Emancipating the iPhone: From Across the Pond

[ajl1239]

Just wanted to let the community of people on this board who would like their iPhones emancipated from AT&T know exactly how we're getting ripped off based on the unlocking policies of the UK's largest carrier. When AT&T tells you that the phone can't be unlocked b/c of big mean Apple, here's proof that it's more just about big, mean AT&T:

Source for text below: http://shop.o2.co.uk/update/unlockmyiphone.html

Having trouble unlocking your iPhone?

Unlocking Apple iPhone

Pay Monthly and Business customers
Your iPhone 2G, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 can be unlocked at any time, free of charge. If you unlock your iPhone and put a non-O2 sim into it, you will still have to honour the remainder of the minimum term of your O2 contract.

Pay & Go customers
You can unlock your iPhone 2G, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 for a one-off £15 charge. The payment for this will come from your top up balance.

But if you unlock iPhone less than 12 months after you bought it, you'll lose the free Web & Wi-Fi Bolt On that we added for the first 12 months (if you have it).

What do I need to do?

First, complete the unlocking form. It will take up to 14 days for your iPhone to be unlocked. We'll send you a text to confirm the unlock request.

Then place a non-O2 sim into iPhone and connect to iTunes via a USB cable. iTunes will confirm that iPhone has been unlocked successfully.

[youngjm ACE - Master]

Thanks,

It really does not matter whose policy it is, there is no unlocking of ATT's iphones at this time.  Consisder though that you can buy an unlocked iPhone from Apple for a higher price.

[drumn_bass]

"When AT&T tells you that the phone can't be unlocked b/c of big mean Apple"

AT&T never said anything like that. All AT&T and Apple ever said is that iPhones will not be unlocked, they didn't provide any reasons why, and they don't have to.

[ajl1239]

Sorry, but not true -- ATT CSR routinely blame Apple, and then ATT, and then Apple -- and back and forth -- when trying "not" to provide the real reason for refusing to unlock an iPhone -- ATT is doing what's best for short-term gain. It's also irking enough people and hurting its reputation in the long-term. But, whatever pays for Randall Stephenson's yacht...

[dwill05]

Who cares whether it's Apple or ATT?  Does it really matter?  Bottom line is that US iPhones aren't being unlocked by (pick whoever).  So (whoever) is being greedy.  So what?  It's been that way for over 4 years and hasn't seemed to have had any impact on US iPhone sales and both companies have made tons of money selling locked iPhones even in light of what people consider a draconian policy.

People can choose not to do business with AT&T or Apple, or they can unlock the phone themselves, as it has always been.

[johninsj ACE - Professor]

Given that it's well known that AT&T iPhones are locked to AT&T, and that it's printed on the box they hand you when you buy it, I am still amazed people have a hard time grasping that AT&T iPhones are locked to AT&T.

It doesn't matter why, it just is.

[ajl1239]

I love the logic being presented here: ATT doesn't have to explain itself because it doesn't have to explain itself. ATT, indeed, should have to explain itself for engaging in an anti-consumer practice that is illegal in countries with more consumer-friendly laws relating to mobiles.

What is ATT afraid customers will do if they are liberated from its network? Shouldn't ATT have enough confidence in its product that it doesn't need to force people to stay with ATT?

[satchev]

Why are you coming here blasting AT&T because of what is illegal in other countries?  That is just insane!

There are no laws in the US that require carriers or phone manufacturers to unlock devices.  Until that changes, neither AT&T or Apple is required to provide an explanation.

Just get over yourself... no amount of babbling on your part here is going to change anything, frankly you just are not that important.

[youngjm ACE - Master]

---

ajl1239 wrote:

I love the logic being presented here: ATT doesn't have to explain itself because it doesn't have to explain itself. ATT, indeed, should have to explain itself for engaging in an anti-consumer practice that is illegal in countries with more consumer-friendly laws relating to mobiles.

What is ATT afraid customers will do if they are liberated from its network? Shouldn't ATT have enough confidence in its product that it doesn't need to force people to stay with ATT?

---

Not unlocking phones is not illegal here in the US.  If we want that changed, going after ATT is not going to help so it is a futile effort we have our wonderful government:-)  ATT does not always make policy based on what happens here.  It is not a bad thing for a company to make money and who cares what they are afraid of?  With Competion, if there policies are so bad, the 17 million plus users would go elsewhere.  Unti there is a mass exodus due to a policy, it may not change.

