Can someone explain the locked contract iphone reasoning/ethics??

[paullywise]

I understand subsidies and how they work. I understand that your iphone isn't fully customer owned until the 2-year contract is up, which is why i feel like this is a borderline ethical question.

Basically, it doesn't make sense to me why both a person AND a device are locked in contract. A person signs a contract committing to pay for a particular monthly service with appropriate penalties. The money is going to AT&T whether the phone is at the bottom of a toilet, in Africa, or on T-mobile in the US. It seems unnecessarily restrictive and borderline unethical to prevent a (contracted) owner from selling their iphone to others on other networks, to give it away, or take it overseas.

Please someone, offer some insight. If it is as it seems, At&t exemplifies really dishonorable business practices, and will never get my business.

[wingrider01 ACE - Geek]

---

paullywise wrote:

I understand subsidies and how they work. I understand that your iphone isn't fully customer owned until the 2-year contract is up, which is why i feel like this is a borderline ethical question.

Basically, it doesn't make sense to me why both a person AND a device are locked in contract. A person signs a contract committing to pay for a particular monthly service with appropriate penalties. The money is going to AT&T whether the phone is at the bottom of a toilet, in Africa, or on T-mobile in the US. It seems unnecessarily restrictive and borderline unethical to prevent a (contracted) owner from selling their iphone to others on other networks, to give it away, or take it overseas.

Please someone, offer some insight. If it is as it seems, At&t exemplifies really dishonorable business practices, and will never get my business.

---

want to get around it - pay full retail price for the phone and you owe no one and have no commitment, the phone is not locked to the contract, you can switch it with a 39.99 go phone and go on your merry way for the next 2 years with it, your commitment is 2 years for getting the phone for 199.00 instead of 649.00 - what you do with it is up to you as long as you don't want it unlocked, they will not do that till the end of the 2 year contract that you agreed to or you pay the etf and cancel the line, they tied that restiction in

[ilikewireless ACE - Czar]

---

paullywise wrote:

I understand subsidies and how they work. I understand that your iphone isn't fully customer owned until the 2-year contract is up, which is why i feel like this is a borderline ethical question.

Basically, it doesn't make sense to me why both a person AND a device are locked in contract. A person signs a contract committing to pay for a particular monthly service with appropriate penalties. The money is going to AT&T whether the phone is at the bottom of a toilet, in Africa, or on T-mobile in the US. It seems unnecessarily restrictive and borderline unethical to prevent a (contracted) owner from selling their iphone to others on other networks, to give it away, or take it overseas.

Please someone, offer some insight. If it is as it seems, At&t exemplifies really dishonorable business practices, and will never get my business.

---

The main benefit of an unlocked phone is that you can use it overseas with local SIM cards bought overseas. You can always give away your phone. I guarantee that there will be takers.

AT&T phones are best used on AT&T network. Those Apps and the firmware are AT&T specific. The transceivers are also AT&T specific with AT&T frequencies. For 3G, 4G and LTE, it's best to use carrier specific phones. So if I buy an AT&T phone for high speed data and phone calls, it's because I want to get service from AT&T, for the best possible experience. If I want T-Mobile service, I will just get a T-Mobile phone.

You cannot use an unlocked AT&T phone with most MVNOs. There are exceptions of course.

[paullywise]

Huh, it doesn't seem like you all got to the heart of my concern. I understand the rules, and also the technology differences between GSM networks (namely the frequency differences between At&t's 3g network and T-mobile's) and the iphone's limitations there... We all do crazy things sometimes with our unique needs, so you know, there may be a reason to be with t-mobile instead of at&t (don't care about data speeds and want to spend less money).

What i am wondering is why the phone has to be restricted/locked to At&t's networks if the person who bought it is in contract to pay the full two years. They are required to pay regardless of what happens with the phone and how it is used. At&t will still get all their money for the phone and contracted plan... so what do they gain by keeping the phone locked to them?

