So buy a non-US phone. You don't even have to travel. Just get one on eBay.
I've considered doing this as I have contacts in Thailand (where they are factory unlocked) that could ship an iPhone to me here. However, I've also inquired at multiple Apple stores in 3 states about service on an iPhone purchased in another country. They've all stated that if replacement of the phone is necessary it would be replaced with an AT&T carrier locked phone, or I could ship the phone back to the country of purchase.
I've considered doing this as I have contacts in Thailand (where they are factory unlocked) that could ship an iPhone to me here. However, I've also inquired at multiple Apple stores in 3 states about service on an iPhone purchased in another country. They've all stated that if replacement of the phone is necessary it would be replaced with an AT&T carrier locked phone, or I could ship the phone back to the country of purchase.
Hmm... that makes me think. What if I have a Hong Kong phone on a HK network, travel to the US, and my phone breaks, and I bring it in for service?
Carrier unlocks sound appealing, but they are circumventing a contract that you entered into willingly with your provider and Apple when you bought the phone. Some countries, like Canada, offer a choice of carriers (although each carrier pushes its own contracts, which are good for some and bad for others). Other countries, like the US, don't offer any such choice. But the people now unlocking their carrier settings are generally doing so in violation of a contract that, almost universally, allowed them to get a phone for far less money down (and possibly less money over the life of the contract) than they otherwise would have had to pay to Apple, the manufacturer, in order to get the phone.
Yes, this contractual relationship involves restrictions; but there are also mutual obligations, and you signed on. Once the contract is expired, do whatever you want to your phone (and your carrier should be encouraged to help you unlock it). But having entered into the contract willingly -- hard to deny -- cheating your way out of the deal should be recognized for what it is. If you don't mind being dishonest in this case, then so be it. But don't complain that Apple or AT&T has forced this on you or acted in bad faith. They haven't.
There's plenty of room to debate whether what you have is a good contract, but I can't see the point of whining about it. If it's a bad contract, don't enter into it and put pressure on the people selling it to change it. Such consumer revolts have worked elsewhere when people actually took a stand. Do you want Apple to sell unlocked phones? Fine. But then be prepared to spend the apx. $700 for a phone your telco hasn't seen the value in subsidizing for you.
But the people now unlocking their carrier settings are generally doing so in violation of a contract that, almost universally, allowed them to get a phone for far less money down (and possibly less money over the life of the contract) than they otherwise would have had to pay to Apple, the manufacturer, in order to get the phone.
What are you going on about?
If you cancel your contract early, you'll pay an ETF (early termination fee) for the privilege.
Carrier unlocks sound appealing, but they are circumventing a contract that you entered into willingly with your provider and Apple when you bought the phone. Some countries, like Canada, offer a choice of carriers (although each carrier pushes its own contracts, which are good for some and bad for others). Other countries, like the US, don't offer any such choice. But the people now unlocking their carrier settings are generally doing so in violation of a contract that, almost universally, allowed them to get a phone for far less money down (and possibly less money over the life of the contract) than they otherwise would have had to pay to Apple, the manufacturer, in order to get the phone.
Yes, this contractual relationship involves restrictions; but there are also mutual obligations, and you signed on. Once the contract is expired, do whatever you want to your phone (and your carrier should be encouraged to help you unlock it). But having entered into the contract willingly -- hard to deny -- cheating your way out of the deal should be recognized for what it is. If you don't mind being dishonest in this case, then so be it. But don't complain that Apple or AT&T has forced this on you or acted in bad faith. They haven't.
There's plenty of room to debate whether what you have is a good contract, but I can't see the point of whining about it. If it's a bad contract, don't enter into it and put pressure on the people selling it to change it. Such consumer revolts have worked elsewhere when people actually took a stand. Do you want Apple to sell unlocked phones? Fine. But then be prepared to spend the apx. $700 for a phone your telco hasn't seen the value in subsidizing for you.
