California Offers Cellular Bill of Rights

JeremyALogan writes "The Feature has an article about The California Public Utility Commission's approval of the first cellular customer Bill of Rights in the US. The Bill enables consumers to cancel their wireless contracts within 30 days of signing on. It also forces carriers to clearly state their rates as well as critical contract terms in normal size print on their websites (no more fine print). Companies will no longer be able to lump "recovery fees" in with taxes or other government fees on bills." You can imagine the joy with which the cellular companies have meet this prospect. Court challenges will be ensuing soon.

Comments

Mixed Feelings

[UberOogie]

Clearly, this is a great thing for consumers.

On the other hand, I've got to agree with the Governator, if for different reasons. I'm not sure if this is within the power of the commission that did it, for whatever benefit. This kind of power creep is exactly the kind of thing citizens should oppose.

But then again, there is no way that bought and paid for state government would ever pass such consumer protection.

Overall, I'd call it good with reservations.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[timeOday]

I'm not sure if this is within the power of the commission that did it, for whatever benefit. This kind of power creep is exactly the kind of thing citizens should oppose.

Hmm, I can see "The Industry" arguing against this on some technical grounds like the authority of some particular commission. But won't it be pretty hard to argue that deceptive practices or "leap before you look" lock-ins are good for the consumer, or even for the industry as a whole? Free markets are hurt by deception.

It seems the Golden State has wrecked its economy by going too far with some socialistic ideals in the recent past, and now everybody is skeptical of this "do-gooder" government even if the particular idea is a good one.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[back_pages]

I hear ya, but just this weekend I was talking with a friend and wishing that some notoriously sleazy industries would be regulated a little more fairly. I'm not talking about being forced to compete with a government industry, as was done with electricity in the US, but to just clean up some of the sleaziness.

I'm in the process of getting a cell phone for the first time (I've been a college student who enjoys being unreachable) and am also to a big city. I'm trying to order a phone, have it delivered to me, but have it activated with the big city area code and so on. I ordered from a1wireless.com, but they couldn't verify my address. That's odd, because the USPS can, the electric company can, the cable company can, and the bank can. The guy I spoke with about this was a pain in the ass so I told him to cancel the order. He said that it would be done, but I have yet to receive any email from the company that the order was cancelled. I half expect to be billed for a phone that I never receive.

So I shopped around and found a completely different company. Different website, different deals, different name, different "sales pitch" regarding their phones. So I gave them a shot and ordered a phone. This was about 3 hours after I placed the first order. Here's the really sleazy part..

I was unhappy with the customer support at the first company and I wanted to take my business to one of their rivals. I thought that I had done so.. but my second order number is about 300 higher than my first one, ie the order number at one company was (fake) 423501 and my second order number with a "rival" company was 423811. This could be a coincidence, but I strongly suspect that I'll be dealing with the same bad customer support on Tuesday.

It is a sleazy industry. They must make more money by scamming their customers than providing the advertised service. My girlfriend's provider (SunCom) refuses to provide an itemized bill. They just send her a total and expect her to pay it - or pay the ~$150 early cancellation fee. I called SunCom myself and very politely did everything I could to get an itemized bill. After 30 minutes, the woman told me, "After the first bill has been sent to the customer, it contains proprietary information on our computers and therefore we cannot print an itemized bill and send it out, so sorry." I'm not a dope, I don't believe that nonsense, but the fact is that I could get blood from a stone before I could get an itemized bill from SunCom.

If some government somewhere wants to regulate these assholes and enforce a little truth in advertising, I'm all for it. A free market doesn't work well when there's an industrial scam going on, and that's what the cell phone providers have.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[stefanlasiewski]

I'm not sure if this is within the power of the commission that did it, for whatever benefit.

The PUC has juristiction over many critical systems such as power and (land) phone. They also have juristiction to regulate television cable (which is *not* a critical service). Cell phone service seems much more critical then cable.

I'm always frustrated that somehow these existing laws somehow don't apply to the cell phone companies as well. Imagine if you went to Wal-mart to purchase a Television because there's a 10% off sale, and when you get to the checkout stand the cashier starts applying a bunch of additional fees.

If I go to a regular store to purchase anything, the store is required to disclose fees up front, must accept any faulty products within a certain period od time. You can't do that with a cell phone.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[MrLint]

But Schwarzenegger believes these new regulations will harm California's already tenuous relationship with high tech industries, giving them yet another reason to take their business elsewhere.

anyone want to put money down that the number of cellphone companies that are going to pack up and leave CA at any number greater than 0? Its not a bet i woudl take.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[bladernr]

My girlfriend's provider (SunCom) refuses to provide an itemized bill.

I have never worked with SunCom, but there are several legitamite reasons they may not send an itemized bill. (FYI, I've been working in telecom billing a while now).

1. Their system cannot do it. Some telecom billing systems use an external rating/pricing engine to compute charges, and then forward the final (summarized) charges to the billing system for print/mail/track. The actual billing system may have limitations that prevent it from having all the actual calls (I just got through an implementation using one of those, and the result is that the paper bill cannot have detail). Is detail available on the Web? (that is the usual alternative)

2. Wireless is highly competative, and everyone wants to keep their cost down. Every page of print adds cost (both in paper and postage). Some companies that do this offer an option to pay a bit extra to receive the full detail, giving most consumers a lower price by forgoing this (again, check the Web for detail).

3. SunCom may not actually be a wireless provider (as in owning the network), but a reseller or an MVNO. MVNO's have much lighter systems infrastructure which may leave them incapable for a full detailed bill.

I know its easy to hate the phone company, and usually they deserve it, but billing is one of those things that is terribly important and often screwed up, often in spite of efforts by the carrier.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[bladernr]

Some companies that do this offer an option to pay a bit extra to receive the full detail

I hate replying to my own message, but I just checked SunCom's Web site, and under the FAQ for Billing, it says you can get a detailed bill for $2/month. Instead of having all customers pay the extra even if they don't want detail, just the ones that want it pay.

They do seem to require that even if you only want to view online. That probably tells you they cannot seperate what appears online from what gets printed (they must be using a their invoice system for Web presentment).

Re:Mixed Feelings

[pauljlucas]

Is there some compelling reason why you just didn't walk into a local wireless store and buy a phone and service plan directly? You can also try out the phone and UI to see if you like it. Many phone UIs are poor.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[bladernr]

They also have juristiction to regulate television cable (which is *not* a critical service).

Cable is regulated because it is a licensed monopoly (it least it used to be). With the advent of "overbuilders" such as RCN and satellite TV such as DirecTV and Dish Network, perhaps cable should be deregulated. You do make the very valid point that cable is far from a critical service, so let the free market work its magic.

I'm always frustrated that somehow these existing laws somehow don't apply to the cell phone companies as well.

The problem is that these are often considered to be national services, putting them out of reach in some ways for state PUC/PSC. This is a similar argument made in support of VOIP. The FCC, obviously, has jurisdiction. Let's say I live in one state, on the state line, so my mobile service is coming from another state. Who has jurisdiction?

With that said, the PUC is applying many things to mobile carriers. They have been required to support 911 (they didn't used to be). Mobile carriers are looking more and more like traditional carriers, and they can expect to get the same regulatory treatment in the future.

If I go to a regular store to purchase anything, the store is required to disclose fees up front

Thats not entirely accurate. As someone who travels alot, let me tell you, taxes and what they apply to are not clear until you check out. Take the example of a newspaper: in some places its taxed, others not; if it is, the tax rates are different. I can usually just pull out a dollar for a WSJ, but not always. Taxes, fees, and surcharges are generally not disclosed in any industry until time or sale or invoicing (also see: buying a car, closing a mortgage, buying a plane ticket).

Re:Mixed Feelings

[bladernr]

But Schwarzenegger believes these new regulations will harm California's already tenuous relationship with high tech industries, giving them yet another reason to take their business elsewhere.

anyone want to put money down that the number of cellphone companies that are going to pack up and leave CA at any number greater than 0? Its not a bet i woudl take.

