[The Godfather]

I am seriously considering putting my name on the fightthemerger.com signup section. Of course, lawyers would never tell you about the risks of suing. Has anybody here been part of one of these actions?

[alligator]

I have not, but you always have the risk of opting out of the class. Of course, you'd have to have your own legal representation, but you can always fight the cause yourself. If you join the class, let the person paying the lawyer handle the legal expenses. You can try to send arguments in to support your side of the story, but there's no guarantee they will read it.

[boy8cookie]

Why? What do you stand to gain by not having this merger go through?

[ChrisF]

Originally Posted by boy8cookie 

Why? What do you stand to gain by not having this merger go through?

What does any consumer stand to gain from having the merger go through?

[The Godfather]

The lowering of the price per GB as technology allows it.

[Big Mac]

You mean other than the hella-lame, "get a $5 voucher for a product from the company you earlier patronized"?

I would consider joining this suit. I don't think AT&T could go after any consumer member of the class. The company would have no cause of action to turn the tables and offensively go after customers who are parties to the suit. At least I've never heard of a company doing anything like that.

I oppose the merger for a number of reasons. Primarily it's very anti-competitive to eliminate the only real GSM competitor to AT&T. I also personally, strongly dislike AT&T wireless for its policy of purposely carving out an iPhone-only exemption to its otherwise blanket policy of unlocking handsets after certain minimal payment terms have been fulfilled. And the company only agreed to unlock everything except the iPhone when it was forced to do so by an earlier CALS.

I don't see any downside to joining the class, but maybe a resident lawyer would have a more informed opinion.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I also personally, strongly dislike AT&T wireless for its policy of purposely carving out an iPhone-only exemption to its otherwise blanket policy of unlocking handsets after certain minimal payment terms have been fulfilled.

This pisses me off to no end as well. Especially for my first generation iPhone that aside from being out of contract for 2 years now, wasn't subsidized by AT&T in the first place! I understand locking phones for the duration of the contract period unless you pay the ETF, but I don't owe them a cent, have another iPhone on their network, and should be able to use this phone when I travel.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

This pisses me off to no end as well. Especially for my first generation iPhone that aside from being out of contract for 2 years now, wasn't subsidized by AT&T in the first place! I understand locking phones for the duration of the contract period unless you pay the ETF, but I don't owe them a cent, have another iPhone on their network, and should be able to use this phone when I travel.

I'm not arguing that AT&T are being pricks about the whole iPhone unlocking thing, but what would be the downside of jailbreaking a 1st gen phone and unlocking it yourself? I understand the objections to doing it on a current phone with some value and a warranty, but 1st gen? Why not?

If it's just the principle of the thing, well sure, complain about it, but you can do something about it.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I'm not arguing that AT&T are being pricks about the whole iPhone unlocking thing, but what would be the downside of jailbreaking a 1st gen phone and unlocking it yourself? I understand the objections to doing it on a current phone with some value and a warranty, but 1st gen? Why not?

If it's just the principle of the thing, well sure, complain about it, but you can do something about it.

I agree that it is time to unlock it myself. I actually started searching for the instructions not too long ago, but most of the search results are for newer models. It looks like I have to jailbreak first and then get an app that will do the unlock. I had the phone jailbroken before the App Store came out (hard to believe there was a time like that) so I'm comfortable doing that again.

[Big Mac]

Actually, the newer the iPhone the more difficult or impossible it is to unlock through software. Apple's latest basebands starting about a year ago tightened their security for the 3GS and 4 to such an extent that they're no longer hackable. That's why people resort to Gevey Sim card hacks. And a major issue is that if you've upgraded an older 3GS or 4 to any recent stock firmware, you're going to get stuck with an un-unlockable baseband. To remedy it on the 3GS you can upgrade to the iPad baseband, but then you potentially lose GPS and can never restore to stock firmware again. And as I said on the 4 you have to resort to hardware hacks if you've been upgraded to any recent baseband.