As far as giving it away, with the iphone it is locked to a particular user unless the original owner goes through an extensive transfer process to make the switch to another at&t customer. it is impossible to give an iphone that is still in contract to someone on another carrier, because At&t won't unlock an iphone until its 2 year contract is up... my question is why? what do they gain by imposing this limiation? Whether the original owner keeps, sells, or gives away their contracted phone, they still have to pay all the money.

thanks

[wingrider01 ACE - Geek]

---

paullywise wrote:

Huh, it doesn't seem like you all got to the heart of my concern. I understand the rules, and also the technology differences between GSM networks (namely the frequency differences between At&t's 3g network and T-mobile's) and the iphone's limitations there... We all do crazy things sometimes with our unique needs, so you know, there may be a reason to be with t-mobile instead of at&t (don't care about data speeds and want to spend less money).

What i am wondering is why the phone has to be restricted/locked to At&t's networks if the person who bought it is in contract to pay the full two years. They are required to pay regardless of what happens with the phone and how it is used. At&t will still get all their money for the phone and contracted plan... so what do they gain by keeping the phone locked to them?

As far as giving it away, with the iphone it is locked to a particular user unless the original owner goes through an extensive transfer process to make the switch to another at&t customer. it is impossible to give an iphone that is still in contract to someone on another carrier, because At&t won't unlock an iphone until its 2 year contract is up... my question is why? what do they gain by imposing this limiation? Whether the original owner keeps, sells, or gives away their contracted phone, they still have to pay all the money.

thanks

---

why does the phone have to be restricted to ATT's network - because those are their conditions for you buying the phone from them, it is that simple and straight forward, no hidden meanings that can be read into, they sell it, they set the rules. To put it simply, their ball, their rules

You have three choices now for not having it restricted.

1. Pay full retail price for the phone, then request a unlock from them

2. Go to a Apple store, pay full retail price for a pre-unlocked version

3. Pay subsidized price for the phone, then turn around and pay the ETF to terminate the contract.

[ilikewireless ACE - Czar]

Wingrider01 is right. You do what you have to do for today.

Actually, if I were to vote for locked versus unlocked phones, my vote would be for unlocked phones.

<Dream On> That will be wonderful for many people. </Dream Off>

Will that ever happen?

<Dream On> I would think so if all carriers would do the same. </Dream Off>

There are carriers that offer unlocked phones. But they are in other parts of the world. Why can't it happen in the US? I don't know.

[wingrider01 ACE - Geek]

---

ilikewireless wrote:

Wingrider01 is right. You do what you have to do for today.

Actually, if I were to vote for locked versus unlocked phones, my vote would be for unlocked phones.

<Dream On> That will be wonderful for many people. </Dream Off>

Will that ever happen?

<Dream On> I would think so if all carriers would do the same. </Dream Off>

There are carriers that offer unlocked phones. But they are in other parts of the world. Why can't it happen in the US? I don't know.

---

Pretty much the same, dump the subsidizes completely, charge full retail for the phone and discount the contracts if you bring your own device basicly no comitment period because of full retail price purchase

[Kerry78]

I don't know the logical reason to locking such phones
From a Carrier based organisation but at the end of the day futhfil ur agreement and you can get ur device unlocked afterwards and it's entirely upto u what u want to do with then regardless

You are also quite lucky that AT&T will oblige to unlock after ur commitment with some other providers
They will unlock after a certain amount of months but charge a fee for that procedure

[sandblaster]

People keep making the assumption that it is the carrier only that mandates or benefits from a phone being locked. You need to also consider that the phone manufacturer also benefits from the phone being locked. In the case of the iphone, unlocked models are a hot commodity on the international market. If subsidized iphones were sold unlocked, I can guarentee you that many people would be selling their iphones and either pay the ETF (and still make a profit) or just use a different phone. Apple benefits just as much if not more from their phone being locked because they sell more phones. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were the ones mandating the iphone is locked.

[youngjm ACE - Professor]

Apple has a lot more control of this topic than we probably realize. They control the experience and do want to ensure their partners are also making money on this to encourage their continued support in upgrades of the network and new features.

[ilikewireless ACE - Czar]

This is a good thread. I found great answers here.