They would obviously not leave such a large market. But would they continue "voluntary compliance" programs? There are several of those, such as portions of CALEA on wireless. Would they keep the customers, but move the jobs to another state?

If a carrier moves its R&D or engineering, its suppliers may follow. High-tech requires an ecosystem. CA succeeds with its amazingly high cost due to the existance of that ecosystem. Start pushing companies away (like with high workers comp premiums), and the ecosystem goes away, to form in another state.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[OldSoldier]

When I first heard about this I thought it clearly was a good deal. But then I remembered that a lot of companies subsidize the price of a cell phone against the long term contract. So... it occurs to me that one sure fire way to make the cell phone companies go out of business is to sign up for service in California with the most subsidized phone one can find, then return it within the 30 day period, and get as many Californians to do the same.

Two questions emerge:
1) How can this "bill" be modified to both give consumers the obvious rights they should have while allowing the cell phone companies to offer subsidized phone deals?
2) Why isn't the cell phone industry trotting out *this* example in their war against this bill?

I have no easy answers to #1... ideas include offering the 30 day trial only for low end phones or on plans where the consumer buys the phone outright. Charge a "restocking fee" (gasp). others?

As for #2... maybe the carriers are more afraid of giving consumers choice rather than losing their shirts on returns of heavily subsidized phones.

At this point I'm reminded of that Monty Python skit "Dennis Moore" (Robin Hood parody). "This redistribution of wealth business is trickier than I thought."

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Mr. Piddle]

SunCom is mediocre even beyond your itemized billing struggle. I hope your girlfriend can actually cancel her plan when that time comes without getting bills for the next several months. Also, their phone displays were very vague about subtle variants of "in network"...oh boy, did I appreciate that $160 bill! Do they still do TDMA only? I wonder if being part of AT&T is another liability for them. I couldn't find a decent TDMA/Palm combo phone to save my life; everyone else is CDMA/GSM.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the general public seems to think that Cable TV is a critical thing. I for one don't even have cable and my TV gets turned on about once a year for some N64 Quake.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[bahwi]

"This kind of power creep is exactly the kind of thing citizens should oppose."

But what about the power creep from the industry? I mean people do NOT have a choice. A cell phone is becoming necessary in day-to-day life, the average joe is brainwashed into thinking that it is whatever way the company says it is because all other companies are like that and because there is simply nothing he can do.

I don't mean to sound anti-corporate(in fact I'm quite pro-corporate), but a power creep is a power creep. And an organization controlling people is as bad as a government controlling people. I think this thing needs to be made federal and necessary.

I promise you, and trust me on this, T-Mobile will not go out of business if I cancelled my contract within 30 days. They want that money, but it won't run them out of business. I need a cell phone anyways, so some company is going to get my business, it just encourages good business practices from the cell phone companies.

It may go too far, but I think in some places it doesn't go far enough.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[d_strand]

I'm not familiar with the mobile phone systems in the US, but i'm sure GSM is TDMA (Time Division), while 3G/UMTS is CDMA (Code Division)

But maybe I missunderstood you?

Re:Mixed Feelings

[squiggleslash]

Not exactly. When people refer to TDMA in the US, they're refering to a mobile "standard" called IS-136, sometimes called D-AMPS or just "Digital". This is completely unrelated to GSM. Other than having a vaguely similar technology for converting digital streams into physical radio signals (ie they both divide a carrier into equal sized time slots and different radios use different time slots), they're completely unrelated.

The term CDMA in the US usually refers to IS-95, different versions of which are called cdmaOne and CDMA2000. These have nothing to do with UMTS. Further, while one of the technologies available to UMTS operators is "code division multiple access", UMTS actually allows operators to chose between several different systems, including time division based systems.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

There are only a handful of wireless networks in the US. Verizon, AT&T, Cingular, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc. Don't buy from resellers. They are just middlemen looking to get as big a markup as possible. There are lots of reviews and surveys of the networks. Research before you buy.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[swv3752]

If you can not provide itemized billing on request then you are a sleaze. If it went to court, you would be providing it.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[d_strand]

I see. thanks.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[stephanruby]

"but there are several legitamite reasons they may not send an itemized bill."

Find me a company that sucks and I'll provide you with "legitimate" reasons of why they suck. If their system is not up to snuff, then it's their responsibility to change it. I don't see what's the use in classifying their incompetency as legitimate.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Ironica]

It seems the Golden State has wrecked its economy by going too far with some socialistic ideals in the recent past

Uh... 1978 isn't that recent, and making it illegal for property tax revenues to keep up with inflation is hardly socialistic.

The 1978 tax revolt was inspired in large part by the fact that the California government had a large surplus of revenues. So this is a bad thing we're not allowed to do anymore. Therefore, when the dot-com boom made us temporarily flush, we had to spend all the money as quickly as possible, rather than saving it for the inevitable (but still somehow unforseen) bust.

We also did things like "temporarily" lowering the Vehicle License Fee from 2% of the car's value to 0.65%, then when we tried to put it back after we no longer had enough money to pay for stuff like fire and police, we got rid of our governor. Again, far from socialistic.

What the heck was your point again?

Re:Mixed Feelings

[TyrranzzX]

*Tyrran gets into the lawn chair with his popcorn and AR-15, waits for the country to go tits-up.

Seriously, a cellular bill of rights...what the hell happened to the other bill of rights, and the constitution? You know, the ones that ACTUALLY MATTER?

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Ironica]

With the advent of "overbuilders" such as RCN and satellite TV such as DirecTV and Dish Network, perhaps cable should be deregulated.

Regardless of how small the "dish" is, many apartment buildings prohibit installation of satellite TV. If they allow it, usually they've contracted with a particular company not of your choosing (in our building, we can get DirecTV if we want, or go with regular cable). There's still no way to choose a different cable company except by moving to another area.

Therefore, market competition still doesn't work for a pretty large percentage of urban consumers, and I'm happy to have cable service regulated.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Ironica]

If a carrier moves its R&D or engineering, its suppliers may follow. High-tech requires an ecosystem. CA succeeds with its amazingly high cost due to the existance of that ecosystem.

Currently, NONE of the major carriers operate out of California (Here's a more detailed article). Furthermore, these regulations don't affect operations, they affect how you treat consumers... so they don't particularly have an effect on the cost of operating out of California, only the cost of selling service here. So these concerns, while they sound compelling, don't actually have anything to do with this move.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[back_pages]

Yes, actually. T-Mobile was highly recommended and at the time I was buying, I was informed that there are no T-Mobile vendors within 200 miles. (I have since found out that there is one in town, oh well.) I'm also not terribly excited about cell phones.. If I get one that remembers phone numbers and functions as a phone, I'll be happy, therefore trying one out before I bought it wasn't that important.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[justzisguy]

While most apartment complexes "ban" satellite dishes for their tenants, there is an interesting law explained here that in most cases does allow you to have a dish as long as your apartment is facing the right direction and there aren't trees in the way.

As for markets forcing change, with so few entities, all content providers (satellite and cable) look very much alike. Not until the bar to entry is lowered will the invisible hand force change.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Ironica]

How can this "bill" be modified to both give consumers the obvious rights they should have while allowing the cell phone companies to offer subsidized phone deals?

The same way you do with any other return. If you return the service and the phone, but the phone is not in a resaleable condition, you'll be required to pay for it. If I cancel my cable service, and the box is trashed when I return it, they charge me for it. I would expect a cellular company to do the same thing.

If the phone is returned in perfect condition with all the original packaging, they should be able to re-sell it. If not, they should be able to ship it back to the company for minimal cost to be vetted and repackaged, so it can be sold as new or at least refurbished. Tons and tons of industries manage to handle returns of merchandise; this shouldn't be any different.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[stefanlasiewski]

So... it occurs to me that one sure fire way to make the cell phone companies go out of business is to sign up for service in California with the most subsidized phone one can find, then return it within the 30 day period

How is this different from most retail operations? This is sort of one of the fundamental aspects of the retail business in general.

The business sells a product to a customer. If the customer isn't satisified they can return the product if it's still in good condition.

