vB Easy Archive - AT&T Lies About BlackBerry Subsidary Unlocking

Pages: 1

AT&T Lies About BlackBerry Subsidary Unlocking
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: davistld01

I just called AT&T CS to get a subsidary unlock code for my BlackBerry...and was told it would be 7-10 business days before I got it (never had that problem before...it was always intstantly), and was warned that if I used the code that I might have some performance problems with my phone here in the States. When I told the lady that I had used many unlocked phones with AT&T service in the past with absolutely no issues...she said that she had been instructed to warn customers that there may be some service problems using unlocked BlackBerry or other AT&T serviced data phones in the future...although she would never elaborate as to what kind of problems those might be.

I must totally call BS on that!!! That's purely propoganda.

Obviously, AT&T is instructing their CSR's to lie to customers that call asking for a subsidary code so that they can unlocke their phones. I guess they're tired of them being sold to people with other service providers...or used by those jumping ship to another provider.

Posted by: davistld01

Ok...I guess I overreacted...so much so that I spelled "subsidy' incorrectly.

I guess I just ran into an uninformed, sub-par CSR. Oh well...

Got it unlocked anyway.

Posted by: OffTheHorseCEO

well if you remember, there was a thread here about unlocked phones not sending pictures correctly, the settings were right and the pictures arrived, but were much smaller than when sent. or something along those lines.

Posted by: ojazy1

i am using an unlocked blackberry 8320 on at&t when i wanted to activate it, the customer service representative made a big deal, as how it may not properly function on at&t network and that they are not responsible if the device goes hay wire. I told the rep to just activate the service & stop the bs. Actually the 8320 sounds better than 8310, plus i can use wifi where available for faster browsing.

Posted by: ivwshane

I guess if people do their jobs which include giving such warnings you guys take it upon yourselves to be jerks?

Nice!

Posted by: ojazy1

I am not saying that they are not doing their properly, just mentioning a fact that using an unlocked phone works, I believe at&t allows BYOD now. Mentioning that it may not function properly only conflicts with their BYOD policy.

Posted by: holaDude

It sounds more like there was some misunderstanding on both parts. There should be no issue with any branded phone that you subsidy unlock and continue to use on the service.

As oj stated, there is no promise that one will have full functionality of an unlocked unbranded phone. That's what she was probably thinking.

Posted by: briareus

Quote:

Originally Posted by davistld01

Obviously, AT&T is instructing their CSR's to lie to customers that call asking for a subsidary code so that they can unlocke their phones.

Not necessarily. Any at&t customer ought to know it's hit-and-miss with at&t's CSR's. A particular experience with one CSR isn't indicative of their overall training program (if such a thing even exists).

AFAIK no carrier is willing to provide support to an unlocked device on their network. Though I've had pretty good luck with TMO CSR's at least attempting to help in such situations.

Posted by: davistld01

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivwshane

I guess if people do their jobs which include giving such warnings you guys take it upon yourselves to be jerks?

Nice!

What makes you think I was a jerk?

I listened to the CSR warn me about the possibility of not getting good service, then I assured her that I had never had anything but exemplory service with AT&T while using any of the many unlocked/unbranded phones I'd used before. She again told me that she was just "warning me"...before I thanked her, and hung up.

I'm sure she was simply repeating what she had been told to say, but I had never had any CSR ever tell me that in the past.

Posted by: ivwshane

I wasn't specifically referring to you