01-13-2014 06:38 AM
61 123
tools
  1. ike2000's Avatar
    The agreement seems too vague and appears to be non-binding.- gives the carriers more leverage and discretion - 3 - 12 months to study and implement ... that's too Washington.

    I wish we can go back to the old rules.

    In my case, I bought my phone from Microsoft. No carrier involved. So how does AT&T come into fray? If paid in full, Nokia & Microsoft should UNLOCK them or state clearly "they cannot be unlocked" and that we have to deal with AT&T. I would have made a choice armed with that warning. But it was sold as a: "No Contract" phone. That is deceptive.
    01-05-2014 06:43 PM
  2. ike2000's Avatar
    Teague Kelley and ike2000 any of you actually has the at&t 1520 unlocked? I am getting a little confused here.
    Teague has unlocked black and willing to swap for locked yellow, I suppose.
    01-05-2014 06:47 PM
  3. William Velez1's Avatar
    Teague has unlocked black and willing to swap for locked yellow, I suppose.
    Mine is black...but been thinking about a yellow one...tempting

    wp_ss_20131230_0002.jpg
    01-05-2014 08:07 PM
  4. Mr Lebowski's Avatar
    The agreement seems too vague and appears to be non-binding.- gives the carriers more leverage and discretion - 3 - 12 months to study and implement ... that's too Washington.

    I wish we can go back to the old rules.

    In my case, I bought my phone from Microsoft. No carrier involved. So how does AT&T come into fray? If paid in full, Nokia & Microsoft should UNLOCK them or state clearly "they cannot be unlocked" and that we have to deal with AT&T. I would have made a choice armed with that warning. But it was sold as a: "No Contract" phone. That is deceptive.
    Maybe you have to read what a carrier branded "no contract" phone actually implies -before you can call it deceptive.
    That doesn't mean it's easy to find out that information, but being a pita to decipher all the FAQs doesn't mean deception -necessarily.
    Have you ever tried to read all the rules and FAQs associated with your credit card ? who does, but that makes the customer at a disadvantage when they slap you with a fee and then they show you where it was in the agreement all the time. And yes you need a lawyer to understand a lot of what an agreement means but -that doesn't automatically mean deception, it could be, but you have to prove it by finding out where they lied or deceived you.
    01-05-2014 08:09 PM
  5. ahmad12's Avatar
    Mine is black...but been thinking about a yellow one...tempting

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	wp_ss_20131230_0002.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	218.7 KB 
ID:	53762
    This is the link to the yellow maybe you sell me yours and you buy this one? after all I live in Chandler

    http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53...84.m1426.l2649
    01-05-2014 08:39 PM
  6. ike2000's Avatar
    Mine is black...but been thinking about a yellow one...tempting

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	wp_ss_20131230_0002.jpg 
Views:	9 
Size:	218.7 KB 
ID:	53762
    Still tempted?
    Deal?
    Awaiting.
    01-05-2014 09:01 PM
  7. unstoppablekem's Avatar
    They have to ask for the last four of SSN, account number, name and/or business, and more. So it will be a hard process.
    01-05-2014 09:03 PM
  8. ike2000's Avatar
    Maybe you have to read what a carrier branded "no contract" phone actually implies -before you can call it deceptive.
    That doesn't mean it's easy to find out that information, but being a pita to decipher all the FAQs doesn't mean deception -necessarily.
    Have you ever tried to read all the rules and FAQs associated with your credit card ? who does, but that makes the customer at a disadvantage when they slap you with a fee and then they show you where it was in the agreement all the time. And yes you need a lawyer to understand a lot of what an agreement means but -that doesn't automatically mean deception, it could be, but you have to prove it by finding out where they lied or deceived you.
    No warnings whatever, on the Microsoft store - "Nokia Lumia 1520 No Contract for AT&T" was the ONLY letters. No hidden or little implied characters in the whole listing - all in clear text.
    unstoppablekem likes this.
    01-05-2014 09:11 PM
  9. Mr Lebowski's Avatar
    No warnings whatever, on the Microsoft store - "Nokia Lumia 1520 No Contract for AT&T" was the ONLY letters. No hidden or little implied characters in the whole listing - all in clear text.
    Where's the deception (your words), where does it say you have a right to have it unlocked ?
    01-06-2014 12:00 AM
  10. ahmad12's Avatar
    Where's the deception (your words), where does it say you have a right to have it unlocked ?
    I my self think they should make more clear on the No contract phones and unlock policy, I would see the lack of explanation as deception too.
    at&t needs to start listening to the consumer we have the right to unlock our phones if we have fulfilled our contract obligation or purchased the device at full price.
    If they do not want at&t devices activate on other carriers then they should make it clear and stop selling devices with no contracts unless otherwise activated with a GO phone or any at&t type of service and limit that to customers of at&t. That way no confusion at anyone's part.
    The LAW needs revision it needs to be more clear and strict on the carrier if they deny unlock request for current former customers as for non customers they can at least charge a small fee.
    Flavio76 likes this.
    01-06-2014 12:12 AM
  11. ahmad12's Avatar
    Where's the deception (your words), where does it say you have a right to have it unlocked ?
    I my self think they should make more clear on the No contract phones and unlock policy, I would see the lack of explanation as deception too.
    at&t needs to start listening to the consumer we have the right to unlock our phones if we have fulfilled our contract obligation or purchased the device at full price.
    If they do not want at&t devices activate on other carriers then they should make it clear and stop selling devices with no contracts unless otherwise activated with a GO phone or any at&t type of service and limit that to customers of at&t. That way no confusion at anyone's part.
    The LAW needs revision it needs to be more clear and strict on the carrier if they deny unlock request for current former customers as for non customers they can at least charge a small fee.
    01-06-2014 12:13 AM
  12. Mr Lebowski's Avatar
    Everything you say implies a poor customer relationship department and poor communication.
    Nothing like that approaches deception. Not providing information isn't deception per se, it's a poor business practice.

