AT&T Settles Suit Over Locked Handsets You get codes, class action attorneys get $5.7 million AT&T has settled a class action lawsuit over locked handsets, and must now provide codes to consumers assuming they meet a number of criteria (assuming you haven't been able to get a code already, of course). According to the settlement (pdf), users can request up to five unlock codes per year if their account is in good standing and (if they're postpaid) have been a customer for at least 90 days. The settlement also notes that "customers who own handsets for which AT&T has an exclusive sales arrangement with a manufacturer of less than 10 months will have to wait until the 10-month period expires before they can receive an unlocking code." The attorneys in the class action get $5.7 million, and the settlement doesn't cover the iPhone due to AT&T's exclusive arrangement with Apple.
|
2 edits | iPhones are next? "The attorneys in the class action get $5.7 million, and the settlement doesn't cover the iPhone due to AT&T's exclusive arrangement with Apple."
Does that mean whenever AT&T loses this exclusive arrangement with Apple, all iPhone customers can then bother AT&T for unlocking and jailbreaking? I wouldn't hold my breath.
$5.7 million for the attorneys. I sure chose the wrong career. | |
|  | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: iPhones are next? I don't think it should matter. That agreement is between apple and at&t.. not me and apple or me and at&t... *I* own the phone.. it's MY property and I could care less about THEIR agreement.
That's my problem with this.
While I do see things on both sides, this particular issue (as others have) both me like crazy.. if I pay for something, it's mine. I have purchased the hardware, I own it. Far be it for someone else to tell me what I do WITH that hardware. If I own a Tivo, I want to be able to use it absent of the guide data like a time shifter or program in the hours kinda recording, but I can't.. I have to pay just to use it AND access the content ON it. I see no difference here. It's my phone and if I want it unlocked, I should have it unlocked.
Personally, I don't think phones should be locked PERIOD. The CONSUMER ALWAYS owns the phone - period! If I don't own the phone, to which they'll say it's not paid for until the contract is up, then should they have the right to send me to collections as well if I don't pay? They can't have it both ways.. the CONSUMER owns the phone. | |
| | |  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·voip.ms
| Re: iPhones are next? said by fiberguy:Personally, I don't think phones should be locked PERIOD. The CONSUMER ALWAYS owns the phone - period! If I don't own the phone, to which they'll say it's not paid for until the contract is up, then should they have the right to send me to collections as well if I don't pay? They can't have it both ways.. the CONSUMER owns the phone. Huh? What does collections have to do with anything? | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: iPhones are next? If you didn't get what I was saying, I don't think you read close enough. 
The fact is that you own the phone from the day you get it. You're actually being extended some level of "credit" or "credibility" that you are going to stay with your term to completion... are you not?
They can use the excuse that "well, the phone isn't the customers until they complete the contract" which is something that has been uttered before.
HOWEVER, here's how it goes...
1) you either stay to term, all 24 months, which satisfies the agreement.
2) you leave early and pay the ETF fee.
3) you go non-pay and your contract is advanced and you're billed for the ETF.
Either way, you're going to be held responsible to finish the contract as agreed, or pay an ETF. If you DON'T PAY the bill if you leave early, ie: your final bill before term ends, they reserve the right to collect with a collections agency and even sue you (which many don't) but they reserve the right. That also affects your credit, etc.
So, if you're thinking about WHY they won't give you the unlock code until the contract is up, its because they feel you must complete the term which pays for the phone, does it not? While it may, that's just ONE way the phone is paid for.. either way, the moment you sign on the line, you're on the hook one way or another, so the phone is yours. What they're TRYING to do, with out saying, is 'we're holding the phone hostage until you've satisfied the credit we've extended you" which in itself is dangerous grounds.
If they are not doing that, what I said above, then I'd like to hear why they won't give it out until your contract is up. | |
| | | | | jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: iPhones are next? You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. Isn't it smarter for the carrier to try to get their money while they have some leverage (unlock codes for the phone) instead of getting (maybe) pennies on the dollar after collections? | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: iPhones are next? Um... its clear that you're not understanding the point.. but I love how I must have the ability to shape the policy of a corporation in which I'm not involved in one single bit. So, not sure how I am making this way more complicated. What I AM doing is spelling out what they ARE doing... there is a distinct difference.
