AT&T Refuses To Provide Unlock Codes, Feel Free To Complain To The FCC

AT&T is refusing to supply unlock codes for the iPhone, says reader George. He’s written in to ask other iPhone users to complain to the FCC and other pertinent regulatory bodies, AGs, and so on about AT&T:

Hey Guys,

Well, updated to 1.1.1 and no brick, but lost all my apps.

As a lark, I did call AT&T Wireless to request an official unlock code and was told “no way hombré.”

So, I filed the following complaint with the FCC, the State of Georgia’s Public Service Commission, and the State of Georgia Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs:

    Hello.

    On June 30, 2007, I purchased my cell phone directly from an AT&T Wireless Corporate Store, located in Roswell, GA.

    On June 30, 2007, I ported my telephone number, 404-XXX-XXXX, from T-Mobile, over to AT&T Wireless.

    I am a customer in good standing with AT&T.

    As it has been close to 90 days since I have had service with AT&T, and with an account in good standing, as is customary I was attempting to unlock my cellphone as I am planning some International travel.

    AT&T has informed me they are unable and unwilling to unlock my phone, which would force me to use AT&T’s International Roaming, while incurring excessive rates and charges.

    I am requesting that AT&T be required to supply and provide unlock codes for all phones that they sell. Arbitrarily forcing a customer to remain on a carrier’s network sounds eerily reminiscent of the “old AT&T” — a.k.a. “Ma Bell” — from the early 1980s.

    Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.

    Sincerely,
    [Redacted]
    Tel: [Redacted]

    Telephone number in question:
    [Redacted]

No mention that it’s an iPhone, because frankly it shouldn’t matter.

Take care and have a great weekend!

(Maybe others should file complaints with the FCC and their State’s PSC too.

Good idea, George. It really is more than an iPhone issue. Unlocked phones are good for consumers.

File A Complaint With The FCC
(Photo:cmorran123)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Major-General says:

    Write also to the Copyright Office.

  2. mikecolione says:

    The problem is, you are NOT REQUIRED to purchase a locked phone from a carrier. You can find hundreds of sites that sell unlocked phones by simply googling “unlocked cell phones”.

    Or, if you would rather purchase from a more reputable source, go to Nokia.com, Motorola.com, Samsung.com, etc. You get the picture.

    Wireless companies sign monstrously expensive deals to acquire exclusivity rights for a given phone, just to have you buy it and use it on a competitor… Kinda defeats the purpose of paying all that money, huh?

    I would be all for a test for the USA. All carriers should sell phones un-subsidized for one year to see how many people actually buy them at the FULL price. Sure, the iphone isn’t subsidized, but the price is also strictly controlled by Apple at this point. So you should be complaining to them, not AT&T. Afterall, thats who AT&T would have to request the code from.

  3. Amy Alkon says:

    I told ATT I have an account with (insert pretentious French accent here) Frahnnnnce Télécom (which I actually do — I have an Orange/France Télécom cellphone I bought around maybe 2000 or 2002 and use in Paris with mobicartes, ie, pay-as-you-go)…which, I guess, suggested to ATT that I didn’t just want the unlocking so I could hop to T-Mobile.

    Anyway, I have a Razr V3 in the USA, and I told the ATT rep that I wanted to be able to use it in France with my account there (and put my French SIM card in my groovier US phone). I guess this sounded plausible enough to them because they sent me the unlock code, although the rep said (or hinted, can’t remember which) that they didn’t have to.

  4. Amy Alkon says:

    P.S. As far as “monstrously expensive” deals, per the commenter above — you can get a no-subscrip phone via Orange in France for 39 eu. Calls in are free, you pay about 55 (euro) cents for calls out, and they give you a bunch of text messages. I spent 10 eu on a mobicarte (refill of minutes) for my phone last time I was there for a week. Didn’t even use the whole thing because I mostly just use it to phone friends if I’m late. In Paris, I use telerabais — a number that makes international calls the price of local calls. My boyfriend and I both spent a lot of time on the phone that week and we spent a total of 7 eu 20 on calls.

