3 cannot unlock mobile phones - BULL****

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>>>> Tsunami Australia
>>>> <tsunami-underscore-australia-at-yahoo-dot-com-dot-au> wrote
>>>>> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Simon Templar <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>> Pagey wrote
>>>>>>>> Simon Templar <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>> No, they straight out *REFUSE* to unlock the phones. They prefer
>>>>>>>>> to hold customers to ransom rather that encourage them to stay
>>>>>>>>> with decent service.
>
>>>>>>>> So buy the phone outright dimwit - oh, that's right, it will cost
>>>>>>>> you $1000 more.
>
>>>>>>>> Gees, I wonder why they refuse to unlock them.
>
>>>>>>> What about out of contract phones? They still refuse to unlock
>>>>>>> them! Looks like you are the dimwit!
>
>>>>>> Simon, you buy the phone on the condition that is is locked to 3.
>>>>>> Regardless of whether you still have a contract with them or not,
>>>>>> they have the right to refuse to unlock the phone.
>
>>>>>> As I said before, if you don't like that - tough titties. Buy a
>>>>>> phone without a contract and pay $1000 more - you can't have it both
>>>>>> ways! Dimwit (added for good measure).
>
>>>>> I wouldn't go with 3 in the first place, but as for out of contract
>>>>> phones, technically you have purchased the phone, and are able to
>>>>> do whatever you please with it as far as I remember. If they were
>>>>> holding me like that after the contract period has expired, I'd be
>>>>> contacting the TIO about it.
>
>>>> TIO? Why would the TIO become involved? If the phone is out of contract
>>>> then sure, do whatever you want with it. If you want it unlocked then
>>>> take it somewhere and pay to have it unlocked.
>
>>>> Don't expect 3 to unlock it for you - they don't have to.
>
>>> They do if they ever said that they would for a fee and now refuse to do
>>> that.
>
>> Just because they offer something doesn't mean they have to provide it.
>
> Wrong, legally.

Could you explain how? It's not part of any contract you sign - it's an
extra service they offer.

It's no different to going to any other phone shop that does the same thing
and them telling you to bugger off. It may be because they have too much
work or don't like your hair colour - either way they are entitled to, just
as 3 is.

---

› See More: 3 cannot unlock mobile phones - BULL****

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>> Jonathan Wilson <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>> if 3 said "We can unlock this model of phone for a fee" (regardless of
>>> when they said it) and are now saying "We cant unlock this model of
>>> phone at all", that (to me) seems to fall under the trade practices act
>>> or whatever it is.
>
>> I don't see how.
>
> Thats because you have never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at
> all, ever.

Then explain to me why it's in breach, if I don't have a clue.

>> There is nothing in the 3 contract stating they WILL unlock your phone.
>
> Doesnt need to be. If the customer signed up on the basis that they could
> get
> the phone unlocked after a specified time, and 3 now refuses to that, 3 is
> ****ed.

There is nothing anywhere saying that 3 WILL unlock phones. It says they
COULD do it for a fee - explain to me how they have to honour that if it is
not in a contract?

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jonathan Wilson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> if 3 said "We can unlock this model of phone for a fee" (regardless of
>> when they said it) and are now saying "We cant unlock this model of phone
>> at all", that (to me) seems to fall under the trade practices act or
>> whatever it is.
>
> Precisely.

Quote: "Wrong, as always."

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:40:04 +1100, "Pagey" <adpage@invalid> wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> if 3 said "We can unlock this model of phone for a fee" (regardless of
>> when they said it) and are now saying "We cant unlock this model of phone
>> at all", that (to me) seems to fall under the trade practices act or
>> whatever it is.
>
>I don't see how. It's no different to somebody offering a service then
>declining to supply it to you.
>
>There is nothing in the 3 contract stating they WILL unlock your phone.
>There is a condition in the terms of sale that says the phone has the
>ability to be unlocked at the end of your contract. 3 could do this for a
>fee, but there is nothing say they have to.
>

Actually if they said at the start of the contract that they would
unlock it at the end of the contract, then refused to, they are then
liable for a lawsuite as that is ACCC's stomping ground. The only
problem would be proving it was said the phone would (not could) be
unlocked at the end of the contract.

Either way, if someone went grumbling to the ACCC stating they
expected it to be like just about every other mobile phone purchase
(CDMA differing obviously) and they expected to be able to use the
phone with another supplier at the end of the contract, then 3 would
most likely be pressured to do such anyway.

