7 ms·

But you're not breaking your agreement. You're still paying your monthly bill like a good customer. You're just replacing the SIM for a couple weeks. You cou

But you're not breaking your agreement. You're still paying your monthly bill like a good customer. You're just replacing the SIM for a couple weeks. You could certainly achieve the same result by buying a second phone just for traveling. But you already have a phone. In the rest of the world (and in the US until tomorrow), that's all the phones you need.

therandomguy 14y ago
You are not paying the roaming charges if you unlock your phone. Thus breaking your agreement.
- arkem 14y ago
  You're also not using their service. Is turning your phone off and leaving it in a drawer for a month also breaking the agreement?
  - therandomguy 14y ago
    If you turn off the phone and leave it in a drawer you will pay the minimum fees. The phone companies are aiming for the maximum. That is having you go over the limits, pay roaming etc. By letting you unlock the phone it opens the door for always receiving only the minimum. This is what they want to avoid.
    - thisone 14y ago
      next big thing: Credit card companies lobby to make debit cards illegal Yes they want you to overspend. Their revenue strategy should not depend on it.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    You could argue that because the phone is locked to AT&T's network, part of the agreement is that you'll use AT&T's service if you take the phone abroad. Basically, by selling a phone that only works on its network, AT&T is bargaining for the right to any international usage of that particular phone, if there is any. This is a very common contractual scenario--you get a discount for agreeing to only use one particular vendor, to the extent that you have a need for the particular kind of service they provide.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - bhups 14y ago
    Well, not only are you not using their service, you're using somebody else's service when theirs is available. As per your binding contract, you agree to only use their service in return for getting the phone at a subsidized price. Their incentive to charge you less for the handset (incurring a loss on the sale) is that you agree to guarantee doing business with them. And if that's a problem, unlocked phones are still always an option.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      "As per your binding contract, you agree to only use their service in return for getting the phone at a subsidized price." You mistakenly believe that contracts are in perpetuity.
- marquis 14y ago
  You're suggesting Protectionism. An industry won't innovate or provide realistic pricing based on their actual costs, so you suggest we protect their income through artificial means. Sure, I'd love some protectionism - how big do I have to be before the government will invent some laws for me to make sure you can only use my service, and not yours?
  - therandomguy 14y ago
    Honestly I'm not suggesting anything. All I'm saying is that this contract is optional. People can buy full price and say fuck-you to the contract. In fact I have gotten iPhones cheaper from AT&T by buying locked and immediately buying out the contract than buying unlocked from Apple.
    - marquis 14y ago
      >In fact I have gotten iPhones cheaper from AT&T by buying locked In which case I'm sure we'd all consider it reasonable to first ensure AT&T covers it's cost by increasing its contract buyout amount. We're talking here about the price of roaming being artificially high. You step across the border and come back to an inflated bill because of termination 'agreements' between providers.
tspike 14y ago
When I went traveling, I called T-Mobile and they provided me an unlock code without any bellyaching.
- SwellJoe 14y ago
  It took me several days to get an unlock code from T-Mobile, for a phone I'd paid for unsubsidized. And, they make a big deal out of the process, and make a lot of noise about possibly being unable to provide unlock codes if they don't have them. That's not to say T-Mobile isn't better than some other carriers. As I understand it, they are. But, I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my phone, that I paid $600 for, in Mexico for a few weeks, while I continue to pay for my US service. Making unlocking a phone yourself illegal is anti-consumer and pro-corporate in ways that I find extremely distasteful and it makes me angry that the US state serves corporate interests so much more enthusiastically than individual interests.
  - sinak 14y ago
    ----- I want to fight this ----- HN, my brother is just about to relaunch an unlocking site I made in 2002 (mockup here: http://j.mp/WRfm6A http://j.mp/WRfm6A). I really want to help him fight this ruling. I'm guessing that petitioning the librarian is the best idea. Any ideas or thoughts on how to go about this would be very, very much appreciated. And if anyone's willing to help, email me (email in profile).
  - zem 14y ago
    if you paid for the phone unsubsidised, why was it even locked in the first place?
    - SwellJoe 14y ago
      They are locked, by default. I bought it in a T-Mobile store, because my Nexus 1 died while I was travelling and needed something quick (it's an HTC Sensation 4G, which is the worst phone I've owned, possibly ever). Maybe they'll unlock it immediately if you ask them to, I dunno.
    - 14y ago
Terretta 14y ago
> You could certainly achieve the same result by buying a second phone just for traveling. But you already have a phone. In the rest of the world (and in the US until tomorrow), that's all the phones you need. If you got your phone subsidized, then no, you don't have a phone. You don't get to unlock this not-paid-for phone the same way you don't get to change out the drive train on a leased car. At the end of the lease, after the dollar buyout, go wild. After your contract is over, unlock away. It's yours, do as you wish. I believe the carrier owns the phone until you've satisfied your subsidy contract. Similarly, I believe an unsubsidized phone should come unlocked.
- pasbesoin 14y ago
  I believe Jason's point is that you're still paying off the phone subsidy. Nothing's changed, as far as that's concerned. You may be avoiding exorbitant surcharges, such as roaming fees. Well... why are those surcharges so exorbitant? Pay through the arse. Or toss another disposable phone into a landfill. People are starting to think that "some law" doesn't necessarily make it "right".
- __david__ 14y ago
  No, the carrier does not "own your phone"--they're taking a risk that you'll abide by the contract. Even if you get out of your contract early, you have to pay a termination fee, which is effectively the remaining part of your carrier subsidy. AT&T is going to get their money one way or another. Also, going to Europe for 2 weeks doesn't mean you stopped paying your AT&T bill for those weeks, either. It's perfectly reasonable to expect your phone to not be carrier locked.
  - Terretta 14y ago
    I wasn't clear. I didn't mean the carrier literally owns your phone. I prefixed with "I believe" intending to convey how it seems to work, not the technical fact. I should have written, "It's as though the carrier owns your phone".
    - kelnos 14y ago

therandomguy 14y ago

You are not paying the roaming charges if you unlock your phone. Thus breaking your agreement.

