Slashdot Mirror
T-Mobile Phone Unlocking Lawsuit May Proceed
Billosaur writes "Wired is reporting that the California Supreme Court has refused to review two lower court decisions involving a class-action lawsuit against T-Mobile over their policies regarding early termination and phone unlocking. The Court rejected the reviews without comment, opening the door to the lawsuit, which aims to block T-Mobile from collecting a $200 early termination fee from users. Also on the table: an order for T-Mobile to disclose the types of phone-locking technology that may be in use on customer's phones. The ramifications if the lawsuit is successful would be to allow phone users in California to unlock their phones, and might lead to further lawsuits nationwide."
You pay the early termination fee if you terminate early.
It's that simple, bitches.
Doesn't T-Mobile already allow unlocking at the end of the contract? I've had multiple T-Mobile phones, and they've always allowed you to unlock your old phone once your contract expired.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
What does unlocking a phone have to do with terminating a cellular contract?
I'd love to see locked phones AND cell termination fees go the way of the dodo, but this seems like an "I don't like the terms of teh service I signed up for, so I'm suing" suit.
In theory, if we could buy unlocked phones more easily, we could then choose whatever carrier we want, adn would probably be less likely to pay the cancellation fee.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
They really should sue AT&T/Cingular first. Those bastards NEVER let you unlock your phone - not even after your contract period is over. That is why I refuse to go with them. With T-Mobile at least I can get it unlocked at the end of the contract.
Start with Phone unlocking, then maybe abolish software patents, then you could even think about giving healthcare to every American...
My little Linux and tech blog
and I hope they lose.
... because then they couldn't nail me for the full internet plan while I check email.
My phone has all kinds of interesting features, that are locked out. The phone could do these things, but tmobile places false restrictions on the features. Why does the network access break when a java app is activated?
By the time I learned about the feature locks (and the + $50 it would cost to turn them on) I was already in the contract. I tried flashing the phone, but magically got bounced from the net until it got flashed back. The phone connected for a time, so I had not removed something to allow connections.
I have a T-Mobile MDA, and they had absolutely no problem unlocking the phone for me prior to me making an international trip so I could use a competing network. I don't understand why some of these people are trying to sue for that, T-Mobile is going to have some much evidence to the contrary that their case will likely be found without merit (IANAL).
As far as the 200 dollar disconnect fee, I don't agree with that with any carrier, and some use it as a bludgeoning stick to keep people continuing their service under the threat of "breach of contract".
Cellular service should be something someone can walk into, pay their bill, and walk out of without any fear of reprisal as long as they paid their bills in full.
-The Cake is a Lie!
Let me get this correct. You terminate YOUR contract. Right?? Remember you signed a contact saying that you WILL BE charged a fee if you cancel early. You bought a phone that works for only T-Mobil or let me rephrase... a phone that it is designed to work for t-Mobil and only. (what someone CAN DO and is LET do are two different things when it comes to unlocking phones)
I do not go buy a Mac and expect to be allowed to install windows on it (I said Windows because some versions of Linux will run on a mac). Then I do not bitch when my computer does not work any more. So I should try that right? Get a mac install windows, but I will get a PPC mac maybe an old G4 and try and get windows on it. Maybe make a hardware modification. Then bitch to Apple to support me. If they do not I will sue them.
For slashdot if it is Linux, or fighting against companies trying to make money you are all for it. You must all be teachers. Just wait till you get fucked in the ass when you have your own company and some slasdotter fucks you over because you did not support him taking your product apart.
It's high time the American mobile phone market is made more open and interoperable.
In GSM-dominated countries, swapping phone service has got nothing to do with your mobile phone. You just remove your SIM-card and put in another one. Conversely, when you buy a new phone, you just put your old SIM card in it and you're done.
The rationale for a termination fee is usually that handsets are subsidized. But a better solution is for the FCC to open up the industry so that there is a separate market for mobile handsets. This will give customers more options to buy handsets that they know will work with any carrier, and competition in the mobile handset market will bring prices down.
Carriers can still offer subsidies on handsets with contract termination restrictions - but users will then opt for it willingly - ignoring the option of other available handsets.
