Filed under: iPhone
iPhone: 90 Days Later
With images of unlocked iPhones dancing in my head, today I gave AT&T a call. I confirmed that I now had my iPhone account active & in good standing for 90 days (the normal threshold for permitted unlocking) and requested a subsidy unlock for overseas travel. They transfered me to the technical support department, where I chatted with support rep Michael G.
Michael told me that there were no unlock codes available for the iPhone due to the exclusive agreement between Apple and AT&T. This includes countries like the UK and Germany, where the iPhone would soon be on sale. "We simply do not have unlock codes for them," he confirmed. I would have to use International roaming.
He recommended using a cheap disposable phone instead. With my account over 90 days old and in good standing, I was entitled to unlock a phone -- even if not the iPhone. He provided an unlock code for my little Motorola disposable.
So where does that leave us? Michael suggested that customers send their complaints directly to the FCC (1-888-CALL-FCC). He thinks that after 1 year, the FCC will force AT&T and Apple to provide unlocks for their customers.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Electroboy said 1:40PM on 9-28-2007
Thanks for the FCC link, Erica. Will be writing to them later today. I'm keen to see what happens with the iPhone in Europe. The EC have a more heavy handed attitude towards phone companies.
Reply
Joseph said 1:41PM on 9-28-2007
That statement about the FCC forcing Apple is the most ignorant thing I've ever read. The FCC has no authority to force that short of creating a new rule, and I can guarantee you the lobbying pressure of the phone companies will stop that. Think before you type.
Reply
tim said 1:48PM on 9-28-2007
i still love how we all think apple and ATT arent aware of things like this. everyone who wants to sue them, try it, then you might find out their reasoning and we can all get this over with.
everyones become a lawyer in the last few weeks, but nobody has given references or anything. could someone at least post a link in the DMCA that says this?
i mean, we're talking about two of the largest companies in the world, surely they are on top of the legal issues with it all
Reply
Samuel Tai said 1:49PM on 9-28-2007
Joseph, why bash Erica? She didn't make that comment about the FCC, the AT&T Tech Support guy did. She's just quoting him.
Reply
jsw said 1:49PM on 9-28-2007
@ Joseph: Why are you abusing the blogger for faithfully reporting something that an Apple employee told him? If you want to enlighten us as to how the FCC works, that's great, but your rush to show off your smarts just makes you look nasty.
Reply
Azreal said 1:50PM on 9-28-2007
The DMCA link doesn't really even apply, all it does is protect you from a copyright violation suit by Apple (or AT&T) if you have unlocked the phone to interoperate with another network.
Says nothing about Warranties, or that Apple or AT&T must allow you to do it. It is purely a DMCA exception, protecting you from being sued for bypassing a control mechanism.
Reply
jsw said 1:50PM on 9-28-2007
er, told her.
Reply
Dave said 1:54PM on 9-28-2007
Personally, I think locked cell phones should be illegal. Especially in North America (particularly Canada). It only contributes to the oligopoly. Things are bad enough, cell-phone wise, with companies charging inflated rates for a service that's become so common prices should be coming down, not going up.
Reply
Joseph said 1:54PM on 9-28-2007
The point is when the phone was announced, when you bought it, when you took it home, it was locked. You knew it was locked. There was no getting around it. If you wanted to use the iPhone you had to use AT&T. You are not entitled to getting the phone unlocked. There is no law, no FCC regulation, nothing that says AT&T or Apple has to accomdate you. You are not entitled to unlocking the phone.
Now, there is a DMCA excemption (that could be revoked or expire) currently stating that it is legal to break encryption on phones for the purpose of unlocking them. That's it. Nothing more. No law against Apple applying an update that breaks your hack. No law saying Apple or AT&T cannot enter into a contract with you (your EULA) saying that you agree not to screw with the software.
Basically it comes down to this: If you don't like the iPhone, don't buy it. If you try to hack it but you can't don't freaking complain to Apple or AT&T, because at no point did they ever represent that this would be allowed or tolerated. As a matter of fact the evidence suggested that even before the phone was released it would be locked down and they would do all they could to prevent this kind of crap.