The business may loose money, but that's because they provided a unsatisfactory service. This is a risk in just about any commodity business. The companies need to learn from it and provide better services.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[sjames]

legitamite reasons they may not send an itemized bill.

While those all explain why they can't, none opf those are legitimate reasons not to. They are legitimate in the sense that 'When I signed up, I had no money, and still don't' is a legitimate reason why I'm not paying my bill.

Itemized billing is a normal expectation. Any company that procvides a service that costs based on usage is expected to detail the usage being billed for. If they can't manage that, they'd better switch to a flat monthly bill.

Printing a few pages doesn't cost a whole lot. Besides that, many people would be happy enough with web or email access to the itemized bill. If the company can't tell me what usage they based my billing on, I guess they should be forced to take my word for it when I tell them what I am supposed to pay.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Zareste]

But then again, there is no way that bought and paid for state government would ever pass such consumer protection

Well it's certainly not like they've never done it before. These laws usually help the economy and give the politicians passing it a better name.

Of course, I'll be loving it when the cellular companies go and do their best to prevent this, making complete idiots of themselves and their companies and not giving a crap (I haven't caught wind of any lawsuits yet, but we can see them coming). I just can't wait to hear their defense, "Sure, today, you take away our power to rip people off and pounce on the hard-of-seeing, tomorrow, you hydrogen-bomb the world! Where does it end!?"

Re:Mixed Feelings

[PapayaSF]

I have similar mixed feelings, and in addition, I object to the further dilution of the term "bill of rights." The original Bill of Rights restricted the power the government had over citizens. This "bill of rights" consists of the government ordering one group of citizens (cellular phone service providers) to provide certain services to another group of citizens (their customers). Not really the same sort of thing, is it?

Re:Mixed Feelings

[dekeji]

I'm not sure if this is within the power of the commission that did it, for whatever benefit. This kind of power creep is exactly the kind of thing citizens should oppose.

I don't see what there is to "oppose". The CPUC purpose is to regulate the industry for the benefit of the consumer, and that's what they are doing. If they didn't already have this power, we should elect represenatives that would give this kind of power to them.

I suppose, it scares some people that parts of government might actually use the powers entrusted in them to do what they are supposed to. They have gotten so used to the idea that voters are irrelevant and power can just be brokered among elected officials. Well, that's just too bad. Maybe we should not re-elect those folks.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal Law mandates a 14 day buyers remorse period for all wireless companies. NO ETF (early termination fee) credit SOS (activation fee) and fully refund equipment (minus shipping). AT&T Wireless is the only company that currently provides a 30 day remorse period.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[BuckaBooBob]

I would love to see transcripts of any would be court challenges...

"So Let me get this right... You want to be able to obfusicate the contracts you have your customers sign so they are unaware of all the fees involved in using your service... And when they decide to terminate service you insist that its the best for the customer be confused by the bill and your "Recovery" fees be mixed and mingled in with taxes and other state charges so the customer is unaware of moneis your company is reciving from them? "

"Um Yes!"

"Is there anything else? Maybe we should reword the law so you are able to have a black piece of paper with a hole in it so they can sign the contract and are unable to read a single word? wouldn't that suit your purpose better?"

"Wow That would be great!"

"Yes atleast people would know they are gonna get screwed instead of being decived into thinking they are getting a deal when they actually are gonna end up paying more"

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm always frustrated that somehow these existing laws somehow don't apply to the cell phone companies as well. Imagine if you went to Wal-mart to purchase a Television because there's a 10% off sale, and when you get to the checkout stand the cashier starts applying a bunch of additional fees.

From a non-US perspective, isn't this what happens all the time anyway? It's strange when visiting the US to see a price tag on a product but then get slugged with this tax and that tax when I hit the checkout.

Much easier all around to have twenty bucks and know that yes, you can actually buy something that's marked as $19.99.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

They seem like good ideas. With the possible exception of the 30-day opt-out, why not apply them to every industry?

Re:Mixed Feelings

[ErikZ]

I don't want subsidized phone deals.

Do you REALLY believe that phone is worth 150-600$?

They just pull these numbers out of the air to make you feel better about being locked into a a 1 to 2 year contract.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[MacJedi]

Regardless of how small the "dish" is, many apartment buildings prohibit installation of satellite TV.

Try the following: Get a large plastic bucket, cement mix, and a sturdy metal pole a few feet long. Pour the cement in the bucket and leave it to set with the pole sticking straight up. Have the satellite installer afix the disk to your bucket/pole fixture, place on your balcony or porch facing the right direction, and enjoy satellite TV.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[geminidomino]

The politicians aren't bribed enough to care about those. Duh.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[TheMysteriousFuture]

Why don't you just *gasp* cut out the middle man and order direct from the provider?

Here I'll make it easy,
T-Mobile (great where there's service...can you say FREE DATA? thought you could)

AT&T wireless ...Okay service (as in coverage) expensive data. Hope you never need to call customer service.

There's others of course...All the main ones will sell to you direct and you usually get a better deal, as in more minutes for the same price.

-TMF

Re:Mixed Feelings

[genus babbage]

>>Printing a few pages doesn't cost a whole lot.

I know you go on to say that it should be available online, however I would much prefer that the default option be to receive an abbreviated bill, and be forced to pay for a full itemised bill in the mail. Purely because people are lazy, and would never change their default options.

Before I got abbreviated bills from my provider, it used to run into 5 or 6 pages - this is especially true with the increasing use of brief services (e.g. SMS or Push-to-talk) that use many short calls, and the prevailence of free-minutes and similar services, all of which require their own billing section. Multiply this by, say, 20 million subs (for a largish provider), and we're running into 100 million pages every month, and I would wager that 90% of people look at the number at the end and ignore the rest.

For PSTN networks, my understanding is that the cost of itemising local calls (this is Europe) is getting to the point of costing more than the revenue it generates - with all these free call options going around, I bet than this is getting to be the case for mobile networks too.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[genus babbage]

This would be more believable if it were the operators that make the handsets. This is not usually the case (at least in Europe, where the handsets are similarly priced).

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Hognoxious]

I know you go on to say that it should be available online, however I would much prefer that the default option be to receive an abbreviated bill, and be forced to pay for a full itemised bill in the mail.

1) add code deep in the bowels of the billing system...

float fiddleFactor value 1.20;
if customer.billopt_itemised = false {
bill.amount = bill.amount * fiddleFactor;
}

2) Build a more sophisticated algorithm that checks if they notice/complain and doesn't do it for those customers, or ramps up the fiddle factor for those who are too stupid or lazy to check their bills.
3) ...
4) Profit!!!!!!!!

Re:Mixed Feelings

[sjames]

I would argue that if the billing computation has become so complex that it makes itemized billing cost more than the revenue generated, it's time to quit nickel and diming the customer to death and recognize that the primary value of offering such services is that it gets customers to use the base service.

The way some companies handle their billing is like an hourly employee charging based on time, breaths taken, calories consumed, steps taken, words read, words written, etc. On that note, I'll bet that the hourly employees at these companies are expected to use a timeclock and be sure to clock out for lunch. In other words, to present an itemized accounting of theior hours. It is highly doubtful that the company would accept "I'm sure I worked 85 hours but I can't say when"

The whole thing creates a misery for both provider and customer and creates an image of pettiness that makes people WANT to take their business elsewhere.

The only reason such things are done now is that it allows companies to sweep the costs under the rug in their deceitful advertising.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Hognoxious]

Much easier all around to have twenty bucks and know that yes, you can actually buy something that's marked as $19.99.

And much easier for the (Belgian) government to hide the fact that they take 3,47 of the EUR 19,99 you pay for it.

Re:Mixed Feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been considering registering the username Grammar Troll or something, so I can vent my anger at the horrible beast English has turned into...

Why is it that..

[Ckwop]

big business is never honest? I mean, these provisions are obviously there to help the customer know what product their buying into.

Why do the cell phone companies feel like they need to hide this stuff in small print? People respect a company that is, well, respectable. I'd feel happier to buy a cell if I know *exactly* where i'm going to get charged and how much that charge is.

