As others have said, I hope the practice of locking phones to carriers goes the way of the two-year contract in the U.S. soon. It really is a foolish practice. Why does AT&T care if I use another carrier's SIM card in a phone I bought from them and am still making the agreed upon monthly payments on? They'll gladly keep charging me for their service every month until I call them and cancel the service regardless of whether or not I actually have one of their SIM cards in the phone.
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.
Going to the UK but AT&T wont unlock my phone
- Thread starter dylanursula
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To the OP: Well, you really only have two options as I see it -- buy an unlocked cheap phone either over here or once you get over there and put a UK SIM in it. Or, if you can live with only communicating with folks who have iOS devices and doing so only while you're on Wi-Fi, just use iMessage and FaceTime Audio over Wi-Fi on your AT&T locked phone while you're in the UK and you'll avoid roaming charges. If you absolutely must call someone who doesn't have an iPhone, Skype is an option over Wi-Fi, as well.
Or third option, pay off the obligation to AT&T, and unlock phone?
I'm with the others. Sure, it would be nice if the companies would not lock their phones. But they aren't hiding the fact that they're locked when you make the decision to get one of them. If you don't like the fact that they're locked, there's nothing stopping you from getting an unlocked phone. People want the best of both... Cheap AND unlocked phone.
C
Well, as a general idea that started being discussed, the whole locking thing, simply because it's communicated doesn't become good or right and is certainly worthy of discussion and hopefully change as various things related to it all have been changing over the years.
At the same time, one has no room to complain about having a phone locked to a carrier. It was a known scenario, and all of the carriers have openly communicated the terms under which they will unlock devices. Whether or not phones should be locked to a carrier is a completely different subject for discussion. The OP stated that he has a phone locked to AT&T and wanted to know how to get it unlocked. That is the subject of THIS thread.
Again, pretty simple to understand, IMO.
If you don't like the conditions of their payment plan, then pay for the phone and you are then free to do with it what you like. We don't need to make things illegal... people should be smart enough to know what they are signing up for and what the conditions are. The buyer has the choice to sign up for payments with conditions, or buy outright and then have the freedom to do what you want.
Exactly. If the OP wants the phone to be unlocked, simply pay the balance owed and AT&T will be happy to unlock it.
It's not rocket science.
I can't comment too much because I don't have AT&T, I have TMO. But I've unlocked all of my phones because I like to resell phones and give them to family overseas and because I might need my phone unlocked one day.
The process was very simple. I called a TMO rep and requested an unlock. And every time I say this: I'll be leaving the country for a few months and would like to use a prepaid sim service over there.
Of course I'm lying but hey, 10 minutes later I get an email with instructions and its done. If you aren't against lying, maybe try starting the process with a person instead of automated?
EDIT: IIRC there is support by the President and the FCC to shut down cellular phone locking so one day we will have all phones unlocked by default
2nd EDIT: Too the people saying "Simply pay off the phone or don't buy a carrier locked version". That's not helping the OP and should only have been said the one time. The OP may not have known he would be traveling for an extended amount of time the year or two ago when he signed a contract with AT&T.
The process was very simple. I called a TMO rep and requested an unlock. And every time I say this: I'll be leaving the country for a few months and would like to use a prepaid sim service over there.
Of course I'm lying but hey, 10 minutes later I get an email with instructions and its done. If you aren't against lying, maybe try starting the process with a person instead of automated?
EDIT: IIRC there is support by the President and the FCC to shut down cellular phone locking so one day we will have all phones unlocked by default
2nd EDIT: Too the people saying "Simply pay off the phone or don't buy a carrier locked version". That's not helping the OP and should only have been said the one time. The OP may not have known he would be traveling for an extended amount of time the year or two ago when he signed a contract with AT&T.
Last edited:
And about the same time as the FCC shuts down phone locking, service providers will stop offering subsidized phones... Everybody wins!
ETA: But the advice about paying off his phone still stands. That's his most direct path to getting his phone unlocked.
C
I don't think subsidized phones will go away any time soon. Phone unlocks really has little to no affect to subsidizing.
Contract options are already being phased out throughout the industry, so that type of movement has already started.
Did a little bit of research. You are absolutely right. The 2 year commitment is not the default now when shopping for new service.
Here I am thinking that it was only recently when Verizon and AT&T have adopted no contract options.
When requesting an unlock, are you being clear that you want to unlock your phone so that you can use an international sim card while out of the country? Usually, they are two different types of unlocks.
I agree - it's a stupid policy and the fact that it's stated clearly doesn't justify it.
The wireless providers are well within their rights to enforce the policy. Like it or not, call it stupid or not, you have to play within the rules of the game. And it's the golden rule - the one with the gold gets to make the rules. Buy outright or from a different provider. Just don't whine and feign surprise. It's not that hard to figure out.
And that's why the FCC which should be working for the benefit of the general population as all government agencies are mandated to, should ban the practice entirely opening up the use of phone to the user, period.
The govt already did enough by making it mandatory to unlock all devices ONCE THE CUSTOMER HAS FULFILLED HIS OR HER 'CONTRACT' ie paying off the phone, completing 2 year agreement etc. omg.
Alternatives with repercussions that are difficult if impossible to revoke, such as collection agencies, should be a last resort and not part of a carrier's MO.
That being said, I'll play the Devil's advocate here and say that the onus is on the user/customer and not the carrier. IMHO, a payment/leasing/subsidizing cell plan negates some "rights" of the operator. Just as a car lease has mileage stipulations or financing rent-to-own furniture. IMO, if someone bought a subsidized phone, he has not in fact bought the phone. He is making payments on said phone.
