vB Easy Archive - Apple unlock and AT&T exclusitivity send complaints to the FCC (1-888-CALL-FCC)

Pages: 1

Apple unlock and AT&T exclusitivity send complaints to the FCC (1-888-CALL-FCC)
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: jiro

Source: http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/28/90-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.

Posted by: kchino

One of the best post I've read this week.

Posted by: jcjdoss

This is the post I've been waiting for.

Posted by: jeslevine

Nobody forces you to buy an iphone, and you know what the restrictions are before going in. If you want an unlocked phone without hassles go with HTC, or another manufacter. Could you please state the LAW that requires a cell phone company or manufacturer to support unlocked phones?

Posted by: jcjdoss

Here is what they sent me on unlocking. Unless I missed something it doesn't even talk about it

But is interesting non-the-less

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.

1. How can I search for cellular licensees in a certain market?
Search licensee information on the FCC web site at:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/in...ome&id=cellular

2. Where can I find the cellular database files and how often are they updated?
You can download the cellular database files from http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.h...ion&page=weekly

The files are updated weekly. http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/in...ome&id=cellular

3. I'm having billing problems with my cellular provider; who can help me?
FCC does not regulate contractual arrangements with cellular providers. However, your state Better Business Bureau is a good starting point. To file a complaint about a wireless service, the complaint should be in writing and sent to:

Federal Communications Commission
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Or, they may be faxed to 1-866-418-0232. You can file an Informal Complaint online with the FCC against your wireless carrier at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html and then "click" on Form 475.

4. Does the FCC regulate or approve tower locations for cell companies?
No, this is a local matter that is handled by state and local zoning boards. The new Telecommunications Act of 1996 instructs the Commission to insure that the state and local zoning boards do not unreasonably delay the construction of towers or the approval of sites.

Tower siting information is available at: http://wireless.fcc.gov/antenna/
Registration information is available at: http://wireless.fcc.gov/antenna/

The FCC maintains a database for all cellular licensees. The database includes information for the various cell sites associated with each cellular system. While the database may include all of the sites associated with a particular cellular system, the FCC's rules only require licensees to provide information for those cell sites that make up the outer boundary of the cellular system.

Information regarding cell sites associated with a particular cellular system can be obtained by accessing the FCC's database as described in question 1 above. In addition, cell sites are listed on the authorization for each cellular system. You may review or make copies of cellular authorizations in the Public Reference Room which is located on the Court Yard level of 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington DC 20554, telephone (202) 418-1350. On-line database searches can also be performed in the Public Reference Room.

5. How do I get a list of all cellular tower sites? Does the FCC have this information?
The FCC maintains a database for all cellular licensees. The database includes information for the various cell sites associated with each cellular system. While the database may include all of the sites associated with a particular cellular system, the FCC's rules only require licensees to provide information for those cell sites that make up the outer boundary of the cellular system.

Information regarding cell sites associated with a particular cellular system can be obtained by accessing the FCC's database as described in question 1 and 2 above. In addition, cell sites are listed on the authorization for each cellular system. You may review or make copies of cellular authorizations in the Public Reference Room which is located on the Court Yard level of 445 12th Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington DC 20554, telephone (202) 418-1350. On-line database searches can also be performed in the Public Reference Room.

The FCC does not duplicate these records. Contact Best Copy and Printing, Inc. at; http://www.bcpiweb.com or call 1.800.378.3160.

6. How do I get a cellular license?
The Commission divided the United States up into 734 different markets where it licensed two entities for each market. There are 306 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and the remaining 428 markets are Rural Service Areas (RSAs). The majority of these markets have been licensed and all that remains to possibly be licensed is what the Commission has defined as "unserved area".

Each of the MSA and RSA licensees was provided five years to build out their systems within their designated market area. At the end of the five-year build-out period, licensees are required to notify the Commission of what area they actually cover within the market area.

This covered market area is called their Cellular Geographic Service Area or CGSA. Any area within their MSA or RSA that is not their CGSA or covered service area after five years is available for un-served area licensing. The un-served area licensing process has two phases.