Interesting. you aren't wrong on most of what you said, but unlocking doesn't mean you are no longer honouring the contract. People could unlock just to not have to roam when abroad. if people want to leave the contract early, they have to pay a fee, and if this is cheating what is it when the carriers change the terms on you mid-contract. You aren't renting the phone, it's yours. You should be able to do what you want with it, and accept the repercussions (warranty voided) when they arise — especially if early termination fees are almost the same (financially) as if you were to wait it out. I don't see how the carrier is owed more than that.
Carrier unlocks sound appealing, but they are circumventing a contract that you entered into willingly with your provider and Apple when you bought the phone. Some countries, like Canada, offer a choice of carriers (although each carrier pushes its own contracts, which are good for some and bad for others). Other countries, like the US, don't offer any such choice. But the people now unlocking their carrier settings are generally doing so in violation of a contract that, almost universally, allowed them to get a phone for far less money down (and possibly less money over the life of the contract) than they otherwise would have had to pay to Apple, the manufacturer, in order to get the phone.
Yes, this contractual relationship involves restrictions; but there are also mutual obligations, and you signed on. Once the contract is expired, do whatever you want to your phone (and your carrier should be encouraged to help you unlock it). But having entered into the contract willingly -- hard to deny -- cheating your way out of the deal should be recognized for what it is. If you don't mind being dishonest in this case, then so be it. But don't complain that Apple or AT&T has forced this on you or acted in bad faith. They haven't.
There's plenty of room to debate whether what you have is a good contract, but I can't see the point of whining about it. If it's a bad contract, don't enter into it and put pressure on the people selling it to change it. Such consumer revolts have worked elsewhere when people actually took a stand. Do you want Apple to sell unlocked phones? Fine. But then be prepared to spend the apx. $700 for a phone your telco hasn't seen the value in subsidizing for you.
What the hell are you talking about? Unlocking you phone doesn't mean you are not honouring your commitment to complete you contract. Unlocking your phone doesn't even mean you will use it on another carrier, just that you can. And guess what? Even if you do, you contract is still in place with your carrier and you still pay your monthly fees...unless you terminate early and pay the penalty WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH UNLOCKING IT!. You are free to terminate your contract whenever you please, as long as you pay the penalty, whether you are unlocked or not. In either case, you keep you phone, as you have paid off the subsidy either through the penalty or by completing your contract. At that point however, the person that unlocked their phone is free to choose from any carriers that can support it.
Being self righteous is better when you have a clue as to what you are talking about.
What the hell are you talking about? Unlocking you phone doesn't mean you are not honouring your commitment to complete you contract. Unlocking your phone doesn't even mean you will use it on another carrier, just that you can. And guess what? Even if you do, you contract is still in place with your carrier and you still pay your monthly fees...unless you terminate early and pay the penalty WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH UNLOCKING IT!. You are free to terminate your contract whenever you please, as long as you pay the penalty, whether you are unlocked or not. In either case, you keep you phone, as you have paid off the subsidy either through the penalty or by completing your contract. At that point however, the person that unlocked their phone is free to choose from any carriers that can support it.
Roaming out of your country and using another company's SIM chip on a network-unlocked phone denies revenue to your home carrier that you've contractually agreed to deliver. Again, there is ample room to debate whether this is a good provision -- but it's a contractual one, and you entered into the contract voluntarily. Presumably, this is why many, if not most, people wish to unlock their phones. If you are using another carrier to increase your data allotment without paying your carrier fees, the same applies. But in the rare case that you want a SIM unlock because your carrier does not offer data service somewhere where you need it, as in a rural locale, then I would agree that you might have good cause to unlock your phone. I very much doubt this is why most people are unlocking their phones. Note that the Library of Congress and the Copyright office assert that jail-breaking your phone is legal, but not unlocking it.
The biggest benefit is you have more options in terms of plans. For example, I live in Michigan. Apple only supports AT&T. That means if I have a locked iPhone I am at the mercy of the plans AT&T offers for the iPhone. AT&T makes you buy a data plan for example. Further, it's family plans stink.
I have an iPhone 3GS that I bought used (Apple has been fully paid for the phone, and so has AT&T). I just jail broke the phone using jailbreakme.com (free and took thirty seconds), and unlocked using ultrasnow (took a total of two minutes).
I am around wi-fi ninety percent of the time. I have no need for a data plan. So, I stick with T-Mobile which has much better family plans, customer service, and doesn't require a data plan.
I pay $69 a month for two phones. On AT&T to use my two iPhones would cost me over two hundred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant
What are some of the other advantages of unlocking your phone other than the carrier unlock? Or is that basically it?
Further, breaking a contract is not illegal. You just have to be willing to pay the damages, which sometimes are stipulated in the contract. Moreover, once the contract is over, carriers still keep the phone locked. There is no valid justification for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landnsea
Roaming out of your country and using another company's SIM chip on a network-unlocked phone denies revenue to your home carrier that you've contractually agreed to deliver. Again, there is ample room to debate whether this is a good provision -- but it's a contractual one, and you entered into the contract voluntarily. Presumably, this is why many, if not most, people wish to unlock their phones. If you are using another carrier to increase your data allotment without paying your carrier fees, the same applies. But in the rare case that you want a SIM unlock because your carrier does not offer data service somewhere where you need it, as in a rural locale, then I would agree that you might have good cause to unlock your phone. I very much doubt this is why most people are unlocking their phones. Note that the Library of Congress and the Copyright office assert that jail-breaking your phone is legal, but not unlocking it.
Roaming out of your country and using another company's SIM chip on a network-unlocked phone denies revenue to your home carrier that you've contractually agreed to deliver.
To agree to pay a provider to use minutes on YOUR phone that isn't using their towers and paying them for not using their service? That's incredibly silly, especially since they are not due those charges since one can't guarantee rooming minutes during any given month, that is not revenue they are anticipating. It's a service they provide (like overages or call forwarding) that is available but the subscriber ? unless signed to that service ? should not be expected to pay. Unless I sign up for an international rates package, my carriers shouldn't be expecting roaming minutes from me. So in that regard that is not revenue that is being taken from them. I could just as easily leave my phone at home and get a pay as you go.
Roaming out of your country and using another company's SIM chip on a network-unlocked phone denies revenue to your home carrier that you've contractually agreed to deliver. Again, there is ample room to debate whether this is a good provision -- but it's a contractual one, and you entered into the contract voluntarily. Presumably, this is why many, if not most, people wish to unlock their phones. If you are using another carrier to increase your data allotment without paying your carrier fees, the same applies. But in the rare case that you want a SIM unlock because your carrier does not offer data service somewhere where you need it, as in a rural locale, then I would agree that you might have good cause to unlock your phone. I very much doubt this is why most people are unlocking their phones. Note that the Library of Congress and the Copyright office assert that jail-breaking your phone is legal, but not unlocking it.
Wrong again. The LoC ruling specifically mentions unlocking as one of the allowances.
Quote:
Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.
In case you missed it, that means unlocking is allowed specifically in order to put it on another network. i.e. you could not be more wrong in your assertion. You might as well have said the LoC doesn't apply to smart phones.
You are misreading your contractual obligations to provide revenue for them. If you use their services, i.e. their SIM, when you travel, you are contractually obligated to pay roaming fees that they set or international plans that they provide. If you unlock and use another service, you are not breaking your contract, you are still paying your contractual monthly fee and you are still providing them with revenue.
It is very strange how people will argue, in the most bizarre, illogical and factually incorrect ways, in favour of being controlled. Is it Stockholm Syndrome?
Wrong again. The LoC ruling specifically mentions unlocking as one of the allowances.
In case you missed it, that means unlocking is allowed specifically in order to put it on another network. i.e. you could not be more wrong in your assertion. You might as well have said the LoC doesn't apply to smart phones.
You are misreading your contractual obligations to provide revenue for them. If you use their services, i.e. their SIM, when you travel, you are contractually obligated to pay roaming fees that they set or international plans that they provide. If you unlock and use another service, you are not breaking your contract, you are still paying your contractual monthly fee and you are still providing them with revenue.
It is very strange how people will argue, in the most bizarre, illogical and factually incorrect ways, in favour of being controlled. Is it Stockholm Syndrome?
