"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003@obvious.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:53bbr3F1rud7pU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> I have no problem with a handset that is subsidised by call charges and
> having a "lock in" period to enable costs to be recouped. I don't think
> it's reasonable for the phone company to hold a portion of the value of
> that phone back once the phone has been paid off.
>
> When you finish paying off the HP on a car say, would you be happy paying
> another charge to allow you to get it serviced by another garage? Of
> course you can still buy a car without involving finance or loans but for
> many people, it's the most affordabe way for them to do it. It's the same
> with phones.

Not the same, it's much worse than HP on a car. You own the phone from day 1
and the contract for airtime states this. Where as an HP contract clearly
states the car belongs to the loan company until paid off.

> The cost to the phone company of providing an unlock code is
> insignificant. £20 may be nothing to you but banks have recently been
> taken to task for charging fees far in excess of their costs. I don't see
> why phone companies should escape similar attention.

Agree. See my earlier post.