" Phase I is a one-time process that provides an opportunity for eligible parties to file competing applications for authority to operate a new cellular system in, or to expand an existing cellular system into, un-served areas as soon as these new areas become available. Phase I initial applications must be filed on the 31st day after the expiration of the five-year build-out period of the authorized system(s) on the channel block requested in the market containing the un-served area. Each Phase I application must request authorization for one and only one CGSA in one and only one cellular market. Additionally, each licensee whose Phase I initial application is granted is afforded one opportunity during the Phase
process to file an application proposing major modifications to the cellular system
authorized by that grant, without being subject to competing applications.

" Phase II is an ongoing filing process that allows eligible parties to apply for any un-served areas that may remain in a market after the Phase I process is complete. If a Phase I initial application is granted for a market and channel block, Phase II applications (applications for authority to operate a cellular system in any remaining un-served area) for that market and channel block maybe filed on, or after, the 121st day after the Phase I application was granted. If no Phase I initial applications are granted for a market and channel block, Phase II applications for that market and channel block may be filed on or after the 31st day after the FCC dismissed the last pending Phase I application. If no Phase I initial applications are received for a market and channel block, Phase II applications for that market and channel block may be filed on or after the 32nd day after the expiration of the relevant five year build-out period. There is no limit to the number of Phase II applications that may be granted on each channel block in each market. Consequently, Phase II applications are mutually exclusive only if the proposed CGSAs would overlap. Mutually exclusive applications are processed using the general procedures in Section 22.131. Phase II applications may propose a CGSA covering more than one cellular market. Each Phase II application must request authorization for one and only one CGSA.

Competing applications that are mutually exclusive (i.e. both cannot be granted) are
resolved by auction. Prospective applicants must research the Commission's files to
determine whether or not there is any un-served area in markets that they might be
interested. Applicants may review or make copies of cellular authorizations or coverage
maps in the Public Reference Room which is located on the Court Yard level of 445 12th
Street, SW, Room CY-A257, Washington DC 20554 (202) 418-1350. On-line database
searches can also be performed in the Public Reference Room.

The FCC does not duplicate these records. Contact Best Copy and Printing, Inc. at http://www/bcpiweb.com or call 1.800.378.3160.

7. Can a subscriber have multiple phones with the same telephone number?
As part of its Biennial Review of regulations, on 8/8/02 the FCC made significant modifications to Part 22 of its rules that cover the Cellular Radiotelephone and other services. The Commission modified or eliminated various rules that have become outdated due to supervening rules, technological change, or increased competition among providers of Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS).

Report and Order (FCC 02-229) made the following rule changes:

" Removes the manufacturing requirements found in section 22.919 governing electronic serial numbers (ESNs) in cellular telephones.

See: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publ...OC-225216A1.pdf

FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSES ONLY:
__________________________________________________ ______________________________
Yes, but there are restrictions. Each individual phone must have a unique Electronic Serial Number (ESN). The ESN is a unique number programmed into each cellular telephone at the time it is manufactured and is used by the cellular carrier to identify a telephone to determine whether the user of that phone is entitled to obtain service and to insure that the proper accounting is made of all activity. Most cellular phone emulators or extension services simply "clone" cellular phones, duplicating not only the telephone number but also the ESN. This activity is in violation of current Commission rules.

47 CFR Section 22.933, entitled Cellular System Compatibility Specifications, generally sets forth the standards of cellular operation as reflected in the Cellular System Mobile Station-Land Station Compatibility Specification (April 1981 ed.), Appendix D to the Report and Order in CC Docket No. 79-318, 86 FCC 2d 469, 567 (1981). It is a violation of Section 22.919 of the Commission's rules for an individual or company to alter or copy the ESN of a cellular telephone so that the telephone emulates the ESN of any other cellular telephone. Moreover, it is a violation of the Commission's rules to operate a cellular telephone that contains an altered or copied ESN.