[paullywise]

Wow, i'm surprised you find this thread helpful! I am the original poster, and have given up on it. No one seems to be able to engage the question or topic, instead they feel compelled to keep reiterating the contract rules. We can find the rules documented and don't need them repeated. There is a lot of acceptance of 'the way things are' without thinking of the moral implications of money and ownership.

one poster said something like 'it's just the way they do it,' and another even said we're lucky if they unlock a phone at all! This is false, and the kind of mentality that allow companies to hold more control than they should. Let me give an example:

John bought an iphone 4s with a two year contract with At&t. John is under contract to pay the At&t service for two years, this subsidizes the phone At&t brokered. Six months down the line, John hits some hard times financially and needs to find some extra money to pay his medical bills. It is true that his mobile plan with At&t is not something he could change - John is in a contract with At&t, so he either has to continue to pay or pay the early termination fee -- it's how it is - no way around it. There is no problem here because John agreed to two years of service to subsidize his iphone. BUT, if John wanted to sell his iphone 4s to someone else for the money to pay his other bills, he can't do that, because the iphone 4s is locked to John and his At&t account.

The problem is, even though At&t is getting all the money they require (and much more) to cover the cost of the iphone with two years of John's paments, John still doesn't have the freedom or control to do what he wants with the device that he owns. My point is: it's not illegal to drop the phone in the toilet rendering it useless, so why is it illegal to give away or sell the phone? either way John isn't using the phone, and either way John still has to make all his payments.

[BadBadLeroyBrown ACE - Warrior]

Just because nobody is giving you the answers you want to hear doesn't mean that they aren't able to engage the question or topic. If you want to split rhetorical hairs, you don't actually own the phone whie you're still under contract. When AT&T started unlocking iPhones, they specifically said they would only unlock those phones whose contracts had been completed.

We don't work for AT&T. The only people who do work for AT&T aren't public relations staff, and they aren't authorized to speak on AT&T's behalf. Nobody from AT&T's PR department is going to come in here and engage you in a philosophical discussion of why the company has made the business decisions it has made. You may view this as "the kind of mentality that allow companies to hold more control than they should", but it's the truth.

The vast majority of the country's wireless subscribers are on the countries 4 largest carriers. Verizon & AT&T combined have nearly 200 million customers, and Sprint & T-Mobile have in the neighborhood of another 90 million combined. With this lack of competition, power is clearly in the hands of the carriers relative to the consumers. Until Congress steps in with new regulation, or the FCC mandates that carriers unlock all phones after a reasonable waiting period, I predict that nothing is going to change.

[paullywise]

Thank you sandblaster!! whew, i started to think no one could even engage the conversation. Thanks for offering something of worth.

It's a good thing to note that carriers selling subsidized phones will sell way more phones for the manufacturer. This seems to me to be a good 'symbiotic' relationship between carrier and device maker, which can also benefit the customer buying a reduced-priced device.

There are those who have abused the ETF and made profits, that's shady, but the carrier can just make the ETF the same amount (or more) than the remaining unpaid full-priced phone.

The part i differ with you about is how much it benefits the manufacturer, in this case Apple. You make a really good point about the manufacturers selling an experience that needs to work right. And five years ago with the release of the first iPhone, this was a really big deal - Apple had to work long and hard with At&t to have the technologies ready for the iPhone. At&t was the only carrier capable of running it.

But a few key things have changed since then. First, the carriers have all made a lot of progress (no doubt feeling the pressure to be iPhone-ready). But second, Apple's software is becoming more and more self-sufficient all the time - meaning iOS relies less and less on the technologies of the carriers and more on a basic data connection. This means that the iOS experience will be more unified and more as Apple intended, regardless of which carrier is being used and how. Notice also all the local pre-paid carriers that are getting the iPhone now, as well as Apple's successful business selling factory unlocked iPhones for full-price.

all that to say, i think at the beginning you are right - apple would have wanted the iphone to be locked, but now, i don't think it benefits apple any more.

Either way, whether it's apple or at&t, the issue of ownership remains - are we free to do what we want with the devices we own?