While I would rather not pad CEO's pockets with more of my hard-earned money, carriers take on the risk of letting a phone walk out the door that they haven't been completely paid for. Because they take on the risk, the get to define the terms.
We of course, can rectify the whole situation by paying for our phones in full.
That being said, I'll play the Devil's advocate here and say that the onus is on the user/customer and not the carrier. IMHO, a payment/leasing/subsidizing cell plan negates some "rights" of the operator. Just as a car lease has mileage stipulations or financing rent-to-own furniture. IMO, if someone bought a subsidized phone, he has not in fact bought the phone. He is making payments on said phone.
While I would rather not pad CEO's pockets with more of my hard-earned money, carriers take on the risk of letting a phone walk out the door that they haven't been completely paid for. Because they take on the risk, the get to define the terms.
We of course, can rectify the whole situation by paying for our phones in full.
Its not the FCC's role to tell a company that they can or can't offer finance programs for people that can't afford to buy what they want, and then put policies in place to protect themselves. The bottom line is its your choice whether you sign up for this or not. No one is holding a gun to your head and making you finance a phone with "strings" attached. If you can't afford to buy it outright, then the carrier is doing you a favor by offering a way to finance it. They are free to put whatever protections in place that they want.
No they are not free to put any protection in place. They cannot post an armed guard at your home to enforce their payment. They have to obey the LAWS. there are many legal remedial actions that companies can take to make collection on debts owed. They can easily stop the service if they no longer receive payment for instance. I still believe that locking the phone to an individual carrier is not the right thing. And I continue to lobby for the FCC to put a final end to it in all circumstance. Making locking to a carrier illegal.
As you can see there are legitimate instances like overseas travel that are effectively blocked for locked cell phones. The consumer is not trying to cheat the carrier, he simply wants to use the phone overseas while on vacation. The FCC mandates that service people are extended this curtesy. I think the rest of us should also have that ability. Amazes me how people want to come to defense of huge corporations over individual consumer rights. Don't recall this country founded on the premise, for the life of corporation, with the liberty of corporations to pursue their inaliable right to profit, and to protect the corporations against the people.
Last edited:
While I whole-heartedly agree with your sentiments, I disagree with your specific point.
Customers have choices. Customers' dollars condone or condemn corporations' actions.
Owning a $1000 phone is a privilege, not a right. Having the company finance one's phone for 0% interest is a choice. Posting an armed guard would be wrong if I didn't consent to it. However, when I buy a greatly discounted phone, I sign an agreement, and it's my responsibility to abide by it. If I don't like it, I have other choices.
I went to a private university with some ridiculous rules about dress, curfew, etc., and some friends of mine were constantly complaining about the rules and getting into trouble for breaking them. My issue was that we chose to attend that school, and in doing so, we agreed to follow its Code of Conduct. I don't see how this is much different.
If ridiculous rules are not challenged, and over zealous laws are not disputed, then we are all doomed to accept what others decide and tell us what our rights are. We would forever be beholding to the King of England based on your code of conduct.
I'm not advocating people should ignore from what they rightfully owe. I'm suggesting that the method of locking the phones usefulness to travelers goes beyond the corporation's right.
I can see we look at things differently. You will always see conforming to the rules as right. I will always challenge rules that are ridiculous, or are past serving a purpose, and unjustly infringing on legitimate uses of the phone. How would you feel about having your car prevented from traveling outside the state you leased or are making payments in. Would that be ok?
Carriers are not offering payment plans out of some benevolence to the consumer. They are trying to up their sales. Many people cannot shell out $1000 at one time, and would not buy a phone or the carrier's service if they had to. I bet my last dollar that the carriers would accept the rare lose of a phone with no locks. As opposed to only selling phones for full price up front.
Last edited:
I really have no idea why mobile phones in 2015 are still carrier locked.
It makes zero sense to me and I'd really like to understand their decision making process.
Apple sell the phones completely unsubsidised and it comes unlocked.
EE (or any other UK/US etc network) are happy to sell me a subsidised phone, with me agreeing to pay them x amount of £s every month for x amount of years in return.
Now, why should EE et al, have any say whatsoever in what I do with my phone or what SIM cards I put in it?
It's my phone and if I want to check it in the river Thames on day 1 that's my prerogative. EE shouldn't have any further say, as long as I pay them the contracted amount each month-and if I don't pay, they can easily cancel my line and take me to court.
It genuinely just beggars belief why it's still being done.
We also have a chain of mobile phone stores in the UK called Carphone Warehouse and you can buy "SIM Free" iPhones from them.
All well and good you're thinking? Not quite, as in the small print, it tells you that the phone will lock to the network of the first SIM that you insert.
Phone locking should just die an overnight death.
It makes zero sense to me and I'd really like to understand their decision making process.
Apple sell the phones completely unsubsidised and it comes unlocked.
EE (or any other UK/US etc network) are happy to sell me a subsidised phone, with me agreeing to pay them x amount of £s every month for x amount of years in return.
Now, why should EE et al, have any say whatsoever in what I do with my phone or what SIM cards I put in it?
It's my phone and if I want to check it in the river Thames on day 1 that's my prerogative. EE shouldn't have any further say, as long as I pay them the contracted amount each month-and if I don't pay, they can easily cancel my line and take me to court.
It genuinely just beggars belief why it's still being done.
We also have a chain of mobile phone stores in the UK called Carphone Warehouse and you can buy "SIM Free" iPhones from them.
All well and good you're thinking? Not quite, as in the small print, it tells you that the phone will lock to the network of the first SIM that you insert.
Phone locking should just die an overnight death.