Anyone with AT&T kind enough to unlock my Lumia 1520?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ike2000

New member
Jan 6, 2014
17
0
0
Visit site
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:

Mr Lebowski

New member
Dec 11, 2013
1,076
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

superlawyer15

New member
Feb 9, 2013
202
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

TheRewardisCheese

New member
Sep 5, 2011
130
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

gvp 1995

New member
Aug 2, 2013
114
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

chuckdaly

New member
Jun 20, 2012
118
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

ahmad12

New member
Dec 13, 2013
98
0
0
Visit site
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?
 

ike2000

New member
Jan 6, 2014
17
0
0
Visit site
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:

superlawyer15

New member
Feb 9, 2013
202
0
0
Visit site
first of all, it is a lawyers job to twist and turn :smile:

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 :wink:
 
Last edited:

mmbond

New member
Apr 7, 2011
112
2
0
Visit site
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...
 

superlawyer15

New member
Feb 9, 2013
202
0
0
Visit site
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...

someone reported earlier that they got it working on straight talk with ease, just had to ask for the att variant of their sim cards

i'll try to dig it up and post back

http://forums.windowscentral.com/nokia-lumia-1520/250474-use-1520-att-pre-paid-go-phone.html

I know it works with h20 as I have personally tried it
 
Last edited:

mmbond

New member
Apr 7, 2011
112
2
0
Visit site
someone reported earlier that they got it working on straight talk with ease, just had to ask for the att variant of their sim cards

i'll try to dig it up and post back

I know it works with h20 as I have personally tried it


I see that h20 is also in los angeles (my location), so I will see if that works by purchasing a prepaid sim. Otherwise, anything you can dig up would be extremely helpful. Many thanks!
 

chuckdaly

New member
Jun 20, 2012
118
0
0
Visit site
first of all, it is a lawyers job to twist and turn :smile:

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 :wink:

AT&T's use of the phrase "No Contract" differs very little from T-Mobile's use of the same phrase. The difference is that Washington State's Attorney General took T-Mobile to task, and had then change it. A few well written letters to a state attorney general should get similar results.
 

superlawyer15

New member
Feb 9, 2013
202
0
0
Visit site
What tmobile is doing is completely different ...and way worse
they have "no contract" on their service but there is a very real contract on the purchase of the device
..which is why they attracted the attention of that state's attorney general
and are likely to attract attention in other states
 

ike2000

New member
Jan 6, 2014
17
0
0
Visit site
first of all, it is a lawyers job to twist and turn :smile:
....
second, it is not misleading, maybe it confused you, but it is not misleading in the legal sense of the word
.....
**disclaimer** although backed up by a traditional legal education, this is my personal opinion not a definitive legal conclusion :wink:

Laughable. Very so. This is Dancing With The Wind.

The duty of good faith and fair dealing is the statutory obligation in the Uniform Commercial Code (the ?UCC?), first promulgated in 1951 and enacted in all jurisdictions for commercial transactions.

The UCC states that ?[e]very contract or duty . . .imposes a duty of good faith in its performance or enforcement.? The UCC defines good faith as ?honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned.

ATT was incorporated pursuant to implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Then must act consistently with a duty of good faith and fair dealing.

This is America and NOT a banana Republic where anarchy obtains. The spirit of the law must be followed to the letter. AT&T must pride itself as a vanguard of such spirit and not in the league of fly-by-night mobs - entrenched in bullying behavior.

Seriously, I rest on this premise.
 

ike2000

New member
Jan 6, 2014
17
0
0
Visit site
What tmobile is doing is completely different ...and way worse
they have "no contract" on their service but there is a very real contract on the purchase of the device
..which is why they attracted the attention of that state's attorney general
and are likely to attract attention in other states

Confirmed AT&T mole in our midst.

You have acted a strict interpreter of the law and process, now alluding to hanky-panky by t-mobile.

I like what I see coming in the next few days. Let the gates (ATT T-Mobile) open and we the users choose. That will spell the end of AT&T ... who will take $450 in return for a hefty fine of over $100, monthly. That's the reason we want UNLOCK in the first place. AT&T will bleed to oblivion, if every user put on their thinking caps.
 

superlawyer15

New member
Feb 9, 2013
202
0
0
Visit site
Ike... if you don't want to believe me then sue ATT for violating the aforementioned statutory provisions and see how the court adjudicates your claim.

Getting angry on an internet forum does nothing to remedy your situation.
 

sequoia464

New member
Sep 24, 2012
97
0
0
Visit site
someone reported earlier that they got it working on straight talk with ease, just had to ask for the att variant of their sim cards

i'll try to dig it up and post back

http://forums.windowscentral.com/nokia-lumia-1520/250474-use-1520-att-pre-paid-go-phone.html

I know it works with h20 as I have personally tried it

I had given up on Straight Talk because of the nano sim, was not aware until today that you can cut down a regular, or micro sim to nano size. I have a sim on order as well as a tool that cuts a micro into a nano.. Should know in a couple of days if this approach works.

Tool ... Amazon.com: Techno Earth? Nano Sim Cutter for Iphone 5 Ipad Mini Simcard Cutter Cut Any GSM Sim Into Nano or Any Micro Sim Into Nano Sim + Car Charger for USB Devices: Cell Phones & Accessories
 

superlawyer15

New member
Feb 9, 2013
202
0
0
Visit site
the tool isn't all that necessary ...you could just cut it with scissors
..its not that hard, for a nano sim you pretty much have to cut everything but the gold contacts

..make sure to mark with side has that slant tho

also straight talk has different sim cards since they operate on all networks
you have to get the ATT specific sim, not the Tmobile sim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
322,736
Messages
2,242,598
Members
427,978
Latest member
Duouser3