Pursuant to 47 CFR 22.919, subpart (c), it is a violation to remove, tamper with, or change the ESN chip, its logic system, or firmware originally programmed by the manufacturer. It is possible to obtain two cellular phones with the same telephone number as long as the cellular carrier in the market has the software in place to handle the billing and its fraud detection system won't be triggered by the use of two phones with the same home number.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________

8. Are cellular resellers regulated?
The Commission does not actively regulate the resale of cellular service, only mandates that it must occur. Section 20.12(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Part 20 provides that each cellular system licensee must permit unrestricted resale of its service. This requirement shall cease five years after the last group of initial licenses for broadband PCS spectrum in the 1850-1910 MHz and 1930-1990 MHz bands is awarded.

9. Do I need a license to become a reseller? See question 8.

10. What regulations exist concerning the radiation hazards associated with Cellular?
An office within the Federal Communications Commission, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), works closely with the industry and scientific community on this issue and releases periodic reports on human exposure to radiation. More information on this topic can be found at the OET RF safety web site http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/ .

11. Can I use my cellular phone in an aircraft (including hot air balloons, etc.)?
47 CFR Section 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operations of cellular telephones: Cellular telephones installed in, or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while the aircraft is off the ground. The following notice must be posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft:

"The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations."

What about non-CELLULAR devices such as PCS phones, computers, portable radios, and electronic games?

Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) Advisory Circular 91.21-1A of 10 October 2000 USE OF PORTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES ABOARD AIRCRAFT: Prohibits use of portable electronic devices (PEDs) when such use could interfere with the communication or navigation equipment on board the aircraft or the ability of the flight crew to give necessary instructions in the event of an emergency. Certain inaccessible medical electronic devices, such as pacemakers, are exempted from the requirement.
See: http://www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/acs/ac91211a.pdf

UPDATE: Effective 8 July 2003, the FAA is permitting cell phone use in commercial aircraft until the cabin door is closed for take off and upon landing while taxing to the terminal.

12. How do I obtain data on cellular systems, such as number of subscribers, number of calls on a system, number of cell sites, number of phones in use, etc.?
Three types of technologies that cellular phones use:

" GSM [Global System for Mobile communication]
" CDMA [code division multiple access]
" TDMA [time division multiple access]

The Commission does not collect this type of data and cellular carriers consider most of this type of information proprietary. Cellular associations may provide some of this information.

13. Is it illegal to block or jam cellular phone calls?
The Commission has received inquiries concerning the use of transmitters designed to prevent or jam the operation of cellular telephones in hospitals, theaters and other locations. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission's rules do not permit these devices to be manufactured, imported, marketed or operated within the United States.

Section 302(b) of the Communications Act, 47 USC 302(b), prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale, offer for sale, or use of devices that fail to comply with the regulations promulgated pursuant to this section. Similar prohibitions are contained in the Commission's rules, e.g., 47 CFR Sections 2.803, 2.1203, and 22.377. In addition, in accordance with Section 301 of the Communications Act, 47 USC 301, persons operating or using radio transmitters must be licensed or authorized under the Commission's rules. There are no provisions in the FCC's rules that permit the operation of any device intended to interfere with cellular communications. Further, Section 333 of the Communications Act, 47 USC 333, prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Communications Act or operated by the U.S. Government.

Based on the above, the operation of transmitters designed to jam cellular communications is a violation of 47 USC 301, 302(b), and 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of such transmitters is a violation of 47 USC 302(b). Parties in violations of these provisions may be subject to the penalties contained within 47 USC 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year. The equipment can also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. Government. These regulations apply to all transmitters that are designed to cause interference to, or prevent the operation of, other radio communication systems.

14. What is an Electronic Serial Number (ESN)?
Each individual phone must have a unique Electronic Serial Number (ESN). The ESN is a unique number programmed into each cellular telephone at the time it is manufactured and is used by the cellular carrier to identify a telephone to determine whether the user of that phone is entitled to obtain service and to insure that the proper accounting is made of all activity.