I stand corrected. On the other hand, your suggestion that I because I am wrong I am in favor of being controlled is incorrect. In both your responses to my post, the ad hominem comments are neither necessary nor helpful.
I stand corrected. On the other hand, your suggestion that I because I am wrong I am in favor of being controlled is incorrect. In both your responses to my post, the ad hominem comments are neither necessary nor helpful.
Sorry, it wasn't meant to be insulting. Harsh perhaps, but when you call out everyone that is considering a perfectly legal activity as cheaters, you sort of invite harsh responses.
It is just strange that someone would try to argue against rights that they have, even to the point of bringing in factually inaccurate information to bolster the argument. It honestly seems like desire or need to defend those that seek to restrict and control you and to further look to provide reasons to concede to those restriction, which is very close to the TV definition of Stockholm Syndrome.
Sorry, it wasn't meant to be insulting. Harsh perhaps, but when you call out everyone that is considering a perfectly legal activity as cheaters, you sort of invite harsh responses.
It is just strange that someone would try to argue against rights that they have, even to the point of bringing in factually inaccurate information to bolster the argument. It honestly seems like desire or need to defend those that seek to restrict and control you and to further look to provide reasons to concede to those restriction, which is very close to the TV definition of Stockholm Syndrome.
Apology accepted. I didn't mean to bring in incorrect information; I was simply mistaken. The information you provide is helpful and allows me to reconsider unlocking my iPhone. I assume that these forums are for just that purpose: discussion.
Apology accepted. I didn't mean to bring in incorrect information; I was simply mistaken. The information you provide is helpful and allows me to reconsider unlocking my iPhone. I assume that these forums are for just that purpose: discussion.
Legality of unlocking aside, the only thing you commit to paying when you sign a contract with a carrier is the base cost of your plan (typically voice and data for the iPhone). You are generally free to change any additional features outside of base plan (often voice mail, caller id, etc) and you are in no way obligated to use the same SIM overseas and pay the ridiculous rates that come with it. As long as you are paying your monthly bill, they have nothing to complain about.
You were way to quick to side with the carrier, consumers have rights too.
It's nice that Apple warns us that jailbreaking/unlocking an iPhone could void the warranty. After all, Apple is not even giving us any warranty for their cell phones - the mobile phone carriers do.
It's nice that Apple warns us that jailbreaking/unlocking an iPhone could void the warranty. After all, Apple is not even giving us any warranty for their cell phones - the mobile phone carriers do.
no, Apple has a 1 year warranty that can be extended to 3 years. AT&T give no warranty on the iPhone.
Comments
As for cash, I avoid using it as much as possible. It's bulky and cumbersome to use.
I prefer gold bullion.
So buy a non-US phone. You don't even have to travel. Just get one on eBay.
I've considered doing this as I have contacts in Thailand (where they are factory unlocked) that could ship an iPhone to me here. However, I've also inquired at multiple Apple stores in 3 states about service on an iPhone purchased in another country. They've all stated that if replacement of the phone is necessary it would be replaced with an AT&T carrier locked phone, or I could ship the phone back to the country of purchase.
I've considered doing this as I have contacts in Thailand (where they are factory unlocked) that could ship an iPhone to me here. However, I've also inquired at multiple Apple stores in 3 states about service on an iPhone purchased in another country. They've all stated that if replacement of the phone is necessary it would be replaced with an AT&T carrier locked phone, or I could ship the phone back to the country of purchase.
Hmm... that makes me think. What if I have a Hong Kong phone on a HK network, travel to the US, and my phone breaks, and I bring it in for service?
Yes, this contractual relationship involves restrictions; but there are also mutual obligations, and you signed on. Once the contract is expired, do whatever you want to your phone (and your carrier should be encouraged to help you unlock it). But having entered into the contract willingly -- hard to deny -- cheating your way out of the deal should be recognized for what it is. If you don't mind being dishonest in this case, then so be it. But don't complain that Apple or AT&T has forced this on you or acted in bad faith. They haven't.
There's plenty of room to debate whether what you have is a good contract, but I can't see the point of whining about it. If it's a bad contract, don't enter into it and put pressure on the people selling it to change it. Such consumer revolts have worked elsewhere when people actually took a stand. Do you want Apple to sell unlocked phones? Fine. But then be prepared to spend the apx. $700 for a phone your telco hasn't seen the value in subsidizing for you.
