Unlock Your Handset in a Court of Law

[Mike Temporale]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4416003/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4416003/</a><br /><br /></div>"Since last fall, cell-phone users have been able, with some patience, to take their phone numbers with them when they change carriers. But it's still tricky to move a cell phone itself from one service to the next -- even when both carriers use the same wireless standard."<br /><br />I know that some of you have been very vocal about this practice. So you will be very happy to hear that New York attorney Scott Bursor has filed a class-action suit against the carriers on the grounds that it "amounts to monopolistic behavior".

[possmann]

COOL

I hope ATT gets spanked in the process...

[xendula]

Not that I like paying more, but if a carrier subsidizes a phone, they should be allowed to prevent users from using that phone with another carrier. In Germany, if a phone was to break down, all you'd have to do is buy some prepaid phone and put your old SIM into the new phone. That way the company selling you the phone would be at a loss. This scenario used to be possible some years ago when cell phones first came up, but now prepaid phones are usually locked for 2 years, unless you pay an extra 100 EURO to unlock it legally. But phones you get with a contract (usually 2 years over here) are never locked, since the contract makes sure you pay your monthly fees either way.( 360 EUROS or more).

[ShivShanks]

Not that I like paying more, but if a carrier subsidizes a phone, they should be allowed to prevent users from using that phone with another carrier.

Yes but no carrier subsidizes the phone without locking you into a 1-2 year contract which you cannot get out of without paying a hefty amount equivalent to the discount. So how does it matter at all? The point is that after I have finished my contract and they have recovered whatever subsidy they gave what right do they have of locking in the phone to their network? Also if the carriers are worried about this then why don't they give the option of buying phones without subsidy (and even a slight profit if they want) and then allow those phones to move to a different network? Its all a sham I tell you to make clueless US customers locked in and hope they don't learn how much freedom the rest of the world enjoys. Heck for a long time we US consumers were fine with not having number portability.

[ShivShanks]

So you will be very happy to hear that New York attorney Scott Bursor has filed a class-action suit against the carriers on the grounds that it "amounts to monopolistic behavior".

Where can I sign up for this lawsuit and expand it to sue the CDMA manufacturers and operators with a bigger lawsuit for not including a SIM like feature at all in the US?

[ShivShanks]

So you will be very happy to hear that New York attorney Scott Bursor has filed a class-action suit against the carriers on the grounds that it "amounts to monopolistic behavior".

I did a google search on Scott Bursor and it turns out he has been trying to do this for the past 2 years -
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/600647/posts

I wonder whats been keeping him from getting headway on this issue. He talks about a website in that article to attract more people for this but doesn't look like he did anything about that. At least google didn't seem to find it based on my searches.

[xendula]

Yes but no carrier subsidizes the phone without locking you into a 1-2 year contract which you cannot get out of without paying a hefty amount equivalent to the discount. So how does it matter at all? The point is that after I have finished my contract and they have recovered whatever subsidy they gave what right do they have of locking in the phone to their network?
AH, well, I meant that it's OK to lock phones that are prepaid but as you, I don't see the point to locking a contract phone, since there is no way around paying the contract charges.