Going to the UK but AT&T wont unlock my phone

[willmtaylor]

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.

You're muddying the waters. Unjust tyrannical rule under which one was born or involuntarily subjugated (e.g. early colonies) is not the same as defending the trampled rights of those who voluntarily live in a commune (e.g. an Amish or Mennonite commune).

As I said, I'm most definitely not "pro-corporation," but if I choose to enter into a contract, and the other party follows said contract, it is unjust of me to rebel against the terms to which I agreed. Choice is the rub here.

I will not always see rules as right, especially if imposed on those without their consent and volition. There are many modes of transportation and many ways to pay for said transportation. If I chose to lease car X from car company Y, it would be as much my obligation to abide by the terms of the lease as it would be the company's.

And, by the way, you bet your ass I would raise stink (to the FCC et al) if they violated those terms. Until they do though, the onus is on me to be an educated consumer living within my means and accepting the consequences of my buying decisions.

Great points, BTW. I'm enjoying this discussion.

 

[willmtaylor]

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.

Yes, I agree. However phones are locked for us in the States not because of an arbitrary contract. They're locked because customers have purchased the phones at drastically subsidized prices. If/when phones are paid off, carriers unlock the phones almost immediately.

 

[Azzin]

You're muddying the waters. Unjust tyrannical rule under which one was born or involuntarily subjugated (e.g. early colonies) is not the same as defending the trampled rights of those who voluntarily live in a commune (e.g. an Amish or Mennonite commune).

As I said, I'm most definitely not "pro-corporation," but if I choose to enter into a contract, and the other party follows said contract, it is unjust of me to rebel against the terms to which I agreed. Choice is the rub here.

I will not always see rules as right, especially if imposed on those without their consent and volition. There are many modes of transportation and many ways to pay for said transportation. If I chose to lease car X from car company Y, it would be as much my obligation to abide by the terms of the lease as it would be the company's.

And, by the way, you bet your ass I would raise stink (to the FCC et al) if they violated those terms. Until they do though, the onus is on me to be an educated consumer living within my means and accepting the consequences of my buying decisions.

Great points, BTW. I'm enjoying this discussion.

What a great post.

 

[ephemeralreason]

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.

I didn't imply it was hard to figure out. Of course wireless provides are within their rights to enforce any policy they wish to impose. This policy, in my opinion, is stupid. As others have stated, I will continue to pay my bill while I use another local carrier's plan. Since I won't pay ATT's extortionist international data rates under any circumstances, they lose nothing. These are my reasons and yours may vary. My reasons lead me to conclude that their policy is stupid. Perhaps not quite as stupid as a policy that requires you to forego using your phone on Fridays. But stupid.

 

[Azzin]

Yes, I agree. However phones are locked for us in the States not because of an arbitrary contract. They're locked because customers have purchased the phones at drastically subsidized prices. If/when phones are paid off, carriers unlock the phones almost immediately.

No different for us here in the UK and it still makes no sense to me.

Just because it's locked, I'm going to keep paying?

No, I keep paying, because that's what I agreed to.

 

[CNeufeld]

I didn't imply it was hard to figure out. Of course wireless provides are within their rights to enforce any policy they wish to impose. This policy, in my opinion, is stupid. As others have stated, I will continue to pay my bill while I use another local carrier's plan. Since I won't pay ATT's extortionist international data rates under any circumstances, they lose nothing. These are my reasons and yours may vary. My reasons lead me to conclude that their policy is stupid. Perhaps not quite as stupid as a policy that requires you to forego using your phone on Fridays. But stupid.

But if you willingly enter in a contract that explicitly gives you a 25% discount if you agree to not use your phone on Fridays (aka "Fone Free Fridays, and save 25%!!!!" deal), you don't have much right to complain later that you can't use your phone on Fridays... That falls on you for making a bad decision when making your purchase.

I'm also not pro-corporation. I'm pro-choice. You want a discounted phone? Guess what... There's often a catch. Don't like the catch? Pay full fare. Buy from Apple direct. Use a flip phone when you go overseas. There's lots of options.

