Cell Phone Firms Sued Over "Lock" Codes

[Pat Logsdon]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5160230/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5160230/</a><br /><br /></div>"A consumer watchdog group sued three cell phone companies on Monday for "locking" their phones to make it harder for customers to switch carriers. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights filed suit accusing AT&T Wireless Services Inc., T-Mobile USA Inc. and Cingular Wireless, of using software in their handsets that prevents them from being used on a competitors' network. The practice effectively thwarts recent federal regulations allowing people to retain their phone numbers when switching mobile carriers, according to the lawsuit, filed in Superior Court in Los Angeles. <br /><br />The lawsuit accuses the companies of engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices under state law. "If you can use the same phone number with other carriers, you should be able to use the same phone," said Jordan Lurie, an attorney representing the plaintiffs. The phone companies [of course - PL] <i>defend their policy, saying they routinely subsidize handset cost. Companies would lose money if they allowed customers to then use those phones with another carrier."</i><br /><br />What do you think? Is it about time someone sued the cell phone companies, or is this this going too far? Has anyone not been able to retain their number because of this? I want DIRT, people! :mrgreen:

[saquibk]

It was indeed time that someone sued this companies. We are anyway bound by their year long contracts so what's the point of locking the phones that we have paid for, even though it is a subsidized price.

[Eitel]

What's going to happen now is that this companies are going to drop the phone discounts that they have now, and phone prices are going to go up. A phone that now costs $99 subsidized, is going to cost around $400 then.

[Blue Zero]

However which they claim phone are subsidized, they are NOT...

We all know how much certain cell phone true cost, but yet they go around saying its suppose to cost $400!

Key word: suppose

In my area, one such carrier sells a 8years old Nokia for $200!
What! $200!! for something that dont even fit in my largest baggy pants... :evil:


I say, Sue them for ripping our wallet apart!

[djdj]

I'm not sure about other carriers, but T-Mobile will give unlock codes at no charge if you ask for them (once the cost of the phone is at least mostly subsidized).

Just email [email protected] with your IMEI (serial) number and account information.

[bitbank]

It's time to remove the phone locking and subsidies. Why should every cellphone customer pay to subsidize someone else's hardware? e.g. if I join T-Mobile and use the cheapy Nokia 36xx phone, my monthly bill is still subsidizing the other T-Mobile customers who use the expensive phones.

If the phone companies do change their policy and are honest about it, then removing the phone subsidies should coincide with a general price drop for monthly service.

L.B.

[SubFuze]

Locking phones to a carrier is fine if the company will give you the unlock code after your contract is up. AT&T and Cingular won't give out unlock codes after your term is up, and that is lawsuit worthy. However, I really don't see a problem with them making it more difficult to move to another carrier during your contract (T-Mobile will give you an unlock code if your contract is fulfilled - which is why when my contract with AT&T was up, I chose T-Mobile (and paid $25 to have my AT&T phone unlocked so I would have a back-up phone)). What's really wrong is if you pay full price for a phone at a major retail store in the U.S. (ie- you don't want/need a contract), your phone will still be locked to the carrier. I see this lawsuit as a good thing if it does nothing more than raise awareness of the issue...

[SeanH]

This is a great thing. Next someone needs to sue for all the surcharges we pay on are cell, and wired phone. It’s miscellaneous fee after miscellaneous fee.

This is from last month’s cell phone

REGULATORY PROGRAMS FEE 04/15/04 - 05/14/04 $ 1.75
STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAX $ 6.72
UNIVERSAL CONNECTIVITY CHARGE $ 2.40
FEDERAL TAX $ 2.94

Last months home phone

Lorain County E911 $ .40
Local Number Portability Surch $ .74
Access Charge Per FCC Order $ 12.66
TRA Negative Surcharge Res -$ 4.46
Federal Tax $1.49
State Tax $ 2.63
Surcharge Tax $ .19
Federal Universal Service Fee $ 1.10

I rented a car last month for 9 days at $32 a day plus these

Airport Access Charge 11.110% $ 35.69
Consolidated Facility Charge $ 9.00
Vehicle License Fee Recovery $ 2.52
Surcharge $18.00
Sales Tax 6.00% $ 25.04

I am sure a lot of these fee’s are made up but you do not have any options except getting rid of your cell after a contract or getting rid of your home phone, or when you rent a car make them send to a full disclosure of surplus fees when you book it.

