Lawsuit: T-Mo phone unlocking

I guess this goes hand in hand with
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=mobile_and_wireless&articleId=9042218&taxonomyId=15
regarding the 2.6 billion civil lawsuit against AT&T and APPLE about the iPHONE
 
Oh my goodness. They should just make everything prepaid and phones aren't discounted. That way consumers can see why they have the rules they have. Maybe sprints 3 year contract and the 2 year contracts that all carriers have. I think that its crap ~via BB (wap.rabroad.com)~
 
haven't all wireless companies now been force to adjust the $200 early termination to be prorated anyway? like if you have 3 months left on contract and cancel it isn't $200?
 
T-Mobile's the best when it comes to unlocking phones. 90 days into your contract, you can get it unlocked. But at least it's not like Verizon where they disable Bluetooth or GPS.
 
~via BB (wap.rabroad.com)~

What's the point in a carrier locking a phone they support?

Couldn't they have the potential to sell more if someone wanted to buy a phone from carrier #1(who has the latest and greatest phone) that worked with the plan they have with carrier #2 (who doesn't carry this snazzy device)

I'd think they would want to maximize profits!!!
 
I should think if companies offered this alternative, non-discounted phones, in the open, then market operation would produce appropriate phone prices. I cannot believe the current ones are! Apple may be an extreme example, tacking on an extra $200 to an already high price... but who says this sort of thing isn't more pervasive? How can one know?

As it stands, "subsidy" amounts to paying for the phone over the length of the contract, in installments; i.e. an undisclosed loan of never-stated interest or total outlay.

Friends in Europe tell me such tie-ins tend to be illegal over there. For good reason; whatever subverts the open market I consider suspect. Of course Microsoft is also in trouble over there, for the preposterous (but money-making) idea of bundling browsers or media players with an Operating System, for crying out loud; like trying to buy a car and having it come with a vacuum cleaner, an armchair and a timeshare rental, to be paid for in one opaque price!

For some reason people over here have been complacent with this sort of thing. Maybe it is time we all woke up?!
 
To be fair, it is not reasonable to expect T-Mobile, or any individual company, to act unilaterally and do away with ETF, persistent locks, etc. It might be good if we get a Court decision on the matter, that would cut the knot by forcing everybody to start doing so.
 
i would be cool with companies not charging etf's... i also have a uqique viewpoint that there should be no discounts or promo prices on handsets... pay full price and people might take better care of their phones, also keep them from threating to go elsewhere for the free phone...

back to reality... ETFS will prevail
 
thats how it is in most of the world and you get "more bang for your buck." the phones themselves are relatively cheap to make except they are overpriced to make a profit.
 
Give the free phone and the reduction---when you leave early, you either have choice a: give the phone back, in damage free condition or b: pay for the prorated cost of the phone rated against how long you had the contract.
 
in my opinion i think it would be great if you had one store that sold phones at full cost and one store that sold service. from working in the wireless industry i notice that a lot of people are always looking for a great deal, and the company they are with are the best until we can't give them what they are looking for. I've noticed that because when I sell I won't wheel and deal with customers. I tell it like it is. This is what you see this s what you get, you don't go to wal mart and tell them i've been shopping here for years i shuld get this tv for free, so why do it here...but people don't understand. I've had a lot of people wal but many who still stayed. I just think that this is just getting insane. I think if all the carriers did everything the way the consumer wanted it then we wouldn't have any cell phone companies, service wouldn't be good at all becuase their would be no funding for towers, for new services, or anything, and we would all be carrying around like the basic phone with no features....man this is a very touchy subject for me...lol
 
"(b)" sounds more like it, Sasha, as "(a)" is not always easy or expedient -- and what then, a secondary market in "pre-owned cell phones" ?! I say, it is simple: all these tie-ins, loss leaders and contract clauses only obscure the picture.

Physical phones cost something, but much much less than current nominal prices -- hey, asking price for my BlackBerry was higher than for the laptop I'm writing on . Providing phone, wifi, internet access etc. also costs something, but is remarkably elastic -- witness the last-ditch offers when you decide to close and account and move to a competitor. What I and others in this thread are saying is, let us keep the two separate, independent, and out in the open, where compertition may work its magic.

BTW, I didn't pay almost $400 for my Berry. Apparently no one else did either (thank you!); it ended up on sale at Comp USA and I bought it for $100 with NO obligations attached. See?
 
Back
Top