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."
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
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.
Yeah. I disagree with locking on principle (I paid for the phone, even if it's through subsidies, so why can't I do with it as I please and take it to any carrier?), but early termination fees are reasonable. The provider has subsidized the initial cost of your phone in exchange for your continued patronage. If you don't like it you can ALWAYS buy a phone at full price and avoid the contract.
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!
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.
I agree that "a contract is a contract", and it's silly to go to court just because you don't like something you initially, willingly signed up for.
On the other hand though, the provider subsidy story is a little "flimsy" too, at times. For example, when I was with Verizon, I wanted one of the new Treo 650s when it was a brand new phone. Buying it with a 2 year extension on my contract, through Verizon, turned out to STILL be over $100 more expensive than buying the phone outright from some of the dealers selling them on the Internet.
The phone providers seem to like quoting MSRP as the "real price" of the phone, and then knock $100-200 off of that if you sign up for 1 or 2 years with them. Reality is, they're probably still making a profit on the phones after locking you into those contracts, because they're paying nowhere NEAR the MSRP on them.
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
you can get your Cingular /AT&T phone unlocked by them. you need to call the international support line and request help acting dumb. you want to travel overseas and use a forign GSM sim card. they will give you an unlock code.
In fact you can do this 5 months after you start your contract. I did it to my Razr that my daughter now has. Called up, lied to them, got the unlock code.
Or you can pay to get the phone unlocked at any competent cellphone dealer.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
you need to call the international support line and request help acting dumb.
Me: Hello. Int'l support? Hi, could you help me to act dumb?
Int'l Support: I'm sorry sir, but you're already an AT&T customer. You've already shown that you can act dumb all by yourself.
This guy's the limit!
No, the copyright office of the USPTO created regulations to clarify what is allowed based on copyright law and this was one of the exceptions. DMCA has nothing to do with this other than the fact that the DMCA (a bill) modified the sections of the federal code (the law) that dictate the regulations that the USPTO can put into place. Based on their regulations, it is in fact not illegal for an individual to unlock a phone.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
"I flat out asked the sales guy..."
Ah yes, I think I see your problem.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
At the risk of starting an offtopic flamewar about medical insurance, the same thing is occuring there. When insurance covers you such that you only pay a $25 copay to see a doctor, you are shielded from the doctor charging you $500 for your 30 minute visit. Granted, you will pay more for your premiums over time, but that's a small monthly fee that you know you can't get rid because you need insurance. Same thing with the phone companies. Sure you get the small price of the phone up front, but now you are stuck with a locked phone and a contract. If that phone company starts to turn sour, you can either put up with it for the remainder of your contract, or bail at a significant price.
Option 1:
- Cheap, locked phones
- That raise the price of your monthly contract to cover the subsidy (you didn't actually think the phone company was being that kind did you?)
- Limited freedom to move around when the phone company starts dinking with you
Option 2:Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
1.) Sign long term contract
2.) Get free phone
3.) Cancel long term contract without paying termination fee
4.) Sell unlocked phone
5.) Profit
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.
Wrong.
You are given an offer to purchase the phone at a discounted rate on the basis that you also agree to a fixed term contract.
If you buy the phone, its yours from day 1.
The issue is that nearly all cell carriers advertise phones with the OEM's model number. If you go to the manufacturers website to look at specs you get misinformed because most carriers actually disable functionality already in the phone so they can force you into buying their services.
For example my phone can actually play any MP3 as a ringtone, however when you buy it from Cingular/AT&T they have disabled that feature with a software lock so you are forced to either use the crappy default tones or buy (only) their ringtones at inflated prices through their online service.
Point #1: If they would not make a compromise when it came to negotiating the contract, you should have not signed one you were unhappy with.
Point #2: Your legal options to break the contract? If you can break contracts willy nilly what's the point of contracts to begin with?
Point #3: So don't sign the contract to begin with or wait another month to cancel it.
People think they have a right to get what they want from companies that don't offer it. That is one of the reasons the United States is so lawsuit happy.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
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."