I don't come to BBR to play a lot of "Oh I wish it was" or "It would be better if" games as some people do.. I prefer to point out the obvious.. and this is no exception.... they're using the cell phone as leverage.. I don't care what really would be easier or not.. that's their business. This is one case where I'm pointing out what they are doing.. I, nor the individual customer, is going to have a HUGE impact on what these companies do. I don't care if they get pennies on the dollar either so I'm not sure where you come up with that one as well.
My main point - very simple.. the customer owns the cell phone from day one. End of discussion... that's just a fact. I backed it up by removing, in advance, the cell provider saying "but they haven't paid for it yet" when what they're doing it clearly holding the phone hostage that they ALSO retain the right to collect on.
If you can't understand this, I'm sorry.. I've spelled it out as clear as I can. The wonderful thing about the interwebz, as people like to call it, is that what I said before is still there for anyone to scroll up and read as many times as they need to. | |
|
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| I agree. I can understand why they lock the phone: to ensure that they keep you as a customer to at least make back the subsidy they put on the phone. It's the same reason they use ETFs.
The right way to handle this would be selling handsets at full price, but offering a loan. $20 a month for 2 years would surely cover the cost of the phone. Make it interest free for 2 years. Put the loan payments on the bill, with option to pay it off early. If the contract is cancelled, that doesn't cancel the loan. | |
| | | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: iPhones are next? I do too... what they COULD do, easily, is break out the price of the phone over 24 months, as a "loan".. however, they give you a credit on the monthly bill each month. Don't stay in term, you owe the remainder of the amount extended to you in full. Stay with the term, guess what.. the phone is yours.
I just think they need to be honest about what it is they are really doing here. They're really extending credit to the customer under the definition of a "contract".. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: iPhones are next? In other words, you're saying "customer, arrange your own financing if you can't buy it out-right"... Pretty simple.
It won't happen, to be honest, unless congress FORCES it, and I don't think they can, legally. If you make people buy phones out-right at full price as they do in other countries, it will HURT the carriers when people either buy cheaper, less-featured phones, or people buy less OF them. Not to mention, people WILL think twice about changing carriers, even when their current one sucks-a*s.
While I agree with YOU on this, as I always have, the providers really SHOULD get out of the handset business. But, in this economy, not only are many people cash-strapped, but they're also credit-challenged as well, both on available credit, and credibility. The ones willing to throw around money like it's going out of style are usually the ones with bad credit, for a reason,.. however, they remain the group of people that DO spend money while the ones with good credit scores and more money have that, for a reason, as they tent to be more conservative and responsible WITH their money and credit these days.
There are some fine lines that will have to be crossed IF this were to happen. | |
| | | | | | | |  DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:70
·AT&T Southwest
 ·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·Google Voice
1 edit | Re: iPhones are next? said by fiberguy:In other words, you're saying "customer, arrange your own financing if you can't buy it out-right"... Pretty simple. yep you it it on the head.
said by fiberguy:It won't happen, to be honest, unless congress FORCES it, and I don't think they can, legally. If you make people buy phones out-right at full price as they do in other countries, it will HURT the carriers when people either buy cheaper, less-featured phones, or people buy less OF them. Not to mention, people WILL think twice about changing carriers, even when their current one sucks-a*s. While I agree with YOU on this, as I always have, the providers really SHOULD get out of the handset business. But, in this economy, not only are many people cash-strapped, but they're also credit-challenged as well, both on available credit, and credibility. The ones willing to throw around money like it's going out of style are usually the ones with bad credit, for a reason,.. however, they remain the group of people that DO spend money while the ones with good credit scores and more money have that, for a reason, as they tent to be more conservative and responsible WITH their money and credit these days. There are some fine lines that will have to be crossed IF this were to happen. Yea, that's the downside... Right now I am looking for a 2g iphone for myself and seeing some attractive prices out there. I wouldn't give a crap if it's edge. The thing is if they can pony up the monthly bill for it, the cash for the phone will not be a problem. They would have to actually think before complaining. Something that many don't do right now.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
| |
|
| | | | I am with you Fiberguy. I buy the device I can do with it how I see fit. I still don't see the "No Longer under warranty" piece of unlocked phones. Both of my BB with Verizon were allegedly were no longer under warranty when I unlocked them. How loading a customer rom on BB or WinMo or even Apple matters to keep a warranty is beyond me. Now with my Droid I can see since there are programs to change my processor to speeds over 1.2GHZ which will over heat and kill the phone quickly.
