Lawsuit Over AT&T's iPhone Exclusivity Gains Class Action Status

[firewater101]

Wrong

I think that this is ridiculous! I understand that people want to be able to use their phone on any network, but come on. I think 2 companies should be able to enter into an exclusive contract if they can both agree on the terms. Everyone knew the exclusivity was set for 5 years why gripe? This is EXACTLY like if a car manufacture wanted to sell their car with a specific tire and you could only buy that tire with the car. Point is: JAILBREAK THE DAMN iPHONE!

That metaphor doesn't really make sense. A closer approximation would be like buying a car and only being able to drive it on certain roads owned by a partner company. The airwaves are public and therefore open to regulation by the FCC. The government (we the people) have a right to determine if open networks are in the public interest. At the very least, I believe it is in the public interest to require unlocked phones at contract term end.

 

[firewater101]

History will Repeat

Stupid lawsuit. This is only coming to light because the iPhone is so popular and is locked to a network that has been criticized for reception issues. What about the EVO 4G? It's available exclusively at Best Buy exclusively on the Sprint network. I don't see any class action lawsuits about it, do you?

The arguments being made now about exclusivity are the same exact arguments made by land line telephone companies back before all the systems were compatible. You used to have to rent a phone from the telephone company, and it could only be used with their system. They argued that if anyone was able to make their own phone and use it on their network that it would crash the system. The truth is they make way more money keeping things incompatible. Eventually, when regulation catches up with the technology, there will be one system with multiple carriers. Prices will be cheap because of competition, and innovation and the consumer will be better off for it.

Oh, guess what telephone company lost this argument before? They must be betting on people such as yourself that have been convinced that it is their “right” to create monopolies using public resources. Hopefully that doesn’t hold up long.

 

[ferrous]

How will that benefit me?

I read a few comments, but I don't see how that will benefit me. Apple will raise prices to cover the cost, I may get a $3 check at most, the lawyers will get $$$$$ and probably don't even own an iPhone.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

The fact of the matter is that there are features (like visual voice mail) that would not work on other carriers.

So, Apple would no longer be able to advertise such features and their product wouldn't simply "work" like they intend.

 

[FieldingMellish]

Problem with the lawyers is that 99% of them give the rest a bad name.

 

[diamond.g]

The fact of the matter is that there are features (like visual voice mail) that would not work on other carriers.

So, Apple would no longer be able to advertise such features and their product wouldn't simply "work" like they intend.

Apple doesn't advertise VVM anymore (edit: it is on the site I wonder if that is a US centric thing though). I do believe there are networks they sell the phone on that do not offer that service. See List here

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Apple doesn't advertise VVM anymore (edit: it is on the site I wonder if that is a US centric thing though). I do believe there are networks they sell the phone on that do not offer that service. See List here

The statement remains the same.
Apple advertises a product and just "wants it to work".
That cannot be said if Apple allows its product to run on all of these other networks.

Ever tried to install OS X on 3rd party hardware? It doesn't "just work".

 

[diamond.g]

The statement remains the same.
Apple advertises a product and just "wants it to work".
That cannot be said if Apple allows its product to run on all of these other networks.

Ever tried to install OS X on 3rd party hardware? It doesn't "just work".

It wouldn't stop them from still selling the device. If anything they would have to add a disclaimer that not all features are present on all networks (much like the tethering disclaimer).

 

[madmax_2069]

Mommy or not... "having a cellphone" is not a "right" ... in this country, or anywhere else, i would imagine.

If you have to earn what you are allowed to use is called a privilege. you do not have to earn nothing (except the money to buy it) to get or to use a cell phone, unless your parents tell you other wise.

I think you are confused on what a right and what is a privilege.

 

[SkippyThorson]

If you have to earn what you are allowed to use is called a privilege. you do not have to earn nothing (except the money to buy it) to get or to use a cell phone, unless your parents tell you other wise.

I think you are confused on what a right and what is a privilege.

No, you're confused. The Bill of Rights or The Constitution don't mention owning a cell phone as a basic right.

Children who think they have the right to own a cell phone make me sick.

It's a privilege. Plain and simple. You make the money to own it, then you have the option to get it. That's not a law, right, amendment, or anything else.

 

[Matt-M]

This is confusing to me. Yes, the iPhone is only available on AT&T's network but aren't any phone's that use a SIM/Mini SIM tied to AT&T or can they swap to another carrier like T-Mobile. Or, can you do the same on a CDMA phone? Maybe I'm missing something.

SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) cards are a GSM-only thing. CDMA phones do not have SIM cards. There is a similar technology, called a R-UIM (Re-Useable Identification Module) for CDMA, but I believe they only have those in China.

 

[darkplanets]

I'm calling this a no-issue.

By the time this rolls on by there won't be exclusivity in the US, and the iPhone will be on Sprint and TMobile (Maybe Verizon, once they get LTE).

 

[objc]

To be honest, I couldn't care less regarding the exclusivity part - but not unlocking the phone after your contract is up is pretty ridiculous. AT&T will unlock other phones they offer but won't budge on the iphone.

When your contract obligations are up, you should be able to do what you want with your phone.

This is a sensible post. It does not belong on macrumors.

 

[objc]

did you just post your opinion as fact....TMobile is not the Largest US carrier in fact they are the FOURTH largest US carrier behind Sprint...and Tmobile's coverage does not cover the entire population...Leave the drugs alone...I didn't know you liked to get wet

No but their roaming agreements with various carriers (some CDMA carriers have GSM cell sites even though they don't sell the service to their own customers) give coverage in more areas than at&t, which AFAIK now only uses its own cell sites, which don't cover the entire country.

They're much more reasonably priced than T as well, especially if you are not an addict, and just use it occasionally (t-mobile to go).

Regardless, how can anyone use the word "yours" if it's locked? If it's locked, you don't own it; you're just leasing it from applet&t.

By the time a 2-year att contract is over, you've paid $200 upfront, plus about $480 in subsidies in your service plan ($10 on voice and $10 on data) -- $680. Shouldn't it be yours then to do with what you want?

 

[objc]

The arguments being made now about exclusivity are the same exact arguments made by land line telephone companies back before all the systems were compatible. You used to have to rent a phone from the telephone company, and it could only be used with their system. They argued that if anyone was able to make their own phone and use it on their network that it would crash the system.

Slightly OT, but...

I'm barely old enough to remember Western Electric Bell System telephones. One wonderful thing about them is they were made so damn well. You absolutely could NOT break them. I was a kid, trust me, I had a few accidents with the old WE -- pulling it off the shelf onto the floor -- and they didn't phase it. The voice quality was great. And if you had any problems, the Bell company would come out to your house and repair it at no charge. There was also no passing the buck. If anything didn't work, the Bell System was responsible and they fixed it.

They were made at US factories employing thousands of people -- think of what that did for the US economy. The phone rental subsidized local telephone service, which was pretty cheap. My parents have told me many times that after the divestiture, local phone service prices went up (while long distance prices went down). With the exception of a Panasonic phone which I still have and use at home, I have not run across anything approaching the quality of the old WE phones.

 

[bri1212]

the lawsuit is idiotic

Just because AT&T won't or can't unlock the iphone after your contract is up,
does not mean that you can not. It just means that your phone is no longer under apple's warrantee. I have unlocked iphones, it is no big deal. I have a 3g that I used in Asia, that I bought in the US. I am not sure At&T or any other carrier should be obligated to unlock phones, after the contract is over. I think that is our responsibility as consumers. I think the idiot that started this lawsuit, and those that joined to make it class action, are going to cost me money in the end.

 

[goosnarrggh]

This is confusing to me. Yes, the iPhone is only available on AT&T's network but aren't any phone's that use a SIM/Mini SIM tied to AT&T or can they swap to another carrier like T-Mobile.

There are other phones that are locked to AT&T.

But the iPhone is the ONLY phone sold by AT&T, which they refuse to unlock (allowing it to be used with other carriers) after you've satisfied a certain percentage of your contract with an account in good standing.

Or, can you do the same on a CDMA phone? Maybe I'm missing something.

In principle, it is POSSIBLE to do something similar on a CDMA phone, but because most North American CDMA phones don't use standardized removable cards to identify the subscriber, each carrier has come up with different, generally incompatible ways of linking the handset up with the subscriber's account.

In order to move the phone from one CDMA carrier to another, you generally have to re-flash the phone with new firmware that uses that carrier's unique way of identifying the subscriber. If your prospective new CDMA carrier has never written/purchased any firmware designed for use with that hardware, then they have no way of modifying it to work with their system, so they cannot provide you with service.

Some CDMA carriers, such as Metro PCS, maintain a catalogue of firmware for various 3rd party CDMA phones, designed specifically with the intention of allowing you to take your existing phones from Sprint, Verizon, etc, and activate it on their network.