15. What is an MSA and an RSA?
Initial cellular licenses are assigned on the basis of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) and Rural Service Areas (RSA), which are collectively referred to as Cellular Market Areas (CMA).

In 1981, the Commission set aside spectrum in the 800 MHz band for cellular services. Under the original cellular licensing rules, one of the two cellular channel blocks in each market (the B block) was awarded to a local wireline carrier, while the A block was awarded by comparative hearings to a carrier other than a local wireline incumbent. Comparative hearings gave competing applicants a quasi-judicial forum in which to argue why they should be awarded a license over competitors, and allowed other interested parties to argue for or against an applicant.

After awarding the first thirty Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) licenses, rules were adopted in 1984 and 1986 to award the remaining cellular MSA and Rural Service Area (RSA) licenses through lotteries. By 1991, lotteries had been held for every MSA and RSA, and licenses were awarded to the lottery winners in most instances. In some RSA markets, however, the initial lottery winner was disqualified from receiving the license because of a successful petition to deny or other Commission action. On August 5, 1997, Congress amended Section 309(j) of the Communications Act to require that all mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses for construction permits be auctioned, with certain exceptions. Cellular services are not exempt and therefore, the Commission auctioned three of four remaining RSA markets in Auction 45: Cellular RSA.

Posted by: wookiee2cu

No offense but I don't think you are going to get an unlock code from AT&T or Apple. They made it very clear that AT&T has an exclusive contract for the iPhone for several years. Everyone knew that before they bought it so why do you think they will provide you with an unlock code now? I realize it's your phone and you have the right to do with it however you please... you can unlock it but you void your warranty. I personally don't think the FCC is going to be able to force them to do crap due to the agreement between Apple & AT&T, it would force them to break their agreement and then what, AT&T sue Apple or the FCC?

Posted by: jcjdoss

The Library of Congress has approved a copyright exemption that will allow consumers to legally unlock their mobile phone to change to a competing carrier. The LoC decided that locked handsets don't qualify under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It was found that the locks weren't in place to protect the cell phone developer, but instead third party interests (carrier subsidies). The ruling does not outlaw locking handsets, but more simply says that it's not illegal to unlock a handset.

Here is the link to the law. http://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/...ommendation.pdf

Page 42 in bold 5."Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."

Posted by: kchino

The FCC can force Apple and AT&T to come do their laundry every Sunday if they want. All this is gonna take is a couple of senators or members of congress to jump on board.

Posted by: enlightenment

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a federal law supersede an agreement between companies?

Posted by: jeslevine

Posted by: jcjdoss

After calling the FCC for the third time they (and have been very curtious and nice) have made a good point. They have control of AT&T and have no control over Apple. This is the loophole. The FCC has no power over Apple and what they do and they don't know who would be able to take this to.

Posted by: skankboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeslevine

Nobody forces you to buy an iphone

I forced my assistant to wait in line on launch day to get one for me.

Your statement is false.

Posted by: wookiee2cu

Since they (the FCC) never got involved in the begining when the agreement between Apple and AT&T was first announced, how can they all of a sudden get involved now? If there was something illegal about their exclusive agreement the FCC should have gotten involved right away instead of waiting to see how much of a headache it became. I could be wrong, but I don't think Apple & AT&T have done anything wrong.

Posted by: Roy

iirc att's contract says they will give you unlock code for your carrier locked phone after 90 days contract, so you can go overseas (this is the justification)...

anyways, if this only applies to subsidized phones, then we must read the fineprint, if not, then they are in contractual obligation to unlock it

Posted by: ikjeft1b

NO. You are misinterpreting that ruling, trying to extend it into new areas of concern. In a nutshell: if you unlock your phone, you can't be sued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (assuming that you unlocked it specifically to use it as it as a cellular phone on another network). Nowhere -- nowhere -- does it say that any company has to make it easy for you, much less help you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcjdoss

The Library of Congress has approved a copyright exemption that will allow consumers to legally unlock their mobile phone to change to a competing carrier. The LoC decided that locked handsets don't qualify under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It was found that the locks weren't in place to protect the cell phone developer, but instead third party interests (carrier subsidies). The ruling does not outlaw locking handsets, but more simply says that it's not illegal to unlock a handset.