    NEVER use your USA calling card when you’re in Europe (your bill will likely look like a mortgage payment). Buy a calling card from Europe or use a service like Telerabais.

  5. Amy Alkon says:

    Sorry – forgot to say, telerabais is for calls from the apartment, not from your mobile.

  6. ptkdude says:

    @Major-General: The Copyright Office says it is not against the law (DMCA) for you to unlock your own phone, or to sell an unlocked phone. The Copyright Office did not say you have a right to unlock your phone, nor did it say your wireless carrier must provide the code to unlock your phone. It also did not say it was legal for you to tell other people how to unlock their phones.

  7. yg17 says:

    My understanding of the DMCA is that not only is it legal to unlock your cell phone, the carrier or manufacturer can’t stop you. They just don’t have to help you. But the latest iJoke update which either bricks or relocks phones certainly seems to be stopping people from unlocking. We were discussing the iPhone and the whole unlocking thing in my business law class during our discussion on intellectual property this week, and according to my instructor (who’s a lawyer so I guess he’s knowledgable on this stuff) someone could file a legitimate lawsuit against Apple and AT&T, and while I’m not a proponent of dumb lawsuits, I hope someone does. Because their latest actions are anti-consumer and anti-competitive.

    I’d like to see the US adopt laws that make cell phone locking illegal, much like a couple European countries have. There’s no reason I shouldn’t be able to do what I want with my phone. I paid for it, whether I paid full price, paid for it with a 2 year contract, or both (a la iPhone). Or at the very least, require carriers to unlock every cell phone they sell. I like T-Mobile’s policy. Have you paid your bill? Yep. Has it been 90 days since you last got an unlock code? Yep. Here’s an unlock code for your phone. I can go to a T-Mobile store right now (well, not right now, they’re closed at this hour, but you get the idea :D), buy a phone, come back home and immediately call customer service and get an unlock code. That’s a policy I can live with if we never outlaw cellphone locking completely.

    I really think I’m giving up Macs and going to Linux when it’s time for a new computer. Apple’s business practices lately have just disgusted me and are 100% anti-consumer. They’re turning into Microsoft. Fortunately, I already dumped AT&T and haven’t looked back. But I just got my new iMac in February and plan on keeping it for awhile.

  8. davere says:

    Unfortunately I don’t think they are required to unlock any phone with you. It’s legal for you to unlock it (ie. AT&T and Apple cannot sue you for it) but they are under no obligation to assist you.

    Having said that, I wish that Apple had released it unlocked so that you could choose AT&T or T-Mobile, but I guess that this way they get a monthly kick-back from AT&T and they truly get to control the whole “experience.”

  9. Alvis says:

    Whoa – capital-I international. That’s the seriously far away kind.

  10. QuantumRiff says:

    how is it an FCC issue if they don’t give you an unlock code? I have my phone through Sprint, so it is effectively always locked to them, since there are no CDMA providers in Europe. Just because they CAN, doesn’t mean they have to..

  11. RumorsDaily says:

    Not that you shouldn’t complain about this, but it’s not like AT&T lied to you or tricked you in any way. You knew what you were in for and you signed up for it. This is the same thing that other phone companies do and it’s not against the law. I’m not sure you letter to the FCC is going to be productive on this point.

  12. tcm22 says:

    So let me get this straight. A guy buys a phone which Apple markets as exclusive to the ATT network with full disclosure regarding all rates and the guy writes the FCC to complain? Let’s see — he was forced to buy the phone and sign the contract at gunpoint? Um, no. He was perfectly free to NOT buy the iPhone to begin with if he didn’t like the setup they offered. As it stands he’s demanding (via the FCC) that Apple support him in taking his business to another carrier.

    Somebody call the waaaaaambulance.