Verizon, on the other hand, will not help you to modify another carrier's phone to make it compatible with their network (or vice versa). HOWEVER, they have published the specifications of how phones are expected to work on their network, and if you come into possession of a 3rd party phone that has already been adjusted to meet those specifications, and those adjustments have been proven to be complete and correct, then they have a policy of allowing you to activate it on their network.

 

[wolfenkraft]

Go get em' boys!

When I was buying my iPhone 4 at AT&T I asked if I could use my old iPhone, that I purchased free and clear, on another network...three years after purchasing it.

The worker laughed at me slightly as they shook their head and said no.

This is not a junk lawsuit; all that is being asked for is what every other phone gets - an unlock after the two year contract is up and the device has been paid for. I guess some of the fanboys think that makes for a "spurious lawsuit"



But do they prevent you from using the phone on another CDMA network after two years like ATT (on another GSM network)?

But... But... Isn't government involvement a bad thing... it... reeks of socialism. OMGNOWAI EXCLUSIONARY CONTRACT LAWSUIT THING GOVERNMENT PLEASE COME SAVE ME

 

[rjohnstone]

No but their roaming agreements with various carriers (some CDMA carriers have GSM cell sites even though they don't sell the service to their own customers) give coverage in more areas than at&t, which AFAIK now only uses its own cell sites, which don't cover the entire country.

AT&T has roaming and sharing agreements with many carriers, including T-Mobile.

Not sure where you're getting your info, but T-Mobile has LESS coverage in the U.S. than AT&T, not more.

T-Mobile coverage map.
http://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/pcc.aspx

AT&T Coverage map.
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/?wtSlotClick=1-001KT9-0-1&WT.svl=calltoaction#?type=voice

 

[Bonebreaker]

Who would like to spend $1000 (including VAT) to buy an unlocked iPhone in a country were subsidized iPhones are not available?

Then you buy an iPhone from ebay for half the price to find out that it can not be unlocked because of policies. Great!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIM_lock

Some talk about communism and socialism, but only Europe has experience to circumvent it.

 

[Grade]

There are countries in Europe (France i think) there isn't exclusive phones to certain networks and they aren't socialism or communist countries. When the Iphone was put to be sold, it cost much more of course, but the costumer was free to choose their network.

What this lawsuit from my understanding is that after 2 years of the contract you can choose to move to another network if you want to and taking your Iphone with you.

 

[firewater101]

No, you're confused. The Bill of Rights or The Constitution don't mention owning a cell phone as a basic right.

Children who think they have the right to own a cell phone make me sick.

It's a privilege. Plain and simple. You make the money to own it, then you have the option to get it. That's not a law, right, amendment, or anything else.

You may not have a right to a cell phone per say, but you do have a right to use the public airwaves, because they are yours. The carriers rent them from us, but we still own them and are entitled to regulate them as we please.

 

[SkippyThorson]

You may not have a right to a cell phone per say, but you do have a right to use the public airwaves, because they are yours. The carriers rent them from us, but we still own them and are entitled to regulate them as we please.

That was just too much. You said the public airwaves were public, then you said we own them. If we own them, ownership makes them private.

The public DOES NOT own the public airwaves. The carriers do not "rent them" from us. What planet do you live on? Are you paid their rent?

You're so backwards it's sick.

 

[Bonebreaker]

I like this discussion. Under Communism, the government owns pretty much everything, which does however not make ownership private, regulating what you need, how to produce, and what you can get, and if you don't like it you become a criminal and stealing from the society. It has some advantages though, you're more happy with your neighbors, blame the government for everything and the future is set. Well, communism is pretty much history, but some people seem to want it back. For the some of the same reasons, business monopolies should be avoided.

 

[goosnarrggh]

That was just too much. You said the public airwaves were public, then you said we own them. If we own them, ownership makes them private.

The public DOES NOT own the public airwaves. The carriers do not "rent them" from us. What planet do you live on? Are you paid their rent?

You're so backwards it's sick.

There are two forms of ownership in common law: private ownership and public ownership. You are getting hung up on the former, and failing to acknowledge the reality that the latter also has legal recognition.

The airwaves are public property. The government, operating on behalf of the public, regulates access to this public property. They "rent" the airwaves out to the cellular carriers in exchange for license fees paid to the government by broadcasters.

The public is required to abide by the licensing system which the government created on their behalf. Therefore they must refrain from using bandwidth that has been allocated to another private entity without that entity's permission. Certainly, there are other examples of public property that have limited public access, such as: civilians on military bases, pedestrians on expressways, tourists in restricted areas of the Hoover Dam, etc.