But the people now unlocking their carrier settings are generally doing so in violation of a contract that, almost universally, allowed them to get a phone for far less money down (and possibly less money over the life of the contract) than they otherwise would have had to pay to Apple, the manufacturer, in order to get the phone.
If you cancel your contract early, you'll pay an ETF (early termination fee) for the privilege.
Carrier unlocks sound appealing, but they are circumventing a contract that you entered into willingly with your provider and Apple when you bought the phone. Some countries, like Canada, offer a choice of carriers (although each carrier pushes its own contracts, which are good for some and bad for others). Other countries, like the US, don't offer any such choice. But the people now unlocking their carrier settings are generally doing so in violation of a contract that, almost universally, allowed them to get a phone for far less money down (and possibly less money over the life of the contract) than they otherwise would have had to pay to Apple, the manufacturer, in order to get the phone.
Yes, this contractual relationship involves restrictions; but there are also mutual obligations, and you signed on. Once the contract is expired, do whatever you want to your phone (and your carrier should be encouraged to help you unlock it). But having entered into the contract willingly -- hard to deny -- cheating your way out of the deal should be recognized for what it is. If you don't mind being dishonest in this case, then so be it. But don't complain that Apple or AT&T has forced this on you or acted in bad faith. They haven't.
There's plenty of room to debate whether what you have is a good contract, but I can't see the point of whining about it. If it's a bad contract, don't enter into it and put pressure on the people selling it to change it. Such consumer revolts have worked elsewhere when people actually took a stand. Do you want Apple to sell unlocked phones? Fine. But then be prepared to spend the apx. $700 for a phone your telco hasn't seen the value in subsidizing for you.
Interesting. you aren't wrong on most of what you said, but unlocking doesn't mean you are no longer honouring the contract. People could unlock just to not have to roam when abroad. if people want to leave the contract early, they have to pay a fee, and if this is cheating what is it when the carriers change the terms on you mid-contract. You aren't renting the phone, it's yours. You should be able to do what you want with it, and accept the repercussions (warranty voided) when they arise — especially if early termination fees are almost the same (financially) as if you were to wait it out. I don't see how the carrier is owed more than that.
Carrier unlocks sound appealing, but they are circumventing a contract that you entered into willingly with your provider and Apple when you bought the phone. Some countries, like Canada, offer a choice of carriers (although each carrier pushes its own contracts, which are good for some and bad for others). Other countries, like the US, don't offer any such choice. But the people now unlocking their carrier settings are generally doing so in violation of a contract that, almost universally, allowed them to get a phone for far less money down (and possibly less money over the life of the contract) than they otherwise would have had to pay to Apple, the manufacturer, in order to get the phone.
Yes, this contractual relationship involves restrictions; but there are also mutual obligations, and you signed on. Once the contract is expired, do whatever you want to your phone (and your carrier should be encouraged to help you unlock it). But having entered into the contract willingly -- hard to deny -- cheating your way out of the deal should be recognized for what it is. If you don't mind being dishonest in this case, then so be it. But don't complain that Apple or AT&T has forced this on you or acted in bad faith. They haven't.
There's plenty of room to debate whether what you have is a good contract, but I can't see the point of whining about it. If it's a bad contract, don't enter into it and put pressure on the people selling it to change it. Such consumer revolts have worked elsewhere when people actually took a stand. Do you want Apple to sell unlocked phones? Fine. But then be prepared to spend the apx. $700 for a phone your telco hasn't seen the value in subsidizing for you.
What the hell are you talking about? Unlocking you phone doesn't mean you are not honouring your commitment to complete you contract. Unlocking your phone doesn't even mean you will use it on another carrier, just that you can. And guess what? Even if you do, you contract is still in place with your carrier and you still pay your monthly fees...unless you terminate early and pay the penalty WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH UNLOCKING IT!. You are free to terminate your contract whenever you please, as long as you pay the penalty, whether you are unlocked or not. In either case, you keep you phone, as you have paid off the subsidy either through the penalty or by completing your contract. At that point however, the person that unlocked their phone is free to choose from any carriers that can support it.