Again there is nothting wrong with companies making reasonable profits based on what we as consumers are willing to pay for a service.  They need to pay investors and they need to have money to invest in the future!  I am not outright defending ATT but our overall system that allows people and business to offer products and services and for us as consumers to choose who we wish to do business with.

[ajl1239]

Agreed, we need to go after politicians that allow mega corporations to abuse customers.

ATT is not very smart about this -- all they do is irk people for life who may have to travel abroad. When they get back, it'll be a snowball's chance in h.e.double.hockey.sticks. that they choose to return to ATT.

[Per Guidelines:  Keep it Relevant and Appropriate].

[wingrider01 ACE - Expert]

---

ajl1239 wrote:

Agreed, we need to go after politicians that allow mega corporations to abuse customers.

ATT is not very smart about this -- all they do is irk people for life who may have to travel abroad. When they get back, it'll be a snowball's chance in h.e.double.hockey.sticks. that they choose to return to ATT.

No doubt ATT will be sued in the future re: unlocking phones.

---

Use google, that has already occurred, the iphone is exempt

[youngjm ACE - Master]

---

ajl1239 wrote:

Agreed, we need to go after politicians that allow mega corporations to abuse customers.

ATT is not very smart about this -- all they do is irk people for life who may have to travel abroad. When they get back, it'll be a snowball's chance in h.e.double.hockey.sticks. that they choose to return to ATT.

[Per Guidelines:  Keep it Relevant and Appropriate].

---

Actually I don't agree, my comment about the Government is more sarcastic.  The last thing I really want is the government getting more involved here.  Very little good has come of their actions and they have more important things to focus on than unlocking my iPhone.  There are ways to unlock and iPhone and and so what if it is not ATT and Apple.  After all I can choose a different carrier and I do not need to Choose an iPhone!

BTW, I do not have my iPHone unlocked nor do I see a need for me.  I will not argue that others do have a need but they do have other avenues to accomplish that including buying the more expensive version that Apple will sell if you need an unlocked iPHone.  I personally keep two unlocked Nokia's for just such a purpose.  Great phones the 6200 and the 6230.  both are easy to unlock and the process was free online.  And in these cases ATT would have provided me with the codes if I so wished them to.

[youngjm ACE - Master]

So here is a thought; that bill to require iPhones to be unlocked will sound great but impossible to meet the guidelines. On the bright side a company that sells bananas and is headquartered in San Fransisico will get a great tax break that only they qualify for. So follow the advice from Indiana Jones and the last Crusade - choose wisely!

[rant off - now back to helping customers like me solve their problems]

[johninsj ACE - Professor]

---

ajl1239 wrote:

I love the logic being presented here: ATT doesn't have to explain itself because it doesn't have to explain itself. ATT, indeed, should have to explain itself for engaging in an anti-consumer practice that is illegal in countries with more consumer-friendly laws relating to mobiles.

What is ATT afraid customers will do if they are liberated from its network? Shouldn't ATT have enough confidence in its product that it doesn't need to force people to stay with ATT?

---

There isn't any logic being presented. The iPhones sold by AT&T are simlocked to AT&T.That's a statement, not a logical construct.

You have other choices now, you can purchase, from Apple, iPhone 4s that are not simlocked.

Buy that if that's what you want.

Where there was NO other options, it has been widely discussed since 2007 when the first iPhone came out how the iPhones sold for/by AT&T were simlocked to AT&T. It's also printed right on the box.

I still don't see what the issue is. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Seems simple.

[wireless-user]

---

ajl1239 wrote:

Sorry, but not true -- ATT CSR routinely blame Apple, and then ATT, and then Apple -- and back and forth -- when trying "not" to provide the real reason for refusing to unlock an iPhone -- ATT is doing what's best for short-term gain. It's also irking enough people and hurting its reputation in the long-term. But, whatever pays for Randall Stephenson's yacht...

---

You are swimming upstream.

The usual AT&T fan boys pop out of the woodwork and defend AT&T's practices simply by saying "read the terms of service and the contract".  Of course, they may be right,  but what they seem to ignore are AT&T's anti-consumer policies.  My iPhone 3G is obsolete, but AT&T won't unlock.  We have long held the AT&T service beyond the requisite 2 years, yet they won't unlock. All my iPhones are software unlocked, so AT&T isn't losing anything with me other than rip-off overseas roaming charges.

