Greg checked T-Mobile's policy online and found no mention of this restriction, only a requirement that he had been a T-Mobile customer for at least 90 days, which he had.
We suggested that Greg check online to see if there was some kind of jailbreak similar to the iPhone, or that he get in touch with BlackBerry/RIM to get an unlock code directly. In the meantime, this is another example of how ridiculous wireless exclusivity is. Greg bought his BlackBerry through T-Mobile and fulfilled his service contract; the BlackBerry should then be free for him to do as he wishes. Instead, T-Mobile has paralyzed his phone, and the exclusivity-which the carriers ostensibly use to ensnare fans of hot, new phones-has continued to cripple his outdated BlackBerry long after it was a marquee item. This is especially odd considering T-Mobile seems to be all about using exclusive phones with other carriers.
RELATED: Cell-phone exclusivity: Not good for consumers, say critics [Consumer Reports Electronics]
Concern grows in Washington over exclusive cell-phone deals [Consumer Reports Electronics]
(Photo: stirwise)
]]>O wow, this is great stuff. I have been an advocate for unlocking phones for over ten years now. this is just another example of how wireless carriers screw the consumer. Greg, I'm sorry you got shafted. BBerry should be able to provide an unlock code for you.
]]>I read that for AT&T, it is easier to get the unlock code if you are NOT a customer. If you are a current customer, they have to verify if your account is in good standing, if it's been a certain amount of months since you purchased the phone, etc. But if you are not a customer, they don't check anything. I haven't tried getting the code when I wasn't a customer, so I don't know if this is true.
I generally like T-Mobile, but I assumed you had to be a current customer to get the code. Why should they bother requesting it for you? (Other than general good customer service, but since when do companies care about that anymore? ^_^).
]]>I think I'd be better off getting a last minute e-fare to London, buying an unlocked phone, activating it on Vodafone or Orange and just pay the roaming back in the States. Sure I'm still getting F'd but at least I know I initiated it.
]]>The carriers can still provide cheap phones, by doing what they already do - subsidizing the cost of the phone through the unnecessarily high service plan, combined with a forced one or two-year contract. At least then you could do whatever the hell you wanted with your phone once your agreement had expired.
]]>People should ask for their unlock codes before leaving the carrier.
]]>
No one is saying that the wireless providers should stop giving discounts with new or renewed contracts, we are simply saying that they should not be allowed to add in artificial hardware incompatibility.
Personally I still think they should just charge full price for the phone and the service, if you want the cheaper price for service and phone you pony it up!
That's how it is in China, and yet, the carriers still support and actively develop content for the phones they sell even without exclusivity.
I can bet they have EULAs like microsoft's too, where if they actually did do damage they only compensate you $5 U.S. and paid for support.
And data caps and throttling are not looked kindly upon by the FCC, so those won't be there either.
I disagree with this, Only reason is I kind of agree with this guy "caps are welcome!" This was written by "justin Beech" owner of dslreports.com. He has some pretty good compelling arguements. Make the people responsible for their own lax resposiblities in security
Editorial: Caps are welcome- By Justin Beech
@consumerdave: Plus that would relieve the carrier of any phone problems as well.
"oh your blackberry has a problem. Well you will need to talk to blackberry about that!"
I know this is probably going to geta lot of flack from people, but my guess would be that your cell provider ALREADY claims no responsibility for the phone. I know that company I work for has it explicitly in the contract that we do not cover the phone for warranty or through insurance. Yes, you have the option of getting insurance, and we do help facilitate warranty claims (b/c we are reimbursed through the manufacturers). But we don't take responsibility for the equipment. Since cell companies are 3rd party sellers, I would imagine other carriers operate the same way. Haven't checked the contract on my consumer plan (with a larger company), but I imagine it has a similar clause.
]]>"...be prepared to pay full price for a phone right out at the gate" - This would be GREAT!
I would love to see this! Buy whatever phone you want, own it outright (including "rights" to all its functionality/software capabilities), then have the ability to shop around for the carrier. Almost as easy as buying a land-line phone at the store and just plugging it in at home.
Not only will this eliminate much of the angst and confusion that seems persistent in the cellular world, but will also have the effect of reducing "e-waste" and consumption of limited natural resources (lead replaced with much rarer metals due to ROHS) because people will have to pay full price for the phone and the cost would be a disincentive to constantly discarding old phones.
Probably never happen though.
]]>Good luck!
]]>Then again, I have no respect for "consumers" who flocked over to a known consumer-hating company like AT&T for an iPhone.
]]>Also, with AT&T, they will unlock the phone while you are in contract if you are going to do international travel (or you say you are). They make your phone eligible to make international calls and then give you the code.
When I was with AT&T, we could unlock phones from closed accounts if the person had bought it at a yard sale or eBay.
I don't know what T-mobile's rules are to unlocking for intl travel, but it might be worth a try for those with that carrier.
]]>No one is saying that the wireless providers should stop giving discounts with new or renewed contracts, we are simply saying that they should not be allowed to add in artificial hardware incompatibility.