Sean

[tennr]

What seems to be missing here is that while on one hand they say we would loose money because of the subsidation... they ALSO charge you on the backend if you early terminate.

So which do they want... phones locked or no early termination fee?

Seems to me they are trying to play both sides of the coin. :evil:

Here is a helpfull hint if find yourself in this perdicerment... do a search for CyberGSM, it's free... information should be free, so there is some free information. I disclaim myself from all liability of your use of free information :wink:

[werb]

One thing that nobody has clearly aknowledge in here is that companies are in business to make money.. the more you hack away at their ability to do so the more you will in turn suffer. I like a good deal just like the next guy but at the same time i try to keep in mind that a profit has to be made to.. i mean think how you would feel if you owned the company and everyone says that you should give everything to your customers and keep nothing for yourself.. would you still be able to maintain your business if that were the case.. so next time you worry about subsidies and lock codes think about it this way.. dont sign the contract dont buy the locked phone pay full price for an unlocked phone and sign on a mth to mth basis.. or take the price cut get a deal sign the contract and stay with the provider you all know what you are getting into if you do the research anyone who claims ignorance of their contract deserves to get skrewed over by the corporation..

[Mark Kenepp]

However which they claim phone are subsidized, they are NOT...

We all know how much certain cell phone true cost, but yet they go around saying its suppose to cost $400!

Key word: suppose

I always buy my phones, unlocked, from an independent dealer or direct from the manufacturer. The prices of my phones are easily twice, if not three or four, times the price I would pay if it was attached to a contract.

I would expect the mobile service providers phone prices to jump accordingly if they no longer were subsidized against the service contract.

As far as the lawsuit goes, this is America where sue is a verb, not a name ;)

[Mark_Venture]

subsidized or not subsidized, that is the question...

Walk into any place that sells phones and service.. Look at the fine print. To buy a phone WITHOUT a contract can add $200 or MORE to the price of the phone.

Companies are in business to make money!! So, what provider is going to just give away that money if they are not going to make it up in other ways? Could that cost be included in the monthy bills? Would that be considered subsidizing the cost of the "discounts" on phones sold with a contract?

How is locking the phone to a particular carrier anything but a barrier to keep you from moving to another carrier?

[firsttiger]

However which they claim phone are subsidized, they are NOT...

We all know how much certain cell phone true cost, but yet they go around saying its suppose to cost $400!

Key word: suppose

In my area, one such carrier sells a 8years old Nokia for $200!
What! $200!! for something that dont even fit in my largest baggy pants... :evil:


I say, Sue them for ripping our wallet apart!

I'm curious if anyone here has compared the cost of buying a phone without contract outside of North America. This would be a true testament of whether or not we are getting subsidized handsets.

[Jonathon Watkins]

I've always gone for a free phone with the contract. For me, my T-Mobile phones have tended to be locked and the O2 phones tend to be unlocked.

[don dre]

I've always found that buying an unlocked phone on ebay is cheaper than paying full price at a carrier but more expensive than getting a phone with a new contract, somestimes quite substantially. when you get a phone on amazon for -$50 I fail to see how it's not subsidized. however, I can see how carriers might want to not subsidize phones and that this might actually be a good thing. one carrier isn;t going to stop offering subsidized phones b/c people make decisions based on phones...esp where they see service as equivalent. I don't see how its a bad thing for people to have to buy their phones outright and then purchase a contract when they get their sim card.
another benefit might be introducing more competition into th ephone market. phone vendors woudl have to cater directly to consumers and not mobile operators. you will see a better reflection of the market's tastes and thigns will change faster since phone companies no longer have ot act as middlemen in reading consumer demand.

[whydidnt]

I'm generally against these type of lawsuits - however in this case I think that some of these companies do engage in deceptive practices. When I pay for a product, it becomes mine, I own it and should be able to use it as I see fit.

When I puchase a phone the same rules should apply. If the company selling me the phone did not explecitly say that this phone was locked to the network -- and I don't mean buried in fine print that I or 95% of the rest of consumers never read - then they have no right to prevent me from using the phone on another network, assuming I've lived up to the terms of the contract, either by paying for the agreed term, or paying the "early termination fee', which is what I thought was to protect their subsidy.

Some of these phones cost a LOT of money and aren't subsidized that much.

[CTSLICK]

By and large cheap phones requiring a contract commitment have worked fine for me up to this point. I have been able to get far more phone that what I could have otherwise afforded. Sticking with a carrier for a year...or even two has not been a problem either. So I guess I am the target market.

