3 cannot unlock mobile phones - BULL****

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.

---

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

"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.

"Simon Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4545df66$0$4673$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>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!
>


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.

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.

> It's not part of their contract, just a service they provide.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

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

>> It aint that black and white.

> It is.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

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.

"Simon Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4545df66$0$4673$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>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?

They choose to commercially make their phones unavailable for locking.

YOUR choice whether you connect to them or not
>
>
> --
> The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
> belong to.
>
> 73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
> <http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452>

"Simon Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:45460c34$0$4675$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Pagey wrote:
>> "Simon Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:4545f976$0$4668$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>> them, which is totally different to saying they cannot!
>>> 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!

Their choice, not yours.
>
>
> --
> The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
> belong to.
>
> 73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
> <http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452>

"Tsunami Australia" <tsunami-underscore-australia-at-yahoo-dot-com-dot-au>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:21:19 +1100, "Pagey" <adpage@invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Simon Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:45460c34$0$4675$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>> Pagey wrote:
>>>> "Simon Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:4545f976$0$4668$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>>> them, which is totally different to saying they cannot!
>>>>> 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.

"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 in
>> message news:[email protected]...
>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:21:19 +1100, "Pagey" <adpage@invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Simon Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:45460c34$0$4675$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>>>> Pagey wrote:
>>>>>> "Simon Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4545f976$0$4668$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>>>>> them, which is totally different to saying they cannot!
>>>>>>> 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

>> 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
>
>

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.

> It's no different to somebody offering a service then declining to supply it to you.

Wrong, as always.

> 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 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.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

"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.

Dont think theyve ever done that

"R1rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It says in the contract that after 12 months they will unlock it.
>

Then you can enforce that condition

> Rob
>
> "Pagey" <adpage@invalid> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Simon Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:45460c34$0$4675$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>> Pagey wrote:
>>>> "Simon Templar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:4545f976$0$4668$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>>>> them, which is totally different to saying they cannot!
>>>>> 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).
>>
>
>

Michael <[email protected]> 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!

> Their choice, not yours.

Wrong, as always.

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.

> They choose to commercially make their phones unavailable for locking.

Pity about what 3 has previously said about unlocking.

> YOUR choice whether you connect to them or not

Wrong, as always.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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? Many things piss me off, but I don't keep bringing them up