    Did you read the link to the "agreement" between the FCC and USA carriers ?
    http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-and-carrier...es-7000024247/
    01-06-2014 01:06 AM
  13. Krypto7's Avatar
    I have a locked brand new yellow one, and would be happy to swap for an unlocked black.
    01-06-2014 01:11 AM
  14. ahmad12's Avatar
    Everything you say implies a poor customer relationship department and poor communication.
    Nothing like that approaches deception. Not providing information isn't deception per se, it's a poor business practice.

    Did you read the link to the "agreement" between the FCC and USA carriers ?
    FCC and carriers agree to make it easier to unlock phones | ZDNet
    Call it poor communication if you like but a large corporation like at&t does not poorly communicate. Anyway lets call it poor communication. that needs to change
    Flavio76 likes this.
    01-06-2014 02:17 AM
  15. Flavio76's Avatar
    I did tha same things some months ago, bought a 1020 from Microsoft at full price, called att and unlocked on first call...they really changed the procedure's...


    Ah, I change an locked black for any color LOL
    01-06-2014 03:21 AM
  16. ike2000's Avatar
    Where's the deception (your words), where does it say you have a right to have it unlocked ?
    The burden rests on the merchant. Proper disclosure is the norm. Read about "Fair & Good Faith Implications." That is the doctrine of the land and clearly applicable.

    You answered your question ... where did it say I can't UNLOCK? Anyways, I'm not playing scrabble with this topic.

    "No Contract" connotes a degree of freedom. The merchant also sells iPhones. They set precedence by selling other "No Contract" phones UNLOCKED - including the iPhone. This alone will hold tons of water in any court of law. I'm holding on to my phone with the conviction that this deceptive practice will soon be reversed.
    Last edited by ike2000; 01-06-2014 at 06:38 AM.
    01-06-2014 06:17 AM
  17. Mr Lebowski's Avatar
    The burden rests on the merchant. Proper disclosure is the norm. Read about "Fair & Good Faith Implications." That is the doctrine of the land and clearly applicable.

    You answered your question ... where did it say I can't UNLOCK? Anyways, I'm not playing scrabble with this topic.

    "No Contract" connotes a degree of freedom. The merchant also sells iPhones. They set precedence by selling other "No Contract" phones UNLOCKED - including the iPhone. This alone will hold tons of water in any court of law. I'm holding on to my phone with the conviction that this deceptive practice will soon be reversed.
    You have a legit compliant about AT&T not being clear ?- but you have to find out what they have done to deceive you.
    No contract does not imply unlocked, it does say that you can buy the phone without a contract but that is it, what isn't said isn't deceptive, it's sleazy but sleaze doesn't necessarily mean deceptive or illegal or a buyer expects it to be unlocked or it comes unlocked -
    I can buy a Volvo at Car Max with Car Max giving me free oil changes but that doesn't IMPLY that if I buy a Chevy they have to give me free oil changes too, in your thinking that means precedent.
    One will ( generally speaking not YOU) never get this even to a hearing, a lawyer won't take this case.

    Good luck.
    01-06-2014 02:49 PM
  18. superlawyer15's Avatar
    I think the "for AT&T" part is sufficient to convey that it's locked to ATT
    the "no contract" language in no way alludes to the device being unlocked (or even the ability to unlock)
    but rather that you have no commitment to pay for service with ATT

    Furthermore, the idea that because other no-contract phones were sold unlocked sets some kind of precedent is ludicrous
    there is no such thing as commercial precedent, I believe you are confusing the legal doctrine of stare decisis and incorrectly attempting to apply it to this situation

    no reputable lawyer would ever initiate legal action against the retailer or the carrier, and if you were to do it on your own you wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss, let alone summary judgment

    this isn't a case of deception or even poor communication on microsoft/att's part
    ..its a case of some customers lacking the language skills to comprehend what is being advertised.
    Mr Lebowski likes this.
    01-06-2014 03:54 PM
  19. TheRewardisCheese's Avatar
    I believe that part of the reason AT&T is not willing to unlock the Lumia 1520 right now is because of the fact that it's an AT&T Exclusive here in the U.S., and does not want consumers to use it on its competitors' networks. If someone is lucky enough to get AT&T to unlock their 1520, and that's all it is (luck), then it's usually because the rep chose to ignore AT&T's policy when it comes to unlocking phones that are in contract, and/or exclusive to its network for the time being. Ever since the Lumia 900 came out, AT&T has tried to stick to its policy that it adopted to allow for unlocking of carrier exclusive phones only after 6-8 months.

    I know from personal experience that back in Oct, there were plenty of third party vendors selling unlock codes for the iphone, and the Lumia 920 and 1020. Then, at the drop of the hat, all of that came to a screeching halt. Come to find out that AT&T had essentially severed the ability for third party vendors to get the codes to sell. AT&T essentially wanted to have 100% control on whose phone gets unlocked. Most likely this is because everyone and their dog was purchasing AT&T locked iphones (and Lumias), getting them unlocked, and then turning around and either selling them on craigslist, or in the case of the Lumias, in my experience, sending them to family overseas as I had a few Lumias I unlocked and then sold on craigslist.
    01-06-2014 05:16 PM
  20. gvp 1995's Avatar
    Clearly, AT&T does nothing wrong. They have exclusive rights to 1520, and they want to make money. The terms of the agreement ATT signed with other phone companies on 12/12/2013 (see post 39) are even worse that their own:

    3) Prepaid Unlocking Policy: If you ask a carrier, they will unlock prepaid devices no later than a year after their initial activation, provided that you've met the payment, time, and usage requirements.

    Currently ATT unlocks such devices after 6 months, according to the rules found on ATT's web site.

    So where is the problem here? I think it is in the fact that the locked phone costs $550, and for unlocked ATT phone (this is important because it looks like RM-937 does not work with T-Mobile LTE) folks are ready to pay up to $800, reading some forums. So the solution is obvious. Do some research, come up with the unlocking price, and charge it to everybody, who is ready to pay for it!

    For those, who was able to easily unlock 1020 but stuck with 1520, rather than being frustrated with this new reality, enjoy the fact that bureaucracy of a big corporation allowed for this to happen in the first place.

    Having said that, I still think all this locking/unlocking business is stupidity, and consumers should not be involved in this crap.
    01-06-2014 06:37 PM
  21. chuckdaly's Avatar
    Either people here are young or need to reread the definition of deception. The topic of carrier locked phones is far from new. Its been covered by most national and even local media outlets. When carriers are questioned by the media about the concept of locked cell phones, the "Contract" or subsidy is given as the justification. So listing a phone as "NO Contract" does come with the implications of it being unlocked. Stating, "For AT&T" doesn't imply that the phone is carrier locked any more than that the phone listed is manufactured to operate on that carrier's frequency bands.

    I am not saying that AT&T are conducting their business illegally, or that we should protest or boycott AT&T. At the same time, we need to be honest about the circumstances.
    01-06-2014 08:14 PM
  22. ahmad12's Avatar
    Either people here are young or need to reread the definition of deception. The topic of carrier locked phones is far from new. Its been covered by most national and even local media outlets. When carriers are questioned by the media about the concept of locked cell phones, the "Contract" or subsidy is given as the justification. So listing a phone as "NO Contract" does come with the implications of it being unlocked. Stating, "For AT&T" doesn't imply that the phone is carrier locked any more than that the phone listed is manufactured to operate on that carrier's frequency bands.

    I am not saying that AT&T are conducting their business illegally, or that we should protest or boycott AT&T. At the same time, we need to be honest about the circumstances.
    By the way, I spoke with at&t so many times while I was trying to unlock the phone, and at least 5 reps as soon as I mentioned I bought the phone at No contract pricing they said doesn't that mean its already unlocked funny ha lol.
    If we read the policy online at at&t they mention that an account needs to be active for 60 days in good standing as a requirement I even read online an at&t VP stating the same policy but when you talk to at&t they tell you no that is wrong it and they mean devices needs to be active for 60 days what do you call that?
    01-06-2014 09:04 PM
  23. ike2000's Avatar
    I think the "for AT&T" part is sufficient to convey that it's locked to ATT
    the "no contract" language in no way alludes to the device being unlocked (or even the ability to unlock)
    but rather that you have no commitment to pay for service with ATT