[ilikewireless ACE - Czar]

---

paullywise wrote:

Wow, i'm surprised you find this thread helpful! I am the original poster, and have given up on it. No one seems to be able to engage the question or topic, instead they feel compelled to keep reiterating the contract rules. We can find the rules documented and don't need them repeated. There is a lot of acceptance of 'the way things are' without thinking of the moral implications of money and ownership.

one poster said something like 'it's just the way they do it,' and another even said we're lucky if they unlock a phone at all! This is false, and the kind of mentality that allow companies to hold more control than they should. Let me give an example:

John bought an iphone 4s with a two year contract with At&t. John is under contract to pay the At&t service for two years, this subsidizes the phone At&t brokered. Six months down the line, John hits some hard times financially and needs to find some extra money to pay his medical bills. It is true that his mobile plan with At&t is not something he could change - John is in a contract with At&t, so he either has to continue to pay or pay the early termination fee -- it's how it is - no way around it. There is no problem here because John agreed to two years of service to subsidize his iphone. BUT, if John wanted to sell his iphone 4s to someone else for the money to pay his other bills, he can't do that, because the iphone 4s is locked to John and his At&t account.

The problem is, even though At&t is getting all the money they require (and much more) to cover the cost of the iphone with two years of John's paments, John still doesn't have the freedom or control to do what he wants with the device that he owns. My point is: it's not illegal to drop the phone in the toilet rendering it useless, so why is it illegal to give away or sell the phone? either way John isn't using the phone, and either way John still has to make all his payments.

---

Thank you for keeping your cool.

Well. Don't you think we should all go by AT&T's Motto: Rethink Possible, I would think that it would be possible to offer unlocked phones but at a higher price than the regular $199 contract price for iPhone or whatever it is, depending on the storage.

If I deduct from $650 the $325 ETF and the $199 contract price, I get $125. I suspect that AT&T would have some loss in theory but it probably depends on their profit margin. So to control loss, AT&T offered only locked phones, so I guess.

[paullywise]

I appreciate this Leroy. It may indeed be splitting hairs - i mentioned this in my first post - about whether or not we can consider the device in an incomplete contract 'owned' per se. I lean toward it being owned, since the contract is binding. If the terms were that the iphone was leased, if the contract were to be terminated at some point, we would have to give the phone back. As it is, there is an ETF, which means the iphone will be paid for one way or the other.. this makes it hard to see the phone as partially owned by At&t even while the 2 year contract is still going.

as far as people engaging the discussion - perhaps 'able' is too strong a word. What i don't get is why people contribute to the thread with input that isn't relevant, and continue to do so repeatedly. I didn't think they've been At&t employees, which is why i've been so surprised by the tacit support they give.

you are also right that in order for this to change it would have to be legislated... i started this thread because i thought maybe i was missing something about it all - like maybe there's another perspective that would make locked phones make more sense to me... but i suppose if someday it needs to be legislated the ideas need to start somewhere.

thanks again

[paullywise]

This is a good point ilikewireless - i think the answer is just to have a higher ETF... they could make it whatever remains unpaid for the unsubsidized iphone.

But remember - this is just if people choose to terminate their contract... my first question doesn't include a person cancelling their contract agreement - like John in my scenario above.

thanks for your contribution!

[youngjm ACE - Professor]

Part of why you did not get the discussion you wanted is because we have discussed this topic sooooo much that most posters who start a topic become combative and believe it is a right to have their phones unlocked. What those of is who have been here for awhile know is that policy is not going to change based on the posts and discussion here. When it come ls to iPhones, you leave feedback with Apple who focuses on the overall usability and experience. We also realize as I stated before that Appke has some very strong teeth into this relationship and protects both their interests as well as the carriers.

I would guess that many of those agreements are coming to an end and why we are seeing the new unlocking policy as well as all the pre-paid offerings coming out.