C

 

[HEK]

Yes, I agree. However phones are locked for us in the States not because of an arbitrary contract. They're locked because customers have purchased the phones at drastically subsidized prices. If/when phones are paid off, carriers unlock the phones almost immediately.

Phones had been and are locked for one reason and one reason only. Carriers want to prevent people from being able to switch to another carrier. All the other excuses are BS. This is clearly evidenced by historical fact. Phones were locked and stayed locked to the carrier regardless of being paid off or not. Then FCC stepped in and in a compromise said they must be unlocked once paid for. Verizon got their hand bit more so and in order to get extra band width made a deal with FCC to stop locking entirely if they were given the band width.

This is why I say FCC in colluding with companies instead of simply standing up for consumer rights. But if they did, once the FCC leadership retired and wanted vice presidencies at the carriers they had to make these kind of deals.

The total unlocking of phones is coming, Apple will see to it when they provide the sim free phone. The carriers will try some tricks I am sure, like AT&T does with unlocked phones. They lock them in when you choose them as carrier. Sorta defeats idea of unlocked doesn't it.

Until then I and many others see this for what it has always been. A way for carriers to prevent competition from snatching their customers. It's as simple as that, period. All the righteous justifications of payments and when the phone belongs to the customer are smoke screens.

Like I stated before, on this issue we will always disagree. No amount of legal chicanery will convince me this is nothing but holding on to customers at all cost.

 

[CNeufeld]

Phones had been and are locked for one reason and one reason only. Carriers want to prevent people from being able to switch to another carrier. All the other excuses are BS. This is clearly evidenced by historical fact. Phones were locked and stayed locked to the carrier regardless of being paid off or not. Then FCC stepped in and in a compromise said they must be unlocked once paid for. Verizon got their hand bit more so and in order to get extra band width made a deal with FCC to stop locking entirely if they were given the band width.

This is why I say FCC in colluding with companies instead of simply standing up for consumer rights. But if they did, once the FCC leadership retired and wanted vice presidencies at the carriers they had to make these kind of deals.

The total unlocking of phones is coming, Apple will see to it when they provide the sim free phone. The carriers will try some tricks I am sure, like AT&T does with unlocked phones. They lock them in when you choose them as carrier. Sorta defeats idea of unlocked doesn't it.

Until then I and many others see this for what it has always been. A way for carriers to prevent competition from snatching their customers. It's as simple as that, period. All the righteous justifications of payments and when the phone belongs to the customer are smoke screens.

Like I stated before, on this issue we will always disagree. No amount of legal chicanery will convince me this is nothing but holding on to customers at all cost.

Of course it's a way to keep customers from switching to other carriers with their discounted phones. That's just good business practice, IMHO... And now (with the FCC changes) as soon as you pay off your obligation to your original provider who gave you the discounted phone, you can still go off to another carrier.

C

 

[Le Big Mac]

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?

This used to work with AT&T as well - not sure it still does.

As mentioned - step 1, call AT&T. They do unlock before contract is up - I've had them do it.
Step 2, when you call, if they won't unlock, ask what the payoff is on phone and tell them you are interested in cancelling. They may blink, and unlock in order to keep you, but of course be willing to cancel yourself.
Step 3, cancel and ask for unlock.

Not clear how long you'll be there - if permanent, seems like cancelation is what you want anyway. If temporrary, YMMV.

 

[AZhappyjack]

I didn't imply it was hard to figure out. Of course wireless provides are within their rights to enforce any policy they wish to impose. This policy, in my opinion, is stupid. As others have stated, I will continue to pay my bill while I use another local carrier's plan. Since I won't pay ATT's extortionist international data rates under any circumstances, they lose nothing. These are my reasons and yours may vary. My reasons lead me to conclude that their policy is stupid. Perhaps not quite as stupid as a policy that requires you to forego using your phone on Fridays. But stupid.

I suppose we all think rules, procedures and processes that don't go "our way" are stupid. But not getting "your way" doesn't really mean the rules are stupid - they just aren't the way you want them.

I'm done here. The horse has been dead for several pages of posts. Time to stop beating it.

 

[convergent]

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.