Here is the link to the law. http://www.copyright.gov/1201/docs/...ommendation.pdf

Page 42 in bold 5."Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network."

Posted by: jcjdoss

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikjeft1b

NO. You are misinterpreting that ruling, trying to extend it into new areas of concern. In a nutshell: if you unlock your phone, you can't be sued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (assuming that you unlocked it specifically to use it as it as a cellular phone on another network). Nowhere -- nowhere -- does it say that any company has to make it easy for you, much less help you.

But isn't it a violation of that law to relock the phone if it permits me to legally unlock it.

Posted by: samab

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy

iirc att's contract says they will give you unlock code for your carrier locked phone after 90 days contract, so you can go overseas (this is the justification)...

anyways, if this only applies to subsidized phones, then we must read the fineprint, if not, then they are in contractual obligation to unlock it

It's not in the contract at all.

Giving you the unlocking codes is a courtesy provided by the carriers. They don't have to give it to you at all. Don't even have to give you a reason.

Posted by: marlboro_me

What's the point??

If you want to hack and mess with you phone, what makes you think you should have Apple support you?

How are they suppose to make software/firmware updates with a million and one "kiddy-poo-poo hacks" on your phone and still guarantee that it works?

Come on people.

Posted by: samab

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcjdoss

But isn't it a violation of that law to relock the phone if it permits me to legally unlock it.

Nope, all it said is that the carrier cannot sue you (based on DMCA) if you unlocked. The carrier can still sue you with other laws (like copyright infringement).

It is a useless exemption.

Posted by: jcjdoss

I was bored today, the subject has always interested me. Today was a great day to do a little digging. I still think the law is somewhat subjective.

Posted by: klaze-mot

They didn't technically relock the phones they repaired a bug WE found in their modem firmware...

it's not like they said "Ok guys this is getting out of hand we are taking away that privilege"

also Apple computers have been notorious for being locked down.. everything hidden behind a nice gui...

Posted by: samab

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcjdoss

I was bored today, the subject has always interested me. Today was a great day to do a little digging. I still think the law is somewhat subjective.

The law is not subjective at all.

The DMCA exemptions were announced the day before Thanksgiving holiday --- when all the real newspaper reporters were all busy going home and stuffing themselves with turkey.

That's how the government works. Whenever they have bad news, they announced them late Friday afternoon so that reporters don't have the chance to ask them pointed questions.

Posted by: Roy

Quote:

Originally Posted by marlboro_me

What's the point??

If you want to hack and mess with you phone, what makes you think you should have Apple support you?

How are they suppose to make software/firmware updates with a million and one "kiddy-poo-poo hacks" on your phone and still guarantee that it works?

Come on people.

Typical answer from a "conservative user"...

i have an att contract, i have a turbosim to use my iphone back home, and i have 3rd party apps which improve the featureset of the iphone (message/sms notification on the top-bar, MSN/AIM messaging that notifies me even if its in the background, and I have mass SMS, sms forwarding, etc)....

They could have updated just like they updated with 1.0.x series, and all would still have been fine...

they didnt choose to do this because of fear of not scoring other large contracts for exclusivity with providers worldwide.

imho, it isnt in the customers' best interests, and it is bad for the product.

Also, 1.1.1 doesn't add useful features for me (bar landscape attachment viewing and louder volume - which not everyone says is noticeable, although i have a good ear and think I'd appreciate that)... For me, 1.0.2 with mods is still better though.

Posted by: chinese_fury

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcjdoss

After calling the FCC for the third time they (and have been very curtious and nice) have made a good point. They have control of AT&T and have no control over Apple. This is the loophole. The FCC has no power over Apple and what they do and they don't know who would be able to take this to.

So then is Apple perhaps in violation of law from the selling celluar phones since they are not AT&T?