The cell phone companies should back this clarity.

Simon.

Re:Why is it that..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do the cell phone companies feel like they need to hide this stuff in small print? People respect a company that is, well, respectable. I'd feel happier to buy a cell if I know *exactly* where i'm going to get charged and how much that charge is.

The cell phone companies should back this clarity.

Don't forget, this is the US. Cellular used to be fair, they took a loss on your handset and then recovered it through a year long contract. Later on GSM intruduced the idea of locking the phone so that it would be useless except with a specific carrier. This is where the rift between the US and the rest of the world occurs. Elsewhere in the world, after the cellular company recovered their costs and made some profit they would gladly unlock the handset so you could take it to another carrier if you wished. In the US, this was almost unheard of. In fact, try asking anyone at a retail store about getting this done and 99.99% of the time they'll say it can't be done. The worst part about all of this is that they retained the contracts and have lengthened their times. So you get punished twice, you get a locked phone and you have to sign up for 1-3 years!

Further, if you do managed to unlock your phone, (by hook or by crook) many carriers will refuse to allow it's use with their service! They'd much rather you buy a new phone from them. Then there are the carriers which will allow you to bring in your own handset, but they still want you to sign up for 1-3 years. I've never understood this, there is no loss leader in this situation. They simply enter your information into their system and begin billing you, instant profit from the first bill. (They'll generally want you to pay an "activation fee" $20 for some monkey to enter two numbers along with your billing info?!? That's pure profit!)

Before all of this mess, when you could take your phone to any carrier, the phones were of higher quality because they weren't meant to get thrown away. As an example, look at Motorola handsets of the past. They were far better at receiving signals than the current ones. They were built to last, made of the same plastic used in helmets. They even designed the battery such that if the phone were dropped, it would seperate without breaking it's loking mechanism. You could throw these phones against a brick wall and they'd still work, try that with a modern phone.

Don't forget that all of these re-usable handsets winding up in the trash are bad for the environment. I don't see the environmentalists raising a stink about that, I wonder why?

Re:Why is it that..

[Shmooze]

Hmm... we have a similar problem with 'locked phones' in the UK as well. Except that the law was changed to force phone companies to allow you to unlock phones for a 'reasonable fee.' This is usually more than the price of a cheap phone!

Re:Why is it that..

[pauljlucas]

... if you do managed to unlock your phone, (by hook or by crook) many carriers will refuse to allow it's use with their service! They'd much rather you buy a new phone from them.

Part of the reason is that the carrier doesn't want to have to deal with technical support issues for phones they don't otherwise sell or carry. When somebody calls technical support, they have "scripts" for all their phones that the support person can simply follow.

Re:Why is it that..

[Anonymous Coward]

Lies. 'A Reasonable Fee' is a maximum of 25 quid plus a maximum of 5 quid for P&P (both ways). Don't include that P&P if they can do it in store.

New phones start at around 30 quid for your basic shit Nokia on PAYG. That is at the most, the same price as new (poor) phone, not cheaper.

Furthermore, most dodgy market stalls and some independant phone shops will unlock your phone for around a tenner.

Your point is hereby nullified, good sir!

Re:Why is it that..

[SeaFox]

Don't forget, this is the US. Cellular used to be fair, they took a loss on your handset and then recovered it through a year long contract. Later on GSM intruduced the idea of locking the phone so that it would be useless except with a specific carrier.

Talk about demonizing GSM. Do you have anything to support the idea that phone were freely interchangable between carriers before GSM, because it seems to me they have *always* been locked when they came from the provider.

This is where the rift between the US and the rest of the world occurs. Elsewhere in the world, after the cellular company recovered their costs and made some profit they would gladly unlock the handset so you could take it to another carrier if you wished. In the US, this was almost unheard of. In fact, try asking anyone at a retail store about getting this done and 99.99% of the time they'll say it can't be done.

Since Europe has been GSM longer than the U.S., wouldn't Euopean's cell phones be locked to carrier, too? GSM seems to be responsible for this according to you. T-Mobile will unlock your phone if you've been a customer for at least six months, according to many posters in past artcles on this issue.

Before all of this mess, when you could take your phone to any carrier, the phones were of higher quality because they weren't meant to get thrown away.

And you're blaming the cell phone carriers for this? This is the handset manufacturer's fault. They have stated (at least I saw a quote of Sony-Ericsson) that they want people to be buying a new handset once a year.

Don't forget that all of these re-usable handsets winding up in the trash are bad for the environment. I don't see the environmentalists raising a stink about that, I wonder why?

Because you can take you phone/batteries ect and...

1) Donate them to programs that refirbish the phone and give them to victims of domestic abuse for use in emergencies?

2) or take them to Best Buy and drop them in that big bin labeled "Cell Phone/Battery Recycling"?

Re:Why is it that..

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile will unlock your phone if you've been a customer for at least six months, according to many posters in past artcles on this issue.

T-Mobile is perhaps the only wireless company in the US that doesn't make a practice of screwing its customers for everything it can get. I've never had a need to unlock my phone, but customer service has been prompt and curtious. If you live in an area where T-Mobile has good reception (this can be tricky), they're well worth it.

Re:Why is it that..

[geminidomino]

or take them to Best Buy and drop them in that big bin labeled "Cell Phone/Battery Recycling"?

An aquaintance of mine worked for one of the companies. A lot of times, those phones in the bins just get wiped and pawned off on customers again with their contracts.

What about...

[Black Parrot]

...a Bill of Rights for the rest of us?

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

HAH! Negroes and I am not alive and I cannot even begin to tell you that I am indeed ready to instill my faith upon others, albeit because i like runon sentences.

Re:What about...

[timmyf2371]

...a Bill of Rights for the rest of us?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.billofrights.html

Re:What about...

[isorox]

One which isn't ignored by TPTB?

Re: What about...

[Black Parrot]

Pace to those who have replied so far, but I was talking about a BoR for non cell phone users, e.g. a right to sit through a movie without hearing a vanity ringer and a loud conversation.

Re:What about...

[Adam9]

The sad part is that I agree with the moderation of the parent: Score: 2, Funny

Used Car Dealers...

[path_man]

Is it just me, or does anyone else ever go into the SprintPCS store feeling like they are visiting a used car dealership? Besides the clientelle that always seem to be there (people arguing about roaming charges, people 90 days past-due on their bill, someone wanting to cancel service because of a divorce, etc.) the staff almost always has this shady look to them.

About the only place I hate worse than the SprintPCS store is the stupid sunglass counter at the mall.

It's about damn time that the government step in to regulate how these kinds of companies do business. This is actually helpful -- and I'd be willing to bet that in the long-term this kind of regulation actually *gasp* helps cellular companies.

Re:Used Car Dealers...

[BigDumbAnimal]

It's about damn time that the government step in to regulate how these kinds of companies do business.

Don't do business with them? Tell your friends?

Suppose your business is the next one the government decides it needs to regulate?

Re:Used Car Dealers...

[reanjr]

Mod parent up!

Why do people moan and complain about a service but continue to pay the company?

Try some other company. AT&T (my provider) of course has the standard reclamation fees that everyone else has, but other than that, they've been extraordinarily helpful, friendly, and honest, both on the phone and in their stores.

On another note, they (AT&T) are also one of the most expensive providers. As with almost everything, you get what you pay for. If you wanna pay bottom dollar, you get crap.

It's understandable. Most mobile phone service providers give you a free phone to start with, and they still manage to undercut land line providers in cost of service (at least with all the options). It's a rough market; if they can cut corners on customer service to keep costs down, more power to them.

Re:Used Car Dealers...

[CTho9305]

Don't do business with them? Tell your friends?

The cell phone companies are an oligopoly. There are only a few, very big players, and they're all equally evil. If you didn't want to buy a car from Ford, GM, Toyota, Saturn, or Honda, that leaves you with a VERY small selection of cars you could buy. Taking your business elsewhere only really works in markets with many players.

Re:Used Car Dealers...

[LMariachi]

Saturn is a General Motors company.