Soon Sprint will have the iPhone and it's said to be a Sprint network and GSM unlocked device. If so, I would expect to see people jumping from AT&T.   

The unlocked Atrix solution also appears to be a sweet solution.

{Please keep it courteous}

[wingrider01 ACE - Expert]

---

wireless-user wrote:

---

ajl1239 wrote:

Sorry, but not true -- ATT CSR routinely blame Apple, and then ATT, and then Apple -- and back and forth -- when trying "not" to provide the real reason for refusing to unlock an iPhone -- ATT is doing what's best for short-term gain. It's also irking enough people and hurting its reputation in the long-term. But, whatever pays for Randall Stephenson's yacht...

---

You are swimming upstream.

The usual AT&T fan boys pop out of the woodwork and defend AT&T's practices simply by saying "read the terms of service and the contract".  Of course, they may be right,  but what they seem to ignore are AT&T's anti-consumer policies.  My iPhone 3G is obsolete, but AT&T won't unlock.  We have long held the AT&T service beyond the requisite 2 years, yet they won't unlock. All my iPhones are software unlocked, so AT&T isn't losing anything with me other than rip-off overseas roaming charges.

Soon Sprint will have the iPhone and it's said to be a Sprint network and GSM unlocked device. If so, I would expect to see people jumping from AT&T.   

The unlocked Atrix solution also appears to be a sweet solution.

{Please keep it courteous}

---

Sprint is CDMA, their disaster purchase of Nextel is IDEN, not sure how they are going to handle a GSM phone.

[dwill05]

---

wireless-user wrote:

---

ajl1239 wrote:

Sorry, but not true -- ATT CSR routinely blame Apple, and then ATT, and then Apple -- and back and forth -- when trying "not" to provide the real reason for refusing to unlock an iPhone -- ATT is doing what's best for short-term gain. It's also irking enough people and hurting its reputation in the long-term. But, whatever pays for Randall Stephenson's yacht...

---

You are swimming upstream.

The usual AT&T fan boys pop out of the woodwork and defend AT&T's practices simply by saying "read the terms of service and the contract".  Of course, they may be right,  but what they seem to ignore are AT&T's anti-consumer policies.  My iPhone 3G is obsolete, but AT&T won't unlock.  We have long held the AT&T service beyond the requisite 2 years, yet they won't unlock. All my iPhones are software unlocked, so AT&T isn't losing anything with me other than rip-off overseas roaming charges.

Soon Sprint will have the iPhone and it's said to be a Sprint network and GSM unlocked device. If so, I would expect to see people jumping from AT&T.   

The unlocked Atrix solution also appears to be a sweet solution.

{Please keep it courteous}

---

Not "they may be right".  They are right.  Those are AT&T's policies.  I don't think anyone here is saying it's right or wrong.  It's just telling the way that it is.  OK, AT&T may be anti-consumer as you say.  So what?  Saying it over and over in every thread adds no value and doesn't change the fact that they are locked and currently neither AT&T nor Apple will unlock them.  Facts are, until very recently all US iPhones were sold locked, including the 3G you bought.  The iPhone has been around long enough (over 4 years) that it's difficult to believe many people still don't know that, and if you bought it knowing full well that it was locked, there is no indication or promise, implied or otherwise, that it would ever be unlocked.  So what's the issue?  That people think it's unfair?  OK, it may well be.  In that case, go get your iPhone unlocked yourself.  Leave AT&T.  No one will stop you.  And no one forced anyone to buy a locked iPhone, or buy an iPhone at all.  People who signed up with AT&T and bought the iPhone under AT&T's conditions made their own chocie and should accept the consequences of their owndecision.

As far as Sprint getting the phone and people leaving, people swore that once Verizon got the iPhone, AT&T would collapse of it's own inner rottenesss.  Well, that didn't happen.  While it seems that a lot of Verizon customers bought the phone, the number of people who dumped AT&T and ran over to Verizon doesn't seem that great.  At least, not enough to make any real difference.  Maybe it will happen with Sprint.  More likely, it will not.

Not everyone who simply states the facts is a "fan boy".  They are just telling it like it is. 

[pamelaz]

I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to post your comments and opinions related to this topic. This topic has been thoroughly discussed and will now be closed. I would like to remind all users to always follow the Guidelines when responding.  Thanks.