Why is it legal for The Carriers to charge me to "unlock" my phone?

[sund1ata]

I have a second-hand iPhone 4S on EE and I am being charged £20.45 to unlock it from their network. Is there are legal basis for them to levy this charge? I understand that "the main reason that networks are allowed to lock phones in the first place is because generally when a phone is sold locked it's at a subsidised price..." - however, I have no contract with them, so why can I not be released upon request?

 

"All the networks do it" is not the basis for law. Also of interest to me, the fact that parking charges - and over-charging - previously acceptable to millions of people, is now found to be in contravention to the law. How can I request my money back from EE?

[BazzaS]

I have a second-hand iPhone 4S on EE and I am being charged £20.45 to unlock it from their network. Is there are legal basis for them to levy this charge? I understand that "the main reason that networks are allowed to lock phones in the first place is because generally when a phone is sold locked it's at a subsidised price..." - however, I have no contract with them, so why can I not be released upon request?

 

"All the networks do it" is not the basis for law. Also of interest to me, the fact that parking charges - and over-charging - previously acceptable to millions of people, is now found to be in contravention to the law. How can I request my money back from EE?

 

"however, I have no contract with them, so why can I not be released upon request?" : since you have no contract with them, why should they offer you unlocking (a commercial service) for free? They owe you no obligation.

 

So, "all the networks do it" might not be a basis in law for them to charge you, but since it isn't unlawful for them to charge you for a service that they aren't contractually bound to offer free of charge, they can do so, lawfully.

[sund1ata]

I don't mean to be dim about this - but what am I being charged for? Are they hiring some kind of digital locksmith to come along with a pair of bolt-cutters to "release" me? I am not sure why this is a "commercial service". Surely, they can flick a switch and I am off their network? Why do I have to pay to be un-tied from their network, to which they have the "keys"?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Its sold locked to that network from new with the agreement that the phone is cheaper as its locked. that is accepted by the buyer.

You have bought it second hand knowing its a locked phone and that it will cost to unlock.

Should you not wish to pay, buy an unlocked phone. Which will probably be £20 more expensive so you are no better off.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

They are charging you for their service. You are asking them to unlock it, they are providing a service. If you dont agree with their charge, dont use the service.

[BazzaS]

I don't mean to be dim about this - but what am I being charged for? Are they hiring some kind of digital locksmith to come along with a pair of bolt-cutters to "release" me? I am not sure why this is a "commercial service". Surely, they can flick a switch and I am off their network? Why do I have to pay to be un-tied from their network, to which they have the "keys"?

 

What are you being charged for?

1) The portion of the network's subsidy the phone's original owner hadn't paid off (by paying to have it unlocked)

2) Their staff's time & effort to process the unlock.

 

From their point of view : why should they offer it gratis?

They have no legal or moral obligation to do so.

[BankFodder]

What is amazing is that in France, they're not allowed to charge. They have to do for free. The only condition that they can put is that you are not entitled to get your phone until about six months after the commencement of any contract.

[BazzaS]

What is amazing is that in France, they're not allowed to charge. They have to do for free. The only condition that they can put is that you are not entitled to get your phone until about six months after the commencement of any contract.

 

Is that not allowed to get your phone unlocked for six months (what if you want it unlocked sooner? At least you get the choice to do so in the UK, even if you have to pay!), OR

 

"Not entitled to get your phone until about six months after the commencement of any contract", in which case what do you do for the first six months of your first contract?.

 

Is the handset subsidy less? (In which case you pay, it is just you pay it upfront AND can't get it unlocked for 6 months!).

Unless the subsidies are the same, I prefer the UK version.

[Northernpug]

Three, Giff Gaff and Utility warehouse don't charge for unlocking at any time. Other carrriers will unlock for free after a certain period and the charge varies from free to £20+. Doesn't seem to me to be anything to do with any subsidy but a charge made because they can. Rescent legislation in the USA requires all mobile operators to unlock for free when the contract period expires.

[sund1ata]

Three, Giff Gaff and Utility warehouse don't charge for unlocking at any time. Other carrriers will unlock for free after a certain period and the charge varies from free to £20+. Doesn't seem to me to be anything to do with any subsidy but a charge made because they can. Rescent legislation in the USA requires all mobile operators to unlock for free when the contract period expires.