I'm good with locked phones if the termination fee associated with the contract is to cover their subsidizing the phone. If thats the case shouldn't the termination fee be proportional to the amount subsidized and shouldn't that amount decrease over the duration of the contract?

I'm good with locked phones if they are part of a business model intended to provide the subscriber with lower monthly rates by trying to guarantee the provider a certain amount of income. And once again, it hardly seems right to charge a flat rate termination charge in this case.

I think the mobile providers have pushed their terms and conditions far enough. Why are phones locked and what are termination fees designed to cover? And is it a fair arrangement or just something that all the mobile providers made policy on in their favor in the hopes that the consumer would never push back?

I hate the vehicle (sueing the providers) but I think the mobile providers have enjoyed an unfair advantage long enough. Nothing will change without someone making a serious stink in court.

[Blue Zero]

As far as the lawsuit goes, this is America where sue is a verb, not a name ;)
It is capitalize to show emotion.
But I see no one saw that... :|

[Ainvar]

God next thing they will do is have a lawsuit suing someone about the air they are breathing.... Get real people, if you sign a contract with a phone company here in the US and you get a phone from them it is subsidized and since it is not full price and you are buying the phone from that company they can do whatever they want to it. If you dont like that then buy the phone unlocked from an eseller or independent dealer. People who are going after this is just going to make it harder for the average person who goes for the free phone in the deal. The lets say 2% of the people that want there phones unlock so they can bounce from one carrier to the next using the same phone is not going to make that company money.

Also if you paid for the phone yes it should be yours and guess what after your contract that you signed agreeing to all the terms (even the stuff in really small print) that you should have read before signing and you knew full well what it was you were signing. Then guess what that phone is yours, you knew it was locked when you got the phone. If you dont want it locked then pay the full price for a phone that is unlocked and you will pay 200-500 more for that phone.

This is the stuff that ticks me off, people always want something for nothing always think they are intitled to something cause they were born into this world. You get what you pay for, if you pay for cell service and get a free phone well the phone is gonna be crap. If you want a good cell phone then pay for it and if you get it here in the US from a provider that subsidizes there phone and locks them to there network via codes or specialized firmware then so be it. This is not europe!!! This is the US. But if you do want an unlocked phone then use the resources that are available to you and buy the phone that you want and are willing to pay the price for. I have buddies that are located in diffrent areas od europe and they have to pay full price for the phone they want no matter what carrier they are with. But they are free to use that phone whereever they want since they paid that premium.

I have all my phones that were bought from carriers unlocked and some I had to pay for to have them unlocked others I did not have to pay for. I have even bought gsm phones from overseas unlocked and paid full price for them.

I really dont see the point, this will just make it more difficult for the average customer who just wants that cheap phone for free or up to 80 bucks and not deal with 300-800+ dollar cell phones cause of someone who is sue happy.... lawsuits are more of an aggrevation and annoyance to most people cause it is over the most trivial and little things. People will sue over anything these days to try and prove a point or to make a quick buck. This will cause nothing but grief and higher prices then it will for anything else.



Also one other thought I forgot to put in this rant. The price of that phone also that you have to pay has a nice included addition to your service. That phone was tested on the network with a specific firmware and programs to insure it will work to a standard that is set by that company. Now this standard may not always be what we want it ot be, but it does meet the QA team. I always have to spend some amount of time when I get an unlocked phone that is not already preprogrammed to the carrier I am with and then I have to test it all out. That is a fun thing to do at time and then it is also a time comsuming task to make sure all your gprs settings are done, your mms settings are done, sms settings, homepage settings, authentication for all of it. Manually setting up what the companies already have setup for you on the phone to make using it a little more enjoyable.

Think on that next time you see some silly little group who thinks they are making a diffrence just cause more problems for the end user. But what do you expect from some group formed in california where the next lawsuit will be against the oriange grove owners who pick the fruit with a machine and some stupid little group will say that it is wrong cause the machine will cause pain to the orange........

[jimski]

Why is this so difficult to understand. When I pay for a cellphone, I am 'buying it" and not "leasing it". I should be free to do whatever I want with that phone; use it on my current network, use it on another network or give/sell the phone to someone using whatever network.

Why can't these wireless providers simply provide the consumer with a choice. Do you want a free, subsidised, locked cell phone to go along with that mega year contract OR do you want a full priced, unlocked premium cellphone with no contract commitment.

My contract with AT&T expired last November and personally I would be happy never having to sign another cellular contract again. Month to month is fine with me. Keeps everyone on their toes. I have paid full price for my last three AT&T phones, all locked, and fortunately for them I have not had a desire or need to unlock them.

[TheZodiac]

Every phone I have ever had that was locked, I unlocked simply by calling my carrier (in this case t-mobile) If not, I called the manufacturer. I tihnk people are too lazy or uninformed. It would be like iTunes or the iPod pulled wide open to use with any service. Thats not what the intention is. Getting a phone unlocked is probably the simplest task if people were just to do a little piece of legwork or investigation. After all, its your God given right to educate yourself when it comes to rules, regulations, AND your rights as a consumer. Its not illegal to unlock a phone, so why are they sueing carriers?

LAZY.

If you dont have the common sense to do a little research on the web (or perhaps ask someone who is smarter than you) to find information on how to unlock, and WHY (just by calling the carrier) then maybe you dont really know the difference in service between them all either?

Im curious to know what they are going to do when they try and go from a GSM carrier to a CDMA carrier?...... Who are you going to sue then? The OEM designers for not includeing every conceivable wireless standard on every phone, just to make your pathetic life just that bit more easy?

GET A GRIP.

Most of the phones offered out there are offered (similarly or with more or less much similarity) to other carriers phones. Includeing incompatible networks. So go get a free phone and save your pennies.

Why dont you purposely buy an electronic item made to be used in another country thats incompatible with a US standard?.... then sue the manufacturer because they didnt offer you some sort of converter with the item to use it in the US (220v vs 110v)

UNINFORMED Consumers.

Get educated or get out of the loop.

[Bill Gunn]

Every phone I have ever had that was locked, I unlocked simply by calling my carrier (in this case t-mobile) If not, I called the manufacturer. I tihnk people are too lazy or uninformed. It would be like iTunes or the iPod pulled wide open to use with any service. Thats not what the intention is. Getting a phone unlocked is probably the simplest task if people were just to do a little piece of legwork or investigation. After all, its your God given right to educate yourself when it comes to rules, regulations, AND your rights as a consumer. Its not illegal to unlock a phone, so why are they sueing carriers?

LAZY.

If you dont have the common sense to do a little research on the web (or perhaps ask someone who is smarter than you) to find information on how to unlock, and WHY (just by calling the carrier) then maybe you dont really know the difference in service between them all either?

Im curious to know what they are going to do when they try and go from a GSM carrier to a CDMA carrier?...... Who are you going to sue then? The OEM designers for not includeing every conceivable wireless standard on every phone, just to make your pathetic life just that bit more easy?

GET A GRIP.

Most of the phones offered out there are offered (similarly or with more or less much similarity) to other carriers phones. Includeing incompatible networks. So go get a free phone and save your pennies.

Why dont you purposely buy an electronic item made to be used in another country thats incompatible with a US standard?.... then sue the manufacturer because they didnt offer you some sort of converter with the item to use it in the US (220v vs 110v)

UNINFORMED Consumers.

Get educated or get out of the loop.

What an illogical diatribe.

If the cost of your phone is subsidized by your monthly phone bill then it is not in fact subsidized at all. You are paying full price over time. It is quite reasonable to expect to fully own the phone at the end of the contract. Your illustrations of incompatible technologies are non sequitur. No reasonable person would expect a 110 volt appliance to run on a 220 volt circuit and electronic devices are very clearly labeled accordingly at the time of purchase. Your cell phone is not labeled “property of carrier.” Cellular carriers specifically use the words “sell” and “buy” when advertising phones. They never use the word “lease.” If they did then you might be partially correct.

As far as consumer lawsuits in general being driven by “lazy uninformed consumers”; seat belts, car seats, paint without lead, and asbestos free insulation are all the result, in whole or in part, of consumer lawsuits.

[adamz]

I'm not sure about other carriers, but T-Mobile will give unlock codes at no charge if you ask for them (once the cost of the phone is at least mostly subsidized).

Just email [email protected] with your IMEI (serial) number and account information.

The email thing doesn't work anymore, but you can still just call 611 and they'll tell you how to unlock it.

I also just buy my phones already unlocked, mostly because the good ones aren't offered by providers in the US.

[mja8105]

One thing that nobody has clearly aknowledge in here is that companies are in business to make money.. the more you hack away at their ability to do so the more you will in turn suffer. I like a good deal just like the next guy but at the same time i try to keep in mind that a profit has to be made to.. i mean think how you would feel if you owned the company and everyone says that you should give everything to your customers and keep nothing for yourself.. would you still be able to maintain your business if that were the case.. so next time you worry about subsidies and lock codes think about it this way.. dont sign the contract dont buy the locked phone pay full price for an unlocked phone and sign on a mth to mth basis.. or take the price cut get a deal sign the contract and stay with the provider you all know what you are getting into if you do the research anyone who claims ignorance of their contract deserves to get skrewed over by the corporation..

It's understandable that the companies need to turn a profit, but they need to realize that they can recognize much more revenue on voice and data services than on hardware. If you go to AT&T's website, their strategy says, "To be the pre-eminent company for mobile, voice, and data services in the major markets of North America."

They aren't going to get anywhere focusing on hardware...

[dMores]

However which they claim phone are subsidized, they are NOT...

We all know how much certain cell phone true cost, but yet they go around saying its suppose to cost $400!
yes they are subsidized.
i got this info from an austrian manager of the largest phone company. he said that they are losing money by subsidizing phones in exchange for a yearly contract. while it may be true that an unsubsidized phone does not cost $400, it is more expensive than you think.
the guy told me that they also don't make a lot of money on regular phonecalls. most of the income is from added features like WAP, web, sms, mms etc.

do i think it's right to jane, uh, sue carriers to unlock their phones? i dunno. i have never needed another carrier on my phone, but it does reduce the resale value.
my carrier asks $40 to unlock my phone, there are dodgy places where you can have it done for $15. a.f.a.i.k. only t-mobile offers free unlocking when your contract has been going for a year.
i don't think they should all come unlocked from the start, the t-mobile solution is ok. give some users what they want, the others won't need it.

[Jon Westfall]

What's going to happen now is that this companies are going to drop the phone discounts that they have now, and phone prices are going to go up. A phone that now costs $99 subsidized, is going to cost around $400 then.

If you want a decent phone for work, you're already paying that much to have the technology you need in your hand.

[Ainvar]

Im curious to know what they are going to do when they try and go from a GSM carrier to a CDMA carrier?...... Who are you going to sue then? The OEM designers for not includeing every conceivable wireless standard on every phone, just to make your pathetic life just that bit more easy?



Wait that is next weeks law suit!!!!! Just wait and see some idiot will try to do it.


Also


Why is this so difficult to understand. When I pay for a cellphone, I am 'buying it" and not "leasing it". I should be free to do whatever I want with that phone; use it on my current network, use it on another network or give/sell the phone to someone using whatever network.



Wait you are telling me you have to return your cell phone? When I buy the cell phone I get to keep it. Just cause it is locked does not mean you dont own it. Also you GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. If you want an unlocked phone then go online and buy one. The US market will never be able to support us 3% people who want to buy unlocked phones at a premium. That is why you have only so few choice (well one of the reasons anyway).
It is that simple. We as a consumer do not have the luxury of paying 1200 dollars for the unlocked phone of our choice at out local cellphone store (most cases) I know there are some 3rd party dealers that sell some inlocked phone but they are wide are few between.

Plus there is a company called metro pcs that does not require a contract if you ever need a cell phone carrier that does not require a contract. A cellphone contract is as common as needing a driver's lic. to legally drive your car here in the USA. It will never change anytime soon......

[Kacey Green]

God next thing they will do is have a lawsuit suing someone about the air they are breathing.... Get real people, if you sign a contract with a phone company here in the US and you get a phone from them it is subsidized and since it is not full price and you are buying the phone from that company they can do whatever they want to it. If you dont like that then buy the phone unlocked from an eseller or independent dealer. People who are going after this is just going to make it harder for the average person who goes for the free phone in the deal. The lets say 2% of the people that want there phones unlock so they can bounce from one carrier to the next using the same phone is not going to make that company money.

Also if you paid for the phone yes it should be yours and guess what after your contract that you signed agreeing to all the terms (even the stuff in really small print) that you should have read before signing and you knew full well what it was you were signing. Then guess what that phone is yours, you knew it was locked when you got the phone. If you dont want it locked then pay the full price for a phone that is unlocked and you will pay 200-500 more for that phone.

This is the stuff that ticks me off, people always want something for nothing always think they are intitled to something cause they were born into this world. You get what you pay for, if you pay for cell service and get a free phone well the phone is gonna be crap. If you want a good cell phone then pay for it and if you get it here in the US from a provider that subsidizes there phone and locks them to there network via codes or specialized firmware then so be it. This is not europe!!! This is the US. But if you do want an unlocked phone then use the resources that are available to you and buy the phone that you want and are willing to pay the price for. I have buddies that are located in diffrent areas od europe and they have to pay full price for the phone they want no matter what carrier they are with. But they are free to use that phone whereever they want since they paid that premium.