    Furthermore, the idea that because other no-contract phones were sold unlocked sets some kind of precedent is ludicrous
    there is no such thing as commercial precedent, I believe you are confusing the legal doctrine of stare decisis and incorrectly attempting to apply it to this situation

    no reputable lawyer would ever initiate legal action against the retailer or the carrier, and if you were to do it on your own you wouldn't survive a motion to dismiss, let alone summary judgment

    this isn't a case of deception or even poor communication on microsoft/att's part
    ..its a case of some customers lacking the language skills to comprehend what is being advertised.
    RE: "the "no contract" language in no way alludes to the device being unlocked (or even the ability to unlock)
    but rather that you have no commitment to pay for service with ATT"


    Again: "but rather that you (I) have no commitment to pay for service with ATT"

    Your tongue-and-cheek attempt to fend an overate malpractice amounts to babbling. Exactly what is the intent of UNLOCK? To "have no commitment to pay for service with ATT." To the contrary, their inability to UNLOCK is tantamount to bondage and resembling a fleece.

    May I draw your attention to the FTC statutory position on this - RE: 15 USC 55 ... The actual statute defines false advertising as a "means of advertisement other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect; and in determining whether an advertisement is misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual..."

    A deliberate statement was made - in absolute - to sell a "No Contract" phone.
    With NO stated terms of contract - expressly or otherwise. None, even hidden in small fonts as obtains in used-car market.

    "No Contract for AT&T" without the delineating terms, amount to false advertisement. It fails to reveal ("fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations..") as statutorily posited. For those trying to twist-talk and dismiss this as accidental practice on the part of AT&T, you condone injustice by your lase-affair approach. This act is premeditated and debated (I'm sure) in the AT&T law department. I believe greed overrode cogent objections. They will go as far as planting moles on these forums to extend their nefarious tentacles.

    The statute of the law is writing in stone. You can twist and turn it whatever way you want, however, the evidence is clear-cut.

    -
    Last edited by ike2000; 01-06-2014 at 11:52 PM.
    01-06-2014 11:37 PM
  24. superlawyer15's Avatar
    first of all, it is a lawyers job to twist and turn

    second, it is not misleading, maybe it confused you, but it is not misleading in the legal sense of the word

    I understand you are upset that you can't get the device working on the carrier of your choice
    (I would be too as it is an amazing device and I'm very happy to have it)

    no contract clearly means that you have no further commitment to pay for ATT services
    it does not mean that the device is unlocked.
    To be honest, if anyone is twisting and turning here it is you. You want to twist no contract into meaning unlocked when it just doesn't
    there is a BIG distinction between not incurring a commitment to purchase future services and receiving a device with a specific ability, in this case the ability to function on multiple carriers. That's why there are two different terms to describe the two very different issues. i.e. no-contract and unlocked

    Second, your contention that the phone remaining locked amounts to bondage is both false and irrelevant
    it's false because you can take the phone to any ATT MVNO and it will work
    it's irrelevant because even if true it, in no way conflicts with the "no contract" language, at the end of the day you are in no way committed to purchasing ATT services

    lastly, your claim that they failed to disclose a material fact which amounts to misrepresentation also fails (but I admit that I'm very impressed you made this argument)
    it fails because even assuming it's a relevant issue, which there is room to argue that it isn't, they did disclose
    by your own admission you said that it was advertised as "Nokia Lumia 1520 for ATT" , the key part being "FOR ATT"
    So not only did they not mislead you as to the devices compatibility with other carriers, but they flat out told you that its for ATT

    now, I personally believe that selling locked phones is an ugly practice and I wish that a new law would come along and get rid of it all together
    but that doesn't change the here and now, and as it stands ATT did nothing "legally" wrong
    Morally wrong? well, that's up to each person's own individual opinion

    While I applaud your efforts in trying to pull up statutes to support your argument there was no material misrepresentation based on your description of the terms presented to you at the time of purchase

    **disclaimer** although backed up by a traditional legal education, this is my personal opinion not a definitive legal conclusion
    Last edited by superlawyer15; 01-07-2014 at 09:52 AM.
    01-07-2014 09:39 AM
  25. mmbond's Avatar


    it's false because you can take the phone to any ATT MVNO and it will work

    I've tried twice to activate the phone on AIO and Straight Talk, both immediately said the phone cannot be activated unless it is unlocked.

    -Another frustrated 1520 owner about to return the device...
    01-07-2014 10:08 AM
61 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 08:06 PM
  2. Nokia 1520 (White)...She is in my hands!!
    By tonybessette in forum Nokia Lumia 1520
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-13-2014, 11:14 AM
  3. Tmobile at CES2014, Predictions?
    By Flagz in forum Carrier Discussion Lounge
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-09-2014, 12:56 PM
  4. New to the 520 but not WP
    By NYRbeezer in forum Nokia Lumia 520
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-03-2014, 09:15 PM
  5. 6snap updated with option to draw on videos and more
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-03-2014, 05:10 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD