06-28-2009, 10:08 AM

Hello

I'm very frustrated with AT&T right now with their iPhone contract. I totally understand the 2-year contract agreement because AT&T subsidizes the iPhone cost. Well, let's supposed the 2 years time has lapsed...Shouldn't the customers be legally entitled to the full ownership of their iPhones, including all the internal features of the phones? Including breaking free from AT&T Sim Card and thus rendering the phone as a legally unlocked phone?

Let's supposed that you've signed a 2 year contract with AT&T for your iPhone 3G. A year has passed and you breached the contract because you want to get the new phone 3GS. Well, you obviously breached the contract by canceling the 2 year contract prematurely, but then you paid an excessive amount of termination fees to AT&T by paying the new iPhone price higher than everybody else as damages. Then, shouldn't you LEGALLY be released from all AT&T "attachments" with your older iPhone? AT&T doesn't think so, will not provide the unlock code for the phone and I believe that this is ILLEGAL since AT&T no longer has the right to the service or the phone. Let me know what you think and if I have a reasonable case to open a lawsuit against AT&T!

06-28-2009, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Tpl1947

Hello

I'm very frustrated with AT&T right now with their iPhone contract. I totally understand the 2-year contract agreement because AT&T subsidizes the iPhone cost. Well, let's supposed the 2 years time has lapsed...Shouldn't the customers be legally entitled to the full ownership of their iPhones, including all the internal features of the phones? Including breaking free from AT&T Sim Card and thus rendering the phone as a legally unlocked phone?

Let's supposed that you've signed a 2 year contract with AT&T for your iPhone 3G. A year has passed and you breached the contract because you want to get the new phone 3GS. Well, you obviously breached the contract by canceling the 2 year contract prematurely, but then you paid an excessive amount of termination fees to AT&T by paying the new iPhone price higher than everybody else as damages. Then, shouldn't you LEGALLY be released from all AT&T "attachments" with your older iPhone? AT&T doesn't think so, will not provide the unlock code for the phone and I believe that this is ILLEGAL since AT&T no longer has the right to the service or the phone. Let me know what you think and if I have a reasonable case to open a lawsuit against AT&T!

iPhone is an exclusive phone just for AT&T. I believe AT&T has the right to do what ever they want. Apple just makes the technology.

06-28-2009, 11:48 AM

The last I heard, carriers are required by law (in the U.S.) to unlock your phone on demand once you've fulfilled your obligation. And even if they aren't, they should be. I for one would fully support this. I believe this is largely why Senator Kerry is spearheading an inquiry into Apple and AT&T's iPhone arrangements.

06-28-2009, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by lifeisabeach

The last I heard, carriers are required by law (in the U.S.) to unlock your phone on demand once you've fulfilled your obligation. And even if they aren't, they should be. I for one would fully support this. I believe this is largely why Senator Kerry is spearheading an inquiry into Apple and AT&T's iPhone arrangements.

There is no such law. Kerry is looking to find ways to make the law you are inquiring about to pass through congress.

06-28-2009, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Doppler808

There is no such law. Kerry is looking to find ways to make the law you are inquiring about to pass through congress.

Wikipedia confirms that you are correct about the lack of a law. There sure as heck should be one. Once I've paid for it, I should be able to do with it as I please.
SIM lock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

06-29-2009, 12:19 AM

If there is no law, what drove the unlocking of phones starting back in 2007? I remember stories in the news just before I was off to Iraq that GSM carriers had to provide unlock codes if requested. I did so for my new Blackjack so I could use it in Iraq and AT&T complied.


I see from the Wikipedia article mentioned above that it was probably linked to the DCMA ruling in late '06.

I find the whole thing funny. AT&T gets my dough whether I am using the Blackjack or the nice little Nokia that I bought in Iraq (up until I got my iPhone in April), so what does it really matter? The contract is about agreeing to service - I mean if I drive over my iPhone (heave n forbid!) and go back to my Nokia, it is still no money out of AT&T's pocket. Exclusivity is fine for the contract period, but it should be all bets off after that.

06-29-2009, 03:51 AM

The master Steve Jobs says you can only use your iPhone on At&t,He knows whats best for you, Just ask the Apple fan boys they will tell. Never question Apple or their practices it's sacrilegious and blasphemous

How dare you attempt to violate the sacred Apple EULA !!!!!

06-29-2009, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by MacTrooper

If there is no law, what drove the unlocking of phones starting back in 2007? I remember stories in the news just before I was off to Iraq that GSM carriers had to provide unlock codes if requested. I did so for my new Blackjack so I could use it in Iraq and AT&T complied.


I see from the Wikipedia article mentioned above that it was probably linked to the DCMA ruling in late '06.

I find the whole thing funny. AT&T gets my dough whether I am using the Blackjack or the nice little Nokia that I bought in Iraq (up until I got my iPhone in April), so what does it really matter? The contract is about agreeing to service - I mean if I drive over my iPhone (heave n forbid!) and go back to my Nokia, it is still no money out of AT&T's pocket. Exclusivity is fine for the contract period, but it should be all bets off after that.

Then help Kerry makes it a law. Everyone has the power to change the laws, and voice their opinions to make things laws, but no one is doing it. People complain about it but don't walk the walk.

06-29-2009, 12:21 PM

I wanted the iPhone so I stayed with AT&T, and didn't unlock it for another carrier. I had no problem doing so, as I knew it was only available through the one carrier. Call me crazy for following the law, and thinking it's silly that because two businesses are telling you how they want their product and technology, that laws should be drafted to force them to do against their own will. I love this country

06-29-2009, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Sobe

I wanted the iPhone so I stayed with AT&T, and didn't unlock it for another carrier. I had no problem doing so, as I knew it was only available through the one carrier. Call me crazy for following the law, and thinking it's silly that because two businesses are telling you how they want their product and technology, that laws should be drafted to force them to do against their own will. I love this country

Following what Law? It's not against the law to unlock a cell phone in this country.

06-29-2009, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Sobe

I wanted the iPhone so I stayed with AT&T, and didn't unlock it for another carrier. I had no problem doing so, as I knew it was only available through the one carrier. Call me crazy for following the law, and thinking it's silly that because two businesses are telling you how they want their product and technology, that laws should be drafted to force them to do against their own will. I love this country

While I agree that in most cases the government should not try and force companies to do things against their will, the same should also be said for the people who patronize those companies. If I want to buy a piece of hardware and modify it in such a way that makes it more useful to me, I should be able to do so. Not only that, but I should be able to tell others how they can follow in my footsteps and perform the same hacks. In today's climate with the DMCA and sue happy layers with cease and desist letters ready to go, it's not always so great.

06-29-2009, 03:28 PM

Most of you are probably too young to remember, but there was a time when you had to lease your landline phone from AT&T rather than hooking up your own (no such thing, in fact). Eventually, they started selling them to consumers, and finally allowed others to sell them too. In all likelihood, this too shall pass.

06-29-2009, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Sobe

I wanted the iPhone so I stayed with AT&T, and didn't unlock it for another carrier. I had no problem doing so, as I knew it was only available through the one carrier. Call me crazy for following the law, and thinking it's silly that because two businesses are telling you how they want their product and technology, that laws should be drafted to force them to do against their own will. I love this country

Once I've fulfilled my contract and my phone is paid for, I should be able to use it on any compatible carrier. I think it's silly for two businesses to tell me that I can't. I should have the right to do so, and it's a shame laws have to be drafted to protect my rights thusly.

06-29-2009, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by lifeisabeach

Once I've fulfilled my contract and my phone is paid for, I should be able to use it on any compatible carrier. I think it's silly for two businesses to tell me that I can't. I should have the right to do so, and it's a shame laws have to be drafted to protect my rights thusly.

I agree, but I am too lazy to do anything about it. After trying with about 100,000 people it wasn't enough so I gave up.

07-02-2009, 01:59 PM

The call it purchasing the device, not leasing, to me that indicates you are right about the unlock when out of contract. I am going to write my congressman. Not optimistic but who knows.