[youngjm ACE - Professor]

I clearly cannot type well on my iPhone.  Darn you auto-correct:-)

[BadBadLeroyBrown ACE - Warrior]

It seems AT&T has come down on the side of the phone not being completely "yours" until you either complete the contract or pay the ETF. Although I'm not sure anyone's ever come out and said it, I think AT&T's aim is to eliminate a secondary gray market for phones that are exported to places where Apple hasn't officially launched the phone (or simply taken to other carriers). As it stands, AT&T virtually doubled the smartphone ETF, from $175 to $325, to further dissuade people from profiteering off second-hand phones. And yet, every time a new iPhone is released, there are reports that people are standing in line purchasing phones that they clearly will never use. 

If people sound a bit defensive, it's likely because they are the forum regulars who have answered this question again....and again...and again...lather...rinse...repeat. The forum regulars are great troubleshooting a problem with your phone, or helping you with the settings for a particular feature, or how to navigate the online account management screens. What we can't help you with is these kinds of philosophical discussions, as we know the same thing as you do regarding why AT&T does the things it does. All we can do is offer commiseration, and our opinion....and that and 75 cents will get you a soda.

I think we're in agreement that nothing is going to change until someone with the authority to do so makes it change.

---

paullywise wrote:

I appreciate this Leroy. It may indeed be splitting hairs - i mentioned this in my first post - about whether or not we can consider the device in an incomplete contract 'owned' per se. I lean toward it being owned, since the contract is binding. If the terms were that the iphone was leased, if the contract were to be terminated at some point, we would have to give the phone back. As it is, there is an ETF, which means the iphone will be paid for one way or the other.. this makes it hard to see the phone as partially owned by At&t even while the 2 year contract is still going.

as far as people engaging the discussion - perhaps 'able' is too strong a word. What i don't get is why people contribute to the thread with input that isn't relevant, and continue to do so repeatedly. I didn't think they've been At&t employees, which is why i've been so surprised by the tacit support they give.

you are also right that in order for this to change it would have to be legislated... i started this thread because i thought maybe i was missing something about it all - like maybe there's another perspective that would make locked phones make more sense to me... but i suppose if someday it needs to be legislated the ideas need to start somewhere.

thanks again

---

[paullywise]

well it's nice to see this conversation get going today. I do want to say that before starting this thread i searched the forum for other threads that had the same question(s) I had, and didn't see anything that was close enough. Admittedly, my question is philosophical in nature. I was looking for further philosophical insight, which today some of you offered. I'm sure you guys would be really awesome at guiding me through a bluetooth setup or something

As far as the content/attitude of peoples' contributions being the result of repetition and exasperation: i think it would be beneficial to either not post on a thread you feel is a philosophical waste of time, or just link me to the 'tons of other threads that ask the same exact question.'

we've had a good run. i'm good to close this sucker, if that's how this forum works. hopefully it will remain searchable for the next nerd who has the same conundrum in mind. I'm also up for continuing the discussion - it is interesting when we get to the heart of the matter

[New Reality]

The challenge you will have here asking any most question about locking is the AT&T fan boys will come out of the woodwork to defend the practice and to defend AT&T.

I noticed someone made a comment about AT&T locking ensures the phone will function better on an AT&T network, that's absolute rubbish.

When AT&T had the iPhone exclusive locking may have been a good idea so they kept the devices on their GSM network. Since the exclusive is gone the locking nonsense is long past its time.

Also, locking kept international travelers hostage to AT&T's very expensive roaming options, now that AT&T will unlock phones (under certain conditions) this being held up without a gun is also moot.

2 year contract minimums locks you into the line,  not the phone.

It's good that AT&T has made provisions to unlock some phones.

[ilikewireless ACE - Czar]

"The challenge you will have here asking any most question about locking is the AT&T fan boys will come out of the woodwork to defend the practice and to defend AT&T."

You are right.
 
"I noticed someone made a comment about AT&T locking ensures the phone will function better on an AT&T network, that's absolute rubbish."

You are right. Thanks for your feedback. I would go back to change my previous post if I could because one can make the inference you pointed out.

