Yup, more deflections and misdirections, and still nothing to support what is just your word against the established reality by many. Like I said, just not worth it.
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.
Scammed on CL - Out a (functional) 5S - where to next?
- Thread starter runningtowin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you asking me to prove a negative? How about you prove to me that there aren't invisible pink unicorns dancing around Times Square.
You cannot prove a negative. But when someone asserts that something IS happening, the burden of proof rests upon his or her shoulders, and if they cannot prove it, they should admit it.
T-Mobile won't tell you who the phone is registered to, nor will Apple. Believe me, I tried. A third party did, but the name it was under didn't have Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc and I wasn't in the business of going on a wild goose chase for a thief in a city I don't know.
Is it because you work in the "wireless industry"? 
Anyway, here are some sources I have found that support the notion that carriers DO in fact block phones for unpaid balances. Have Fun
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1815512-Does-AT-amp-T-block-unlocked-T-Mobile-phones-with-unpaid-balances
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1659720/
http://boards.answers.findlaw.com/i...phone-bought-on-ebay-blacklisted-by-t-mobile/
http://www.droidforums.net/threads/...ed-for-nonpayment-on-previous-account.232991/
There are several of these links of customers explaining that a customer services rep specifically told them that the phone was blacklisted due to NON PAYMENT!
I think we're done here.
Anyway, here are some sources I have found that support the notion that carriers DO in fact block phones for unpaid balances. Have Fun
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1815512-Does-AT-amp-T-block-unlocked-T-Mobile-phones-with-unpaid-balances
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1659720/
http://boards.answers.findlaw.com/i...phone-bought-on-ebay-blacklisted-by-t-mobile/
http://www.droidforums.net/threads/...ed-for-nonpayment-on-previous-account.232991/
There are several of these links of customers explaining that a customer services rep specifically told them that the phone was blacklisted due to NON PAYMENT!
I think we're done here.
Is it because you work in the "wireless industry"?
Anyway, here are some sources I have found that support the notion that carriers DO in fact block phones for unpaid balances. Have Fun
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1815512-Does-AT-amp-T-block-unlocked-T-Mobile-phones-with-unpaid-balances
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1659720/
http://boards.answers.findlaw.com/i...phone-bought-on-ebay-blacklisted-by-t-mobile/
http://www.droidforums.net/threads/...ed-for-nonpayment-on-previous-account.232991/
There are several of these links of customers explaining that a customer services rep specifically told them that the phone was blacklisted due to NON PAYMENT!
I think we're done here.
Second hand info, not directly from a carriers website. Although I tend to agree t-mobile does seem to blacklist phones for non-payment as based on second hand accounts in threads such as these.
There is enough there to come to a conclusion that carriers do or at least have the option and ability to block phones for nonpayment.
At the very least it's certainly much more than the word of a single random poster on an online forum with nothing else to back it up at all, not even second hand info, let alone anything close to something directly from a carrier or anything like that.
No, that's not how it works, at least in peer-reviewed research journals. If you make a counter statement, you must back it up.
In the other thread, a forum member was adamant that Apple-refurbished iPhones do not receive a new case, screen and battery, based on the fact there's no official statement from Apple confirming this. We know this is untrue.
As far as I'm concerned we have proved it. I know it happens. You know it happens. Most everyone in this thread and the threads I have sourced knows that it happens. I know friends that have had this happen to them; you know friends that have had it happen to them. What else is there to say? And I can't prove that pink unicorns dance around in times square because that's foolishness. But this isn't; this seems to be a very common thing that happens to many people due to purchasing phones that have unpaid bills.
I know for sure tmobile blocks imei for non payment. In the past their imei check system used to say stolen for all blocked imeis. Now it seems they have 2 versions: blocked or stolen to distinguish between blocked for nonpayment vs reported stolen.
here are different responses when you run IMEIs through their check system http://www.t-mobile.com/verifyIMEI.aspx
Your device is blocked and will not work on T-Mobile’s network. If you think this is an error, please call Customer Care at 1-877-453-1304.
This device is being financed and has an outstanding balance that must be paid or it may not be able to be used on the T-Mobile network.
For more information or assistance, please call Customer Care at 1-877-453-1304.
WARNING! Our records show that this device has been reported stolen. Unless the status changes, this device will not work on our network or on most other networks around the world.
here are different responses when you run IMEIs through their check system http://www.t-mobile.com/verifyIMEI.aspx
Your device is blocked and will not work on T-Mobile’s network. If you think this is an error, please call Customer Care at 1-877-453-1304.
This device is being financed and has an outstanding balance that must be paid or it may not be able to be used on the T-Mobile network.
For more information or assistance, please call Customer Care at 1-877-453-1304.
WARNING! Our records show that this device has been reported stolen. Unless the status changes, this device will not work on our network or on most other networks around the world.
Last edited:
T-Mobile's Jump! program is a huge facilitator of this. Jump! acts as your mobile phone insurance. All someone has to do is sell on CL and then report is stolen and they get a new device for the price of the deductible and then they also keep the profits of the new phone. They've basically set up a system for super easy scamming. For this reason, I refuse to buy a used T-Mobile iPhone or any device from them. I think the same thing goes for AT&T's NEXT and Verizon Edge too but I haven't heard as much about it.
Yes that's what we have been debating for a while now with other posters on the thread. We have had someone who works in the "wireless industry" (whatever that even means, I guess he's a retail store associate or something) that has basically called us all liars and has labeled the OP as a theif himself. From what I have been able to gather, U.S. Carriers used to not factor in unpaid bills for IMEI blocks for standard contracts because the phone is technically paid for, but with the introduction of these newer programs such as Jump, Next, and Edge, this is not the case anymore, and phones are being paid off in real time month to month. I'm not sure what the honest difference is in the eyes of the carrier, seems like the money is still going to the same source, but I could be wrong there.
The general consenses of this thread is that purchasing a phone off of Craigslist comes at a great risk for an unforseen amount of time, verses before where you could basically verify if a phone was safe to use or not at the time of the sale.
The general consenses of this thread is that purchasing a phone off of Craigslist comes at a great risk for an unforseen amount of time, verses before where you could basically verify if a phone was safe to use or not at the time of the sale.
If you were ripped off, call the police
I would report it to the police and let them look up the previous owner through the phone service provider and Craigslist. The phone service providers insurance can tell if and when it was reported lost and craigslist can show the "for sale" posts. They could be looking at multiple charges like insurance fraud, theft, etc.
I would report it to the police and let them look up the previous owner through the phone service provider and Craigslist. The phone service providers insurance can tell if and when it was reported lost and craigslist can show the "for sale" posts. They could be looking at multiple charges like insurance fraud, theft, etc.
Seriously, several of you continuously saying "this is true, this is true, this is true" does not make it true. How come not a SINGLE one of you has been able to find any evidence (anywhere) that actually proves it? Until then, no one will buy it.
By even if it WERE true, unless the original poster KNEW that it had been blacklisted for non-payment, he should have still given it to the police to return it to the original owner because it was stolen. The T Mobile system posted above would TELL him it had been reported as stolen. And I would be willing to bet a large sum that if the original poster gives us the IMEI it will show up as a reported stolen device.
Trying to ascribe bad motives to whoever had the device blacklisted is just sick, and it's wrong, and it's a pathetic whiny excuse to avoid doing the right thing and turning it in to the police.
No, even T Mobile does not blacklist IMEI's for nonpayment. You're talking about a carrier block, which is where the carrier blocks the device from being used solely on its own network. I am talking about the IMEI blacklist, which blocks the IMEI from being used on ALL 4 major networks in the US.
----------
Amen to that!
----------
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
So no, it's not possible to prove a negative.
The person who is asserting the positive (ie. that carriers blacklist IMEI's for non-payment) has the burden of proof, because they are actually positively asserting that something is occurring.
In this situation, the people claiming that carriers block IMEI's for non-payment have posted NOTHING that proves their case. You'd think it would be easy to do if it were true. Gizmodo, engadget, etc. would definitely mention the practice SOMEWHERE in their exhaustive coverage of the wireless industry, but they don't.