Being self righteous is better when you have a clue as to what you are talking about.
What the hell are you talking about? Unlocking you phone doesn't mean you are not honouring your commitment to complete you contract. Unlocking your phone doesn't even mean you will use it on another carrier, just that you can. And guess what? Even if you do, you contract is still in place with your carrier and you still pay your monthly fees...unless you terminate early and pay the penalty WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH UNLOCKING IT!. You are free to terminate your contract whenever you please, as long as you pay the penalty, whether you are unlocked or not. In either case, you keep you phone, as you have paid off the subsidy either through the penalty or by completing your contract. At that point however, the person that unlocked their phone is free to choose from any carriers that can support it.
Roaming out of your country and using another company's SIM chip on a network-unlocked phone denies revenue to your home carrier that you've contractually agreed to deliver. Again, there is ample room to debate whether this is a good provision -- but it's a contractual one, and you entered into the contract voluntarily. Presumably, this is why many, if not most, people wish to unlock their phones. If you are using another carrier to increase your data allotment without paying your carrier fees, the same applies. But in the rare case that you want a SIM unlock because your carrier does not offer data service somewhere where you need it, as in a rural locale, then I would agree that you might have good cause to unlock your phone. I very much doubt this is why most people are unlocking their phones. Note that the Library of Congress and the Copyright office assert that jail-breaking your phone is legal, but not unlocking it.
I have an iPhone 3GS that I bought used (Apple has been fully paid for the phone, and so has AT&T). I just jail broke the phone using jailbreakme.com (free and took thirty seconds), and unlocked using ultrasnow (took a total of two minutes).
I am around wi-fi ninety percent of the time. I have no need for a data plan. So, I stick with T-Mobile which has much better family plans, customer service, and doesn't require a data plan.
I pay $69 a month for two phones. On AT&T to use my two iPhones would cost me over two hundred.
What are some of the other advantages of unlocking your phone other than the carrier unlock? Or is that basically it?
I think I already know the disadvantages.
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/L...Statement.html
Further, breaking a contract is not illegal. You just have to be willing to pay the damages, which sometimes are stipulated in the contract. Moreover, once the contract is over, carriers still keep the phone locked. There is no valid justification for that.
Roaming out of your country and using another company's SIM chip on a network-unlocked phone denies revenue to your home carrier that you've contractually agreed to deliver. Again, there is ample room to debate whether this is a good provision -- but it's a contractual one, and you entered into the contract voluntarily. Presumably, this is why many, if not most, people wish to unlock their phones. If you are using another carrier to increase your data allotment without paying your carrier fees, the same applies. But in the rare case that you want a SIM unlock because your carrier does not offer data service somewhere where you need it, as in a rural locale, then I would agree that you might have good cause to unlock your phone. I very much doubt this is why most people are unlocking their phones. Note that the Library of Congress and the Copyright office assert that jail-breaking your phone is legal, but not unlocking it.
Roaming out of your country and using another company's SIM chip on a network-unlocked phone denies revenue to your home carrier that you've contractually agreed to deliver.
To agree to pay a provider to use minutes on YOUR phone that isn't using their towers and paying them for not using their service? That's incredibly silly, especially since they are not due those charges since one can't guarantee rooming minutes during any given month, that is not revenue they are anticipating. It's a service they provide (like overages or call forwarding) that is available but the subscriber ? unless signed to that service ? should not be expected to pay. Unless I sign up for an international rates package, my carriers shouldn't be expecting roaming minutes from me. So in that regard that is not revenue that is being taken from them. I could just as easily leave my phone at home and get a pay as you go.
Roaming out of your country and using another company's SIM chip on a network-unlocked phone denies revenue to your home carrier that you've contractually agreed to deliver. Again, there is ample room to debate whether this is a good provision -- but it's a contractual one, and you entered into the contract voluntarily. Presumably, this is why many, if not most, people wish to unlock their phones. If you are using another carrier to increase your data allotment without paying your carrier fees, the same applies. But in the rare case that you want a SIM unlock because your carrier does not offer data service somewhere where you need it, as in a rural locale, then I would agree that you might have good cause to unlock your phone. I very much doubt this is why most people are unlocking their phones. Note that the Library of Congress and the Copyright office assert that jail-breaking your phone is legal, but not unlocking it.