I guess you are someone that wants big brother government to protect you from mean evil companies?

If you don't want to have a locked phone, then DON'T BUY A LOCKED PHONE! Why do you need to have the government put a law in place to prevent something you have a choice not to do, when others may be perfectly OK with a locked phone given the other terms of the contract? Its not like you don't have other options. Every carrier will let you buy an unlocked phone, and Apple will sell you an unlocked phone. I have one, because I bought one. You buy a locked phone and then complain about it... you have no one to blame but yourself. Its not the carrier or the FCC's responsibility to undo someone making a dumb decision of buying a locked phone when you need to use it on another carrier. And they have a remedy... PAY FOR THE PHONE.

You don't have a "right" to a phone at all... unlocked, locked, whatever. This is another case where people sign up for something because its cheap, then they don't like the rules and want to be bailed out. If you don't like the situation then pay the phone off and they'll unlock it. This is so ridiculous.

Not sure what constitution you are reading, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about corporations, nor did the founding fathers. Corporations exist to make a profit... short and simple. In this case, the corporations you are needing protection from offer an unlocked phone for you to buy. But you chose not to buy that one because it cost more, and now are whining that the one you bought isn't unlocked. It would be like me buying a stripped version of a car with no air conditioning and then complaining that the car doesn't have air conditioning, and wanting the government to force the company to give it to me and not ever sell another car without air conditioning.

 

[HEK]

I guess you are someone that wants big brother government to protect you from mean evil companies?

If you don't want to have a locked phone, then DON'T BUY A LOCKED PHONE! Why do you need to have the government put a law in place to prevent something you have a choice not to do, when others may be perfectly OK with a locked phone given the other terms of the contract? Its not like you don't have other options. Every carrier will let you buy an unlocked phone, and Apple will sell you an unlocked phone. I have one, because I bought one. You buy a locked phone and then complain about it... you have no one to blame but yourself. Its not the carrier or the FCC's responsibility to undo someone making a dumb decision of buying a locked phone when you need to use it on another carrier. And they have a remedy... PAY FOR THE PHONE.

You don't have a "right" to a phone at all... unlocked, locked, whatever. This is another case where people sign up for something because its cheap, then they don't like the rules and want to be bailed out. If you don't like the situation then pay the phone off and they'll unlock it. This is so ridiculous.

Not sure what constitution you are reading, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about corporations, nor did the founding fathers. Corporations exist to make a profit... short and simple. In this case, the corporations you are needing protection from offer an unlocked phone for you to buy. But you chose not to buy that one because it cost more, and now are whining that the one you bought isn't unlocked. It would be like me buying a stripped version of a car with no air conditioning and then complaining that the car doesn't have air conditioning, and wanting the government to force the company to give it to me and not ever sell another car without air conditioning.

And why do you think we have the option to buy an unlocked phone? The gravitas of the companies? NO, We have it because the FCC our government, sworn to benefit us, the people stepped in and forced the companies to provide that option. All I'm saying is go the whole way and eliminate this unnecessary hinderence. Oh and I do have an unlocked phone, but the guy traveling overseas doesn't so this was for his benefit. oh and before you complain about big government, I'm sure you are self sufficient and don't use the roads and highway system, big government. And you inspect your own food and drugs, big government. And when your house catches fire, you put it out with your garden hose, big government. And when you want to fight ISIS, you get out your own weapon and fly right over to Syria, big government. And when you fly somewhere you look out the window to avoid hitting another plane, big government.

Never stops being amazing how all the "I hate big government" proponents are always ok taking the benefits they want from Big Government. or think they are self sufficient and don't utilize everything that Big Government has provide them with.

 

[ultravisitor]

One question is why is it that AT&T phones are locked when Verizon phones are not? Is it simply due to network technologies being slightly different?

I'm glad my Verizon 6s Plus was unlocked (I am under contract and bought a subsidized 6s Plus). It made my recent trip to Rome a lot more pleasurable.

 

[HEK]

One question is why is it that AT&T phones are locked when Verizon phones are not? Is it simply due to network technologies being slightly different?