Re:Used Car Dealers...

[goon america]

Don't do business with them? Tell your friends?

The problem is that there are only a handful of these companies and competition is tight; they all have to use such deceptive practices because of competition. As soon as one company does it, the others all have to if they want to compete with them.

Suppose your business is the next one the government decides it needs to regulate?

Deceptive practices reduce consumer trust for every company in that market. I myself would have gotten a cell phone a lot sooner if I wasn't so leery of these shady tactics -- and that's a loss to both me and my provider.

Re:Used Car Dealers...

[CTho9305]

That makes my point even better ;). I thought they were supposed to be "a different kind of car company".

Re:Used Car Dealers...

[Scudsucker]

There should be an addition to the lameness filter that automatically scores any post stating "Mod parent up!" as -10, dickweed, and gives the poster negative karma for the rest of the year. Now, that having been said...

Why do people moan and complain about a service but continue to pay the company?

Because we don't have any other choice. You want to use a cell phone, you have to agree to a draconian contract that gives the carrier all the power, because ALL the companies have the same horrid policies.

Try some other company. AT&T (my provider) of course has the standard reclamation fees that everyone else has

See what I mean.

Re:Used Car Dealers...

[reanjr]

Last time I checked cell phones were not a requirement to live. And if your job/business requires it, then that's cost of doing business. You shouldn't live in a capitalist society. You're not ready for the responsibility.

No more fine print?

[Anonymous Coward]

and the next sentance I see: The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

many problems

[octal666]

There are many problems concerning the technology, and the legislators not understanding all the posible consecuences of a given law, of from not legislating about something.

Companies make profit of this, and we have to suffer abuse of our rights unconcevaible in other more known industries. Remember problem with software patents (I'm in Europe and it's a main problem now), or other abuses to common consumers in technology areas.

Sooo...

[harveyswik]

when does it go into effect?

The companies should stop being so frightened.

[91degrees]

Isn't it beneficial to the companies if their customers feel they're safe buying a product? If people can buy a phone knowing that the price advertised is the price they're going to pay, surely they'll be a lot happier about buying it. The only problem with doing this before is that if one company did it, their competition would hide their real prices, making it look cheaper.

Re:The companies should stop being so frightened.

[Timesprout]

If people can buy a phone knowing that the price advertised is the price they're going to pay, surely they'll be a lot happier about buying it

Unfortunately with these companies if most people saw the real price and costs upfront and also the full t&c they would reconsider their purchase which is why these companies dont want you to see them. They want to get you bound to a contract asap so no matter what happens you are paying them service charges for the next 12 months at least.

Re:The companies should stop being so frightened.

[bladernr]

Isn't it beneficial to the companies if their customers feel they're safe buying a product?

Onerous contract terms and hidden charges do not appear to have stifled growth in the mobile industry.

If this were indeed happening, the mobile careers themselves would have one of these "Bills of Rights." If consumers want it, they should vote with their feet (wallet), and the free market will work its magic. I have little faith in government regulation as a wise hand.

Let's remember, mobile phones are not a critical service. They have only been in serious use for 10 years, after all, and true widespread use in the US for 5 years. Why should the government be regulating things other than "right to life" services?

Re:The companies should stop being so frightened.

[Ironica]

Why should the government be regulating things other than "right to life" services?

Yeah, good point. I should be able to walk into a 7-11 and steal a candy bar, because that doesn't actually injure anyone...

We have gotten this twisted notion in the US that companies have a god-given right to make money, and consumers have a responsibility to pay for it (though they don't seem to have the same responsibility to pay taxes for government services, under the same logic). This is simply not the case. Governments have the same right to regulate deceptive business practices just as much as they can regulate individuals who scam, swindle, and cheat.

What they've found is that often, until people have been through a billing cycle, they don't fully know how their cellular service is going to work. So you get 30 days to cancel penalty-free. Almost *any* product can be returned; why should cellular service be different? In fact, when companies have more restrictive return policies, they often have you initial them when you make your purchase, just to make *sure* you understand (I've had this experience recently with maternity clothes... seems a lot of women will wear them for a few months and then try to return them after the pregnancy, so they have strict time limits on returns). Therefore, the accepted norm is to be able to return products you're unsatisfied with, and there's no compelling reason that cellular should be an exception.

Re:The companies should stop being so frightened.

[Solandri]

If consumers want it, they should vote with their feet (wallet), and the free market will work its magic. I have little faith in government regulation as a wise hand. [...] Why should the government be regulating things other than "right to life" services?

The free market is not a panacea. When it works, it works really well. But there are several scenarios where it fails. The prisoner's dilemma/tragedy of the commons is one (where decisions which benefit each individual the most results in the worst possible outcome for everyone). Monopolistic practices are another (where decisions benefit the monopolist at everyone else's expense). Industry collusion, whether overt or understood, is a subset of the monopolist scenario (not that I'm saying it's happening here, but it certainly could happen). It's the government's job to step in on these cases with legislation which allows the free market to work properly.

A properly functioning free market needs well-informed consumers. Deception is an inefficiency which hinders capitalism. Sometimes the market eliminates it by itself, sometimes it needs the help of a regulating agency to eliminate it. It's like an optimizing algorithm that gets fooled and trapped by certain holes or minima in the solution space - by sellers deceiving purchasers by hiding fees, using confusing or hard to read contract terms, locking them in (i.e. putting up a barrier against choice), etc. It's the government's job to set up barriers around those false solutions so the algorithm (capitalism) can go about finding real solutions.

Re:The companies should stop being so frightened.

[ErikZ]

er, if the company isn't making money, how do you expect it to stay in business?

It's kind of like saying "We have the twisted notion that people have the god given right to eat."

Re:The companies should stop being so frightened.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should a badly run company stay in business? Part of being a well run company is being honest with customers.

Re:The companies should stop being so frightened.

[Ironica]

er, if the company isn't making money, how do you expect it to stay in business?

Companies should make money. Sure. But, we seem to think that *any* act on the part of a business is justified if it makes money... which is wrong.

It's kind of like saying "We have the twisted notion that people have the god given right to eat."

The right to eat is not granted in the Constitution or recognized by any government I know of off the top of my head. As a matter of fact, while we do protect many other rights, people are quite free to starve to death, and if they cannot pay for food, they may have no other choice. So, no, people do not have the "right" to eat any more than a company has the "right" to make money. Each has the ability to do these things insofar as they can do so without interfering with the rights of others. A man stealing a loaf of bread to ward off starvation is breaking the law, and will not be granted dispensation because he has a "right" to eat. Why should we have a different rule for corporations?

Re:The companies should stop being so frightened.

[91degrees]

If this were indeed happening, the mobile careers themselves would have one of these "Bills of Rights." If consumers want it, they should vote with their feet (wallet), and the free market will work its magic.

No, they wouldn't. That would involve trusting each other. They can't do that. They are not willing to take the risk of unilaterally offering an honest service, especially if people assume that they're hiding something. Large companies don't take risks, and it's impossible for a small startup to get any headway in the mobile phone industry.

hahaha

[tisme]

I don't understand what the problem is... I just signed up with AT&T and got a FREE $290 flip phone plus six FREE months of UNLIMITED calling, INTERNET access on my phone and all sorts of cool arcade games to play on my cellphone. Yeah they did ask me for my bank account information and two major credit cards but this was only to ensure that I "qualified" for their great free offer. Sure there was a long spiel about rates after the six months but I just plan on cancelling then and looking for another free six months. LET THE SUN SHINE DOWN ON SUCH GREAT OFFERS, THEY MAKE ME FEEL SO SPECIAL. :) :) :)

(j/k of course :P)

Re:hahaha

[gnovos]

I don't understand what the problem is...

Me neither! I sighed up for phone service, a flat $40 a month, free 2 ounce phone (w/megapixel camera, mp3 player, web browser, etc. usual standard fare), can cancel anytime without penalty. It's great! What's everyone complaining and bitching about? Oh yeah, and also I live in Japan.