There's also talk around the jailbreak community that Apple will soon impose on firmware the same secure ticketing it uses for basebands, so that we'll lose the ability to downgrade the OS in the future (just like we can't downgrade basebands at present).

But all of this would be moot if AT&T would join the rest of the world and unlock the iPhone according to the terms of its general unlocking policy. People wouldn't need software or hardware hacks if that were done. AT&T reps will claim the iPhone doesn't allow for unlocking, but that's false when other iPhone carriers get it done. It's just an unlocking procedure done in conjunction with Apple and through iTunes activation instead of direct IMEI unlocking that all other phones use.

And the thing that annoys me the most is that when AT&T settled the previous CALS over unlocking, it specifically excluded the iPhone because of the claim that the iPhone was exclusive to AT&T. Not because of any technical barriers. Well, guess what, that justification doesn't hold up anymore at all because 1) Verizon sells the iPhone (yes I know it's CDMA but it's still the same country) 2) Apple is apparently unlocking AT&T provisioned iPhones to sell as unlocked phones as long as customers pay the full unlocked price. Therefore, either Apple's screwing us or AT&T is, and all the evidence I've seen indicates it's the latter.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

The lowering of the price per GB as technology allows it.

Are you joking? Having the most expensive carrier remove their most affordable competition from play will make prices lower?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Are you joking? Having the most expensive carrier remove their most affordable competition from play will make prices lower?

He's responding to boycookie.

Edit: I think. After all, why would he want to fight the merger if he thought a merger would result in what he posted.

[boy8cookie]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

The lowering of the price per GB as technology allows it.

That's not going to happen, whether the merger happens or not. Speeds will improve, prices will stay the same.

[CharlesS]

Prices staying the same is better than what will happen if this deal goes through.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Actually, the newer the iPhone the more difficult or impossible it is to unlock through software.

True, however I recently discovered that I could not jailbreak/unlock my first gen iPhone with the latest PwnageTool (4.3.3). I had to track down version 4.1. Something SSharon may want to keep in mind.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Prices staying the same is better than what will happen if this deal goes through.

Yeah, AT&T reworking their SMS plans to make them even worse isn't a good sign in the short run.

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

True, however I recently discovered that I could not jailbreak/unlock my first gen iPhone with the latest PwnageTool (4.3.3). I had to track down version 4.1. Something SSharon may want to keep in mind.

Thanks for the tip!

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, AT&T reworking their SMS plans to make them even worse isn't a good sign in the short run.

I just saw that this morning as well. I called them the other day and found out AT&T got rid of the $5 plan which annoyed me (as much as finding out verizon doesn't have a $15 or $25 data plan) and now I find out AT&T got rid of the $10 plan? iMessage better kick ass so I don't have to text anyone ever again (unless I use google voice).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by SSharon 

iMessage better kick ass so I don't have to text anyone ever again (unless I use google voice).

Good luck with that. What will you do with recalcitrant people who do not own smartphones?

[SSharon]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Good luck with that. What will you do with recalcitrant people who do not own smartphones?

I haven't done an exhaustive study of my past usage, but I use fewer than 200 texts a month right now. I'm sure I could contact the dozen or so people who text me semi-regularly to text my GV number. If a few slip through the cracks, oh well, but at least I got the satisfaction of giving AT&T less for texts than more making their plan backfire for at least one customer.

[The Final Dakar]

Sounds like a good plan.

Conversely, the non-smartphone users are also screwed.

[bstone]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You mean other than the hella-lame, "get a $5 voucher for a product from the company you earlier patronized"?

This is why I generally do not join the class action suits that I am asked to join. THey make money for the lawyers and do nothing to further consumer protection.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't see any downside to joining the class, but maybe a resident lawyer would have a more informed opinion.

Lawyers tend not to render legal advice to non-clients. Just sayin'. Rule 11 sanctions can be pretty severe.