I have all my phones that were bought from carriers unlocked and some I had to pay for to have them unlocked others I did not have to pay for. I have even bought gsm phones from overseas unlocked and paid full price for them.

I really dont see the point, this will just make it more difficult for the average customer who just wants that cheap phone for free or up to 80 bucks and not deal with 300-800+ dollar cell phones cause of someone who is sue happy.... lawsuits are more of an aggrevation and annoyance to most people cause it is over the most trivial and little things. People will sue over anything these days to try and prove a point or to make a quick buck. This will cause nothing but grief and higher prices then it will for anything else.



Also one other thought I forgot to put in this rant. The price of that phone also that you have to pay has a nice included addition to your service. That phone was tested on the network with a specific firmware and programs to insure it will work to a standard that is set by that company. Now this standard may not always be what we want it ot be, but it does meet the QA team. I always have to spend some amount of time when I get an unlocked phone that is not already preprogrammed to the carrier I am with and then I have to test it all out. That is a fun thing to do at time and then it is also a time comsuming task to make sure all your gprs settings are done, your mms settings are done, sms settings, homepage settings, authentication for all of it. Manually setting up what the companies already have setup for you on the phone to make using it a little more enjoyable.

Think on that next time you see some silly little group who thinks they are making a diffrence just cause more problems for the end user. But what do you expect from some group formed in california where the next lawsuit will be against the oriange grove owners who pick the fruit with a machine and some stupid little group will say that it is wrong cause the machine will cause pain to the orange........

yes, you forget that the point of this argument is unfair buisness practices and it wouldn't be such a big deal if you had options, the local phone shack either doesn't know anything or if they do they have no control over what's going on

[jeffmd]

subsidized shumitize, if you belive that, I have some swamp land in florida to sell ya. Discounts on phones are due to the contract that comes with them. no contract? full priced phone.. simple as that. The lock does nothing but create waste of all the hundreds of thousands of phones that get trashed.

[Janak Parekh]

Every phone I have ever had that was locked, I unlocked simply by calling my carrier (in this case t-mobile) If not, I called the manufacturer. I tihnk people are too lazy or uninformed. It would be like iTunes or the iPod pulled wide open to use with any service. Thats not what the intention is. Getting a phone unlocked is probably the simplest task if people were just to do a little piece of legwork or investigation.
No, you are incorrect. T-Mobile is generous about unlocking. Under no circumstances does AT&T or Sprint allow unlocking, and it's very hard with other carriers as well. You can get it sent to third parties sometimes, but this is capable of voiding your phone's warranty, among other things. :(

--janak

[minimage]

Who the heck is trying to keep someone from making a profit? Most of us seem to be saying that once we've given back all that we were "given" in exchange for the phone and services (I seriously doubt that the company doesn't get its money back using contracts and early termination fees), we should be able to take our business and our phones elsewhere. See...AFTER we've compensated said carrier, not BEFORE. Once the poor, suffering corporation has been paid, then maybe, just maybe it's ok if the evil, selfish consumer wants to use the paid-in-full-phone with some other defenseless, philanthropic, profitless company.

I (and obviously many others) feel quite confident that those companies know how to get their profit, and that they do not have to keep those phones locked, post-fulfillment of those contractual obligations, in order to do it. Should their profit margin could be any different if the consumer simply went to another company and got another phone, using the old phone as a doggie chew-toy? How does that help the jilted company? Oh...do you think people will stay, if that means they can keep using their phones? Hmmm...maybe, but I say POO! on that! I may dump my own provider near the end of this year, if I can find someone who'll give me a phone I like. Also, if people can easily take their phones to another company, then it makes sense that not everyone is going to leave Company A for companies B and C...there ought to be some two-way flow here. Companies B and C might see their customers take their phones to A...and other such possibilities. If Company A loses all its profit, because it allowed some formally faithful customers to have their phones unlocked, then maybe that company needs to rethink its methods of operating.

Now, I can't say anything about how easy or hard it is to unlock the phones or get them unlocked, since I've had one carrier in the nearly three years I've owned a mobile phone, and I'm not so sure I could use a PCS phone anywhere else (call me lazy if you want; I just haven't felt a need to know, yet).