Good Job California

[masternerd]

Thats good news for Consumers. I have been using same services for more then 3 years but I dont want a contract as such. People will continue to use services without contract, Cell phone companies needs to understand that. They need to understand that by forcing people to contract they are not helping (They claim to be customer friendly). On the other hand, It may change business model though. There may not be any Free Phones anymore as Free phone pays for itself during contract period. But good enforcement on the cell phone companies who enforce people to stay with them for 1 or 2 years. We are about freedom, one or two year punishment to stay with company doesn't suite us. Hope other state follow.

Re:Good Job California

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been using same services for more then 3 years

"more than 3 years". MORE THAN. For the love of God, it's "than" not "then" when you are comparing things.

Please don't make me go over there and spank you, too.

Re:Good Job California

[Ironica]

Um, I didn't see anything in this that gets rid of contracts for cellular service. You simply will have 30 days to cancel regardless of the contract, and no matter what the contract says, they have to comply with certain standard business practices regarding billing etc. Where did you get the idea that this somehow gets rid of cellular service contracts?

Re:Good Job California

[masternerd]

Atleast something is coming...May be I got it wrong but I guess it is still better that you can cancel withing 30 days. Even though wouldn't help much.

802.11 someday

[Anonymous Coward]

http://pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116334,00.as p One day the Cell phone companies will be less of single solution provider when 802.11 gets national coverage and everyone shares their bandwindth.

Depends...

[Kjella]

You can imagine the joy with which the cellular companies have meet this prospect.

Actually, I don't see why not some of them would welcome it. If their comptitors' terms have more obnoxious, obfuscated and hidden costs, they should stand to gain from it.

Kjella

Re:Depends...

[wombatmobile]

If their comptitors' terms have more obnoxious, obfuscated and hidden costs, they should stand to gain from it.

Yeah, they might gain, until they become ascendent enough to be able to raise their charges and then... What would they want to do?

Phone pricing is the convection current of capitalism. As with your favorite beer and the Colorado river, transparency can be both elusive and illusory.

Re:Depends...

[Too Much Noise]

As with your favorite beer and the Colorado river, transparency can be both elusive and illusory.

Why, I like my Guinness quite opaque, thank you very much :-)

I hear you about the illusion of transparency though. Oh well, I guess you can at least get the advertised price to match better with what you'll actually be paying, if not getting a clearer answer about why are you paying all those extra fees.

Cellular Bill of Rights

[schnits0r]

I hereby declare that my cells have the following rights: 1) The right to undergo mitosis, and, under certain conditions, meiosis. 2) The right to unfettered DNA replication. 3) The right to splice and edit mRNA transcripts without governmental interference. 4) The right to protect themselves from any invading threat, be it bacterial, viral, or merely proteinaceous, using any means that have been made available through evolution. 5) The right to secrete phospholipid bilayers. 6) The right to enclose all genetic material within a nuclear envelope.

Re:Cellular Bill of Rights

[Chatmag]

Um, I think they are talking about cell phones. Biology is two doors down.

Re:Cellular Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

You're giving your cells the right to mitosis? What are you thinking?

Haven't you ever heard of cancer? A modern organism must regulate mitosis more strictly than almost anything else.

Re:Cellular Bill of Rights

[Uma Thurman]

Oh you are teh funnay! When you explain the joke, it can only get fannay-er. Thanks!

Re:Cellular Bill of Rights

[Timesprout]

he right to secrete phospholipid bilayers. 6) The right to enclose all genetic material within a nuclear envelope

Dear schnits0r,

We read your post on /. with interest because it contained the words secret(e) and nuclear in close proximity. Given this and the haxxor spelling of your name has forced us to increase your terrorist quotient by a metric shitload.

Our inspectors will be around shortly to dig you up/apart to search for the WMD you refer to in your post.

Yours etc.
The Pentagon.

Re:Cellular Bill of Rights

[Chatmag]

What is funny is your sig. Just last week I was at my favorite C/Store getting something, and the clerk was speaking Hindu. I told him the same thing; this is America, speak Spanish.

Re:Cellular Bill of Rights

[Ironica]

2) The right to unfettered DNA replication.

You should really specify that they can only replicate their *original* DNA... don't grant them the right to unfettered replication of viral DNA, please!

Re:Cellular Bill of Rights

[lonesome phreak]

Or Parasite Eve for that matter.

Not going to make the slightest difference

[XavierItzmann]

The only thing that can lower your monthly out-of-pocket is less taxes or more competition.

a) No fine print ---print will be larger, as it is today on credit card offers

b) Separate "tax recoveries" ---tax recoveries will be included in overall price or will be separated. Have you noticed how car dealers separate the "destination fee?" ---yep. You still pay it.

Can't believe legislators waste taxpayer money on writing these sort of useless laws.

Re:Not going to make the slightest difference

[Anonymous Coward]

How true! The "regulatory charges" pay for things like "marketing to customers who may opt to switch their phone number to another carrier". In fact, AT&T was giving away $30 so that existing, no-longer-under-contract customers would be locked in for another year.

Where does that $30 come from? If you guessed AT&T's Regulatory Expenses fee, you're right!

Happily, I wasn't stupid enough to take their $30. If they gave me a modern phone and $100, then I might be convinced to stay another year. Then again, those "government-related fees" would just go up and up for all their customers! After all, if they could lock in users, they wouldn't have to market to them.

Re:Not going to make the slightest difference

[InfiniteWisdom]

a) No fine print ---print will be larger, as it is today on credit card offers

With credit cards offers they need not only a larger print, but also a table in a standard format that explains what annual fees, setup fees etc. are charged. So if the "Annual Fee" box says none, you can be certain there is no "spiffy plastic card rental fee" hidden somewhere else. When I receive and offer, I just throw away the letter and colurful brochures enclosed and go straight to the table.

Hopefully they will be also be required to state the "critical contract terms" clearly like that rather than just print the same BS in larger fonts. Something like:

Activation Fee:
Monthly Service Fee:
Taxes:
Included Daytime Minutes:
Included Weeknight Minutes:
Definition of Weeknights (start, end time)
Included Weekend Minutes
Length of Contract:
Early termination fee:

Where "activation fee" includes all one-time fees you pay regardless of what BS name they decide to call it.

Moochew

[Anonymous Coward]

Moochew? Is this a chewbacha defenese already?

They shouldn't complain

[earthforce_1]

As long as their competitors must play by the same rules, it shouldn't matter, right? (But they probably will fight it tooth and nail anyway)

Wish I lived there...

[jdreed1024]

California does pass a fair number of insane laws, but they also get it right a fair bit, and this appears to be one of those times. We are one of the few countries in the world that has such a crappy wireless industry. We lag behind the world in standards, and the prices are ridiculous.

I especially like the part about recovery fees. The wireless companies need to be held accountable, and people need to see what they're paying for. It's like Verizon charging $0.44/month for TouchTone service. Either offer it or not, but don't nickel and dime your customers to death.

I hope other states follow California's lead, and then maybe there can be some sanity in the wireless industry.

Being a Californian & Fees

[Akardam]

Being a Californian who's had landline and cell service for a while now, I have to say that the only thing which constantly tweaks me is the fees. 6 years ago when I got my first landline, basic service was 10 bucks a month, flat fee (for local calling, anyway). Now it's closer to 20 bucks a month. The same thing applies for cell service. Even with my government discount, I still pay close on to 10 bucks a month extra in fees. I asked a customer service rep once if I could have a certian fee removed, because I didn't have any interest in using the service for which the fee apparently paid for. She of course said, "I'm sorry, but we can't remove that, everybody has to have it.", which of course, begs the question why it isn't included in the base monthly fee in the first place, and of course the anser to that is marketing. I sometimes wonder why corporations get away with passing on fees to the consumer that they are supposed to pay as a cost of doing business. Anyway, I'm glad in a general sense that this is happening in my home state, but I wish they'd expand it to all fine print. Fine print ought not to be fine, it ought to be the same damn size as everything else on the contract. On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with my cell service. It really is funny to hear all those Nextel chirps, once you actually listen for them. They're everywhere!

the really amazing thing

[koan]

Is Schwarzenegger says that it "hurts business" to impose these rules and that cell companies may want to leave California because of this (yeah right) so you can see the *Terminator* is just business as usual not the peoples governor but another repug shill.
I apologize for the political outburst...