 

Thank you. Here I was , thinking: "Is it just me being dim, or is this a rip-off?" It appears to be totally arbitrary then, as far as I can tell: they are doing it because they can get away with it. The original contract on an iPhone 4S bought last year would long have been expired - the phone was made in 2011, so that is not even an issue. What are we left with? "Their staff's time and effort to process the unlock." Really? £20.45? Who are they hiring - Harry Houdini? I would at least like to find out how this cost breaks down. Does anybody know who I can write to and find this out? Thank you.

[SabreSheep]

It will be commercially sensititve information, there is no way you can force them to divulge that info

[tezza1234]

It sounds like you want something for nothing, why don;t you move to the usa ohh wait, no NHS, horses for courses ay.

[sund1ata]

It will be commercially sensititve information, there is no way you can force them to divulge that info

 

I don't think so. They are providing a "service" and as such are required to break that bill down. If it's a "commercial service" as so many have said, there should be nothing for EE to fear. Doesn't your electricity bill have a break-down?

[BazzaS]

Thank you. Here I was , thinking: "Is it just me being dim, or is this a rip-off?" It appears to be totally arbitrary then, as far as I can tell: they are doing it because they can get away with it. The original contract on an iPhone 4S bought last year would long have been expired - the phone was made in 2011, so that is not even an issue. What are we left with? "Their staff's time and effort to process the unlock." Really? £20.45? Who are they hiring - Harry Houdini? I would at least like to find out how this cost breaks down. Does anybody know who I can write to and find this out? Thank you.

 

Thank you for quoting me on "Their staff's time and effort to process the unlock" ... You even put it in quotation marks. Bless.

 

However, you forgot to mention that that was the second part that the fee was for, and you've forgotten to discuss the first part. What I said was:

 

What are you being charged for?

1) The portion of the network's subsidy the phone's original owner hadn't paid off (by paying to have it unlocked)

2) Their staff's time & effort to process the unlock.

 

From their point of view : why should they offer it gratis?

They have no legal or moral obligation to do so.

 

Selective quoting by you merely shows how weak your argument is.

Unless the subsidy is included in any discussion, the fact that some UK networks don't lock their phones (do they charge more for the phone?), or the situation in France or the USA can't be compared : the level of any subsidy is relevant.

Make the networks unlock the handset for free? Expect the initial handset cost to rise.

 

By the same consideration, mobiles that are chargeable on PAYG are available for less on contract : the subsidy must be considered for a fair comparison.

[p3t3r]

Hi,

 

Your question: Why is it legal for The Carriers to charge me to "unlock" my phone?

 

For the same reasons why it is legal for a computer repair shop to charge you for fixing your computer, a painter to decorate your home, a mechanic to repair your car etc etc etc

 

As Bazza has already said above, the network has no legal or moral obligation to provide this service to you for free.

[sund1ata]

Hi,

 

Your question: Why is it legal for The Carriers to charge me to "unlock" my phone?

 

For the same reasons why it is legal for a computer repair shop to charge you for fixing your computer, a painter to decorate your home, a mechanic to repair your car etc etc etc

 

As Bazza has already said above, the network has no legal or moral obligation to provide this service to you for free.

 

I think you are missing the point. Isn't it entirely obvious? What is the nature of this "service" and what is the breakdown of this cost? Comparing it to a broken computer or a car that needs repair is false - the device is not broken, so what am I being charged for? Can any of you answer this question? It appears to be a punitive sanction to leave their fiefdom. If I want my home decorated - another bad example - I choose who I work with, and they quantify what services they provide - materials and labour. Unlocking a phone is more like the last decorator, who painted your house 3 years ago, charges a "release fee" for you to leave his decorating kingdom to find someone with better paint. At which point many on this board would then say, "Ah, you know, it's a commercial service."

 

Here's the point:

 

1. The contract has expired, so the subsidy is paid off in full

2. I am no longer using their spectrum

3. The phone is working perfectly well

4. I am no longer under contract (Point 1)

 

I will re-iterate, for those who can't be bothered to read: the subsidy is paid off. The phone is near 5-years old. It cannot reasonably be a factor. Given this "subsidy" argument is vanquished, there can be no valid reason not to provide me with a breakdown of costs, which I will request.

[BazzaS]

 

Here's the point:

 

1. The contract has expired, so the subsidy is paid off in full

2. I am no longer using their spectrum

3. The phone is working perfectly well

4. I am no longer under contract (Point 1)

 

I will re-iterate, for those who can't be bothered to read: the subsidy is paid off. The phone is near 5-years old. It cannot reasonably be a factor. Given this "subsidy" argument is vanquished, there can be no valid reason not to provide me with a breakdown of costs, which I will request.

 

1. Just because the contract is ended doesn't mean the subsidy for an unlocked phone is paid off.

The original owner has paid off the subsidy to the level of a locked handset ...... they could have paid extra to have it unlocked, or paid more at the start to buy an unlocked handset outright.

 

2. If you wanted to use 'their spectrum' you'd have to pay a separate charge for their service (contract, SIM only, or PAYG), but you could do so without getting the handset unlocked....... so this(your point 2) is irrelevant to the issue of handset network unlocking.

 

3. Great that the phone is working perfectly well, as designed. It was also designed to have a network lock, so is performing as per design spec.

So, it isn't faulty, and again, this doesn't support your demands for a free unlock.....

 

4. You want to re-iterate point 1?. Same answer (see 1 above), and I'll also re-iterate: they have no contractual obligation to you to unlock the phone. You are so very keen to note that you aren't under contract - so, if there is no contract between you, on what basis are you imposing an obligation on them to unlock your phone free of charge?. Lack of contract works both ways.....

 

As for "for those who cant be bothered to read": I've read what you have written. I've understood what you have written, too, it is just that you are legally (and ethically / morally) incorrect when you create an obligation on them to act that doesn't exist.

BTW, putting "paid off in full" in bold doesn't make it any more correct : since you appear "hard of thinking" (unless you have another explanation for why you think people aren't reading what you have written - disagreeing doesn't mean they haven't read it!) it is my turn to re-iterate, and I'll try to make it clear for you:

 

The subsidy of a locked phone was paid off in full. The subsidy of an unlocked phone wasn't.

 

That is sufficiently simple it doesn't need 'bolding' to try and make it more persuasive.

 

The original owner could have paid to have it unlocked and didn't, which is why you will need to if you want it unlocked officially (rather than jailbroken).

[SabreSheep]

I don't think so. They are providing a "service" and as such are required to break that bill down. If it's a "commercial service" as so many have said, there should be nothing for EE to fear. Doesn't your electricity bill have a break-down?

 

Please state which law that they are required to follow to break down their charges?

Comparing to a regulated industry like the electric company is a false argument. The electric company is required by law to provide that breakdown. That does not apply to your phone company.

 

Secondly, do not confuse moral obligations with Legal Obligations.

[BazzaS]

Please state which law that they are required to follow to break down their charges?

Comparing to a regulated industry like the electric company is a false argument. The electric company is required by law to provide that breakdown. That does not apply to your phone company.

 

Secondly, do not confuse moral obligations with Legal Obligations.

 

I agree, except I don't think they are under any moral obligation to the OP, either, only to the original owner.

 

The OP paying, (or agreeing to pay), the unlock fee would create the contract / legal and moral obligations to unlock the phone, but thats where it would end, despite the OP continuing, King Canute style, to demand either or both of

a) a free unlock

b) endless itemization of precise costs broken down to their exact origins.....

[SabreSheep]

Instead, I would suggest the avenue of approach for the OP would be to try and get support to force a law through parliment banning the locking of phones to a single network.

 

However, I feel that would prob fail

[BazzaS]

Instead, I would suggest the avenue of approach for the OP would be to try and get support to force a law through parliment banning the locking of phones to a single network.

 

However, I feel that would prob fail

 

It might well pass.

 

If it did, expect handset price to increase by about for those networks who don't currently unlock for free / provide unlocked handsets. Someone will be paying, at some point......

 

Which brings us back to the OP: Since someone hasn't yet paid for it (despite your protestations otherwise), you'll need to, if you want the added value / utility of an unlocked phone over and above that of a locked phone.

[spalding78]

It might well pass.

 

If it did, expect handset price to increase by about for those networks who don't currently unlock for free / provide unlocked handsets. Someone will be paying, at some point......

And also, I suspect, for those which currently do unlock for free anyway

[topcat1802]

Many local markets have stalls that will unlock a mobile phone for charge £5 or £10! So just go down your local market with the phone and pay one of them!

[BazzaS]

Many local markets have stalls that will unlock a mobile phone for charge £5 or £10! So just go down your local market with the phone and pay one of them!

 

The OP noted their phone is an iPhone.

 

If they wanted an "unofficial" unlock, they could "jailbreak" it themselves for free.

 

Paying at the local market won't give them any advantage over doing it themselves, it still won't be "unlocked" rather than "jailbroken"