  13. hoo_foot says:

    iPhone customers are the biggest bunch of whiners. If you don’t want a locked phone, then don’t buy one that was advertised as such.

  14. Esquire99 says:

    So rather than accept the fact that you purchased a phone that can only be used on AT&T, you are wasting the FCC and a number of other Govt. agencies by writing them letters to complain about a choice you made. Apple and AT&T did not dupe you into buying the phone and then laugh as they told you it only works on AT&T. EVERYONE knew when the phone came out that it was locked to AT&T. Stop complaining and accept the consequences of your decision. People like you give Apple owners a bad name.

  15. Crazytree says:

    AT&T should send him a bottle of Masengil to wash out his chafed vagina.

  16. mikecolione says:

    @yg17:

    Apple may not be “intentially locking/bricking” phones. The phone software isn’t designed to work with 3rd party apps or another provider (in the USA. Apple also does not require you to update your phone (which is why your asked before the update is applied).

    If they allowed 3rd party apps to continue to work (or unlocked), they would be liable if your phone were to mess up (bad publicity), and they would be blamed if the phones started freezing, bad signal, battery, etc.

    So no, I don’t blame them if the software disables any 3rd party apps, or if the phones brick while being updated.

    The same thing occurs with Blackberry, Nokia and any other smart phone out in the market today. When you update to the newest firmware, you ALWAYS lose your content and your phone is returned to factory specs w/o games, programs you’ve downloaded.

  17. mikecolione says:

    @yg17:

    That is AT&T’s policy also. Here’s the requirements for an unlock code:

    1. Service at least 90 days.

    2. Current bill status.

    3. Capable phone (able to use internationally if that’s your reason).

    That said, AT&T doesn’t ‘store’ unlock codes. They have to go through the same process consumers do, which is why it usually takes a week to get the code. They have to request it from the manufacturer also.

  18. XTC46 says:

    @ crazytree

    you win the best comment award.

    Im so sick of hearing all the iPhone whiners right now. You bought a good phone, you knew the downsides of it at purchase (locked to AT&T, no third party apps, etc) now live with it. I Knew the downsides and decided that Id rather not have the phone if it meant being with AT&T. So you got a cool phone, and I didn’t. Next time make better choices.

  19. MercuryPDX says:

    Dear Friend with an iPhone,
    We told you when the iPhone was coming… It’s going to be expensive because it’s not subsidized by a carrier, and your only choice is locking in with AT&T for at least two years. Never mind that it all sounds like a major consumer butt pounding. You said it’s SOOooo worth it because it’s an iPhone!

    The phone comes out, and you were disenchanted about the lack of features that are “stock” in every other current phone. Never mind that the feature set was detailed on every gizmo/gadget site on the net. Apple and AT&T smile because now you are theirs.

    Then you get a 200-page phone bill that cost as much as your rent. Never mind that you were told it would be pricey. AT&T indiscriminately helps some people just to save PR face.

    Then the price dropped and you were outraged. Never mind that this is the known risk of early adoption. Apple gives you a partial refund to make up for it.

    Still not satisfied with the features we told you about, you unlocked your iPhone and installed third party apps. Never mind that Apple told you it violates the warranty and may screw your phone up. You wanted your iPhone to do things all the other phones did. You even revelled in the added bonus of a BIG “F.U.” to Apple.

    Then you hear the very first update is coming. Never mind that Apple announced that modded handsets will no longer work. New owners at least got a choice between a supported v1.1.1+ phone with some WiFi iTunes nonsense OR an unlocked phone with 3rd party apps that will never see a software update again without becoming a fancy paperweight. Alas, it was too late for you though. Apple said “Sorry, not my problem. I warned you not to do that.”

    Now, you’re angry because despite the fact that you were told that your iPhone would be locked with zero chance to get out of it for at least two years, you want us to help you get it unlocked by AT&T with the FCC?