Odd...Schwarzenegger's name is in spell check...hmmmmmmm

Re:the really amazing thing

[hpa]

The really amazing thing is that people actually thought Gropenführer were any other kind of political beast than the money trail clearly showed him to be.

Lazy Consumer

[Thunderstruck]

It seems to me that a consumer can effect all of these "rights" for himself in just a few easy steps.

1. Read every contract you sign, even the fine print, even the one at Blockbuster Video. The folks in line behind you can deal with it and might learn something.

2. Read the billing information and know the law in your state, even if the state taxes are not seperated from the company "fees" on the bill your 3rd grade math skills can work it out.

3. If you don't like the way the company operates or conducts its billing, don't do business with it. People have lived for betweeen 5,940 and a billion years without cell phones them so far. You can survive with a landline if you don't want to get the "screw-job."

(Author's disclaimer - I live in a state with many miles of road that lack cellular service of any kind)

Re:Lazy Consumer

[JadeNB]

1. Read every contract you sign, even the fine print, even the one at Blockbuster Video. The folks in line behind you can deal with it and might learn something.

I was brought up well and have always made this a practice. You can imagine my shock when, upon asking Verizon for a copy of the cell phone contract before I signed (on one of those loathsome electronic signing-pads), I was told that the system was set up so that they couldn't print out a copy until I signed!

Re:Lazy Consumer

[Gribflex]

You forget, most cellular contracts include the provision:

x.1) The provider reserves the right to change the terms of the agreement at any time.

x.2) The provider reserves the right to alter it's coverage area at any time.

x.3) The provider will make changes to the terms of the agreement, or the coverage area, available at its website.

x.4) The above changes to your service plan may be made at a months notice.

-----------

SO even if you read your contract, and it verified by a lawyer, your contract is subject to change at any tiem and your provider is not obligated to let you know. The only means of communication is passive, and requires that customers actively seek out details of their contract on a continual basis.

Re:Lazy Consumer

[EvanED]

So do exactly that... their customer service lines should be toll free, so just call up their line on a monthly basis and ask if they have made any changes to their service agreements.

Re:Lazy Consumer

[linzeal]

I went to a sears about 6 months ago and had a similar expierence. I wanted to know if the printer a 200 dollar HP model came with a USB cable and could not find anyone on the floor to tell me and no boxes to look over. So I asked if they had any boxes in the back and they checked and said, "Yes". So I asked them if they could find out for me or let me go back there and look and was told that you had to buy the item for it to be removed from the back. So I bought the item, found out it had a USB cable and yet was so mad I went and bought it online for 20 dollars more with shipping.

Re:Lazy Consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no lawyer, but I have to wonder about the binding factor of such a contract...

It might fall into the "he signed it after you got him drunk so it ain't no good" category. Sorry for the excessive legalese there.

Don't most contracts have a line right before the signing spot that states something to the effect of "I have read and agree to be bound by the terms of this contract."?

Can someone with actual legal knowledge comment on this?

Re:Lazy Consumer

[ThisIsFred]

What's up with the rest of the country? I've had a land line and DSL from the same company for years. The bill is itemized, I didn't have to sign a contract, the service is good, and the basic DSL charges actually dropped $10/month this year. Likewise with my mobile phone provider (AT&T WS). I initially had a contract for one year, but got two discounted phones out of it. Had only two problems in 3 years, and have always received completely itemized bills.

People tell me that $40 a month per phone (and coverage all along the east cost of the US) is too much. But on the other hand, I always get good coverage, there are no surprises in my bills.

Re:Lazy Consumer

[Ironica]

2. Read the billing information and know the law in your state, even if the state taxes are not seperated from the company "fees" on the bill your 3rd grade math skills can work it out.

Um, no, your 3rd grade math skills are completely useless when it comes to distinguishing company-imposed fees from actual regulatory fees imposed by the PUC et al.

What the regulation means is that this list:

Credits, Adjustments, & Other Charges
Federal Universal Service Fund
Regulatory Cost Recovery Fee
Gross Receipts Surcharges to Recover
A Surcharge
B Surcharge
Regulatory Fee Surcharge
Relay Service Device Fund Surcharge
State 911 Tax
Universal Lifeline Surcharge

... Will now have to be split into "Things the government makes YOU pay" and "Things we have to pay for, and want to pass the charge on to you."

Our long-distance bill (for our landline) a couple months ago suddenly started showing up with a new charge on it. We had to call AT&T to find out what it was about, since we never use long distance (it's free on our cell phones, after all ;-). I can't remember what the original charge was -- basically, they started charging us a certain amount a month, even if we didn't use the service at all -- but then there was another charge, something like "Invoicing Cost Recovery Fee" that *sounded* governmental, anyway, which it turns out was their fee for sending us a bill. We'd never had to pay this, because they hadn't had to send us a bill before, because they didn't previously charge us for not using their service.

So, it would be nice if *all* service providers had to really clearly make the distinction between government-mandated taxes that are a percentage of your bill (and therefore variable, and can't be rolled into the base cost of service) and fees that the provider adds themselves to cover their costs of doing business (which you'd think they could have built into their plans in the first place, in the interest of honesty).

Re:Lazy Consumer

[base3]

1. Read every contract you sign, even the fine print, even the one at Blockbuster Video. The folks in line behind you can deal with it and might learn something.

And when you decide you'd like to amend that contract, and they tell you to take it or leave it, as does every similar business, perhaps you'll understand the need for regulation.

Re:Lazy Consumer

[RobertLTux]

easy fix just get your phone at a verison dealer that has to print the contract out first like maybe a certain "guild of the circle R" that has about 5,000 locations. Or get crazy and demand to see one of their paper copies. Or Mis-sign the contract so you can contest it later ie sign as John QVOID Public

Re:Lazy Consumer

[none_provided]

Don't we all buy some things without reading the contract? When was the last time you read the contract before buying software? With most software you can't read the contract until after you've shelled out your cash and if you don't like the contract, tough luck because the store won't give you a refund.

Re:Lazy Consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

You buy software?

I'd call this a bad idea.

[Treacle Treatment]

Consumers should vote with their dollars. If they are that opposed to contracts then do not sign one. If one is burned by a contract then avoid this next time. Efforts like this will ultimately cost consumers more not less. Thsi kind of regulation lets the government have one more way to manipulate what we can and cannot freely do.

Re:I'd call this a bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If they are that opposed to contracts then do not sign one."

Without a legislations like this, there won't be any choices...

Re:I'd call this a bad idea.

[Treacle Treatment]

"Without a legislations like this, there won't be any choices..."

Nobody is forcing you to take a cell phone service. Your first choice is not to have a cell phone. A second choice is to ask service providers to shoot you the price for a no-contract service. If they won't offer you one walk out the door and see how fast some of them suddenly decide they'd like your money after all. Part of your "contract" covers getting a "free" phone. Trust me, regulations do nothing but cost us all and set up government regulators that NEVER go away.

Re:I'd call this a bad idea.

[base3]

That would make sense, except all the vendors do the same nasty tricks. Regulation follows abuses, and here's another example.

Re:I'd call this a bad idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Consumers should vote with their dollars how would they know *TO* vote if they didn't know they are being ripped off?

You *STILL* have the choice to vote with your dollars. The Cal goverment in this case is saying we want you to tell your customers *WHAT* your doing. Its called honesty. In this case it helps competition. This is a perfectly good example of good goverment. Bad goverment is the shit you find on those bills. All those 50-90 cent fees are usually goverment regulations.

And do not tell me that the company can not get the paper in there. My freeking phone bill looks like a book when I get it. 99% of its crap I throw out, advertisments. They have been putting these fees on there for years. It is only recently they have started 'hiding' them and adding new ones. They are in love with the idea of nickel you to death syndrome.

What is the big deal?

[ZPO]

In general they have done 3 things:

1 - Provide a standard 30-day out if the service is sub-par.