I'm glad my Verizon 6s Plus was unlocked (I am under contract and bought a subsidized 6s Plus). It made my recent trip to Rome a lot more pleasurable.

Because FCC went after Verizon first. And Verizon wanted to add channel band width and made a deal to open all phones after certain date if the got the added channels.

That's been my whole bone of contention, the FCC went part way, just finish the job. Oh and when you visited Rome did you stop paying your Verizon bill? Did you jump to another carrier because your phone was unlocked from day one? Just asking because this seems to be the big worry some have on here, protecting the poor weak little carrier companies from the evil cheating customers.

 

[ephemeralreason]

But if you willingly enter in a contract that explicitly gives you a 25% discount if you agree to not use your phone on Fridays (aka "Fone Free Fridays, and save 25%!!!!" deal), you don't have much right to complain later that you can't use your phone on Fridays... That falls on you for making a bad decision when making your purchase.

I'm also not pro-corporation. I'm pro-choice. You want a discounted phone? Guess what... There's often a catch. Don't like the catch? Pay full fare. Buy from Apple direct. Use a flip phone when you go overseas. There's lots of options.

C

You're introducing facts not on evidence: there was no mention of a discounted phone. The full cost of the phone is distributed across a contracted # of months.

 

[ephemeralreason]

Not nece

I suppose we all think rules, procedures and processes that don't go "our way" are stupid. But not getting "your way" doesn't really mean the rules are stupid - they just aren't the way you want them.

I'm done here. The horse has been dead for several pages of posts. Time to stop beating it.

Not necessarily - sometimes rules that benefit me are stupid too. A stupid rule is a stupid rule regardless of whom it benefits, or doesn't.

 

[CNeufeld]

You're introducing facts not on evidence: there was no mention of a discounted phone. The full cost of the phone is distributed across a contracted # of months.

Discounted (to me, and I suspect many others) = reduced price up front. Yes, you pay the cost over the rest of your contract. But the only reason why people go for that is so they don't have to shell out the full price up front.

Feel free to pick irrelevant nits...

C

 

[convergent]

And why do you think we have the option to buy an unlocked phone? The gravitas of the companies? NO, We have it because the FCC our government, sworn to benefit us, the people stepped in and forced the companies to provide that option. All I'm saying is go the whole way and eliminate this unnecessary hinderence. Oh and I do have an unlocked phone, but the guy traveling overseas doesn't so this was for his benefit. oh and before you complain about big government, I'm sure you are self sufficient and don't use the roads and highway system, big government. And you inspect your own food and drugs, big government. And when your house catches fire, you put it out with your garden hose, big government. And when you want to fight ISIS, you get out your own weapon and fly right over to Syria, big government. And when you fly somewhere you look out the window to avoid hitting another plane, big government.

Never stops being amazing how all the "I hate big government" proponents are always ok taking the benefits they want from Big Government. or think they are self sufficient and don't utilize everything that Big Government has provide them with.

What has any of this got to do with anything remotely related to this thread?

You've always been able to buy unlocked phones for full price.... had nothing to do with the FCC.

Let's try a different approach to help you understand. Do you own a car our house that you've financed? They put a lein on it so that you can't sell it while you still have an obligation to the bank. The locking of the phone is essentially the same thing. It is the only way they can secure the collateral. Otherwise you could stop paying them the higher monthly fee and go to a different carrier. Having the phone locked is much better than them having to incur the cost of legal action which is not worth their effort for the cost of a phone.

This is not that hard to understand.

 

[2macarena]

Hard to find a legit one

Well, I don't have 6s yet, but I unlocked my 5S and 6 through http://attunlocker.us

 

[ephemeralreason]

Discounted (to me, and I suspect many others) = reduced price up front. Yes, you pay the cost over the rest of your contract. But the only reason why people go for that is so they don't have to shell out the full price up front.

Feel free to pick irrelevant nits...

C

Sure, a low down payment is the reason why lots of people go this direction. That's not the definition of 'discount'. Unless you're willing to define words as per dictionary and common understanding this discussion is pointless.

