Free Newsletter
Locked phones in peril
Free newsletter via e-mail
Tools
 
Locked phones in peril
Thanks to the iPhone, the whole issue of locked devices has come to the forefront. Customers are demanding to have a say over how they can use the device, and they keep searching for ways to make sure they do. And Apple keeps coming up with updates to make sure they don't.
The issue has spurred lawsuits. Last week a federal suit and a state suit both accused AT&T and Apple of unfair business practices and violations of antitrust, telecommunications and warranty laws. The suits allege that by not letting consumers modify their iPhones so that they work on other networks, the two companies have conspired to maintain a monopoly. The suits also claim that the companies are unlawfully constraining consumer choice by not allowing users to "unlock" their iPhones and intentionally issuing updates that effectively disable unofficial third-party programs.ÂÂ
Interestingly, a case involving T-Mobile USA in California could have an interesting impact on the whole issue. T-Mobile lost a California Supreme Court bid last week to end a lawsuit challenging the company's early-termination fees and its practice of locking down phones to work only on T-Mobile's network. The refusal clears the way for the lawsuit that is seeking a court injunction keeping T-Mobile from collecting its $200 early termination fee and to reveal the effect of the software locks it put on its phones. The lawsuit also seeks to have T-Mobile offer to unlock the handsets so consumers can switch to a different carrier without buying a new phone.
If the class action suit against T-Mobile is successful, mobile operators in California could be required to unlock cell phones when customers ask. T-Mobile argued that its service agreement keeps customers from filing class-action lawsuits, but the lower court sided with the plaintiffs--that the matter was in the public interest.
The tide certainly appears to be turning when it comes to locked devices. Not only are we seeing lawsuits, but market forces are coming into play. Sprint Nextel plans to allow any WiMAX device on its network. Nokia and Motorola have begun selling unlocked phones in the U.S.
Of course, the impact of unlocked phones isn't particularly great considering the technology fragmentation of operators in the U.S. There aren't that many alternatives for an unlocked phone. But it may give customers a false sense of security and pave the way for the inevitable: open access. -Lynnette
Comments
Posted by Matt J | October 31, 2007 - 6:11pm
I worked in T-Mobile customer care for a little over 5 years. I understand peoples desire to save money, but I really think this whole class action lawsuit is ridiculous. First of all T-Mobile will unlock your phone if you ask. They only limit you to one unlock code per subscriber per 90 days. Its really not a big deal. Second of all, in most cases having an unlocked phone on another network isnt the smartest thing to do because some or most of the features on it will not work or will need special downloads to work, also the new network may have features that will only work on its designed phones. The other issue with people complaining about the $200 ETF, its a contract, you signed it, get over it! If you dont want it then dont sign the contract and get a prepaid phone. The proplem is no one ever wants to take responsibility for their actions, always blaming their problems on companies or other people. All of these petty lawsuits just go to show how cheap, childish, and WHINEY Americans have become, especially Californians. The "CABOR" (California bill of rights) is so ridiculous I dont even want to get started on that subject.
Posted by Jacob W | February 8, 2008 - 3:53pm
The people who say that "its a contract, get over it" dont seem to realize that because of the overall monopoly of the carriers (they all seem to have the same stupid policies), there is no other way but to sue them to get some sort of legal protection to the consumer. I am actually happy that the carriers may loose this issue in court. Its been a 20 year fiasco on them trying to prevent people from moving from one carrier to another. It took almost 11 years for number portability to become Law because of the carriers lawsuits against it. I see the issue of overpriced data plans, with ridiculous limits on it to be the next lawsuits coming down the pipeline. Companies like VZW and SPRING/NEXTEL advertise broadband, yet if you use it as broadband and go over their limits (which are in so tiny of fine print that no one notices it till their service is suddenly terminated), then they can terminate your service without notice and charge you ETF fees. I cant wait for a lawsuit on this issue alone.
Comments (2) | Post a comment