Wrong again. The LoC ruling specifically mentions unlocking as one of the allowances.
Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.
In case you missed it, that means unlocking is allowed specifically in order to put it on another network. i.e. you could not be more wrong in your assertion. You might as well have said the LoC doesn't apply to smart phones.
You are misreading your contractual obligations to provide revenue for them. If you use their services, i.e. their SIM, when you travel, you are contractually obligated to pay roaming fees that they set or international plans that they provide. If you unlock and use another service, you are not breaking your contract, you are still paying your contractual monthly fee and you are still providing them with revenue.
It is very strange how people will argue, in the most bizarre, illogical and factually incorrect ways, in favour of being controlled. Is it Stockholm Syndrome?
Wrong again. The LoC ruling specifically mentions unlocking as one of the allowances.
In case you missed it, that means unlocking is allowed specifically in order to put it on another network. i.e. you could not be more wrong in your assertion. You might as well have said the LoC doesn't apply to smart phones.
You are misreading your contractual obligations to provide revenue for them. If you use their services, i.e. their SIM, when you travel, you are contractually obligated to pay roaming fees that they set or international plans that they provide. If you unlock and use another service, you are not breaking your contract, you are still paying your contractual monthly fee and you are still providing them with revenue.
It is very strange how people will argue, in the most bizarre, illogical and factually incorrect ways, in favour of being controlled. Is it Stockholm Syndrome?
I stand corrected. On the other hand, your suggestion that I because I am wrong I am in favor of being controlled is incorrect. In both your responses to my post, the ad hominem comments are neither necessary nor helpful.
I stand corrected. On the other hand, your suggestion that I because I am wrong I am in favor of being controlled is incorrect. In both your responses to my post, the ad hominem comments are neither necessary nor helpful.
Sorry, it wasn't meant to be insulting. Harsh perhaps, but when you call out everyone that is considering a perfectly legal activity as cheaters, you sort of invite harsh responses.
It is just strange that someone would try to argue against rights that they have, even to the point of bringing in factually inaccurate information to bolster the argument. It honestly seems like desire or need to defend those that seek to restrict and control you and to further look to provide reasons to concede to those restriction, which is very close to the TV definition of Stockholm Syndrome.
Sorry, it wasn't meant to be insulting. Harsh perhaps, but when you call out everyone that is considering a perfectly legal activity as cheaters, you sort of invite harsh responses.
It is just strange that someone would try to argue against rights that they have, even to the point of bringing in factually inaccurate information to bolster the argument. It honestly seems like desire or need to defend those that seek to restrict and control you and to further look to provide reasons to concede to those restriction, which is very close to the TV definition of Stockholm Syndrome.
Apology accepted. I didn't mean to bring in incorrect information; I was simply mistaken. The information you provide is helpful and allows me to reconsider unlocking my iPhone. I assume that these forums are for just that purpose: discussion.
Apology accepted. I didn't mean to bring in incorrect information; I was simply mistaken. The information you provide is helpful and allows me to reconsider unlocking my iPhone. I assume that these forums are for just that purpose: discussion.
Legality of unlocking aside, the only thing you commit to paying when you sign a contract with a carrier is the base cost of your plan (typically voice and data for the iPhone). You are generally free to change any additional features outside of base plan (often voice mail, caller id, etc) and you are in no way obligated to use the same SIM overseas and pay the ridiculous rates that come with it. As long as you are paying your monthly bill, they have nothing to complain about.
You were way to quick to side with the carrier, consumers have rights too.
It's nice that Apple warns us that jailbreaking/unlocking an iPhone could void the warranty. After all, Apple is not even giving us any warranty for their cell phones - the mobile phone carriers do.
no, Apple has a 1 year warranty that can be extended to 3 years. AT&T give no warranty on the iPhone.