[paullywise]

i'm surprised no one has jumped in and criticized this last post about fanboys and stuff! I got it way worse in this thread and all i did was ask questions!

while i generally agree with your views, you bring up one original question we haven't discussed yet in this thread: 

you said "2 year contract minimums locks you into the line,  not the phone"

this is one core issue - WHO/WHAT is contracted - the device or the person? if we say both, there are problems. did the phone sign the bottom line? does the phone pay the monthly fees?

i have checked the contract terms, and it doesn't say anywhere that it's illegal to sell, give away, whatever, your iphone while *still under contract.* The limitation they do hold is that they won't unlock it until the *two year contract* is up. Are they saying the iphone is 'Still under contract'? and if so, what is the basis, logic, and ethics for this?

why does it matter to At&t which device a customer is using? they're obviously ok when a customer accidentally drops and destroys the phone and uses a replacement - so what's the difference if they do whatever else with it?

i just had a thought. i suppose using an smarphone on a limited data plan potentially makes more money for carriers since the devices easily use a lot of data. maybe if they keep customers on a smartphone during the two year contract it increases the possiblity of users going over their data allotment and paying extra. that's the very first actual advantage i could think of. it's shady, but at least there's logic.

[BadBadLeroyBrown ACE - Warrior]

No, the challenge is dealing not only with people who will continue to ask "But why?" after being told, "Well, we don't know", but also those who claim that anyone who disagrees with them is a "shill" or a "fanboy". 

And I think you're reading too much into the notion that AT&T locking ensures the phone will work better on AT&T. I didn't read that at all. I read it as AT&T phones are best suited to the AT&T network, which is true. T-Mobile's oddball 3G variant means that phones that work on 3G everywhere else in the world are 2G on T-Mobile. 

Your opinion on the contract locking you into the line vs. the phone is irrelevant, whether or not it's true. AT&T has said they won't unlock currently in-contract iPhones, same as they won't unlock AT&T exclusives (sorry, Lumia owners). It may be your baseball, but it's their field and their rules.

---

New Reality wrote:

The challenge you will have here asking any most question about locking is the AT&T fan boys will come out of the woodwork to defend the practice and to defend AT&T.

I noticed someone made a comment about AT&T locking ensures the phone will function better on an AT&T network, that's absolute rubbish.

When AT&T had the iPhone exclusive locking may have been a good idea so they kept the devices on their GSM network. Since the exclusive is gone the locking nonsense is long past its time.

Also, locking kept international travelers hostage to AT&T's very expensive roaming options, now that AT&T will unlock phones (under certain conditions) this being held up without a gun is also moot.

2 year contract minimums locks you into the line,  not the phone.

It's good that AT&T has made provisions to unlock some phones.

---

[youngjm ACE - Professor]

So let's look at this a couple of ways.  Your contract is for service only and not a phone.  However, if that phone is a smartphone, you must have an appropriate data plan.  Further since ATT and/or an authorized retailer sold you an iPhone at a discounted price, they can do as they please in terms of unlocking.  Now finally they will unlock it once your contract is up.  That is long overdue but could be due to changes in the agreements with Apple.

Now why would they not unlock?  Part of it is the backbend support that the carriers provide.  iPhones do work on other carriers but some features may be limited such as visual voicemail or even HSPA+.  The other part is a guess on my part but I believe that Apple at one time or may still be getting a cut of the service revenue from iPhones.  If they were/are, and they allowed iPhones to go to carriers who do not have a contract with Apple, they are loosing out on a revenue stream.  Apple is also going to protect their exclusive partners and not unlock an iphone unless they have to, well at least in the past that was the case.  They want their exclusive carriers who supported the iphone to reap the rewards of its one time exclusivity.

As of Easter Sunday, you can get an iPhone unlocked after meeting certain criteria. We are also seeing more carriers with the iPhone being offered in a pre-paid use.  If you could buy an iPhone at a discount then use it on a pre-paid plan, ATT looses out on recouping their investment in providing a lower cost phone after all the pre-paid carriers look like they are charging full price for that iPhone.  It is not unreasonable for a carrier to recoup an investment from a hardware sale where they expect to make up the subsidy through a data plan.

ATT and Apple's views and policies may be right or wrong but they get to set the rules and we get to Choose if we like them.  If we don't, then the iPhone is not the right phone to be using.  There are other phones out there and that is the heart of the free market.

