[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]Here's my issue. They claim the smartphone to be property of the carrier for the duration of the 2 year contract. In that case, shouldn't the carrier be 100% responsible for any issues the phone may have during that 2 year contract and not the phone's manufacturer? I previously had issue with a smartphone on Sprint.... Sprint wanted to charge me $30 to replace a phone still covered by it's manufacturer's 1yr warranty. If I was leasing the phone, as suggested in this article, it would have been Sprint's responsibility to ensure I had a properly functioning phone at all times (not to mention it's illegal to charge a customer to repair/replace a product covered by any type of warranty unless the agreed upon terms state such charges).... So, at what point does the consumer STOP getting ripped off? If we don't "own" the phones due to buying with subsidies, the carriers should be forced to warranty the phones themselves for the duration of the 2 year contract or terminate the contract at no charge if the phone fails outside of it's 1yr warranty.[/citation]
Right there with ya on this one.
I'd like to add any phone should be unlocked once the 2 year contract is up since we just finished paying for said phone, and any phone we pay for in full should remain unlocked and allowed to transfer to any carrier so long as the phone is capable of supporting the network of the carrier.
We consumers are losing our rights because the people making decisions have no clue and are too busy getting their pockets lined with stacks of cash to care from these jackasses that are screwing us over.