2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
Hmmm, I have always had success getting t-mobile to provide a free unlock code, AT&T as well. AFAIK both companies have a policy of providing unlock codes for free after 90 days service. Just call customer service. The 90 days is reasonable IMHO so people don't rip them off with the contract discounts. Never had a problem doing this to probably 5 or more phones now...
This is kind of stupid. Even if all the major US carriers were prevented from locking phones to their network, it would only open the market between T-Mobile and AT&T, and separately between Sprint and Verizon Wireless. Both use totally different networks (GSM vs CDMA2000), so nothing would be open.
Further, as 3G rolls out, T-Mobile and AT&T's versions of UTMS totally incompatible, meaning that their next generation of phone will be naturally locked to a single provider. They didn't do that on purpose, there just isn't available bandwidth in the US to share the same band.
The real solution--rather than enriching attorneys to raise frivolous lawsuits that won't accomplish anything--is to open up the TV spectrum and insist that it actually be open, as Google has been pushing for. That would rapidly obsolesce the existing mobile networks however, leaving them open for replacement as well. Verizon/Sprint/AT&T have spent billions building out old fashioned 2.5/3G mobile service, and aren't excited about the prospect of having it all thrown in the trash can.
How AT&T Picked Up the iPhone: A Brief History of Mobiles
Because in the absence of locking and contracts, there's no financial incentive for the carriers to subsidize the selling price of the phone.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
It just gets hidden in the cost of the service and spread out over the term of the contract.
Unless you think the phone companies eat the cost of subsidizing the phones...
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Why should you be allowed to unlock a phone that you don't own yet? Most carriers in the USA provide a rent-to-own phone for you. Until you've paid the entire cost of the phone, why should you be allowed to walk away from the payments WITH the phone? I don't understand this desire. It's NOT YOUR PHONE until you've gone two years (or whatever) under payments.
Why is "rent-to-own" so hard to understand?
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
"Fine, give me a 100% unlocked phone then instead of forcing me to pay an extra $45.00 to get it unlocked by a local unlocker. (Which the phone company will lie to you and say unlocking is illegal.)"
As others have said, this is not accurate. T-mobile is well known for unlocking phones on request, and AT&T did it for me after 90 days (not sure if that's the case anymore, but others seem to say that it is).
I don't know when (if) you dealt with them, but your objections are not currently valid.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
1.) Sign long term contract
2.) Get free phone
3.) Cancel long term contract without paying termination fee
4.) Sell unlocked phone
5.) Profit
I bought an unlocked Nokia from Austrailia.
Then I signed up with T-Mobile using it.
They had no problem at all with it being unlocked.
Look carefully. T-Mobile will sell you a phone at 'retail'. And yes, you will have to ask to have that one unlocked, because they don't inventory unlocked phones. And they'll unlock it immediately, after you jump through the flaming hoop of fire, 'cause you don't have a contract with them for the phone.
Then you can buy a contract with whoever, even T-Mobile.
I really don't quite get the hoohah over this locking thing. In Europe, you buy unlocked phones, and pay quite a bit more. And it's yours. Here, most carriers wanna lock you into some contract, and they subsidize the phone cost to do that. I know that if I want a new Blackberry, I can buy one unlocked for $299 and up, or extend my contract and get one for $199 or something. The value proposition is obvious to me.
T-Mobile unlocked my 7105t without trouble after my contract completed. I even get my contract for about as long as I want, which is nice cause to start a new one will cost me more $ for the same services. I may change to another carrier, but right now nothing in GSM looks that much better.
And I'm disppointed that UMTS is going to be fractured. Never fails, interoperability is always trouble. I'm hopeful that T-Mobile and ATT will resolve this, but it may be as much about data roaming as anything. Imagine the problems if the iPhone 2.0 is UMTS, and people buy them where ATT is not the carrier. Roaming most of the time will open them to surcharges and complaints.