arkem 14y ago
You're also not using their service. Is turning your phone off and leaving it in a drawer for a month also breaking the agreement?
- therandomguy 14y ago
  If you turn off the phone and leave it in a drawer you will pay the minimum fees. The phone companies are aiming for the maximum. That is having you go over the limits, pay roaming etc. By letting you unlock the phone it opens the door for always receiving only the minimum. This is what they want to avoid.
  - thisone 14y ago
    next big thing: Credit card companies lobby to make debit cards illegal Yes they want you to overspend. Their revenue strategy should not depend on it.
- rayiner 14y ago
  You could argue that because the phone is locked to AT&T's network, part of the agreement is that you'll use AT&T's service if you take the phone abroad. Basically, by selling a phone that only works on its network, AT&T is bargaining for the right to any international usage of that particular phone, if there is any. This is a very common contractual scenario--you get a discount for agreeing to only use one particular vendor, to the extent that you have a need for the particular kind of service they provide.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- bhups 14y ago
  Well, not only are you not using their service, you're using somebody else's service when theirs is available. As per your binding contract, you agree to only use their service in return for getting the phone at a subsidized price. Their incentive to charge you less for the handset (incurring a loss on the sale) is that you agree to guarantee doing business with them. And if that's a problem, unlocked phones are still always an option.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "As per your binding contract, you agree to only use their service in return for getting the phone at a subsidized price." You mistakenly believe that contracts are in perpetuity.
marquis 14y ago
You're suggesting Protectionism. An industry won't innovate or provide realistic pricing based on their actual costs, so you suggest we protect their income through artificial means. Sure, I'd love some protectionism - how big do I have to be before the government will invent some laws for me to make sure you can only use my service, and not yours?
- therandomguy 14y ago
  Honestly I'm not suggesting anything. All I'm saying is that this contract is optional. People can buy full price and say fuck-you to the contract. In fact I have gotten iPhones cheaper from AT&T by buying locked and immediately buying out the contract than buying unlocked from Apple.
  - marquis 14y ago
    >In fact I have gotten iPhones cheaper from AT&T by buying locked In which case I'm sure we'd all consider it reasonable to first ensure AT&T covers it's cost by increasing its contract buyout amount. We're talking here about the price of roaming being artificially high. You step across the border and come back to an inflated bill because of termination 'agreements' between providers.

tspike 14y ago

When I went traveling, I called T-Mobile and they provided me an unlock code without any bellyaching.

SwellJoe 14y ago
It took me several days to get an unlock code from T-Mobile, for a phone I'd paid for unsubsidized. And, they make a big deal out of the process, and make a lot of noise about possibly being unable to provide unlock codes if they don't have them. That's not to say T-Mobile isn't better than some other carriers. As I understand it, they are. But, I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my phone, that I paid $600 for, in Mexico for a few weeks, while I continue to pay for my US service. Making unlocking a phone yourself illegal is anti-consumer and pro-corporate in ways that I find extremely distasteful and it makes me angry that the US state serves corporate interests so much more enthusiastically than individual interests.
- sinak 14y ago
  ----- I want to fight this ----- HN, my brother is just about to relaunch an unlocking site I made in 2002 (mockup here: http://j.mp/WRfm6A http://j.mp/WRfm6A). I really want to help him fight this ruling. I'm guessing that petitioning the librarian is the best idea. Any ideas or thoughts on how to go about this would be very, very much appreciated. And if anyone's willing to help, email me (email in profile).
- zem 14y ago
  if you paid for the phone unsubsidised, why was it even locked in the first place?
  - SwellJoe 14y ago
    They are locked, by default. I bought it in a T-Mobile store, because my Nexus 1 died while I was travelling and needed something quick (it's an HTC Sensation 4G, which is the worst phone I've owned, possibly ever). Maybe they'll unlock it immediately if you ask them to, I dunno.
  - 14y ago

Terretta 14y ago

> You could certainly achieve the same result by buying a second phone just for traveling. But you already have a phone. In the rest of the world (and in the US until tomorrow), that's all the phones you need. If you got your phone subsidized, then no, you don't have a phone. You don't get to unlock this not-paid-for phone the same way you don't get to change out the drive train on a leased car. At the end of the lease, after the dollar buyout, go wild. After your contract is over, unlock away. It's yours, do as you wish. I believe the carrier owns the phone until you've satisfied your subsidy contract. Similarly, I believe an unsubsidized phone should come unlocked.

pasbesoin 14y ago
I believe Jason's point is that you're still paying off the phone subsidy. Nothing's changed, as far as that's concerned. You may be avoiding exorbitant surcharges, such as roaming fees. Well... why are those surcharges so exorbitant? Pay through the arse. Or toss another disposable phone into a landfill. People are starting to think that "some law" doesn't necessarily make it "right".
__david__ 14y ago
No, the carrier does not "own your phone"--they're taking a risk that you'll abide by the contract. Even if you get out of your contract early, you have to pay a termination fee, which is effectively the remaining part of your carrier subsidy. AT&T is going to get their money one way or another. Also, going to Europe for 2 weeks doesn't mean you stopped paying your AT&T bill for those weeks, either. It's perfectly reasonable to expect your phone to not be carrier locked.
- Terretta 14y ago
  I wasn't clear. I didn't mean the carrier literally owns your phone. I prefixed with "I believe" intending to convey how it seems to work, not the technical fact. I should have written, "It's as though the carrier owns your phone".
  - kelnos 14y ago