Posted by Superluminova
Been advised by O2 to email this address with any complaints mycare@o2.co.uk get emailing folks
Posted by indup
with regards to the ofcom/unlocking/contract issues dont you think the legal teams at apple/o2 would have made sure they are covered in every way?
Posted by Dogmann
@indup
Er NO, they are large corporations who think they can do as they please but time will tell if they are right or not and it appears quite a lot of people believe they are wrong.
Marc
_________________
Nokia E61, 2gb Sandisk, Fring, Tom Tom 6
Honoured to have won BEST DEBATER
[ This Message was edited by: Dogmann on 2007-11-11 20:16 ]
Posted by Jools
When we all discussed this unlocking requirement before, no one could actually find any online links to any laws saying that a mobile telco is required to give an unlock code.
All that was found were industry guidelines issued by OFCOM, that unlock codes should be available and should cost no more than £30.
Has anyone actually found the real written law on this situation, or are we all still just assuming that we have a legal right to an unlock code?
Perhaps Apple and O2 are getting around this potential flaw in their business plan by it being Apple (the manufacturer) who locks the phones, not O2 (the network)???
Am I wrong in saying its the network who locks phones from all other manufactuers?
Posted by londonlad123
Even if O2 did give the unlock code to anyone that rings, you still wouldnt be able to install 3rd party apps on the phone. a hack is the only way to make full use of iphones potential. On the other hand many may just be happy to use the phone.
Posted by mswallis
At the end of the day the iPhone setup isn't like a normal phone setup, O2 and Apple have a contractual agreement that allows the iPhone only to be used with O2.
When I spoke to a bloke in the O2 shop I asked him what Ofcom have to say about the situation and he told me that no law is being broken, as the law is: that an unlock code must be provided after the minimum term contract has finished.
The iPhone is for sale on O2 end of story, if you don't want to go on O2 don't buy an iPhone, no-on forces you to go to the store and buy it, and if you do you know full well what network you are buying it from.
Posted by fatreg
On 2007-11-11 21:21:01, JoolsG4 wrote:
Perhaps Apple and O2 are getting around this potential flaw in their business plan by it being Apple (the manufacturer) who locks the phones, not O2 (the network)???
In which case, that's monopoly and that is illegal.
Posted by Dogmann
@JoolsG4
As far as i am aware no one has found the actual Law if their is one, but i have spoken to OFCOM who when i explained the situation about the iPhone being purchased outright and then being forced to only use it on one Network as it was locked to them. They told me they could not investigate or act until the device was released and they would not unlock it. Now that this is what's happening i can speak to them tomorrow and see what they say. obviously i will report here what they say and if they say i need to of purchased one i will assist some one that has purchased one. As i just hate big corporations that try and inflict their will with restrictive practices.
Marc
_________________
Nokia E61, 2gb Sandisk, Fring, Tom Tom 6
Honoured to have won BEST DEBATER
[ This Message was edited by: Dogmann on 2007-11-11 21:18 ]
Posted by masseur
I was just searching, yet again, for any ofcom ruling or notice (or anything really) on their site pertaining to any regulation of sim locking but the only document that keeps coming up is from 2002 "Review of SIM-locking policy"
I've also been through the telecommunications act and find nothing on this topic of compulsory provision of unlock codes
while calling them is one thing, if this is correct there surely should be something documented and easily findable, so I for one am very curious if anyone else can come up with evidencial proof of this assertion regarding compulsory unlocking by uk networks?
Posted by Superluminova
Not sure if it helps but there was definitely an article in mobile news about this not to long ago. so maybe someone should speak to them?
Posted by fatreg
The Competition Act is based on the EC’s competition rules and contains a
prohibition against anti-competitive cooperation and abuse of dominant position.
The Competition Act is of importance for how undertakings choose to act in the
market. An undertaking that consciously or carelessly breaches any of the
prohibitions contained in the Competition Act may be liable to pay a competition
impairment penalty, i.e. a kind of administrative fine. The competition impairment
penalty may amount to at most 10 per cent of the undertaking’s total annual
turnover.
prohibition against anti-competitive cooperation and abuse of dominant position.
The Competition Act is of importance for how undertakings choose to act in the
market. An undertaking that consciously or carelessly breaches any of the
prohibitions contained in the Competition Act may be liable to pay a competition
impairment penalty, i.e. a kind of administrative fine. The competition impairment
penalty may amount to at most 10 per cent of the undertaking’s total annual
turnover.
http://www.pts.se/Archive/Doc[....]elecommunications%20Market.pdf
page 8.. while it's not the law, it references how the law stands
mobilephones@competition-commission.gsi.gov.uk
might be worth someone with better English than me sending the above people a friendly email?