Sprint just announced that the Bold 9650(AKA Tour 2) will be unlocked from the beginning. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: iPhones are next? I'll say one other thing... if they want to keep the phone locked and claim that, in their round about way, it's theirs, well, then why am *I* paying for an extended warranty on it? Why am I responsible when the phone stops working - especially when it's software related? I mean, they lock it to keep control of something I pay for.. so who's is it? Mine? or theirs?
This is a case of where they want their cake and eat it too.
Like Europe, I think phones should really just be sold on the market to the consumer and the phone providers largely stay out of the business of handsets. They should offer them, of course, but as a convenience only. | |
|
| | | | said by fiberguy:I don't think it should matter. That agreement is between apple and at&t.. not me and apple or me and at&t... *I* own the phone.. it's MY property and I could care less about THEIR agreement. That's my problem with this. While I do see things on both sides, this particular issue (as others have) both me like crazy.. if I pay for something, it's mine. I have purchased the hardware, I own it. Far be it for someone else to tell me what I do WITH that hardware. If I own a Tivo, I want to be able to use it absent of the guide data like a time shifter or program in the hours kinda recording, but I can't.. I have to pay just to use it AND access the content ON it. I see no difference here. It's my phone and if I want it unlocked, I should have it unlocked. Personally, I don't think phones should be locked PERIOD. The CONSUMER ALWAYS owns the phone - period! If I don't own the phone, to which they'll say it's not paid for until the contract is up, then should they have the right to send me to collections as well if I don't pay? They can't have it both ways.. the CONSUMER owns the phone. Woha there buddy, you are starting to think logically. Logically speaking, you do own the iPhone...however from what I have seen/heard Steve Jobs et all seem to "think different". Apple even tried to make it illegal to jailbreak YOUR iPhones!
Though, the only ways to make Apple to "think different" is to slap them with a class action lawsuit or bring them to the supreme court like what they did with Microsoft back in the days of their anti-trust ways. Forget "voting with your wallet"; people will buy Apple products regardless of their quality. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·voip.ms
·America Online
·Dish Network
| said by burgerwars:"The attorneys in the class action get $5.7 million, and the settlement doesn't cover the iPhone due to AT&T's exclusive arrangement with Apple." Does that mean whenever AT&T loses this exclusive arrangement with Apple, all iPhone customers can then bother AT&T for unlocking and jailbreaking? I wouldn't hold my breath. $5.7 million for the attorneys. I sure chose the wrong career. I pointed out the settlement & hard to argue with an ATT rep, but my iPhone is unlocked (legally) & is now using T-mobile.
This is something I wanted for a while now & now I can end my contract (FINALLY).
--
HP Pavilion a6750f (tweaked)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 * Ubuntu 10.04 64 * SuSe 11.2 64 * Mac OS Snow Leopard
"I could always tell you the truth, but would you believe?" | |
| | |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | Re: iPhones are next? said by OldschoolDSL:I pointed out the settlement & hard to argue with an ATT rep, but my iPhone is unlocked (legally) & is now using T-mobile. I hope you understand that when in use on T-Mobile it only works as a Phone and EDGE (2G) Data Device. It does NOT support T-Mobile 3G due to it only having support for the AT&T 3G Frequency and not the T-Mobile Frequency. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
·voip.ms
·America Online
·Dish Network
| Re: iPhones are next? said by RARPSL:said by OldschoolDSL:I pointed out the settlement & hard to argue with an ATT rep, but my iPhone is unlocked (legally) & is now using T-mobile. I hope you understand that when in use on T-Mobile it only works as a Phone and EDGE (2G) Data Device. It does NOT support T-Mobile 3G due to it only having support for the AT&T 3G Frequency and not the T-Mobile Frequency. Which is fine, as I only quick check e-mail & use Google Maps to find things on the go... Speed isn't always a problem.
edit: Seem to read 3G (false positive?)
--
HP Pavilion a6750f (tweaked)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 * Ubuntu 10.04 64 * SuSe 11.2 64 * Mac OS Snow Leopard
"I could always tell you the truth, but would you believe?" | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Huh?