Reply
ToutSuite said 1:57PM on 9-28-2007
This kind of stuff is all well and good, but I was hoping Erica's efforts would be pointed more toward either a) the re-locking tool promised by the Dev Team, and/or b) a jailbreak app for 1.1.1 (followed by an unlock app). I don't think we're going to get any relief from Apple or AT&T (the best we could hope for is some sort of "grace period" by Apple during which the stores will flash any phone back to factory specs under the assumption some people unlocked without realizing they'd essentially bricked their phone until it was too late - but I wouldn't hold my breath!
Reply
Dave said 2:06PM on 9-28-2007
@11
I understand. I do put my money where my mouth is: I have never signed a contract with a cell phone company and have no intention of doing so.
"Officially" the iPhone is unsubsidized; however, I agree that we'd see the price of it go up a bit if it were unlocked as Apple would wantt to recoup the lost revenue its getting through service plans.
I am willing to pay the difference (I paid $600 for the iPhone when it was released; now it's $200 cheaper and I still think it was worth the original price).
This is for me though. I understand most are comfortable signing a contract to pay a lower price on the phone.
Reply
Ross said 2:26PM on 9-28-2007
In the UK it is a legal requirement for Network Operators to provide unlocks, if they refuse then Ofcom and Otelo will intervene... although it will take some time.
This happened with the "3" network whose users had agreed to a contract stating that the phones could not be unlocked. However unfair contract terms are legally unenforceable and they must now unlock all phones...
Who knows what will happen if / when the iPhone hits Belgium where it is illegal to sell a phone locked to a specific network... Suddenly a lot of Belgians on eBay will become very wealthy ;)
Reply
jus10 said 2:35PM on 9-28-2007
@ Dave
Out of curiosity, what do you do? My first and hopefully last cell contract ends next month and while I was considering an iphone that's not going to happen now. I was thinking about going pre-paid as I use less than 200 minutes a month but do use a good big of SMS. My cell is my only phone but I'm more internet connected these days.
Reply
Aron Trimble said 2:37PM on 9-28-2007
@8 - You don't seem to understand the right to ownership. You see, here in America, when you purchase something; you have the right to do with it what you please. It's a simple concept, really.
@11 - Yes, prices would rise if locked phones were illegal. But see, here in America, we have something called "capitalism." What's beautiful about this is that in a properly UN-controlled market, competition will actually cause prices to go down. Now I know this may sound crazy, but not only will the phone prices drop; but so will the prices of service! Shocking, I know.
In an open market, everyone wins.
Reply
marcosmalo said 2:39PM on 9-28-2007
The rationale behind locked phones that the carriers have successfully argued in court and before the FCC is that they'd lose money for subsidized phones. Apple and ATandT can't use this argument for the iPhone since it is not subsidized.
There is also the Carterphone precedent of 1968 that allowed non Ma Bell phones on the Ma Bell landline net, back during the Ma Bell monopoly days.
On top of this is the fact that carriers do commonly unlock phones after a certain grace period, and apparently aren't being driven out of business by doing so.
All of which is to say that Joseph is an ignorant and rude loudmouth who should think before he types.
Reply
YukonDawg said 2:39PM on 9-28-2007
Joseph, do you work for Apple? It's really unbelievable that there are so many comments (on recent iPhone-related posts) that sound like they are being generated from some command bunker in Cupertino. Understanding Apple's perspective is one thing, but towing the company line and carrying their water is quite another unless you are getting paid to do so.
Reply
Aron Trimble said 2:39PM on 9-28-2007
Whoa, some comments disappeared...
Reply
Dave said 2:40PM on 9-28-2007
@13
Mostly work for non-profit organizations. I don't use my cell a lot--like you, less than 200 minutes/month. Some months that changes. I've just never been comfortable signing a contract for 2-years (probably due to my need to have the latest gadget!).
Reply
Tom said 2:42PM on 9-28-2007
I'm Michael G. and I got fired for this blog post!
Reply
marcosmalo said 2:48PM on 9-28-2007
@14
Aron, you're exactly right, but we're still not quite there in terms of having fir, free, open, and fully transparent markets. Such a market might be impossible to achieve, but the closer we get, the more prosperous we will all be.
Which is not to say that government doesn't have a place as a regulating body. Unfortunately, as things stand now, corporate interests game the system for regulations that protect their positions, and the politicians and bureaucrats enable this. Regulation to protect the consumer or the public = good, regulation for anti-competition = bad.
Reply