 

[convergent]

Sure, a low down payment is the reason why lots of people go this direction. That's not the definition of 'discount'. Unless you're willing to define words as per dictionary and common understanding this discussion is pointless.

You are assuming the intelligence level of people to be much higher than reality. There are a lot of people that buy based on "lowest payment", and live their life in debt. They don't know or care what the total price for something is, only that they can get it for "$xx a month". So "discount" in this context is anything less at a given point in time. To these people (and there are a lot of them in the US), getting a phone for $199 (with monthly payments for 2 years) is a "discount" from getting a phone for $899 and no payments. This is why the level of debt in the US is continuing to rise to staggering levels.

 

[CNeufeld]

Sure, a low down payment is the reason why lots of people go this direction. That's not the definition of 'discount'. Unless you're willing to define words as per dictionary and common understanding this discussion is pointless.

Aaaaand... The point sails over your head with a whoosh...

Are you happier with the term "subsidized", as opposed to "discounted"? What term would you use to refer to a phone that a consumer gets at a reduced cost up front?

In any case, the rest of the points remain...

Many consumers want to pay as little as possible out of pocket for their phones
Carriers want to reduce their risk when handing out phones below cost
Carriers want to retain customers as long as possible
Carriers don't care much about customer's "roaming" needs, as they make no money off their customers running around Europe using some other carrier's data plan

C

 

[C DM]

Aaaaand... The point sails over your head with a whoosh...

Are you happier with the term "subsidized", as opposed to "discounted"? What term would you use to refer to a phone that a consumer gets at a reduced cost up front?

In any case, the rest of the points remain...

Many consumers want to pay as little as possible out of pocket for their phones
Carriers want to reduce their risk when handing out phones below cost
Carriers want to retain customers as long as possible
Carriers don't care much about customer's "roaming" needs, as they make no money off their customers running around Europe using some other carrier's data plan

C

Simply "financed" (at 0%) would likely be more appropriate (since the customer still owes the full amount of the full cost of the device, which is different from discounted or subsidized).

 

[ephemeralreason]

You are assuming the intelligence level of people to be much higher than reality. There are a lot of people that buy based on "lowest payment", and live their life in debt. They don't know or care what the total price for something is, only that they can get it for "$xx a month". So "discount" in this context is anything less at a given point in time. To these people (and there are a lot of them in the US), getting a phone for $199 (with monthly payments for 2 years) is a "discount" from getting a phone for $899 and no payments. This is why the level of debt in the US is continuing to rise to staggering levels.

Sadly, I don't disagree with your statement on people not caring what the price actually is. It's the reason the car salesman use monthly payments rather than vehicle cost. Still, even though lots of people perceive this as a 'discount' that's still not the definition - we do some things in our country democratically, but defining words isn't one of them. Lots of people use the phrase 'would of' but that doesn't make it correct.

 

[ephemeralreason]

Aaaaand... The point sails over your head with a whoosh...

Are you happier with the term "subsidized", as opposed to "discounted"? What term would you use to refer to a phone that a consumer gets at a reduced cost up front?

In any case, the rest of the points remain...

Many consumers want to pay as little as possible out of pocket for their phones
Carriers want to reduce their risk when handing out phones below cost
Carriers want to retain customers as long as possible
Carriers don't care much about customer's "roaming" needs, as they make no money off their customers running around Europe using some other carrier's data plan

C

I'm happier with the term 'subsidized' because that is what you actually mean, and not 'discounted'. As I've said, I don't disagree with the rest of your points but that doesn't make ATT's locking policy any less stupid. Verizon phones aren't locked (and I realize that's because of FCC conditionality and not Verizon policy) but when I went to Ireland I swapped out my sim for a local sim, used it for the couple of weeks I was there and yet still paid for my Verizon service and subsidized (but not discounted) iPhone. Verizon lost nothing in this transaction. They didn't gain since I didn't pay their extortionate data roaming charges, but I would not, under any circumstance, have done that anyway. So, ATT's policy gains them nothing and in my case, lost my business as a result of their policy. So, again, in my opinion, their policy is stupid. You are free to disagree and I'm free to utterly not care.