By even if it WERE true, unless the original poster KNEW that it had been blacklisted for non-payment, he should have still given it to the police to return it to the original owner because it was stolen. The T Mobile system posted above would TELL him it had been reported as stolen. And I would be willing to bet a large sum that if the original poster gives us the IMEI it will show up as a reported stolen device.
Trying to ascribe bad motives to whoever had the device blacklisted is just sick, and it's wrong, and it's a pathetic whiny excuse to avoid doing the right thing and turning it in to the police.
No, even T Mobile does not blacklist IMEI's for nonpayment. You're talking about a carrier block, which is where the carrier blocks the device from being used solely on its own network. I am talking about the IMEI blacklist, which blocks the IMEI from being used on ALL 4 major networks in the US.
----------
Amen to that!
----------
If you actually did read peer-reviewed and well researched journal articles, you would know that they NEVER try to "prove" a negative. They generally try to gather as much evidence as they can that something isn't happening. But if you assert that something NEVER happens anywhere at any time, it's not possible to prove that because it is a negative, and would require the omniscience of a divine deity.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
So no, it's not possible to prove a negative.
The person who is asserting the positive (ie. that carriers blacklist IMEI's for non-payment) has the burden of proof, because they are actually positively asserting that something is occurring.
In this situation, the people claiming that carriers block IMEI's for non-payment have posted NOTHING that proves their case. You'd think it would be easy to do if it were true. Gizmodo, engadget, etc. would definitely mention the practice SOMEWHERE in their exhaustive coverage of the wireless industry, but they don't.
Last edited:
They don't make outright statements like "There is no....." or "They don't....." when dealing with a negative. Rather, they qualify their statements with, for examples, "There is likely no...." and "It appears they don't...."
You made a concrete statement so you'll need to back it up with a source, much like the other poster who insists that Apple does not refurbish white box replacement iPhones with a brand new case, screen and battery.
Haha! First of all nice "proof". Sorry buddy, but other forum posts are not considered proof of anything.Is it because you work in the "wireless industry"?
Anyway, here are some sources I have found that support the notion that carriers DO in fact block phones for unpaid balances. Have Fun
http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1815512-Does-AT-amp-T-block-unlocked-T-Mobile-phones-with-unpaid-balances
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1659720/
http://boards.answers.findlaw.com/i...phone-bought-on-ebay-blacklisted-by-t-mobile/
http://www.droidforums.net/threads/...ed-for-nonpayment-on-previous-account.232991/
There are several of these links of customers explaining that a customer services rep specifically told them that the phone was blacklisted due to NON PAYMENT!
I think we're done here.
----------
It's similar to the theistic vs. atheistic argument. If someone asserts that something IS happening, they are required to prove it. Otherwise, you have NO reason to believe it is happening, and the default position becomes that it isn't happening.
I find it strange that none of you have been able to post a single, TINY shred of evidence that this practice is occurring.
Holy cow are we still doing this. I don't even own the phone anymore, so maybe this all-too-heated discussion can end. Axo, I respect your persistence, but many of us here have experience with what you're saying is impossible. I apologize.
Plenty of evidence is out there and has been provided, you just choose to dismiss it as not being real and/or reliable. Perhaps there's no definitive proof in the form of some official documentation or something like that that someone here can pull out, but there's quite a bit of evidence (remember, evidence and proof are not the same, since you like to get hung up on semantics).
Factoring that in and taking the whole thing about not proving a negative it all just becomes far too convenient.
Let's take a real life example here, like the moon landing. There's plenty of evidence out there about it, and majority fully believe it as being reality, as it is. However there are some who dismiss that evidence and say it's not good enough or it's fake, and ultimately simply come out to say that the moon landing never happened. That's a negative, right? So they basically can just come out saying the evidence that's out there can be ignored, it never happened, and since it's a negative nothing needs to be proved, and therefore they are right. That somehow everyone else suddenly needs to question everything they know and blindly believe the moon landing never happened because of what these other people think. And those that still disagree then need to somehow spend their time proving reality for those who choose to ignore it for whatever reason, because they don't need to prove what they are saying simply because it's a negative. Seems like a fairly irrational waste of time for no useful reason.
Last edited: