---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

the gryphon wrote:

---

smalcom wrote:

AT&T  has over 100 million customers. Not sure how many are members of this forum, but I would imagine that it is a fraction of 1 tenth of one percent. What makes the {please keep it courteous} think that AT&T gives a hoot about anything posted on this site. {please keep it courteous} .

---

Having moderated a forum with tens of thousands of members, representing a fraction of the customers I can say: you're quite wrong. I know for a fact that my employers were reading the forums, and directing us to look for issues, concerns, and patterns.

---

from running support forums and call centers for a couple of major online games can also state - that in the majority cases what is posted on the forums as customer complaints of "poor service" in no way shape or form actuaily reflect what is on the tapes from the recorded conversation of said complaint call. It often makes for a amusing weekly review that really brightens our days with the humor of the two different version of the "poor support", really wish that the recordings of the conversations could be posted in reply to the "poor support" posts. Blizzard tends to shoot down customer complaints on their forums by paraphasing what actually occurred on the call with out giving details - I applaud that as forward thinking, love the busines model of that

 

 Interesting side point - what is done at one company rarely is matched by any other company, especially those that run peer to peer forums

---

From my experiences, no, they don't spend time combing over "my service sucks", but do look for patterns. And, when they (primarily on their own) are considering a change, they visit their own forums or moderators. If ATT doesn't, that's too bad. (I must admit I've never found anyone representing the forums here trying to resolve issues). I'm also "friends" with the ATT customer support folks on twitter, and they follow me as well. I know from experience they they DO work to resolve problems  I've been repeating my unock concerns with them there.

---

the gryphon wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

the gryphon wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

storepeter wrote:

10 years ago the telephone monopolies in Europe behaved like ATT.

 

A lot of pressure from users and goverments who would like to see a free market, changed that.

 

Now Europe has what is called "The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive"

 

I would have though that here in the free world,  a free market also for telephones, would be in the interest of averybody. (except the old monopolies maybe)

 

If ATT is not listening - we must try to put pressure on in other ways, polical or in my case voting with my feet and valet.

---

You have the choice to pay extra money to purchase a sim-unlocked phone if that's what you want. So you have the freedom to do it.

 

You can't buy an AT&T Subsidised iPhone and use it on a non-AT&T Network. You are informed of this (but apparently people somehow don't hear it, or its not done, but even so it's printed on the outside of the box... which you should be able to see before you open the box.)

 

This has nothing to do with freedom. It's simple being an educated consumer.

---

Why do we insist on pretending this has always been the case? When the OP (yes, him) bought his phone he was not given this option. When I bought my first AND second iphones I was not given this option. 

I was (after a time) given this option when purchasing my third iphone. But yes, most folks do NOT know this because it's very unusual. There are very few phones that carriers refuse to unlock after contract. (Or even when being deployed to another dang country). The old tmobile sidekick is one of a few I can think of. It's unusual, and folks don't immediately think of it.  Folks who accidentially buy an iphone from ebay from an ATT user are always stunned to hear it can't be unlocked, because that's unheard of outside of the U.S. 

 

---

the words "outside the US" are the key here - just becsue it is done / required "outside the US" people should not assume that it is the same all over the world, doesn't work that way.

 

You where not "given the ooptopn" becasue it wsa not an otion to be given at the tije, the sale of unlocked Iphones are recent and only for full price at a Apple stores, used nd recylced ones from fleabay or craigs list do not qualify so there is no option there either.

 

sorry - folks do niot "accidently buy an iphone from fleabay",  esepcaily htose that reside outisde the borders of the US, they look to play the currency game and get a cheap iphone for their own use in their own countrym the play the game without researching or understand the rules of the game. 

Also - if you do some research, especially on the iphone in lands outside the US - there are numerous carriers that only sell iphones that are locked to teh carrier and are not unlocked - this is documented on the Apple website. 

---

Locked, permanently to the carrier? I'd be interested in seeing that link. I have friends with iphones all over Europe, as well as Canada, Australia etc. No one I know is denied an unlock when the contract is over (Or, as is more often the case, when some predescribed period of time, like 90 days, is over).

 

Yes, OUTSIDE the U.S. is key. Everyone else has come to expect an unlockable phone. As for Ebay, there's folks on here daily saying they assumed the phone was unlocked when they had it shipped to [insert country name here].. They are all lying?

---

ask and ye shall recieve - please note heading "locked to carrier" along with the second column right next to it "Carrier offers authorized unlocking", if you look closely you will see that there are check marks in the first columns and wonders, there are no check marks in the second colums, so those cariers do not unlock the iphone from their service, pretty much disproves your statement. Jus becasue no one you know is not offered a unlock does not immediately prove tha there are carriers outside the US that do not offer authorized unlocking.

 

 Not sure why you are accusing the fleabay purchasers as you do, they buy a ATT iphone on fleabay and get upset when they find that they cannot unlock the phone, a quick check of the link for the iphone and reading those specific columns will tell them that the phones are not unlocked at all. Research before purchasing something from outside your normal comfort zone of you own country requires research on international laws, customs laws as pertaining to duties and taxes and normal business practices of the the companies that are not in your country, the automagic assumption that they follow the same rules is a very bad thing (tm) in international purchasing of product

 

Africa,

Europe

Latin America and the Carribian

Asia and the Pacific

 

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1937

 

 

---

the gryphon wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

the gryphon wrote:

---

smalcom wrote:

AT&T  has over 100 million customers. Not sure how many are members of this forum, but I would imagine that it is a fraction of 1 tenth of one percent. What makes the {please keep it courteous} think that AT&T gives a hoot about anything posted on this site. {please keep it courteous} .

---

Having moderated a forum with tens of thousands of members, representing a fraction of the customers I can say: you're quite wrong. I know for a fact that my employers were reading the forums, and directing us to look for issues, concerns, and patterns.

---

from running support forums and call centers for a couple of major online games can also state - that in the majority cases what is posted on the forums as customer complaints of "poor service" in no way shape or form actuaily reflect what is on the tapes from the recorded conversation of said complaint call. It often makes for a amusing weekly review that really brightens our days with the humor of the two different version of the "poor support", really wish that the recordings of the conversations could be posted in reply to the "poor support" posts. Blizzard tends to shoot down customer complaints on their forums by paraphasing what actually occurred on the call with out giving details - I applaud that as forward thinking, love the busines model of that

 

 Interesting side point - what is done at one company rarely is matched by any other company, especially those that run peer to peer forums

---

From my experiences, no, they don't spend time combing over "my service sucks", but do look for patterns. And, when they (primarily on their own) are considering a change, they visit their own forums or moderators. If ATT doesn't, that's too bad. (I must admit I've never found anyone representing the forums here trying to resolve issues). I'm also "friends" with the ATT customer support folks on twitter, and they follow me as well. I know from experience they they DO work to resolve problems  I've been repeating my unock concerns with them there.

---

I suspect they do, but also suspect that if a call in is referenced, they pull the digital recording of said call in are pulled to see just how accurate the post is - that was SOP for the call centers I controlled, and the ability for a csr to hang up on a caller that was getting verbally abusive or threatening. Good for you that you follow twitter or any other social networking site, they are great for investigation of people for various reasons

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

the gryphon wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

the gryphon wrote:

---

johninsj wrote:

---

storepeter wrote:

10 years ago the telephone monopolies in Europe behaved like ATT.

 

A lot of pressure from users and goverments who would like to see a free market, changed that.

 

Now Europe has what is called "The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive"

 

I would have though that here in the free world,  a free market also for telephones, would be in the interest of averybody. (except the old monopolies maybe)

 

If ATT is not listening - we must try to put pressure on in other ways, polical or in my case voting with my feet and valet.

---

You have the choice to pay extra money to purchase a sim-unlocked phone if that's what you want. So you have the freedom to do it.

 

You can't buy an AT&T Subsidised iPhone and use it on a non-AT&T Network. You are informed of this (but apparently people somehow don't hear it, or its not done, but even so it's printed on the outside of the box... which you should be able to see before you open the box.)

 

This has nothing to do with freedom. It's simple being an educated consumer.

---

Why do we insist on pretending this has always been the case? When the OP (yes, him) bought his phone he was not given this option. When I bought my first AND second iphones I was not given this option. 