"Tsunami Australia" <tsunami-underscore-australia-at-yahoo-dot-com-dot-au>
wrote in message news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:40:04 +1100, "Pagey" <adpage@invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jonathan Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> if 3 said "We can unlock this model of phone for a fee" (regardless of
>>> when they said it) and are now saying "We cant unlock this model of
>>> phone
>>> at all", that (to me) seems to fall under the trade practices act or
>>> whatever it is.
>>
>>I don't see how. It's no different to somebody offering a service then
>>declining to supply it to you.
>>
>>There is nothing in the 3 contract stating they WILL unlock your phone.
>>There is a condition in the terms of sale that says the phone has the
>>ability to be unlocked at the end of your contract. 3 could do this for a
>>fee, but there is nothing say they have to.
>>
>
> Actually if they said at the start of the contract that they would
> unlock it at the end of the contract, then refused to, they are then
> liable for a lawsuite as that is ACCC's stomping ground. The only
> problem would be proving it was said the phone would (not could) be
> unlocked at the end of the contract.

No-one said 3 ever said they could unlock the phone when a contract was
signed. Let's not complicate matters.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:24:29 +1100, James Bell wrote:

> Serves you right for not supporting Australian jobs.
>
> Gee, that few cents you saved don't look so good now, does it?
>
> Next time, buy your kids a job and support a great Aussie telco like
> Telstra.

And please let us know when you stop masturbating.

Telstra = ripoff. Period.

"Buy your kids a job"? "Great Aussie telco"? Bwahahahahaha. You've been
conned, you poor sod.

"Tsunami Australia" <tsunami-underscore-australia-at-yahoo-dot-com-dot-au>
wrote in message news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:40:04 +1100, "Pagey" <adpage@invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jonathan Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> if 3 said "We can unlock this model of phone for a fee" (regardless of
>>> when they said it) and are now saying "We cant unlock this model of
>>> phone
>>> at all", that (to me) seems to fall under the trade practices act or
>>> whatever it is.
>>
>>I don't see how. It's no different to somebody offering a service then
>>declining to supply it to you.
>>
>>There is nothing in the 3 contract stating they WILL unlock your phone.
>>There is a condition in the terms of sale that says the phone has the
>>ability to be unlocked at the end of your contract. 3 could do this for a
>>fee, but there is nothing say they have to.
>>
>
> Actually if they said at the start of the contract that they would
> unlock it at the end of the contract, then refused to, they are then
> liable for a lawsuite as that is ACCC's stomping ground.

The ACCC doesn;t do any stomping. Unless thousands of people complain
simultaneously, all the ACCC does is get one of their dimwitted staff to
call you back and tell you it's "not an issue" irrespective of whether it
breaches the TPA or not.


The only
> problem would be proving it was said the phone would (not could) be
> unlocked at the end of the contract.
>
> Either way, if someone went grumbling to the ACCC stating they
> expected it to be like just about every other mobile phone purchase
> (CDMA differing obviously) and they expected to be able to use the
> phone with another supplier at the end of the contract, then 3 would
> most likely be pressured to do such anyway.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>>>>> Tsunami Australia
>>>>> <tsunami-underscore-australia-at-yahoo-dot-com-dot-au> wrote
>>>>>> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Simon Templar <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>>>> Pagey wrote
>>>>>>>>> Simon Templar <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>>>>>>> No, they straight out *REFUSE* to unlock the phones. They prefer to hold customers to
>>>>>>>>>> ransom rather that encourage them to stay with decent service.

>>>>>>>>> So buy the phone outright dimwit - oh, that's right, it will
>>>>>>>>> cost you $1000 more.

>>>>>>>>> Gees, I wonder why they refuse to unlock them.

>>>>>>>> What about out of contract phones? They still refuse to unlock
>>>>>>>> them! Looks like you are the dimwit!

>>>>>>> Simon, you buy the phone on the condition that is is locked to
>>>>>>> 3. Regardless of whether you still have a contract with them or
>>>>>>> not, they have the right to refuse to unlock the phone.

>>>>>>> As I said before, if you don't like that - tough titties. Buy a
>>>>>>> phone without a contract and pay $1000 more - you can't have it
>>>>>>> both ways! Dimwit (added for good measure).

>>>>>> I wouldn't go with 3 in the first place, but as for out of
>>>>>> contract phones, technically you have purchased the phone, and
>>>>>> are able to do whatever you please with it as far as I remember.
>>>>>> If they were holding me like that after the contract period has
>>>>>> expired, I'd be contacting the TIO about it.

>>>>> TIO? Why would the TIO become involved? If the phone is out of
>>>>> contract then sure, do whatever you want with it. If you want it
>>>>> unlocked then take it somewhere and pay to have it unlocked.

>>>>> Don't expect 3 to unlock it for you - they don't have to.

>>>> They do if they ever said that they would for a fee and now refuse
>>>> to do that.

>>> Just because they offer something doesn't mean they have to provide it.

>> Wrong, legally.

> Could you explain how?

Basically that flouts the Trade Practices Act.

> It's not part of any contract you sign - it's an extra service they offer.

Irrelevant to whether it flouts the Trade Practices Act.

> It's no different to going to any other phone shop that does the same thing and them telling you
> to bugger off.

Its completely different because the customer may well have
signed up on the basis of the statement by 3 that they will unlock the
handset once the contract completes and then finds that that they cant
actually get their handset unlocked when the contract completes.

That flouts the TPA because the original statement by 3 was misleading.

> It may be because they have too much work or don't like your hair colour - either way they are
> entitled to, just as 3 is.

Wrong with the unlocking after 3 has signed up that customer after
having said that the handset can be unlocked when its out of contract.

Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>>> Jonathan Wilson <[email protected]> wrote

>>>> if 3 said "We can unlock this model of phone for a fee"
>>>> (regardless of when they said it) and are now saying "We cant unlock this model of phone at
>>>> all", that (to me) seems to fall under the trade practices act or whatever it is.

>>> I don't see how.

>> Thats because you have never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

> Then explain to me why it's in breach, if I don't have a clue.

Essentially because the customer may have signed up on
the basis that the handset can be unlocked in the future.

If 3 now refuses to do that, they have mislead
that customer and that is a breach of the TPA.

>>> There is nothing in the 3 contract stating they WILL unlock your phone.

>> Doesnt need to be. If the customer signed up on the basis that they could get
>> the phone unlocked after a specified time, and 3 now refuses to that, 3 is ****ed.

> There is nothing anywhere saying that 3 WILL unlock phones. It says they COULD do it for a fee

Irrelevant when they refuse to do it for a fee later.

> - explain to me how they have to honour that if it is not in a contract?

Because that is what the Trade Practices Act says.

Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
> Tsunami Australia <tsunami-underscore-australia-at-yahoo-dot-com-dot-au> wrote
>> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>>> Jonathan Wilson <[email protected]> wrote

>>>> if 3 said "We can unlock this model of phone for a fee"
>>>> (regardless of when they said it) and are now saying "We cant unlock this model of phone at
>>>> all", that (to me) seems to fall under the trade practices act or whatever it is.

>>> I don't see how. It's no different to somebody offering a service then declining to supply it to
>>> you.

>>> There is nothing in the 3 contract stating they WILL unlock your
>>> phone. There is a condition in the terms of sale that says the
>>> phone has the ability to be unlocked at the end of your contract. 3 could do this for a fee, but
>>> there is nothing say they have to.

>> Actually if they said at the start of the contract that they would
>> unlock it at the end of the contract, then refused to, they are then
>> liable for a lawsuite as that is ACCC's stomping ground. The only
>> problem would be proving it was said the phone would (not could) be
>> unlocked at the end of the contract.

> No-one said 3 ever said they could unlock the phone when a contract was signed.

Wrong.

And legally if it could never be unlocked, 3 would
have to make that clear at signup time, legally.

> Let's not complicate matters.

It isnt a complication, its fundamental to what is being discussed.

Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Jonathan Wilson <[email protected]> wrote

>>> if 3 said "We can unlock this model of phone for a fee" (regardless of when they said it) and
>>> are now saying "We cant unlock this model of phone at all", that (to me) seems to fall under the
>>> trade practices act or whatever it is.

>> Precisely.

> Quote: "Wrong, as always."

Cant even manage it own lines, or anything else at all, either.

Michael <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>>> Tsunami Australia <tsunami-underscore-australia-at-yahoo-dot-com-dot-au> wrote
>>>> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>>>>> Simon Templar <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> Pagey wrote
>>>>>>> Simon Templar <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>>>>> No, they straight out *REFUSE* to unlock the phones. They prefer to hold customers to
>>>>>>>> ransom rather that encourage them to stay with decent service.

>>>>>>> So buy the phone outright dimwit - oh, that's right, it will cost you $1000 more.

>>>>>>> Gees, I wonder why they refuse to unlock them.

>>>>>> What about out of contract phones? They still refuse to unlock> them! Looks like you are the
>>>>>> dimwit!

>>>>> Simon, you buy the phone on the condition that is is locked to 3.
>>>>> Regardless of whether you still have a contract with them or not, they have the right to
>>>>> refuse to unlock the phone.

>>>>> As I said before, if you don't like that - tough titties. Buy a
>>>>> phone without a contract and pay $1000 more - you can't have it both ways! Dimwit (added for
>>>>> good measure).

>>>> I wouldn't go with 3 in the first place, but as for out of contract
>>>> phones, technically you have purchased the phone, and are able to
>>>> do whatever you please with it as far as I remember. If they were
>>>> holding me like that after the contract period has expired, I'd be
>>>> contacting the TIO about it.

>>> TIO? Why would the TIO become involved? If the phone is out of
>>> contract then sure, do whatever you want with it. If you want it
>>> unlocked then take it somewhere and pay to have it unlocked.

>>> Don't expect 3 to unlock it for you - they don't have to.

>> They do if they ever said that they would for a fee and now refuse to do that.

> Which they have never done

Irrelevant.

And if it was locked to 3 forever, they have to say that upfront anyway.

>>> If they choose not to then so be it.

>> It aint that black and white.

> OK. Well if you connect under the conditions that they will never unlock them, then its ok

Pity 3 never said that.

Michael <[email protected]> wrote
> Tsunami Australia <tsunami-underscore-australia-at-yahoo-dot-com-dot-au> wrote
>> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>>> Simon Templar <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Pagey wrote
>>>>> Simon Templar <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>>> No, they straight out *REFUSE* to unlock the phones. They
>>>>>> prefer to hold customers to ransom rather that encourage them to
>>>>>> stay with decent
>>>>>> service.

>>>>> So buy the phone outright dimwit - oh, that's right, it will cost
>>>>> you $1000 more.

>>>>> Gees, I wonder why they refuse to unlock them.

>>>> What about out of contract phones? They still refuse to unlock
>>>> them! Looks like you are the dimwit!

>>> Simon, you buy the phone on the condition that is is locked to 3.
>>> Regardless
>>> of whether you still have a contract with them or not, they have
>>> the right to refuse to unlock the phone.

>>> As I said before, if you don't like that - tough titties. Buy a
>>> phone without a contract and pay $1000 more - you can't have it
>>> both ways!

>>> Dimwit (added for good measure).

>> I wouldn't go with 3 in the first place, but as for out of contract
>> phones, technically you have purchased the phone, and are able to do
>> whatever you please with it as far as I remember. If they were
>> holding me like that after the contract period has expired, I'd be
>> contacting the TIO about it.

> No recourse there, you signed up to the conditions when you bought the phone on a contract.

Wrong, as always. The contract is irrelevant if it flouts the TPA.

Michael <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Michael <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Simon Templar <[email protected]> wrote

>>>> 3 Australia claim they cannot unlock their mobile phones.

>>>> This is *BULL***** because they can. They choose *NOT* to unlock them, which is totally
>>>> different to saying they cannot!

>>> Why do you keep bringing this up?

>> Because he is pissed off about it, stupid.

> So?

So that is why he keeps bringing it up, stupid.

> Many things piss me off, but I don't keep bringing them up

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

What you might or might not bring up in spades.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>> Tsunami Australia <tsunami-underscore-australia-at-yahoo-dot-com-dot-au>
>> wrote
>>> Pagey <adpage@invalid> wrote
>>>> Jonathan Wilson <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>>> if 3 said "We can unlock this model of phone for a fee"
>>>>> (regardless of when they said it) and are now saying "We cant unlock
>>>>> this model of phone at all", that (to me) seems to fall under the
>>>>> trade practices act or whatever it is.
>
>>>> I don't see how. It's no different to somebody offering a service then
>>>> declining to supply it to you.
>
>>>> There is nothing in the 3 contract stating they WILL unlock your
>>>> phone. There is a condition in the terms of sale that says the
>>>> phone has the ability to be unlocked at the end of your contract. 3
>>>> could do this for a fee, but there is nothing say they have to.
>
>>> Actually if they said at the start of the contract that they would
>>> unlock it at the end of the contract, then refused to, they are then
>>> liable for a lawsuite as that is ACCC's stomping ground. The only
>>> problem would be proving it was said the phone would (not could) be
>>> unlocked at the end of the contract.
>
>> No-one said 3 ever said they could unlock the phone when a contract was
>> signed.
>
> Wrong.

The OP never mentioned this.

> And legally if it could never be unlocked, 3 would
> have to make that clear at signup time, legally.

Why? It states on their conditions that some phones cannot. If the customer
doesn't read these then I would think too bad for them.

>> Let's not complicate matters.
>
> It isnt a complication, its fundamental to what is being discussed.

It is, if people stop assuming the OP was told - there was no mention of
this.