_________________
"live fast, die young"
take the esato daily quiz!
Funniest member and King of garbage 2007
[ This Message was edited by: fatreg on 2007-11-11 21:42 ]
Posted by fatreg
"Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States.
This can mean,
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts."
that pretty much sums up the iPhone to me.
Posted by Dogmann
@fatreg
Your a star nice find as this is what i am basing the fact that what is is being done is just not right or Legal.
@all
Does any one know why the Networks all started selling us unlock codes where as previously they used to make us wait till either the end of the contract or pay the contract off? and what changed that made them do it?
Marc
_________________
Nokia E61, 2gb Sandisk, Fring, Tom Tom 6
Honoured to have won BEST DEBATER
[ This Message was edited by: Dogmann on 2007-11-11 21:59 ]
Posted by Superluminova
it was all in that article i read! damm whey did i just skim it and not read it fully!
Posted by fatreg
Bingo Marc!
might send them peeps a nice email myself, need to think up some big, clever words and McSend it to them and see what they have to say for themselves...
Although are we possibly teetering on the edge of getting the iPhone pulled from sale!?
Posted by masseur
hmm... well thats a report is on "The mobile telecommunications
market in Sweden from a consumer and competition perspective" though it does raise the subject of anti-competitiveness.
However ofcom (even in that ancient 2002 report I linked to) already acknowledge that phone companies are entitled to recoup their handset subsidy and so that can hardly be considered as anti-competitive as long as (I suppose):-
a) you do have a contractual commitment to the phone company
b) you can pay out the subsidy and thus free youself of the contract
c) and (to a lessor extent) all phone companies are doing the same practice
so I'm not sure this offers anything to confirm the legality or otherwise of compulsory unlocking in UK but it does bring us full circle to the question of whether iPhone is subsidised or not.
Moving on from the question of "compulsory unlocking in UK" to the question at hand... from the above statements and the fact that you can buy it without a contract from Apple suggests that iPhones bought out of contract should not be locked in the first place or should be unlocked on demand since surely Apple is not subsiding the handset as this then certainly appears to fall into anti-competitiveness.
well, I'm no lawyer though I have a reasonable amount of experience in the copyright area due to my work in television and film copyright management software for ABC in Australia and so can understand a reasonable amount of legal-ese, but I feel this really will come down to a test case in EU/UK
Posted by indup
On 2007-11-11 23:11:18, masseur wrote:
but I feel this really will come down to a test case in EU/UK
and i nominate dogmann for the testcase.
Posted by Superluminova
Oh on subsiding, that doesn't really come into it for me, as all pay as you talk phones are subsidised.
So as far as i can understand, if i buy a phone on pay as you talk i can get an unlock code no problem at all.
so what makes the iPhone so special?
[ This Message was edited by: Superluminova on 2007-11-11 22:35 ]
Posted by Jools
so what makes the iPhone so special?
It's all to do with the fact that, for the first time ever, the phone manufacturer i.e. Apple, gets a cut of the operator revenue for each iPhone contract customer.
No O2 contract = no monthly income for Apple!
Posted by Superluminova
so what your saying is that two companies have came together and are trying to monopolies the market?
Posted by Aware
On 2007-11-11 23:39:31, JoolsG4 wrote:
No O2 contract = no monthly income for Apple!
Jools, I guess this is the same for US iPhones and AT+T contracts, no??
So then, how much do Apple get from an iPhone used with an AT+T Pay and Go sim, as is the case when the contract activation credit check is failed??
For that point, do the O2 iPhones activate differently?? What if you fail the activation credit check over here?? I doubt O2 would still offer a contract......
_________________
P990i(R6D23), T650i(R6AC/RED)
A-ZoTT
* Treat people as YOU EXPECT to be treated! *
[ This Message was edited by: Aware on 2007-11-11 23:24 ]
Posted by Jools
Well, I don't know if that's their intention, but I read that handset manufacturers (in particular Nokia) have been trying to get network operators to give them a slice of the contract revenue for some time.
However, up until the iPhone, no one had persuaded any operator to do so. I presume they never had a product the operators thought was compelling enough to give part of the monthly revenue.
I think that's basically the reason why the O2 iPhone contracts are relatively expensive for what you get - part of the monthly fee goes straight to Apple (presumably to help offset the cost of the handset R&D). And that's why Apple are so keen to keep UK iPhones locked to O2 - it's an 18-month minimum revenue stream for them, that they wouldn't get if you unlocked it.
