New iPhone class action filed in NY over iPhone SIM lock-in, international roaming fees

join the organistion
as member please throught exchange idea

As I understand it, in the US, you can get the unlock code for free or "nominal fee" once you own the phone. However, 99% of the time, you don't own your phone until your contract has finished. For AT&T, this is now 2 years. That is what the discount on the phone purchase is for. Apparently, according to a previous commenter, AT&T will unlock your phone after 6 months.

Now with an iPhone, you own the phone up front. There is no discount. So according to US law, they are supposed to unlock the phone. It is not clear, however, whether that "lock" is maintained by AT&T or by Apple. I suspect that in this case the lock is an Apple issue. That would certainly circumvent the law requiring AT&T to unlock the iPhone and it explains why this guy has to sue Apple.

I think what is important to realize about this story is that it is supposed to empower consumers. I think it is grossly unfair to join hardware to services, isn't that why we strayed away from the AT&T model earlier this century. By freeing up the market carriers are forced to provide stellar service, not make it prohibitive to switch providers. Tying the hardware to the customer this way gives the advantage to service carriers. Imagine if we had to buy certain kinds of computers to use Comcast broadband for example. No one would stand for that, and no one should stand for this. It seems that some of you take any ill talk of Apple as a personal insult. I think this is hilarious. This isn't frivolous litigation. Frivolous would be if no clear incentive for the public good - a decision in favor of the plaintiff here, clearly has benefits for all of us.

I actually signed on to a Class Action lawsuit about the Powerbook G4's lower memory slot failure. Once the recall was issued I was very pleased even though my serial number wasn't covered. At least some people were lucky enough to reap the benefits. The companies that profit off of our hard work and credit card payments owe it to us to produce safe, working products that operate under fair circumstances.

I wish their suit luck, it could make it so that all carriers will have to sell phones and packages that actually are beneficial to the customer. Or at least provide consumers the option to take a cheap phone and a contract, or an expensive unlocked phone and no contract. Choices are what are important here.

The more I think about it ,the more obvious it is. Every other phone I've owned in the last 5 years has been unlocked . Apple /ATT is going to have to address this gap in their vision very soon . The sooner and the quieter they unlock , The less people will use it as most people don't travel abroad .If ATT doesn't totally blow they wont care which provider they use . I think we're gong to see a "kinder and gentler ATT /Apple very soon . The Smack is out of the bag and If they don't deliver soon someone else will .

#13 Lawrence:

You are exactly correct. I was in Brazil last week and did the same thing.

While it seems that the plaintiff may not have a super strong case, it does show that people are growing less tolerant of the practices US phone carriers use to retain their customers. It just seems that its taken a product as innovative and desirable as the iphone to finally jolt consumers into taking action against cell phone providers and the exclusive relationships they use with cell phone manufacturers to enslave their customers (props to George Holtz).

In addition to lengthy contracts, cell phone providers use cell phones as another way to "lock" customers into a relationship with the brand. I think this is a failing business model that will eventually end; either by consumers banning together to force change in the industry, or by a provider coming in and changing the way things are done. At any rate, it seems that a common platform and cross provider phones would benefit the consumer and require the cell phone providers to provide better service and more value-added features to keep customers happy.

In the end, while the iphone is the catalyst for this type of consumer action, I don't think that Apple will suffer as much as AT&T, and perhaps even the other cell phone providers who hold their customers captive.

See more at my blog:
http://thecword.typepad.com/thecword/2007/08/consumer-take-o.html

In about four more months I will walk into my nearest AT&T store and ask for the unlock. Their policy is six months into the contract they will unlock for free. They've done this on every phone I've owned with them.

If they do different on the iPhone, I'll have a problem, until then, I'm following their policy.

I received a $400 bill for less than 20MB of data while using Google Maps on my iPhone while traveling through a small portion of Canada. The AT&T person told me of someone who called in earlier living in Michigan. They were charged a huge amount for roaming in Canada, but it was actually because they were receiving Rogers Wireless signals IN MICHIGAN! Crazy. I agree that they keep the very large roaming data charges as quiet as possible.

What a wimp. I ran up $15K in the UK!

This guy is 68, has enough $$$ to buy three iPhones and complains about roaming costs of $ 2000? Oh please! He's begging to be called a moron.