]]>
I'm still amazed that cellphone exclusivity continues to be permitted. It's ridiculously monopolistic - once your contract is up, your phone should be unlocked. Period. You've paid it off, so why force the lock after that time?
No it's not monopolistic, nothing tells you, you have to use a specific phone. My thought is if they get rid of exclusivity agreements, be prepared to pay full price for a phone right out at the gate. Plus that would relieve the carrier of any phone problems as well.
"oh your blackberry has a problem. Well you will need to talk to blackberry about that!"
The carriers would not have any incentive to support the phone or make apps work either. Since they wouldn't be responsible for equipment they wouldn't have to care if you can twitter from your phone or not. It wouldn't be their problem.
my thought is "go ahead" least then all the iphone people that are complaining now really will complain when they hear the price of the phone.
Ebay will become more popular then for phones.
]]>This is why I go prepaid and purchase my own unlocked phone for the full retail cost. Yeah, you might save a few dollars upfront on the cost of the phone, but the exclusivity contract just isn't worth it.
]]>I am going to take T-Mobile's side with this one. I have been with T-Mobile for many years and if I want to unlock my phone (which I do with all of them) I call them up and unlock it. It takes 5 minutes tops. He had 120 days from when he ended his contract to call up T-Mobile and say, hey can you unlock my phone? And T-Mobile would have been yes, yes we can. But no the Op didn't do that. Yes this takes some pre planning but we should all be used to this by now. If you get a discounted phone from a cellular provider its going to be locked. Getting it unlocked should be a high priority once you have passed any time limit the company may have. I believe with T-mobile I can unlock up to 3 phones a month. I think this should serve as a lesion as soon as you can unlock your phone do it because you never know when you might need to go overseas or loan to a friend who just trashed their phone.
]]>@Jbjohn942: ATT HAS to give you the unlock code after 90 days if it is locked to their network.
]]>At this point, T-mo has zero financial interest in providing that service.
That's true, but the OP could simply call back a dozen times and take up CSR time until he gets the result he wants. TMobile has to pay the CSR and the CSR cannot help current TMobile customers because they're helping him, so TMobile may end up losing some money or frustrating existing customers.
Plus maybe the OP found the Android phones intriguing and would have switched back to TMobile for one of them. No chance of that happening now because TMobile burned that bridge.
]]>Should have gotten his phone unlocked when he cancelled service with TMO. Granted that TMO should unlock his phone as he fulfilled his part of the contract but it is unreasonable to string TMO for life being liable to unlock his phone after he did not have service with them for 4 years.
]]>Though most people don't know why they should unlock their phone.
]]>@Binaryslyder: I hope Greg sees your message-very nice of you.
]]>I use them at least 2-3 times a month for clients and have no complaints.
]]>@josephbloseph: Yeah I agree with this method if he knows someone with tmobile.
]]>Way to do the research consumerist.
]]>Be happy T-Mobile even provides the service to current customers.
]]>If you leave me a message here with your contact info, I'll take care of unlocking your phone for you. I'm a former Tmobile vendor and I can still handle unlock requests. I don't need your personal info or your SIM, just a few numbers off the phone. No charge, and no strings attached. I hate exclusivity. I unlock all my phones the instant I get them.
]]>And FWIW, the argument in this case is not against cell phone exclusivity, but cell phone locking.
]]>Before the Copyright Office granted that temporary exception, you were likely breaking a federal law just to use your own phone on a different network.
]]>If the unlock code is generated from the IMEI number, he should be able to call AT&T and get them to generate one for him.
I've been with Cingular/AT&T and had them unlock 3 phones for times when I've traveled overseas and just wanted to use a pre-paid card.
]]>There are plenty of tools online that would give anyone the basic knowledge to unlock a phone.
I have done it with all my cellphones. All you need is an USB cable and some softwares. Howard Forums is a great place to start with.
]]>Well I've always known that both AT&T and T-Mobile require you to be a current customer to unlock phones. You haven't been a customer for atleast 90 days if you aren't a customer. The last 90 days, you have not been a customer.
I do agree that they should unlock his phone. However, I always make sure I unlock my phones while my account is current If I wish for the phone to be unlocked.
T-Mobile (or AT&T) doesn't know the code. They email a request to the manufacture which responds. The Manufacture won't unlock either as their contract with T-Mobile stipulates that only T-Mobile can request the code.
]]>Maybe he can find a friend with a current account, add the phone as an additional line on a family plan or something, and get the code that way?
That said, I still think T-Mobile should unlock his phone for him without requiring any such shenanigans; adhering to that strict a policy is defensible, but wrong. If it were up to me, carriers would be required to give customers unlock codes at the completion of a contract, whether or not the customer asked for them.
]]>@computerwiz3491: but you have to pay... the point of the article is that the 2-year contract is used to subsidize the cost of the phone... he fulfilled the contract, tmobile should unlock the equipment... T&C that he searched for found no reason for tmobile to deny this unlock, only that he's no longer a customer
]]>