Are some of us fans of ATT?  We just know the rules. We know how to work within the system to accomplish what we need to further our use of the system and if you read posts from many of us, we do express where we disagree with ATT and their policies.  We also enjoy helping others get the most of their phones and service.  ATT is by no means perfect but we also step back and know that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side.  Choose the devil you know vs the devil you don't.  If switching carriers works for a poster because they have some part of their service agreement and/or coverage that is better than ATT then great. They should not feel guilty for leaving but ATT does not owe them anything as long as each side fulfills their agreements.  They give a new user 30 days to reverse their contract and after that you can leave but you do owe an ETF.  This would also be true for a Verizon customer or any other carriers customers who wanted to leave their network and come here.

What is consistent across all carriers with the iPhone is Apple and their providing of support and they are great with their customer service.  Good customer service does not always mean the customer gets what they ask for but when the situation is right, they do what they can. People come here and claim ATT is bad because you wanted out of a contract and/or some other request and they could not grant it.  That is not necessarily bad customer service.  There are definitely times when they do get it wrong and outside venues can correct a wrong such as in billing issues, purchases, etc... Those of us who have been here can also help in pointing someone in a direction they may not have yet tried because we have seen others or ourselves achieve success in resolving similar issues.  

I would also suggest that ATT staff here do a great job at trying to help and correct the issues that other reps may create and or the reps are right but they can shed a different look to the posters.  ATT and Apple are big companies and consistency in customer service is hard to accomplish.  At least here we do have some great reps who are empowered to help in an official capacity. They won't comment on policy as they are not allowed to but they can help within their parameters for being here.

[anton697]

---

youngjm wrote:,

People come here and claim ATT is bad because you wanted out of a contract and/or some other request and they could not grant it.  That is not necessarily bad customer service.  There are definitely times when they do get it wrong and outside venues can correct a wrong such as in billing issues, purchases, etc... 

<snipped>

I would also suggest that ATT staff here do a great job at trying to help and correct the issues that other reps may create and or the reps are right but they can shed a different look to the posters.  ATT and Apple are big companies and consistency in customer service is hard to accomplish.  At least here we do have some great reps who are empowered to help in an official capacity. They won't comment on policy as they are not allowed to but they can help within their parameters for being here.

---

Except when AT&T does get it wrong, no one other than perhaps the person making the complaint ever takes AT&T to task for making such mistakes...yet when someone complains about something against AT&T that's not warranted--you can be sure the AT&T defenders in this forum will surely let that person know that his/her comment was out of line.

[youngjm ACE - Professor]

I think if you read enough posts you will see comments about AT&T being wrong and not just from a poster but even from the regulars. . You do see suggestions on how to get the issue fixed. Just because people don't post with the same passion as the poster does not mean they don't agree that things are right or wrong. Bottom line is how to help get the issue fixed when it can.

[paullywise]

Aaaaand we're back. it was nice while the conversation lasted that one day. sorry to see we couldn't keep it up without revisiting the rules again. thanks to the few of you who engaged. It seems we were coming up against contrary views on what forums could be used for.

And Leroy, it's disappointing to see you still feel like i was only criticizing input that didn't agree with my views. i feel my entries plainly display the opposite. The only posts i complained about were the ones that were off topic - which happened to be most of them.

[anton697]

---

youngjm wrote:
I think if you read enough posts you will see comments about AT&T being wrong and not just from a poster but even from the regulars. . You do see suggestions on how to get the issue fixed. Just because people don't post with the same passion as the poster does not mean they don't agree that things are right or wrong. Bottom line is how to help get the issue fixed when it can.

---

Except if/when a user/poster is wrong about something, they (sometimes) get taken to task for offering false information, called out for not knowing what the heck they're talking about, etc.....but if/when AT&T's wrong about something, it's dismissed as an unintentional mistake on their part.  I mean, when was the last time some of the forum regulars and/or pro-AT&T folks here offered criticism about AT&T customer service reps who give out clearly incorrect info to customers, as reported by posters here in this forum?