Will U.S. Carriers Now Have to Unlock?

[pittpanthersfan]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

In the past, the argument has always been that AT&T could get away with never unlocking iPhones because the devices could not officially be used on any other U.S. networks.

Now that we have one device, the iPhone 4S that will operate on any of 3 U.S. carriers, do you think that AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon will be obligated to unlock iPhone 4S after the complettion of a two-year agreement (i.e. After one has paid for the phone in full)?

 

[Consultant]

Nope. That's why they are selling unlocked iPhone for $450 more than contract price.

 

[pittpanthersfan]

Nope. That's why they are selling unlocked iPhone for $450 more than contract price.

But you can buy any phone at the no commitment, more than contract price. AT&T has given me the unlock code for a BlackBerry for international travel, no questions asked, yet I could've bought that outright rather than start a two-year contract.

Once they've recouped their subsidy and I've 100% paid for the phone, why can/would they keep my iPhone locked to their network when they're willing to unlock virtually every other phone?

Just trying to wrap my head around the logic here.

 

[Stealthipad]

Just trying to wrap my head around the logic here.

Say this slowly: AT&T does NOT have the ability to unlock an Apple Phone.

 

[Applejuiced]

Say this slowly: AT&T does NOT have the ability to unlock an Apple Phone.

Oh they got the ability.
They just don't want to and noone is making them so why unlock them?

 

[pittpanthersfan]

Say this slowly: AT&T does NOT have the ability to unlock an Apple Phone.

Yeah, ok.

Canadian carriers are able to provide unlock codes for iPhone, but Apple is withholding from AT&T for some unknown reason. Oh well. At least there's the devteam.

 

[pyro008]

Yeah sure go ahead and make Sprint and VZW unlock the phones. They still won't activate them on their networks.

 

[EricNau]

Say this slowly: AT&T does NOT have the ability to unlock an Apple Phone.

I used to work for Apple, and this is NOT what we were told. We were informed that it was up to AT&T whether or not to unlock the phones, and if a customer was to request an unlock code we were told to direct them to their carrier.

----------

I HOPE that this means AT&T (and the others) will have to unlock the iPhone 4S once a contract has been fulfilled. AT&T's previous class-action lawsuit settlements imply that they'll unlock any handset which is not an AT&T exclusive (until now, all iPhones were "exclusive" to AT&T). However, the settlements mention the iPhone specifically, giving them a loophole should they decide they don't want to unlock an iPhone under any circumstances, exclusive or not.

It's really, really rotten. After 2 years that phone should me mine, and I should be able to take it to any carrier I please. As it is, I might as well be renting it.

 

[pittpanthersfan]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

EricNau, thanks for the insight!

 

[thewitt]

Say this slowly: AT&T does NOT have the ability to unlock an Apple Phone.

I don't know where you got this information but it is incorrect.

The lock is a carrier lock and only the carrier will remove it. They choose not to unlock the iPhone at AT&T.

Apple will not unlock it because your contract for the subsidized phone is with the carrier, not the manufacturer.

-t

 

[Ugg]

I used to work for Apple, and this is NOT what we were told. We were informed that it was up to AT&T whether or not to unlock the phones, and if a customer was to request an unlock code we were told to direct them to their carrier.

----------

I HOPE that this means AT&T (and the others) will have to unlock the iPhone 4S once a contract has been fulfilled. AT&T's previous class-action lawsuit settlements imply that they'll unlock any handset which is not an AT&T exclusive (until now, all iPhones were "exclusive" to AT&T). However, the settlements mention the iPhone specifically, giving them a loophole should they decide they don't want to unlock an iPhone under any circumstances, exclusive or not.

It's really, really rotten. After 2 years that phone should me mine, and I should be able to take it to any carrier I please. As it is, I might as well be renting it.

The problem is US lawmakers have no interest in protecting consumers from monopolistic carriers.