If you think about it, it's quite an 'innovative' business model really... O2 aren't paying out in advance to subsidise the handset costs, and Apple has a 'guaranteed' income from the contracts.
Posted by Dogmann
@indup
Thanks for the vote of confidence as that is what i am planning on doing as long as the fact i don't own one stops me.
@all
As has been said on the other page the fact you buy the iPhone outright unsubsidised is what IMO makes the locking and forcing you into a contract both a restrictive practice and illegal only time will tell if i and others are right in our assumption but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Marc
_________________
Nokia E61, 2gb Sandisk, Fring, Tom Tom 6
Honoured to have won BEST DEBATER
[ This Message was edited by: Dogmann on 2007-11-11 23:30 ]
Posted by p900 lover
On a side note i just spoke to a friend who works for 02 and on friday they sold 54 iphones in her store in Brighton, not bad i think.
Posted by fatreg
Dear Sirs,
I write this as an avid mobile phone user and an ex phones salesman, the Apple iPhone launched on Friday 09/11/2007 at a retail cost of £269, apparently an unsubsidised price, however, to allow the phone to function you have to sign up to an 18 month contract with O2, my concern lies with the fact that you buy the phone out right at the start of the contract, therefore is your property and such should be to do with it as you will, but this doesn't appear to be the case with the iPhone, I've spoken to O2 regarding the situation and they refer me back to Apple since they make the product, however, I draw you back to the outset, I buy the phone, it's mine, to use it I have to with no choice but to sign up for an 18 month contract with O2, Since the phone is bought outright at the outset, this to me seems as though they are applying unfair purchasing conditions, it's like going out and buying a brand new car but being told you can only use Shell petrol in it. It appears to be somewhat unfair and unjust.
It appears to me as though Apple and O2 have just used the same sales model they have in place in the US, which is all good and well, but laws over here regarding competition and sim unlocking are in place EU wide, whereas they are not in the US.
My main concern is that I work a lot in different countries and need by phone to be unlocked, and i thought that buying the phone outright at the start of the contract would have meant the phone was unlocked?
Just wondered if you could shed any light.
Thanks in advance
*name removed*
that's what I've just sent to the competition people......
lets see what happens if anything at all.
Posted by fatreg
email failed!
why have an email address if it doesn't work!?
GRRR
Posted by mswallis
On 2007-11-12 00:30:18, Dogmann wrote:
@all
As has been said on the other page the fact you buy the iPhone outright unsubsidised is what IMO makes the locking and forcing you into a contract both a restrictive practice and illegal only time will tell if i and others are right in our assumption but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Marc
So if you had to sign-up to the contract instore, like all other phones, would you have the same arguement?
Posted by fatreg
On 2007-11-12 11:24:11, mswallis wrote:
On 2007-11-12 00:30:18, Dogmann wrote:
@all
As has been said on the other page the fact you buy the iPhone outright unsubsidised is what IMO makes the locking and forcing you into a contract both a restrictive practice and illegal only time will tell if i and others are right in our assumption but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Marc
So if you had to sign-up to the contract instore, like all other phones, would you have the same arguement?
Possibly, as the phone is still being purchased unsubsidised.
Posted by Nanu
That's exactly the point, if you had to sign a contract there and then there possibly wouldn't be as much of an argument as O2/Apple could argue it is subsidised but would still have to provide you with an unlocking code!
As it stands you can walk into Apple/O2/CPW and purchase the phone without signing anything, therefore by law it is your property to do with what you like, not what they tell you to do with it, all they would have to do is make you sign a disclaimer agreeing to their T's & C's regarding the contract and then you would have no argument but as it is they don't so there is an argument to be had and whether people like it or not and whatever the outcome of the argument will be, it will be had by someone somewhere!
Posted by fatreg
the term brick wall comes to mind,
having spoken to, otelo, consumer direct and the competition commission I am none to wiser, they all seem to place the blame on each other.
from my point of view, they are 2 queries,
1) Purchasing the phone outright, yet being forced to use O2.
2) O2 not obliging to having the phone unlocked at a request by a consumer.
Posted by mswallis
Let's be fair, there is no way that this is an unsubsidized device, it must be partially subsidized in some way. I would imagine if it was sold sim free the price would be nearer £400.
Posted by Jools
Apple makes the money back on the handset costs in its monthly share of the O2 contract.
Basically, the O2 isn't subsidising the iPhone- as is usually the case, Apple is. That's why they want you to keep the 18 month contract.
As far as I'm aware, until the iPhone the operator subsidised the handset cost against the contract, with the iPhone its the manufacturer.
Kind of turned the situation right around.
Say, for example, Apple gets £10 per month out of the minimum £35 a month you pay to O2. That's £180 per customer over 18 months, bringing the actual cost of the handset up to the £450 mark.
Posted by mswallis
@JoolsG4
That's exactly the point I was trying to make, thanks.
Posted by fatreg
in which case Jools, that's monopoly, and that practice is banned in the EU.
Which ever way you look at it, somebody somewhere has to unlock the iPhone, wether it be at point of purchase by Apple or wether it be in 3 months time by O2, but neither seem as though what they are doing.
From where I'm standing, the whole practice is illegal, but I'm no legal eagle hence why I'm trying to gain clarification from some government body but failing miserably.
Posted by Nanu
I fully understand that they may be looking to recoup the cost's by collecting some of O2's monthly contract, but the way they are going about it is all wrong!
They are selling a device without contract, without a written agreement between Apple/O2 and the consumer to say that you agree to go on contract and give them the rest of the money for the device!
They are effectively selling a simfree device which any Tom, Dick or Harry with a bank account can go and buy without signing into a contract!
On 2007-11-12 12:09:35, mswallis wrote:
Let's be fair, there is no way that this is an unsubsidized device, it must be partially subsidized in some way. I would imagine if it was sold sim free the price would be nearer £400.
Though I agree it is obviously subsidized, the way they are selling it is as a sim free unsubsidized unit as it is sold outside of any contract or written agreement!
And to my understanding you can't even play music on it until you do sign into the contract, so not only is the device locked to one provider until you take out the contract, but also the device is disabled and nothing more than a nice looking shiny paper weight!
_________________
+11 A-Z +276 eBay.
I
My New Curve!! [ This Message was edited by: Nanu on 2007-11-12 11:37 ]
Posted by fatreg
exactly nanu, I can fully understand Apple wanting to recoup the cost, which is fine, but by doing so, they then play themselves in the EU laws, as to say, I want my iPhone unlocked within my contract, O2/Apple must do it, there are no 2 ways about it, if a consumer requests it, O2/Apple HAVE to supply it, at what cost I don't know but they are even failing to get over the first hurdle, which is where we go back to th pint of purchase, is it therefore Sim free? in which case, must be unlocked....
see my confusion here?
Posted by Jools
I'm not really sure if it would be classed as a monopoly...
O2 do offer other phones on other tariffs, and there are other networks to choose between...
I'm not sure it can be a monopoly where just one device is concerned. If O2 were the only network, and Apple were the only handset manufacturer, then yes, it would be a monopoly.
It's like 3 have the exclusive rights to the Skypephone - no other network sells this particular phone. Is that also a monopoly?
A variety of handsets have always been available exclusively on one network, in the past.
Posted by Nanu
On 2007-11-12 12:41:10, JoolsG4 wrote:
I'm not really sure if it would be classed as a monopoly...
O2 do offer other phones on other tariffs, and there are other networks to choose between...
I'm not sure it can be a monopoly where just one device is concerned. If O2 were the only network, and Apple were the only handset manufacturer, then yes, it would be a monopoly.
It's like 3 have the exclusive rights to the Skypephone - no other network sells this particular phone. Is that also a monopoly?
A variety of handsets have always been available exclusively on one network, in the past.
All of the above though have been sold on contract!
The iPhone isn't!!!!!!
That's the difference to get the skype phone you have to sign up to 3, who will then give you the phone, as you have signed an agreement to buy it from them and pay them the outstanding balance.
But I can go and buy the iPhone without putting my signature to anything, and it will be my phone to do with what I like by trading laws, but oh no I can't do with it what I like because to use it I Then have to sign up to O2 which then becomes frowned upon!
Posted by fatreg
[quote]
On 2007-11-12 12:41:10, JoolsG4 wrote:
It's like 3 have the exclusive rights to the Skypephone - no other network sells this particular phone. Is that also a monopoly?
/quote]
No that's not the same, as 3 supply the phone and therefore the contract, in the iPhones case, Apple supply the phone as an entity, yet to use the thing you have no choice but to join O2, therefore removing any choice whatsoever, the contract being the second entity, one won't work without the other and vica versa.
It goes back to buying a car but being told you can only fill up at Shell.
It doesn't help that neither company knows their arse from their elbow, and all the Ts and Cs are about as ambiguous as a very ambiguous thing!
A bit of clarification is all we're after, from there I know where I stand, and can then tackle, O2 or Apple dependent on the actual phone.
If Apple supply the phone at a unsubsidised cost, it has to be sim free.
If O2/Apple subsidised the cost, they have to unlock it when requested for a fee.
But neither statements can be confirmed, which is where is confusion lies!
Posted by mswallis
Personally I think O2 and Apple will have there arses covered. O2 will obviously know the laws with being a mobile network for many years, and they obvously wouldn't ignore anything that could infringe them in any way.
Posted by fatreg
but they clearly don't have their arses covered..
o2 should know that if consumer a wants an unlocking code they have to oblige.. so why refer consumer a to Apple?
Apple, are either selling iPhone with or without subsidy. if it with a subsidy, they have to supply unlocking codes if requested, if without subsidy, then they have to unlocked as standard..
it's as simple as that.
Posted by MWEB
Basicaly Apple and O2 can do WTF they like because no individual consumer is going to take the enormous financial risk of taking either to court and finding out exactly where the law stands in this regard.
Posted by fatreg
On 2007-11-12 14:56:21, mweb6161 wrote:
Basicaly Apple and O2 can do WTF they like because no individual consumer is going to take the enormous financial risk of taking either to court and finding out exactly where the law stands in this regard.
you wanna bet?
it costs nothing for me to take Apple/O2 to court over it in a small claims court.....
even if it is to see where we stand as no buggers seems to be able to tell me.
Posted by Jools
o2 should know that if consumer a wants an unlocking code they have to oblige.. so why refer consumer a to Apple?
Apple, are either selling iPhone with or without subsidy. if it with a subsidy, they have to supply unlocking codes if requested, if without subsidy, then they have to unlocked as standard..
We still don't have any definitive proof of this... all we've got is "guidelines" from 2001.
I hope what you're saying is true - but without proof of the law in writing from whoever makes these laws, we've got nothing to go on.
Posted by fatreg
I know Jools but no one seems to be able to tell me any different!?
Posted by MWEB
On 2007-11-12 15:07:42, fatreg wrote:
On 2007-11-12 14:56:21, mweb6161 wrote:
Basicaly Apple and O2 can do WTF they like because no individual consumer is going to take the enormous financial risk of taking either to court and finding out exactly where the law stands in this regard.
you wanna bet?
it costs nothing for me to take Apple/O2 to court over it in a small claims court.....
even if it is to see where we stand as no buggers seems to be able to tell me.
If it costs nothing, then why dont you do it and find out, too much hassle and possible expense is the reason Fatreg
thats what O2 and Apple are banking on, people can prevarocate all they like, but unless and untill someone initiates a test case against them people can pointlessly speculate untill their blue in the face!!
Posted by Jools
Just a few links I've found, that might be useful if anyone decides to take this further:
Ofcoms comments on switching supplier (unlocking as an option).
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consumeradvice/mobile/switching/switch/
Ofcom case against 3 for alleged unfair contract terms (mentions unlocking)
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/bulle[....]bull_ccases/closed_all/cw_888/
The below text from here, from 7th September 2007, suggests that currently there aren't actually any agreed clear standard, rules or laws regarding SIM locking.
SIM Locking of Handsets
In conjunction with the proposals to facilitate the porting of mobile numbers,
OnePhone believes it is appropriate for Ofcom to consider the question of Operator SIM locks, which can provide a further bar to consumers switching their provider. We believe that a strong case can be made to introduce and require UK MNOs to adhere to a set of agreed clear standards (as exists in many other European countries, e.g. Sweden) for the practice of SIM locking of handsets, so that there is a single unified & harmonised practice in the UK, with which consumers can become conversant.
This should specifically include the consumer’s ability to be relieved of any SIM-lock after an initial contract period has expired.
Posted by fatreg
that's all good and well Jools but O2 claim then when you cancel your contract the iPhone is redundant.....
Posted by masseur
that last bit about unlocking, written in September this year, more or less confirms that currently there is no legal requirement for an operator to provide an unlock code (snice they suggest introducing some standards ni this area)
Posted by Nanu
Just got off the phone to OFCOM and although they are not yet clear on where Apple and O2 stand, as far as the person I spoke to was aware there is no clear rule/law on having to unlock a device sold on contract!
Obviously the grey area of how they are selling the iPhone will leave an area to be explored as it isn't sold on contract but is still locked down, only time will tell the outcome of that one, will the fact that you are made aware beforehand stand up, or should they be getting you to sign the contract at POS to ensure you agree to have understood!
Anyways the nice chap I spoke to suggested the best way for me to get the iPhone would be to source one outside of the UK where it will be cheaper and can be unlocked to use on any network as this is what he is in the process of doing as there is no way he will be buying one in the UK!
