You're still paying your monthly bill like a good customer. You're just replacing the SIM for a couple weeks.
You could certainly achieve the same result by buying a second phone just for traveling. But you already have a phone. In the rest of the world (and in the US until tomorrow), that's all the phones you need.
If you got your phone subsidized, then no, you don't have a phone. You don't get to unlock this not-paid-for phone the same way you don't get to change out the drive train on a leased car. At the end of the lease, after the dollar buyout, go wild. After your contract is over, unlock away. It's yours, do as you wish.
I believe the carrier owns the phone until you've satisfied your subsidy contract.
Similarly, I believe an unsubsidized phone should come unlocked.
You may be avoiding exorbitant surcharges, such as roaming fees.
Well... why are those surcharges so exorbitant?
Pay through the arse. Or toss another disposable phone into a landfill. People are starting to think that "some law" doesn't necessarily make it "right".
Even if you get out of your contract early, you have to pay a termination fee, which is effectively the remaining part of your carrier subsidy. AT&T is going to get their money one way or another.
Also, going to Europe for 2 weeks doesn't mean you stopped paying your AT&T bill for those weeks, either. It's perfectly reasonable to expect your phone to not be carrier locked.
As a country with an economy built around loans (i.e. credit cards and so on), making things bought on credit not really yours seems insane.
That's not to say T-Mobile isn't better than some other carriers. As I understand it, they are. But, I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my phone, that I paid $600 for, in Mexico for a few weeks, while I continue to pay for my US service.
Making unlocking a phone yourself illegal is anti-consumer and pro-corporate in ways that I find extremely distasteful and it makes me angry that the US state serves corporate interests so much more enthusiastically than individual interests.
HN, my brother is just about to relaunch an unlocking site I made in 2002 (mockup here: http://j.mp/WRfm6A).
I really want to help him fight this ruling.
I'm guessing that petitioning the librarian is the best idea. Any ideas or thoughts on how to go about this would be very, very much appreciated.
And if anyone's willing to help, email me (email in profile).
That was about 6 months into the contract.
Once it becomes illegal to unlock your phone by any other method it won't take long for them to start charging for this 'premium service' or not allowing it at all.
I buy my iPhones, and the first time they sync, I get the message, "Congratulations, your phone is unlocked."
As it stands, AT&T owns your iPhone until you finish your contract just like the dealer owns your leased car.
In Australia, subsidised androids on 2 year plans aren't locked at all, and for iPhone its as simple as ringing the carrier for the unlock code, you can do it the day you get your phone.
They're going to get the full value of the contract anyway, why pay them insane roaming fees too.
It used to be worse. They used to come locked, and getting unlocked was an exercise in pulling teeth. Thankfully things are better now.
To those that say it's a lease, it's not: you cannot give the phone back and receive the money you've paid for it. It is your handset. You cannot even request a new one if it doesn't suit you (here in Australia anyway). Unlocking the phone does not cancel the contract: you still pay that monthly fee.
Credit card companies lobby to make debit cards illegal
Yes they want you to overspend. Their revenue strategy should not depend on it.
This is a very common contractual scenario--you get a discount for agreeing to only use one particular vendor, to the extent that you have a need for the particular kind of service they provide.
As per your binding contract, you agree to only use their service in return for getting the phone at a subsidized price. Their incentive to charge you less for the handset (incurring a loss on the sale) is that you agree to guarantee doing business with them.
And if that's a problem, unlocked phones are still always an option.
You mistakenly believe that contracts are in perpetuity.
In which case I'm sure we'd all consider it reasonable to first ensure AT&T covers it's cost by increasing its contract buyout amount. We're talking here about the price of roaming being artificially high. You step across the border and come back to an inflated bill because of termination 'agreements' between providers.