And just in case you weren't listening, the US ain't Europe. Over there, they value choice and freedom, and are willing to pay for it. Are we willing to pay for it also?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
T-Mobile is being sued because their unlocking policies are unreasonable. When I signed up, I indicated that I wanted both an international roaming phone and unlockable phones to be used with Smart (in the Philippines). Although I was told I would get both, I got neither.
..."
The international roaming bit was service from hell. I was attempting to get my main phone unlocked in the last two weeks before returning to Manila. The secondary phone was unlocked, but there was a problem with the primary phone that they did not tell me about and I had to call the service center a few hours before check-in to verify that yes, they would not be unlocking that phone due to some technical issue with the model. At that time (and for the third time in the week) I asked them about international roaming and was told that it was OK. It was not.
When I called their "customer care" after coming back to California I was informed that I had to notify them first, "which I see you did before you left. We're very sorry for the inconvenience
T-Mobile deserves to be sued. Can I still sign up for this lawsuit? I'm a very angry T-Mobile customer in California who did not get what he paid for.
And Apple's world headquarters is located where?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Close, but no cigar. You do in fact own the phone they sold you (or even gave you for free). It's not a rental. You aren't making payments on the phone. If you break your contract, you don't need to return the phone to them. Indeed, if you walk into a store and ask to return the phone and break your contract, they'll laugh at you. They won't want the phone back. However, they will (unhappily) terminate your service and charge you the fee.
You are under contract, and the contract says there is an early termination fee. If you break the contract, you pay the fee. While the fee is designed to replace the cost of the subsidized phone, it's not a loan nor a payment, it's just a term of the contract.
Thus, you're perfectly free to do whatever you like with your phone, including unlocking it. Of course, they're under no obligation to let you keep using your modified phone on their network.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
There is a big difference between what marketing promises and what the company actually delivers.
Since I travel frequently and use local SIMS, I really need an unlocked phone. After the 90 day waiting period, I went through T-Mobile's submission process to get the unlock code. I got an e-mail back saying it was not available from the vendor. I tried calling their support and the only response I could get was to submit again. I submitted 2 more times with the same response.
I finally gave up and took the phone to a shop in San Francisco and had it unlocked there for $25
I'm hoping for chipsets that support both bands for UTMS (T-mobile an AT&T) as well as the inclusion of Wi-Fi chipsets, to support T-Mobile's GSM over IP technology. I just got the new Blackberry Curve from them with the Wi-Fi chipset built in, and it's quite cool to be in a basement with no GSM signal and only Wi-Fi signal, and I'm still able to make/receive calls, emails, etc.
I have had my phones unlocked simply by calling them whenever I have traveled abroad with a locked phone. You dont have to wait for your contract to expire, and you don't have to go through any hassle for unlocking your phone.
and thats the reason I am with t-mobile for past 5 years.
There may be few incidents with some people having trouble getting their phones unlocked, but thats definitely not a norm, as I know many friends of mine having their phones unlocked just by making a simple call to them.
I don't know about in the US, but up here the phone is sold with the same brand name as is available unlocked etc. So I sign up on a contract with the premise that I get a "Ultraphone X2321." Then I get the actual phone, and while it is in theory an X3221, they've mangled the firmware so that half the advertised features of the phone don't work properly. Maybe Wifi connections is disabled so I can't do VOIP on the smartphone. Maybe the ringtones can only be downloaded from provider's website (at a nice profit for them, of course).
The fact is that the phone was sold on false premises. The actual features of the model sold to you do not match those of what you get. Given the two aspects, the contract was therefore generated based on a false premis. I did not get an Ultraphone X2321, and therefore I did not get what was promised to me with my contract.
One solution to the entire unlocking business is to buy an unbranded phone from the start. While one pays a premium for the phone, none of the features are locked by the carrier and one is free to use the phone overseas.
Of course it's more difficult to buy unbranded CDMA phones, but it's probably possible.
Locking a phone that has been purchased in full then terminating a users account and charging them "again" must be the most anti-capitalist/competitive thing ever thought up. I would put this on par with Dell cutting a deal with Microsoft then forcing its users to only be able to visit set websites that have huge markups on common services and if the user decides to use swap to lets say an Apple setup they get charged to do so even though they own the hardware. Oh look I used Apple and anti-competitive in the same paragraph, strange that.
All I have to say is, if you think T-Mobile is bad, you should try dealing with Cingular/ATT.
T-Mobile has the best unlocking policy and the best customer service of any of the U.S. cellular companies, hands down. Granted, that's kind of like talking about which slave labor camp has the best dental policy, but it's the situation we're left with due to the technological, geographic, and regulatory climate in the U.S.
A few months ago I was trying to help out a friend who was the executor of a deceased friend's estate. The deceased guy had been with Cingular for years, and had a fully paid-off, very nice phone, which someone else in his family wanted (which strikes me as borderline creepy, but hey, nobody wants to let a good smartphone go to waste I guess). Cingular would not unlock it, period, even though the phone was paid off, the account had been closed, and the account holder was dead. (They even got faxed a copy of the death certificate and everything.) Every time somebody called, they just said 'sorry, we can't do that,' and then started in on their sales pitch to try and sign them onto a new plan. (Even when the person calling identified themselves as the executor of a dead customer's estate, which you'd think would be a signal to drop the sales crap.) Written communication went unanswered. Eventually I just helped the friend find a place locally that unlocked it for $15, because that was easier than dealing with the cellphone company's shit. But the absolute gall they displayed was disgusting.
T-Mobile fails mostly through incompetence and ignorance, but AT&T/Cingular fail through malice. At least T-Mobile has a fairly reasonable unlocking policy (I never had any problem getting phones unlocked through them, personally, even before I was out of contract).
And as for Verizon and the other CDMA networks, they're designed with screwing the consumer as a primary goal from the ground up.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I really don't quite get the hoohah over this locking thing. In Europe, you buy unlocked phones, and pay quite a bit more. And it's yours. Here, most carriers wanna lock you into some contract, and they subsidize the phone cost to do that. I know that if I want a new Blackberry, I can buy one unlocked for $299 and up, or extend my contract and get one for $199 or something. The value proposition is obvious to me.
In Romania, that is in Europe, you get to choose, either buy a little cheaper "locked" phone - together with a contract - that you can unlock for a small amount at any time, or just buy a phone on the 'free market' that is a little bit more expensive, and then sign a contract to whatever operator you want
that At&T's board members have probably approached T-Mobil with advice or other background resources to help them win in court.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
"Willingly signed up for"? And your alternative choices? Did they offer you to option to only buy the "service" on a per-month fee with you supplying your own phone? If they don't, then they are not providing you the option for a "fair" contract.
:-)
Face it. Telco's hold alot of power - in some areas telcos are still monopolies in that there is only 1 carrier option.
What's even more crap -- the last time I had to change in my rate plan, they required a 1 year minimum contract to get an equivalent rate plan -- if I wanted to continue the month-to-month plan I had been on (it had been a contract, contract expired years ago), I would have had to pay about $15 more per month. I did NOT get a new phone, but would, theoretically, have had to pay a $200 early termination fee if I left "early".
The "supposed" benefit I got from them was getting a "reduced" monthly rate -- it wasn't for a phone. As you point out -- the $200 charge isn't to pay for "merchandise" or real "costs". It was just to "lock me in". I went ahead with the deal since I really didn't have a choice -- the other carriers do not have as good coverage in my area.
Seems like in order for a contract to be valid, the terms have to be reasonable and their needs to be an exchange (one-sided contracts can be declared invalid). In my situation, I'd likely have better legal standing since I didn't get a phone. The only thing they allegedly 'gave me' was a 'special', lower rate. But it would be "rather" unconvincing for them to claim that the contract cost them money that they needed to recoup. Their "cost" is giving me a "special" lower rate. It is obvious they can't recoup a monthly "loss" (because of the "lowness" of the monthly rate) by forcing me to go more months than I'd want to.
But even in the case of getting a phone, as you mention, their cost for the phone is significantly lower than the advertised price, there's no reason why the $200 shouldn't be "depreciated" over the life of the contract, but apparently it doesn't? I.e. you can be 75% through the contract, yet still be charged the full $200. That seems completely unreasonable.