Posted by: jcjdoss

I wouldn't think so. Apple is just being a direct reseller

Posted by: samab

Quote:

Originally Posted by chinese_fury

So then is Apple perhaps in violation of law from the selling celluar phones since they are not AT&T?

No, all they said is that they don't have jurisdiction to even listen to your complaints.

And even if they have jurisdiction, Apple has done nothing illegal.

All the DCMA exemption said is that you can't get sued by the carriers based on DCMA if you unlock your cell phone. The carriers can still sue you with a million different other laws when you unlock your cell phone.

Posted by: Roy

can someone check out the ATT contract/policies and see where it says about the 90day unlock thing?

if it is really there, call the FCC about ATT **NOT** about apple...

if that is the case you should tell the fcc "my contract with at&t says that they will give me an unlock code for my att-locked phone after 90 days contract, they are refusing to do so. please help. by the way, the manufacturer of the phone is Apple, and the model is an iPhone, but apple doesnt owe me anything, it is the at&t contract that says i have that right FROM att"

Posted by: samab

Read your AT&T contract:

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-ph.../plan-terms.jsp

Posted by: Roy

ok nothing there that I could find quickly skimming through... where does the 90day thing come from?

it isnt the first time i heard about it...

Posted by: flyingdutchman

What is the point to this? You complain to the FCC and they do.......what? Nothing? They can't force Apple or AT&T to unlock it. If they do that means that all phones must be unlocked, you think the other carriers will go along with that? Especially the CDMA guys, you think they will allow other CDMA phones on their network? No way. This is pointless. Get over it, it is just a phone. If it does not fulfill your needs, then don't buy it and quit whining!

Posted by: samab

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyingdutchman

What is the point to this? You complain to the FCC and they do.......what? Nothing? They can't force Apple or AT&T to unlock it. If they do that means that all phones must be unlocked, you think the other carriers will go along with that? Especially the CDMA guys, you think they will allow other CDMA phones on their network? No way. This is pointless. Get over it, it is just a phone. If it does not fulfill your needs, then don't buy it and quit whining!

And it will get worse when the iphone launches in Europe --- then the world will find out how useless those often mis-quoted European laws are. Everything that Apple is doing in the US will also be legal in Europe.

Posted by: holaDude

Ok not only is there no law requiring any cellphone company requiring a carrier to provide a unlock code, but there is no contractual policy that at&t has to release the code to anyone at all. It is provided to customers that have an international feature on their account who would like to use a foreign sim card in their phone.

Keep in mind that AT&T does not have a data base of all the subsidy codes for all the manufacturers. While there are some readily available for some of the more popular phones, most request are sent to the manufacturer. They do not have to release the codes to at&t if they do not want to.

Posted by: jcjdoss

That makes sense

Posted by: xbox360gamer

okay, call me dumb, but here's my train of thought.

everyone knew that AT&T and Apple were gonna have this whole partnership thingy for who knows how many years. surely everyone had to have known this.

okay, so now people are whining, complaining and raising hell to the FCC because they can't use the iPhone on another carrier?

uummm, hello!

Posted by: klaze-mot

Quote:

Originally Posted by xbox360gamer

okay, call me dumb, but here's my train of thought.

everyone knew that AT&T and Apple were gonna have this whole partnership thingy for who knows how many years. surely everyone had to have known this.

okay, so now people are whining, complaining and raising hell to the FCC because they can't use the iPhone on another carrier?

uummm, hello!

They all sound like a little kid that wants a cookie before dinner.

You guys kno who AT&T is right?

You think a senator or etc. is going to take on AT&T / Apple to unlock the iphone? lawlz.

If unlocking your cell phone is so supported by cellular phone companies how come most people have to go to "someguy" to have it done? How come "unlocking" is such a big business if AT&T and TMobile etc just hand those codes out if u ask?

You guys are not being realistic.

Posted by: Aurora

Too many folks pretending to be lawyers. Unless you're a lawyer, don't bother attempting to interpret the law, 'eh?

Discussion over.