I was (after a time) given this option when purchasing my third iphone. But yes, most folks do NOT know this because it's very unusual. There are very few phones that carriers refuse to unlock after contract. (Or even when being deployed to another dang country). The old tmobile sidekick is one of a few I can think of. It's unusual, and folks don't immediately think of it.  Folks who accidentially buy an iphone from ebay from an ATT user are always stunned to hear it can't be unlocked, because that's unheard of outside of the U.S. 

 

---

the words "outside the US" are the key here - just becsue it is done / required "outside the US" people should not assume that it is the same all over the world, doesn't work that way.

 

You where not "given the ooptopn" becasue it wsa not an otion to be given at the tije, the sale of unlocked Iphones are recent and only for full price at a Apple stores, used nd recylced ones from fleabay or craigs list do not qualify so there is no option there either.

 

sorry - folks do niot "accidently buy an iphone from fleabay",  esepcaily htose that reside outisde the borders of the US, they look to play the currency game and get a cheap iphone for their own use in their own countrym the play the game without researching or understand the rules of the game. 

Also - if you do some research, especially on the iphone in lands outside the US - there are numerous carriers that only sell iphones that are locked to teh carrier and are not unlocked - this is documented on the Apple website. 

---

Locked, permanently to the carrier? I'd be interested in seeing that link. I have friends with iphones all over Europe, as well as Canada, Australia etc. No one I know is denied an unlock when the contract is over (Or, as is more often the case, when some predescribed period of time, like 90 days, is over).

 

Yes, OUTSIDE the U.S. is key. Everyone else has come to expect an unlockable phone. As for Ebay, there's folks on here daily saying they assumed the phone was unlocked when they had it shipped to [insert country name here].. They are all lying?

---

ask and ye shall recieve - please note heading "locked to carrier" along with the second column right next to it "Carrier offers authorized unlocking", if you look closely you will see that there are check marks in the first columns and wonders, there are no check marks in the second colums, so those cariers do not unlock the iphone from their service, pretty much disproves your statement. Jus becasue no one you know is not offered a unlock does not immediately prove tha there are carriers outside the US that do not offer authorized unlocking.

 

 Not sure why you are accusing the fleabay purchasers as you do, they buy a ATT iphone on fleabay and get upset when they find that they cannot unlock the phone, a quick check of the link for the iphone and reading those specific columns will tell them that the phones are not unlocked at all. Research before purchasing something from outside your normal comfort zone of you own country requires research on international laws, customs laws as pertaining to duties and taxes and normal business practices of the the companies that are not in your country, the automagic assumption that they follow the same rules is a very bad thing (tm) in international purchasing of product

 

Africa,

Europe

Latin America and the Carribian

Asia and the Pacific

 

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1937

 

 

---

We're sorry.

 

---

the gryphon wrote:

---

ask and ye shall recieve - please note heading "locked to carrier" along with the second column right next to it "Carrier offers authorized unlocking", if you look closely you will see that there are check marks in the first columns and wonders, there are no check marks in the second colums, so those cariers do not unlock the iphone from their service, pretty much disproves your statement. Jus becasue no one you know is not offered a unlock does not immediately prove tha there are carriers outside the US that do not offer authorized unlocking.

 

 Not sure why you are accusing the fleabay purchasers as you do, they buy a ATT iphone on fleabay and get upset when they find that they cannot unlock the phone, a quick check of the link for the iphone and reading those specific columns will tell them that the phones are not unlocked at all. Research before purchasing something from outside your normal comfort zone of you own country requires research on international laws, customs laws as pertaining to duties and taxes and normal business practices of the the companies that are not in your country, the automagic assumption that they follow the same rules is a very bad thing (tm) in international purchasing of product

 

Africa,

Europe

Latin America and the Carribian

Asia and the Pacific

 

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1937

 

 

---

We're sorry.

We can't find the article you're looking for.

Please return to the Apple Support homepage.

 

but thanks.  Here's what I know. My german, irish, swedish, canadian, french, and australian colleagues, oh, and Spanish, are able to ask their carriers for an unlock, and receive one. And, as we see time and again here, folks from across the pond post in shock that Americans can't.

 

---

Try again... the link works perfectly fine.  In the countries you mentioned, if I'm not mistaken, carriers are required by law to unlock devices or offer unlock codes.  There is no such requirement in the US.  There are also multiple countries around the world where devices are sold locked with no option to unlock them.

 

Just a few examples of carriers that do not offer unlocking in Europe:

3 in Austria

All carriers in Czech Republic

TDC, Telenor, and Telia in Denmark

All carriers in Finland

Omnitel in Lithuania

Vodafone in Malta

Orange in Moldova

T-Mobile in Netherlands

All carriers in Norway

Optimus and TMN in Portugal

Cosmote in Romania

T-Mobile in Slovinia

TELE2, Telenor, and Telia in Sweden

Swisscom in Switzerland

Vodafone in Turkey

 

As you can see... this is not a US phenomenon.

For what is is worth I have raised this claim with the FCC

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I bought an Iphone 3gs from ATT with a two year contract, which I have now fulfilled
So I ordered a new Iphone 4s binding myself to another 2 years with ATT.

I wanted to use the old phone when in Europe, so I asked ATT for the unlock code
but ATT declined giving me the unlock code.(their case KMM38....................)

Any other telephone carrier, here and overseas will let you unlock
your phone, when you have fulfilled your part of the contract.

Sprint will unlock their iPhones
http://community.sprint.com/baw/thread/80322

Verizon will unlock their iPhones
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/cell-phones/international-travelers-here-is-how-to-sim-unlock-your-verizon...

ATT will unlock other telephones, as described in this comment from 2008
http://forums.att.com/t5/Motorola/how-to-unlock-sim/td-p/1526238

Hence: When I bought my Iphone 3gs two years ago I had no reason to
believe that ATT would decline unlocking after I full filled my contract.

Since ATT wil not unlock the new phone either I returned it, having to
pay a $35 restock fee.

A new unlocked 8Gb 3GS costs $375
A new unlocked 32Gb Iphone 4s costs $749
Mine is a iPhone 3gs 32Gb and would be priced somewhere in between: $..

I hereby make a claim of $.. + $35 = $.. or ATT can unlock my iPhone

---

storepeter wrote:

A new unlocked 8Gb 3GS costs $375

---

No such device is offered for sale in the US. 

 

Good luck with teh FCC, but they frankly are unlikely to do anything about it.  AT&T is well within their legal rights as has been mentioned here multiple times.

---

21stNow wrote:

---

vitriol wrote:
Can I suggest if you don't want to read posts about unlocking you don't click on threads with unlocking in the title

---

Feel free to suggest it.  I don't always read the unlocking threads and if you read my post carefully, I was speaking of the way that it makes the forum look, not the individual posts.  Even from the forum page, one can see the multiple posts regarding unlocking the iPhone.

 

I wasn't complaining about the fact that the threads exist.  I was making a suggestion that would actually be helpful (unlike yours) to other customers who are looking for information about their iPhones, as well as people who are looking for AT&T's official policy regarding unlocking the iPhone.

---

Well in that case, how is posting such a suggestion in an "unlock" thread reducing the "clutter" that you speak of?  Wouldn't you have been better off simply and solely making your suggestion to the mods directly via PM?  Quite frankly, you're not the first--and certainly won't be the last--one to complain about being tired of seeing the same old "why won't AT&T unlock my iPhone" threads and posts over and over, and how the mods should do something to reduce the number of such threads.  Surely they would have taken such advice and done so a long time ago, but the fact that these threads are allowed to continue to pop up may be telling in and of themselves...

 

I don't see anything wrong in people continuing to voice their frustrations over and over in this forum regarding AT&T's policy for unlocking locked iPhones; I guess the mods see it as this--as long as the users are following the forum guidelines, there is nothing the mods can and/or will do, as far as limiting the number of such threads.

---

Ryan_ATL wrote:

---

storepeter wrote:

A new unlocked 8Gb 3GS costs $375

---

No such device is offered for sale in the US. 

 

Good luck with teh FCC, but they frankly are unlikely to do anything about it.  AT&T is well within their legal rights as has been mentioned here multiple times.

---

IANAL but I think the legal position on this hasn't been fully tested in court. There appears to be plenty of laws in the US which potentially make 'tying arrangements' such as this illegal. For example the section 2 of the sherman act states

 

"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony 

 

Also the FCC has duty to ensure adequate competition in telecommunications, so it's entirely feasible they will change their position. The position in the UK is interesting- there's actually no requirement (though there used to be guidelines to this effect) that carriers unlock phones after the end of the contract subsidy. They did this of their own volition, presumably due to competition.

---

Ryan_ATL wrote:

---

storepeter wrote:

A new unlocked 8Gb 3GS costs $375

---

No such device is offered for sale in the US. 

 

---

May I advice you to contact apple and have them remove this page

 

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC637LL/A

 

---

storepeter wrote:

For what is is worth I have raised this claim with the FCC

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I bought an Iphone 3gs from ATT with a two year contract, which I have now fulfilled
So I ordered a new Iphone 4s binding myself to another 2 years with ATT.

I wanted to use the old phone when in Europe, so I asked ATT for the unlock code
but ATT declined giving me the unlock code.(their case KMM38....................)

Any other telephone carrier, here and overseas will let you unlock
your phone, when you have fulfilled your part of the contract.

Sprint will unlock their iPhones
http://community.sprint.com/baw/thread/80322

Verizon will unlock their iPhones
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/cell-phones/international-travelers-here-is-how-to-sim-unlock-your-verizon...

ATT will unlock other telephones, as described in this comment from 2008
http://forums.att.com/t5/Motorola/how-to-unlock-sim/td-p/1526238

Hence: When I bought my Iphone 3gs two years ago I had no reason to
believe that ATT would decline unlocking after I full filled my contract.

Since ATT wil not unlock the new phone either I returned it, having to
pay a $35 restock fee.

A new unlocked 8Gb 3GS costs $375
A new unlocked 32Gb Iphone 4s costs $749
Mine is a iPhone 3gs 32Gb and would be priced somewhere in between: $..

I hereby make a claim of $.. + $35 = $.. or ATT can unlock my iPhone

---

the about buck and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee in some places, it has already been tested in a referendium by the authorities, while thsi referendum came back and stated the iphone was not included

 

As proven  earlier with Apple's own website that simple statemtn that " any other telephone, here and overseas will let you unlock", because they won't

---

vitriol wrote:

---

Ryan_ATL wrote:

---

storepeter wrote:

A new unlocked 8Gb 3GS costs $375

---

No such device is offered for sale in the US. 

 

Good luck with teh FCC, but they frankly are unlikely to do anything about it.  AT&T is well within their legal rights as has been mentioned here multiple times.

---

IANAL but I think the legal position on this hasn't been fully tested in court. There appears to be plenty of laws in the US which potentially make 'tying arrangements' such as this illegal. For example the section 2 of the sherman act states

 

"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony 

 

Also the FCC has duty to ensure adequate competition in telecommunications, so it's entirely feasible they will change their position. The position in the UK is interesting- there's actually no requirement (though there used to be guidelines to this effect) that carriers unlock phones after the end of the contract subsidy. They did this of their own volition, presumably due to competition.

---

No it has been tested, and ATT won - a few minutes of research on the net will find the answer for you. As far as unlockingin Europe - there are laws that require it, again research works

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

vitriol wrote:

---

Ryan_ATL wrote:

---

storepeter wrote:

A new unlocked 8Gb 3GS costs $375

---

No such device is offered for sale in the US. 

 

Good luck with teh FCC, but they frankly are unlikely to do anything about it.  AT&T is well within their legal rights as has been mentioned here multiple times.

---

IANAL but I think the legal position on this hasn't been fully tested in court. There appears to be plenty of laws in the US which potentially make 'tying arrangements' such as this illegal. For example the section 2 of the sherman act states

 

"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony 

 

Also the FCC has duty to ensure adequate competition in telecommunications, so it's entirely feasible they will change their position. The position in the UK is interesting- there's actually no requirement (though there used to be guidelines to this effect) that carriers unlock phones after the end of the contract subsidy. They did this of their own volition, presumably due to competition.

---

No it has been tested, and ATT won - a few minutes of research on the net will find the answer for you. As far as unlockingin Europe - there are laws that require it, again research works

---

For the first, can you provide references ? The only one I'm aware of specifically relating to tying (Holman vs Apple et al) is still on-going. The second, well I specifically referred to the UK, where it is indeed the case there is no legal or regulatory requirement for mobile companies to unlock phones (http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/telecoms/charges/mobile-handset-locking/).

 

---

tonester wrote:

---

21stNow wrote:

---

vitriol wrote:
Can I suggest if you don't want to read posts about unlocking you don't click on threads with unlocking in the title

---

Feel free to suggest it.  I don't always read the unlocking threads and if you read my post carefully, I was speaking of the way that it makes the forum look, not the individual posts.  Even from the forum page, one can see the multiple posts regarding unlocking the iPhone.

 

I wasn't complaining about the fact that the threads exist.  I was making a suggestion that would actually be helpful (unlike yours) to other customers who are looking for information about their iPhones, as well as people who are looking for AT&T's official policy regarding unlocking the iPhone.

---

Well in that case, how is posting such a suggestion in an "unlock" thread reducing the "clutter" that you speak of?  Wouldn't you have been better off simply and solely making your suggestion to the mods directly via PM?  Quite frankly, you're not the first--and certainly won't be the last--one to complain about being tired of seeing the same old "why won't AT&T unlock my iPhone" threads and posts over and over, and how the mods should do something to reduce the number of such threads.  Surely they would have taken such advice and done so a long time ago, but the fact that these threads are allowed to continue to pop up may be telling in and of themselves...

 

I don't see anything wrong in people continuing to voice their frustrations over and over in this forum regarding AT&T's policy for unlocking locked iPhones; I guess the mods see it as this--as long as the users are following the forum guidelines, there is nothing the mods can and/or will do, as far as limiting the number of such threads.

---

1) The "clutter" that I speak of is forum clutter, not thread clutter.  I made my suggestion in an existing thread, so it did not add to the forum clutter.

 

2) I've already figured that there is an ulterior motive, either on the part of the posters, the moderators, or both.  I didn't PM a moderator because I wanted this to be part of the public forum.

 

3) I see nothing wrong with people venting their frustrations in the forum, as well.  I think that part of the frustration comes from a perceived lack of information on the policy.  Having a sticky post would be one more step that AT&T could reasonably use to inform users of the policy.

 

4) If you disagree with my post, so be it.  You have the right and I wouldn't change it for anything in the world.

---

vitriol wrote:

---

wingrider01 wrote:

No it has been tested, and ATT won - a few minutes of research on the net will find the answer for you. As far as unlocking Europe - there are laws that require it, again research works

---

For the first, can you provide references ? The only one I'm aware of specifically relating to tying (Holman vs Apple et al) is still on-going. The second, well I specifically referred to the UK, where it is indeed the case there is no legal or regulatory requirement for mobile companies to unlock phones (http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/telecoms/charges/mobile-handset-locking/).

 

---

I cannot unlock my iPhone so I guess in all practical senses wingrider01 is right ATT has won, even if the case is still ongoing now in the  fifth years http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2007cv05152/196514/

That probably can be seen as great victory for ATT - congratulations ATT and shame on you.

An  iPhone bought from Verizon can work on ATT after 90 days

An  iPhone bought from Sprint can work on ATT after 90 days

The exact same iPhone bought from ATT will forever only work on ATT

Even if ATT should win this case in court, which still have to be seen, it must be clear to anybody, that letting ATT expand its regime by buying T-Mobile, will support their monopoly, and there is no reason to believe that they will not abuse it.

In my News Paper today I see that the FCC opposes the Merger/takeover.  So ATT might be winning the battle, but loosing the war.

I feel most sorry for T-mobile who have entered into a world, where fair competition can be nulled by the majority players.  And now T-mobile cannot even surrender to ATT and get their money back.

 

---

storepeter wrote:

An  iPhone bought from Verizon can work on ATT after 90 days

An  iPhone bought from Sprint can work on ATT after 90 days

The exact same iPhone bought from ATT will forever only work on ATT

---

Get your facts correct.  Verizon and Sprint have both stated that their devices will ONLY be unlocked for International carriers and only when a CDMA roaming network is not available.  Any iPhone bought in the US for Verizon or Sprint will not work on AT&T.  Apple emphatically states that on their website.

---

Ryan_ATL wrote:

Get your facts correct.  Verizon and Sprint have both stated that their devices will ONLY be unlocked for International carriers and only when a CDMA roaming network is not available.  Any iPhone bought in the US for Verizon or Sprint will not work on AT&T.  Apple emphatically states that on their website.

---

I am so sorry - how about this ?

An  iPhone bought from Verizon can work on T-Mobile after 90 days

An  iPhone bought from Sprint can work on T-Mobile after 90 days

The exact same iPhone bought from ATT will forever only work on ATT

 

---

storepeter wrote:

---

Ryan_ATL wrote:

Get your facts correct.  Verizon and Sprint have both stated that their devices will ONLY be unlocked for International carriers and only when a CDMA roaming network is not available.  Any iPhone bought in the US for Verizon or Sprint will not work on AT&T.  Apple emphatically states that on their website.

---

I am so sorry - how about this ?

An  iPhone bought from Verizon can work on T-Mobile after 90 days

An  iPhone bought from Sprint can work on T-Mobile after 90 days

The exact same iPhone bought from ATT will forever only work on ATT

 

---

Not sure why you think T-Mobile is a foreign carrier, although t-mobile is owned by a germany comany, the carrier here is still a domestic carrier - the phone is unlocked for international carriers only, not domestic, as pointed out by the previous poster your statement is incorrect. Key words there

---

storepeter wrote:

---

Ryan_ATL wrote:

Get your facts correct.  Verizon and Sprint have both stated that their devices will ONLY be unlocked for International carriers and only when a CDMA roaming network is not available.  Any iPhone bought in the US for Verizon or Sprint will not work on AT&T.  Apple emphatically states that on their website.

---

I am so sorry - how about this ?

An  iPhone bought from Verizon can work on T-Mobile after 90 days

An  iPhone bought from Sprint can work on T-Mobile after 90 days

The exact same iPhone bought from ATT will forever only work on ATT

 

---

This would be correct if you are referring to T-Mobile UK or some other T-Mobile in Europe.  A US iPhone bought at VZW and Sprint will not work on T-Mobile USA.

Ryan_ATL wrote:

Honestly it sounds like you chose to pick a carrier based on the device they offered, not the coverage they provide.  That I will never understand.

 

Like all customers, you have the option of ETFing out or wainting out the contract. 

 

==================================================================

 

Honestly, I don't think you understand.  I've been with AT&T long before the iPhone existed,  employer provided wireless service.

 

Things have changed,  AT&T is soon to be my former carrier.

 

While the unlocking thing has been a pain,  I recently dumped my iPhone 4 and replaced with an unlocked Motorola handset. Took all of 5 minutes to unlock the phone.

 

Ya know,  I don't miss the aura of having an iPhone.

 

 

---

wireless-user wrote:

Ryan_ATL wrote:

Honestly it sounds like you chose to pick a carrier based on the device they offered, not the coverage they provide.  That I will never understand.

 

Like all customers, you have the option of ETFing out or wainting out the contract. 

 

==================================================================

 

Honestly, I don't think you understand.  I've been with AT&T long before the iPhone existed,  employer provided wireless service.

 

Things have changed,  AT&T is soon to be my former carrier.

 

While the unlocking thing has been a pain,  I recently dumped my iPhone 4 and replaced with an unlocked Motorola handset. Took all of 5 minutes to unlock the phone.

 

Ya know,  I don't miss the aura of having an iPhone.

 

 

---

Hope your new carrier does everything that you need for it to do.

 

have had iphones since the3G, never did understand the fascination with the "aura" of a iphone - it is a communications tool just like every other phone on the market with it's own bent on toys. Personally don;t miss it either, but then I never seen it to start of with. Hey would love to see them unlock the iphone retroactively - will flood the fleabay market with all the retired iphones that are in the companies junk box

---

wireless-user wrote:

Honestly, I don't think you understand.  I've been with AT&T long before the iPhone existed,  employer provided wireless service.

 

Things have changed,  AT&T is soon to be my former carrier.

 

While the unlocking thing has been a pain,  I recently dumped my iPhone 4 and replaced with an unlocked Motorola handset. Took all of 5 minutes to unlock the phone.

 

Ya know,  I don't miss the aura of having an iPhone.

 

---

Congrats on finding a device you enjoy. Best of luck on your new carrier.

So I guess we were right and, well, some of the long time rhetoric was wrong. AT&T has changed it policy to an extent. So many said AT&T would "never" unlock phones. Now they are doing something somewhat standard. It's still behind their direct competition, but it's probably enough to keep many folks. I"ll be calling tmw to get my 4 unlocked. Perhaps we'll all just keep two phones: one new one, and one that's unlocked for travel.

