of the 2 year contract. Why are they greedy for more? If AT&T offered roaming rates more in line with the rates offered by local carriers, we would not even be asking for unlocks. It is AT&T's greed that makes this an issue for us.
Please stop polluting this forum with your bs and go back to your hole under AT&T's offices.
What a load of bullish*t!!
I always found it funny that people thought AT&T was the one preventing the unlock.
You must have a very poor sense of humor. Apple has always been ready to unlock iPhones if the carrier agreed. AT&T was the one with the policy against unlocking iPhones even after they were paid off. Don't even try to blame Apple for this mess.
I just don't think you get to complain about your heavily subsidized phone not being free to be used with other carriers until you meet the terms of your contract or buy it out (paying the ETF).
AT&T is getting its subsidy, and more, back over the term of the contract. As long as the customer meets his obligations under the contract, i.e. pay the bill for 2 years, AT&T has no right to prevent the customer from using his iPhone anyway he chooses. The decision to prevent the use of local SIM cards is simply a reflection of AT&T's greed.
...you just don't want to pay roaming rates to do so. Don't expect your carrier to just give up their revenue on a phone that they paid quite a bit of money for.
They are get in their money over the course of the 2 year contract. Why are they greedy for more? If AT&T offered roaming rates more in line with the rates offered by local carriers, we would not even be asking for unlocks. It is AT&T's greed that makes this an issue for us.
Please stop polluting this forum with your bs and go back to your hole under AT&T's offices.
Like I said you don't have a clue what my argument was. I only argued that being a deployed soldier is harder than being a civilian anything, fire, leo, hooker, anything. (I know you said you know the difference between deployed and PCS'd but you keep arguing a point I did not so I still think you're ignorant about the subject.) IF you feel this factual statement was condescending like I said, you'll get over it. I know it's harder because I have talked to many leo reserve/guard/active duty that were also deployed and THEY told me it was harder (many I work with 3 12 hour shifts a week). I know this for a FACT as I was deployed AND a I'm now a civilian (were you ever deployed?) Your OPINION on what's condescending is not relevant to me or the argument I was making. Like I've said many times now... I'll take their experienced, knowledgable, credible opinion over yours. Shot some of them this link and trust me, NONE of them think I was being condescending to anyone. (because THEY actually KNOW what they're talking about, unlike you) They are however laughing their butts off at your expense. Pretty condescending of them isn't it
I'm now done with you, good day sir.
Last edited:
I don't really have a pony in this race, but maybe your rhetoric might be better received if you eased up with the claim that your view is fact. You have a valid view and experience, and the fact is that you have your experience. I cannot speak from the experience of being a deployed soldier, so I won't try to compare, but you have not done everything that 'a civilian' can do, which makes your thesis hard to claim as fact.
All of that said, I can easily believe that being a deployed soldier is incredibly difficult. I just don't think that this discourse benefits from creating a hierarchy of 'difficult'.
Really? My BS? You're certainly entitled to your opinion... though it's completely wrong.
Until recently, if you went to buy an iPhone at FULL unsubsidized price in the U.S. directly from Apple, without even requesting AT&T Service in any way, you got a locked phone and they wouldn't do anything about it.
In some countries the laws regarding phone locking are more substantial, and, in those countries, Apple would unlock phones as they were required to. Note, again, that its Apple who has to unlock the phone. That isn't the case with ANY other phone on the market. The others can all be unlocked by the carrier, and AT&T's policy on unlocking was exactly as I said before.
You can be all offended if you want, but you might consider why, once AT&T is finally able to request iPhone unlocking through their system, their policy exactly matches what they do for any other phone.
I stopped working for AT&T awhile ago, and don't particularly like a lot of their policies. I also generally don't bother about defending them as I really don't care, but I thought some people might actually care what the unlocking situation was previously.
I'm done talking to you -- responding at all wasn't really worth my time. You can go back to your hate of AT&T now.
In a perfect world, I don't disagree with you. The reason phones are sold locked though is partially to "encourage" people to actually abide by their contract, or actually pay the ETF. Basically, they want their money, and locking your phone till you pay them is one of the ways they try to make sure you pay up.
Remember that if you're being charged an ETF, you aren't an AT&T customer any more. You don't like their service, their prices, whatever. But there's really not much motivation for you to actually pay it. It's not like they can cut off your service at your new carrier. Sure, the fact that you didn't pay will end up on your credit report, but that's about as far as it usually goes. (Also, buying phones in bulk with stolen identities, or more often, using fake business information, is very common. People buy the phones in large numbers when they first come out with the subsidy and then turn around and sell them, usually for a good profit. The bill never gets paid and whoever bought the phones usually can't be found.)
Not unlocking for international travel is partially due to the same fraud/theft potential, but also because companies are just greedy. They'd much rather you use the phone overseas with their SIM card in it and incur high roaming rates.
At least with AT&T, most of their phones will at least work in other countries. For what it's worth, I've always had a "backup" phone that was unlocked, in case I needed to be out of the country for a longer period. Now, that's easier to do since your old iPhone can serve that purpose. For short trips, it's easier to just get the basic international phone/text/data package I need on my main phone.
Last edited:
ATT is the one that controls whether to unlock:
http://www.cultofmac.com/154873/tim-cook-forces-att-to-unlock-customers-phone/
http://www.cultofmac.com/154873/tim-cook-forces-att-to-unlock-customers-phone/
got it unlocked
I guess att unlocked my iPhone 4s. I called them a week ago, gave them my info, and the guy told me that he doesn't make the decision and will forward my request to some special team. I was supposed to get an email with instructions but never did. restored my phone today and it said that i successfully unlocked my 4s.
Very happy now.
I guess att unlocked my iPhone 4s. I called them a week ago, gave them my info, and the guy told me that he doesn't make the decision and will forward my request to some special team. I was supposed to get an email with instructions but never did. restored my phone today and it said that i successfully unlocked my 4s.
Very happy now.
Attachments
Cell service is almost ALL they have over there.
GOOD on ATT Now I MIGHT just go ahead and do this.