    I’m sorry you’re in such a bad situation now, but please just listen to us. It’s hard for us to say this because we know you’re in love, but for the last time leave him already! He wasn’t good for you from the start and he won’t change no matter what he says or does to make you stay. Can’t you see that? He doesn’t love you. He’s only in it for your money. He always has, and always will hurt you. Quit making excuses for him, stand up for yourself, and just walk away. He’s SOOooo not worth it.

    Signed,
        -The friends you’ve been complaining and crying to since you two met

    ———————————————-
    I don’t remember who said it first, but it’s true… iPhone owners >are< the technological equivalent of battered wives.

  20. ascara says:

    I still am at a loss when people who bought the iPhone complain that it doesn’t work on other networks or do all the little other things they want. The specs on this phone were available to every man, woman, child, hamster, rock and blade of grass on the planet long before it hit the market. I looked at ads for it when the lines were forming, and seeing its slick and shiny presentation I knew there would be heartache. Prices always fall over time. Early adopters always pay more. It is as close to a law of the universe as you can find. Hunt down some of those people that bought the first VCRs and ask them how they felt a bit later when the devices dropped under a thousand dollars.

    As for the idea of iPhone users as battered wives, I wonder how many of those abused by Apple will go back when the iPhone version 2 comes out?

    I am just waiting for the first lawsuit of an iPhone user who claims that the stress of not being able to unlock their shiny status symbol/toy has given them post traumatic stress and diabetes.

  21. GISguy says:

    Recently I purchased 2 blackjacks from the ATT Premier site. I called to get both phones ulnocked and was told that it would void my warranty. The CSR said that since i’ll be putting anther carrier’s sim card in the phone it could possibly damage my phone, hence voiding my warranty. Sounds fishy.. I guess I have been Screwed,, or AT&T’d…

  22. mac-phisto says:

    @mikecolione: “That said, AT&T doesn’t ‘store’ unlock codes. They have to go through the same process consumers do, which is why it usually takes a week to get the code. They have to request it from the manufacturer also.”

    so very not true. i used to have a hotline to the department that handled unlocking that an agent mistakenly gave me when i worked for a cingular partner. i was able to unlock phones in <30 minutes & i used to do it for free for anyone who asked. i always had a problem with their extortive “world traveler” plan. their idea of cheap in many places is $2/minute or more.

    at&t tells you they need a fax requesting it, blah, blah, blah, takes weeks, blah, blah, blah. total smokescreen. i did it over the phone w/ at&t a couple dozen times.

    i’m pretty sure at&t builds their own lock codes into their os, so directly contacting the manufacturer gets you nowhere. never dealt with the iphone though, so things may be different there.

  23. mac-phisto says:

    @GISguy: total crap. your warranty is thru samsung, not at&t & samsung doesn’t care whose sim your using. it’s highly improbable that a sim will damage your phone.

    the only thing it may void is the at&t handset exchange program where you can actually deal directly with at&t on a warranty issue instead of having to deal with samsung.

  24. Critcol says:

    Y’know, as this site has become more popular, the comments have gotten far more bitter.

    What happened to constructive criticism? What happened to intelligent discussion?

    More and more often, comments are about people mocking someone else’s purchase and telling them they got what they paid for.

    If they’ve sent in a complaint to the consumerist, I’m betting they DIDN’T get what they paid for, hence the complaint.

  25. maevro says:

    I will say it again. I love AT&T but I will never buy a phone from them.

    I will never even consider using an iPhone until they shove a 3G radio in that badboy.

  26. RumorsDaily says:

    @Critcol: Ok, well you’ve read the complaint and the comments, what do you think he hasn’t gotten that he paid for?

  27. tcm22 says:

    @Critcol:
    CRITICOL wrote…”If they’ve sent in a complaint to the consumerist, I’m betting they DIDN’T get what they paid for, hence the complaint.”

    Here you are wrong. This site is overflowing with entitlement minded simpletons who revel in the notion that they are victims of corporate greed yet voluntarily continue to fork over their own cash and then demand more than they paid for after the fact. This article is a perfect example.

    1. Buy phone with fully disclosed capabilities and rates.
    2. Decides he wants more than what he voluntarily paid for in the first place
    3. Demands that the company give him something in addition to what was initially agreed on in the sales contract.
    4. Resorts to attempts at gov’t coercion when his other efforts at extortion fail.

    The answer is very simple. If the guy wants phone service overseas, he is fully capable of purchasing it via several means. He can use his iphone and pay the rates he agreed to in when he bought the thing, or he can purchase another service.

    The guy doesn’t just want overseas service, he wants something at a price he deems is “reasonable” but no one else is willing to offer. No free lunch folks.

  28. @Major-General: For what reason would you write to the copyright office

  29. Buran says:

    @mac-phisto: Number please? I don’t have an iPhone but I do want to unlock my phone that I use now. And I shouldn’t have to pay for that.

  30. Buran says:

    @tcm22: Actually, considering AT&T’s policy is to offer unlock codes after 90 days, it IS a perfectly valid complaint. Businesses screwing customers by breaking their own policies, necessitating contact to protection agencies, IS very much a postable issue.

  31. Buran says:

    @maevro: I want that and IM. Why is it that my Razr has an IM client and every other smartphone out there does and the “coolest phone ever” does not? No, I will not use a thirdparty IM client that will disappear every time I install a patch. And I am hearing impaired and it’s vitally important.

  32. Buran says:

    @MercuryPDX: I’m sorry you can’t wrap your head around the fact that AT&T is screwing the customer here by breaking its own policies which are supposed to kick in after 90 days, especially if the customer plans international travel.

  33. MercuryPDX says:

    @Buran: No, I get it. The customer bought the phone knowing that he would be stuck with it… locked to AT&T for at least 2 years. That was the agreement he signed up for.

    Now he expects them to change the details of the agreement and unlock the phone after ninety days (as if it were any other phone out there), and AT&T won’t do it.

    This is akin to buying a new car after being told by the manufacturer, TV news reporters, and several car magazines that you can ONLY use a specially formulated kind gas in it.

    90 days later you discover that the only gas station in town doesn’t SELL that gas, so you want the manufacturer to change your car to be just like all the other cars it and its competitors sell.

    The customer wanted the product [iPhone/Car] despite being told by the company he was buying it from that a sacrifice [Locked for 2 years/Special gas] was required.

    The fact that the company makes or supports other products [Motorola Razr/Normal gas car] is irrelevant. The customer’s want/need for the product made the tradeoff acceptable, so they bought it.

    The customer can’t change their mind. 90 days later the original contract they signed is still the original contract they signed. So what’s the problem?

  34. MercuryPDX says:

    @Buran: P.S. If after the 2 year contract the customer signed with AT&T lapses, and they still refuse to unlock his phone, he has a case. Until then, he’s stuck with it.

  35. cac67 says:

    BY MERCURYPDX AT 06:48 PM

    @Buran: P.S. If after the 2 year contract the customer signed with AT&T lapses, and they still refuse to unlock his phone, he has a case. Until then, he’s stuck with it.

    Why? Where in all the advertising did it say the iphone would only be locked for the duration of the contract? I’ll answer my own question for you. It didn’t. It just said you could only use it on att, period.

  36. FMulder says:

    It is a ridiculous idea that cell phone companies are doing consumers such a great favor offering ‘subsidized’ prices for cell phones, that we should feel ashamed if we actually want to have said phone unlocked.

    Excuse me? In exchange for giving me a discounted phone, they get me locked into a contract for a year or two for which I have to PAY them to free myself from, and most importantly the amount I pay to them each month to use that phone (which they often cripple in some way to their favor.)

    Looking at my monthly bill, all the fees added on, the various internet and sms package costs, the ridiculous monthly charges to enroll in ‘discounted’ international calling plans, etc. and I find that it is the company profiting at any point that I use such services, so by giving me a phone at a discount is a minimum concession to have me locked into such contracts.

    So what they give a subsidized phone? That is the LEAST to offer considering how long I’ve been with them, and how much my bills have been — both regular and those frequent upward fluctuations cause by work, etc.

    When I think of my cell bill, I find that I am the one doing the subsidizing.

    Because of lots of international friends, relatives, traveling, I have at times been somewhat lax with how I used my phone — especially when I can expense work related calls to my job. Those quick missed international calls that I had to call back immediately, etc.

    But I smacked myself back to sanity when I found my cell service degrading and listening to an At&T rep give me that subsidized phone spiel when I wanted to know why I had to tack on a new contract to my existing contract length just to get a blackberry curve.

    I pay how much per month in service but when I want to buy a new phone, I should feel grateful? The discount given DOES NOT equate to the cancellation fee I’d have to pay to get out of the new contract, plus the ‘upgrade fee,’ plus what I’d pay for using the darn thing. And OH, to get the turn-by-turn navigation she claims doesn’t exist on the phone without buying an additional bit of equipment, I’d also pay $99.00. But if I bought it from another company would GPS magically appear?

    So, wait, WHO is subsidizing WHO?

    Sorry for the rant, but those many of you have the same feelings…

  37. FMulder says:

    And oh, I did get my LG CU500 unlocked, either won’t buy the blackberry (if I ultimately decide to get one) from them or won’t be get it at the subsidized price. WON’T be signing a new contract with At&t, have skyped, discount calling carded, foreign serviced, wi-fi, no call, email, no call, sms’d, carrier-pigeoned, new Max-roamed (etc.) myself up and out of subsidizing At&T.

    Iphone caught my shiny-gadget loving eyes, but wasn’t shiny enough for the $$$ and further At&T angst.

  38. tcm22 says:

    @noasalira:
    They don’t “get you locked in”, you do it of your own free will.

    What you describe is a situation where you want a discounted phone under a given set of conditions that you then try to change after the fact. That’s not the way the system works. If you don’t like the deal they are offering, don’t buy the damn phone?

    Why is that so hard for people to figure out?

    I see quotes above about some AT&T policy. First off, they are not contractually bound by their own policies if they are superseded by the actual contract. Secondly, I suspect they specifically exempt the iphone from the policy. Lots of assertion on that point. Some actual evidence may help that case.

  39. Buran says:

    @cac67: Because AT&T has a policy that says they unlock phones after 90 days, and they are refusing to follow it, presumably so that they may extort high roaming fees. If you have a policy, stand by it, and be reasonable to people.

  40. FMulder says:

    @TCM22

    Of course it is your own free will, that isn’t at question, but they do design contract terms for their own benefit to scalp you if you try to leave. I noted my own actions in favor of free will. But perhaps by questioning the rules it opens a space for such contracts to be more beneficial of the consumer — after all they are actually a paying member of this contractual relationship right? Not all contracts are enforceable because they violate other established legal codes, right?

    And hey, maybe if phones were more freely unlocked, companies might try to provide better services and prices to keep customers, rather than rely on early termination fees, etc.?

    My point is why shouldn’t a ‘subsidized’ telephone be seen as some additional ‘gift’ by a cell phone company, rather than a barely fair concession in recognition that they have gotten you signed to a contract that you have to get out of — instead of the idea that if we want that phone unlocked we should feel guilty at such a thought because the company gave us a ‘subsidized phone?’

    At what point is everything crappy the cell phone company does not justified by “well, they gave you a subsidized phone?” What, did the cell companies pay ‘retail price’ for the phones they got? You think they don’t earn back that subsidy pretty quickly through those contracts?