---

the gryphon wrote:
So I guess we were right and, well, some of the long time rhetoric was wrong. AT&T has changed it policy to an extent. So many said AT&T would "never" unlock phones. Now they are doing something somewhat standard. It's still behind their direct competition, but it's probably enough to keep many folks. I"ll be calling tmw to get my 4 unlocked. Perhaps we'll all just keep two phones: one new one, and one that's unlocked for travel.

---

Yes quite funny. Lots of senior members claiming that AT&T would never change their policy, which was obviously unknowable. In theory it looks like it's a reaction to verizon/sprint and a lot of iphone 4 users coming to the end of their contracts, but it's still not as favourable. With Verizon you can unlock (for foreign sims) after 60 days. I used this when travelling in the UK, worked perfectly.

---

wingrider01 wrote:

---

storepeter wrote:

For what is is worth I have raised this claim with the FCC

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I bought an Iphone 3gs from ATT with a two year contract, which I have now fulfilled
So I ordered a new Iphone 4s binding myself to another 2 years with ATT.

I wanted to use the old phone when in Europe, so I asked ATT for the unlock code
but ATT declined giving me the unlock code.(their case KMM38....................)

Any other telephone carrier, here and overseas will let you unlock
your phone, when you have fulfilled your part of the contract.

Sprint will unlock their iPhones
http://community.sprint.com/baw/thread/80322

Verizon will unlock their iPhones
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/cell-phones/international-travelers-here-is-how-to-sim-unlock-your-verizon...

ATT will unlock other telephones, as described in this comment from 2008
http://forums.att.com/t5/Motorola/how-to-unlock-sim/td-p/1526238

Hence: When I bought my Iphone 3gs two years ago I had no reason to
believe that ATT would decline unlocking after I full filled my contract.

Since ATT wil not unlock the new phone either I returned it, having to
pay a $35 restock fee.

A new unlocked 8Gb 3GS costs $375
A new unlocked 32Gb Iphone 4s costs $749
Mine is a iPhone 3gs 32Gb and would be priced somewhere in between: $..

I hereby make a claim of $.. + $35 = $.. or ATT can unlock my iPhone

---

the about buck and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee in some places, it has already been tested in a referendium by the authorities, while thsi referendum came back and stated the iphone was not included

 

As proven  earlier with Apple's own website that simple statemtn that " any other telephone, here and overseas will let you unlock", because they won't

---

It seems it does work to complain to the FCC.

 

I did get get a response from the ATT head quarters, and since I certainly was not the only complaining, ATT finally set this straight.

BUT "we" would have been happier if "we" had been treated as valued custommer right from the start, and ATT would still have had "us" as custommers - A pitty that it should come this far, having formerly happyly been sending my monthly $100 in their direction.

i dont believe that they will unlock an out of contract 3GS..... i called 15min and was told to go buy a new iPhone at full price. She also said they dont unlock iPhones due to a contractual agreement with Apple.

I think you got a rep who made a mistake.

I had bought the original iphone 2G by paying the full amount when Apple launched the iphone in 2007. I started using it with AT&T by paying full no discount commitment fee in 2008. in 2010 i bought the new iphone-4 at the discounted price of $200. However when i had to leave the country immediately after purchasing the iphone 4, i had a dispute on the billed amount because at&t continued billing me even after i cancelled my service with the company. Now due to this dispute, AT&T is refusing to unlock my old iphone, although i have paid the full amount to at&t on that iphone. Is there someone within at&T's legal team who i can speak to about this.

 

Thank you,

Akshay

And a broken clock is right twice a day. Your point? People who purchased an iPhone expecting it to be unlocked endured 4+ years of frustration or jumping through unsavory DIY hoops to facilitate this. AT&T is still NOT doing "something standard", as they won't unlock in-contract iPhones. Most other phones (AT&T exclusives excepted) can be unlocked, even while under contract, for international travel. Be glad AT&T caved in this minor way.

 

---

the gryphon wrote:
So I guess we were right and, well, some of the long time rhetoric was wrong. AT&T has changed it policy to an extent. So many said AT&T would "never" unlock phones. Now they are doing something somewhat standard. It's still behind their direct competition, but it's probably enough to keep many folks. I"ll be calling tmw to get my 4 unlocked. Perhaps we'll all just keep two phones: one new one, and one that's unlocked for travel.

---