This smells like yet another worthless lawsuit.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
| | BigVe
join:2005-07-15
Gulliver, MI Reviews:
·CenturyLink
| Re: Huh? said by pnh102:This smells like yet another worthless lawsuit. That's what ALL lawsuits are.Totally pointless as the only ones that see any money out of it is the attorneys | |
|
 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Maybe I'm ignorant. I cant think of another phone exclusive to ATT, that everyone wants, other than the iPhone? | |
| |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: Maybe this refers to carrier-locks which are standard on all phones sold by American carriers. | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I know what you mean about "want"... but I see no difference in this case as AT&T has exclusive agreements with other providers on handsets... where else can you get the backflip? or - I can't remember this latest concoction's name is but I think it's also from Mototorla as well and "Exclusively from AT&T"...
All carriers have phones that are only available from them.. why is the iPhone any different? | |
| | |  GbcueAlmost P.E.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: Maybe said by fiberguy:I know what you mean about "want"... but I see no difference in this case as AT&T has exclusive agreements with other providers on handsets... where else can you get the backflip? or - I can't remember this latest concoction's name is but I think it's also from Mototorla as well and "Exclusively from AT&T"... All carriers have phones that are only available from them.. why is the iPhone any different? Who would want the backflip anyways
--
My Blog 2.0 | |
|
|  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Nice "the settlement doesn't cover the iPhone due to AT&T's exclusive arrangement with Apple"
NOW WHO'S LAUGHING | |
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
·voip.ms
·America Online
·Dish Network
| Re: Nice said by morbo:"the settlement doesn't cover the iPhone due to AT&T's exclusive arrangement with Apple" NOW WHO'S LAUGHING I am.
I didn't read that line & I guess the rep from ATT didn't either.
--
HP Pavilion a6750f (tweaked)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 * Ubuntu 10.04 64 * SuSe 11.2 64 * Mac OS Snow Leopard
"I could always tell you the truth, but would you believe?" | |
|
 RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | AT&T's exclusive arrangement with Apple quote:
the settlement doesn't cover the iPhone due to AT&T's exclusive arrangement with Apple
Which needs to end. It's not right that after I've fullfilled my end of the bargain (2 year contract), that I can't [legally] unlock my iPhone.
It's not about me using it with another provider, in the United States, but rather having the opportunity to use another sim card when I am traveling internationally.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us | |
|  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
1 edit | Scratch that.. Got my answer.... | |
|  gerglesGregPremium
join:2003-05-30
South San Francisco, CA | Wow, just wow. So, in other words, this actually makes it worse, as AT&T's previous SOP was to give out unlock codes for every phone but the iPhone after 90 days of service. Now they don't plan on giving out codes ever for any phone they had more than a 10-month exclusive on?
Say hello to the "New Phone Model 1234a", with lifetime AT&T exclusivity -- oh what, the T-Mobile version? No, silly, that's the New Phone Model 1234t. AT&T has an exclusive on the 1234a forever. So sorry, looks like you can't unlock it | |
| | | unlocked phone buy a unlocked phone case closed. | |
| | | | Re: unlocked phone The problem with buying a full retail unlocked phone is you still pay ATT the same monthly service fee. They dont pass on the "discount" of not having to subsidize your phone purchase. So you wind up paying more for the service. | |
| | | Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Cox VOIP
| Re: unlocked phone said by gqsmoov:The problem with buying a full retail unlocked phone is you still pay ATT the same monthly service fee. They dont pass on the "discount" of not having to subsidize your phone purchase. So you wind up paying more for the service. I have never had a phone under a contract I dont like the BIG cell phone carriers ie Verizon ATT etc they cost way to much for what you get I like a basic phone used for voice. | |
|
| | Link to recent announcement of ETF increases? While they have now agreed to this, the ETF will go up to ensure ATT covers their costs........ | |
| | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Link to recent announcement of ETF increases? said by Youngjm:While they have now agreed to this, the ETF will go up to ensure ATT covers their costs........ it already did, they followed Verizon and announce the higher fees a few days ago.
--
20" Imac 2.16mhz Core2Duo 2GB DDR2 ram FOR SALE inquire within. | |
|
| |
|
|