    The point is, it is ridiculous to talk about these ‘subsidized phones’ as if they are some great gift from the cell companies for which they take such a financial hit, that we must fairly/stupidly/gratefully refrain from any further questioning of their policies. What?

    And sure, cell phone companies don’t give those phones under a certain set of conditions, and then change them later? Uhm, most bars? best service? Scroll around, talk to a few people, and you may find that cell companies aren’t all sugar and spice.

    Bad corporations and bad leaders are so successful because so many people are eager to serve as storm troopers for ‘proper order’ without question. They’ll defend bad corporate practices because it seems ‘orderly’ – yet we don’t nearly have enough people to stand up for ‘right’ in other areas of life.

  41. mikecolione says:

    @GISguy: Try again. That rep was mis-informed. The next rep will hopefully be more helpful.

    @mac-phisto: There used to be a direct number, and email for the stores to use. Now it has to go through customer service. A verbal request works, no fax needed. We do a good amount of unlock requests a week and most of them are unlocked fine within a week.

    @Buran: It’s not that they are breaking their own policy if the manufacturer (apple) doesn’t supply the unlock code.

    @noasalira: No one requires you to buy a subsidized phone. If you don’t want a contract, buy phones at the retail price, or from one of the many sites/stores that sell unlocked phones. Stop whining. You say it’s the least they can do to give you a cheaper phone because you’ve been with them so long. You want the cheaper prices on the phone, deal with the fact that it’s locked and your in a contract. You also made comment to ADVERTISING SLOGANS that the companies use. That’s the point of advertisements. Catch a consumers eye. If you ever buy anything solely from advertisements, I really feel for you. Always research what you buy and weigh the good verse the bad.

  42. nickmabry says:

    I have a quick question: Is there a distinction between contractual service and contractual service locking? In other words, just because a customer signed a two-year service agreement, are they legally restricted from using the subsidized phone through additional network billing plans (i.e. prepaid SIM in Europe)?

  43. Ratty says:

    AT&T and all other carriers get the unlock codes from the manufacturer. The one refusing is Apple. AT&T can’t hand out unlock codes that the manufacturer doesn’t provide.

  44. jbonatesta says:

    Attention FCC and FTC:

    AT&T practice to keep the iphone from the masses and force people to buy into a phone plan to be able to use the iphone is illegal.

    It amounts to a forced monopoly of a product and restriction of services.

    Apple has come up with a good product that should be available to all who want to buy it without restrictions on use. It is also clearly a case of discrimination The German government has overcome this problem Iphones are available unlocked in Germany.
    It needs to happen here and all over the World as well.

  45. d.Copperhead says:

    So anyway, Here’s my recent experience with AT&T and unlocking a cheap ($10 Refurb) “Nokia 2610b”. I need to use it with a foreign SIM card to take advantage of international roaming.

    So, I call ATT and explain the need to CSR – Ms. Rogers.

    At first she says it is impossible. Then comes back and says that it can’t be done. Then says I have to be a customer for 90 days per Printed GoPhone User Guide that came with the GoPhone.

    Printed GoPhone User Guide does not mention such restrictions in Terms of Service.

    Per Ms. Rogers, Online User Guide available general public does contain this policy. I ask for the URL and she suggests I use the search feature. I do the search and site returns “Server Error 504″.

    So I ask for the Restriction Code again. Then CSR puts me on hold, then comes back from talking to someone and says that Online User Guide does not contain such restrictions either.

    Per Ms. Rogers, Internal policy, however, has a clause that stipulates the wait period because ATT sells phones at the cost and needs to maintain all those phones locked for 90 days.

    Yet, there’s no mention in User Guide, Online User guide of “being a customer for the 90 day” requirement for GoPhone customers.

    So sad AT&T trains their employees to lie about restrictions, requirements, etc. I is a stinking refurb cheapo Nokia for goodness sake!

    Supervisor will call me within 24 hour period. To be continued after I log the call from “Supervisor”. :)