2 - Require transparent billing so that consumers are told all the additional fees that will raise the real cost of their mobile bills.

3 - Make sure the contract language is legible.

It creates a level playing field for all vendors and doesn't favor one over another. I don't see what the mobile providers have to complain about.

Re:What is the big deal?

[Lord Omlette]

The big deal is that it wasn't like this before. I'm guessing the companies felt they had a god-given right to vast profits and are upset that they will now be stuck only making huge profits instead.

Re:What is the big deal?

[No Such Agency]

"I'm guessing the companies felt they had a god-given right to vast profits and are upset that they will now be stuck only making huge profits instead."

Watch the movie "The Corporation". You'll like it.

Re:What is the big deal?

[ZPO]

I know that is the problem. By moving a portion of the charges outside the published rate plan they can advertise a lower price while continuing to get higher revenue and margins.

Great for consumers? Not really.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not unless you seek higher prices and less diversity of pricing options as an end result.

What it's truly best for are the poorest cell users. But why should cheap and easy cell phone access be a "right" when the infrastructure was created and is run privately?

And what's more besides, conjuring "rights" - i.e. making demands of private enterprises whose products are popular - impedes competition that would lead naturally to the lower prices and less complex contracts. Where is the incentive to develop VoIP etc. when it's made a "right" that you can demand cheap cell phone service from any provider?

If Microsoft had been forced by courts to distribute Windows for free in the mid-90s, how would that have impacted Linux? Let the market, and the people, create their own solutions - something that will naturally happen if there is indeed a problem.

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

My company pays for mine so I could care less. Although not having to answer the phone at 4:00 in the morning because someone can't log into their account. Isn't the most fun but telling them to turn off caps then goign back to bed isn't too bad.

Cancel Anytime?

[Dingel]

It's ridiculous that the legislation allows customers to opt out within the first thirty days. Sure, you have to be careful when shopping for a two year cell phone contract, but one of the reason that companies offer good deals is because they're selling two year contracts. The state once again interferes with the ability of private parties to set their own contract terms.

Re:Cancel Anytime?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when you take the phone home and find that you have bad coverage there ?

Re:Cancel Anytime?

[golge011]

"It's ridiculous that the legislation allows customers to opt out within the first thirty days."

Isn't this a common practise in America? I know a few friends who buy products and return if they don't like in 30 days time. If this applies to your cellphone why not apply it to service provider?

Mumbo jumbo

[Fullmetal Edward]

They stick in a load of legal junk to cover it up "additional charges pay apply depending on service" and "We reverse the right to change the terms and conditions at any time".

so if they decide you must pay 1000 on top this month and put itint he terms legally you have to :)

Re:Mumbo jumbo

[JadeNB]

"We reverse the right to change the terms and conditions at any time."

Boy, I'd like to reverse that right.

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[ramunas]

well dunno about the states, but here (in Latvia) none of those things paas.
(a)you can get a subsidised phone for some $20
(b)the terms of service are OK
(c)well sure I had to repair the screen of my phone two times, but that's like $20

besides, you have to talk for hours and hours to pay $70/month, I use a prepayed card and I NEVER pay more than $15/month

My phone gets spam...

[Epistax]

Someone unrelated, somewhat related: I bought my service a few months ago with AT&T. Everything is nice except in the past month I've gotten a bit of spam on it. All were in the form of messages so I could turn them all off-- but I shouldn't have to do that. Has anyone else experienced this spam, on other systems?

Re:My phone gets spam...

[Anonymous Coward]

Span is a HUGE problem in Europe and Japan. The fact that American #s are kept private eases much of this for US consumers. Contact your wireless provider and ask to be put on a do not call, text message, e-mail list. They are required to do it by federal law. Also keep in mind, if you share your number with a company (cool! a wal mart shopping spree, sign here?) they WILL spam the hell out of you. The service provider is not going to be able to shut that off and will in most cases change your # at no charge. (with ATTWS they do it free the first time and 25.00 after that)

whats in it for the government?

[dmitrygr]

what's in it for the government. We all know that the goverment never does anything for the people in the USA, only for itself, but makes it look like it's for the people. Well here is IS good for the people, so the question remains. What does the government gain from this besides angering telephone companies.

Re:whats in it for the government?

[sik puppy]

Two words:

Election Year

Re:whats in it for the government?

[Scudsucker]

You are sad, bitter, and wrong. You are a lot better off having government than not having it. Bad government is a sign that something needs to be fixed, not that all government is bad.

One part

[1000101]

The Bill enables consumers to cancel their wireless contracts within 30 days of signing on.

That line alone is what I would like in my state. The fine print I can deal with because I actually read it. But I signed up with Sprint a year and a half ago (2 yr. contract) only to realize that the signal at my house was almost non-existant. And since I was planning on using the cell phone when I made long distance calls from home, the lack of signal ruined this. If I had a 30 day trial period I would have switched immediately.

Re:One part

[jackb_guppy]

There are methods to get this.

I bought AT$T Wireless in Costco via in store promo. I informed AT$T Wireless sales gal of my exact locations for service need. They produced a service map showing coverage, showing that I was clearly inside (by miles) of the coverage area. I paid for it all at the Costco Cash Register.

Went home tried it out, did not work, all support on land line, told call back on cell phone, movd 3 ft it worked for 5 minutes then out again, this went on for 25 days. Took at all back to Costco and returned it with-in 30 days return period. Since it was bought thought they cach registers.

AT$T tried to get me pay for canceling plan, I told them I returned it to Costco for a full, with-in 30 days, refund. They tried another time to collect, I complained to Costco, and the Attn General. That ended it.

Re:One part

[Treacle Treatment]

The 30-day wording bothers me. I would like it to be long enough to allow a typical billing cycle to occur.

Re:One part

[John_Schmidt]

I was just reading the fine print for a Verizon phone - they specificaly exclude from their "Free National In-Network Calling" calls made from a device with "usage substantialy from a single cell site".
And - "The accuracy of the roaming indicator can not be guarenteed"
1.99 month for a detailed bill.

Re:One part

[damiangerous]

You should have just asked. I live in an area that took a while to build out to. T-Mobile, Cingular and, yes, SprintPCS never had a problem with me "borrowing" a phone to check signal.

Re:One part

[base3]

I'm sure I'm not the only one that'd be grateful if you'd post up copies of your letters (with details omitted for privacy, naturally).

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[yetiman]

hhmmm....let's see here

(a) I pay under $40 (canadian) a month. Unlimited evenings and weekends starting at 6 pm, 150 daytime minutes, call display, voicemail, sms, mms.

(b) Two year contract. No problems so far and only five months left.

(c) gsm network around here is great now, as long as you have a decent phone.

(d) and thats why nobody but insecure people wear them on their belts.

Just because you wrecked your credit in your youngers years doesn't mean you have to trash the cell companies.

You can manage *without* landline!

[City Jim 3000]

Seems from the many "you can manage with landline" comments that the US isn't near to Sweden (and probably other northern Europe countries) in cell-phone usage. Actually, it's not uncommon here that young people skip the "landline" completely and go for cellular instead. Also, many companies are switching from stationary phones to exclusive use of cellular phones for the employees.

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[crashnbur]

I make $7K a year (but scholarships pay for tuition, fees, and books) and I have a $40 a month cell phone bill -- free nights and weekends, free calls to other Verizon phones, I've never encountered bad service -- and I don't even pay the bill, because I have this phone because mom and dad wanted to be able to track me down in a pinch.

So laugh all you want. I have a very nice phone, high quality service, and all at the price of simply acknowledging mom and dad on my own time here and there. Even at the most annoying times for conversing with the parental units, that's a good deal.

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds excellent. Please share your parents with the rest of us so we can take advantage of this excellent deal, too.

My problem with this "Bill of Rights"

[crashnbur]

Luckily, I'm not in California, but I have a problem with this bill of "rights" -- but first, here's a short segment from the article that clarifies some of the changes according to the new rules:

In one of the biggest changes, dissatisfied consumers will have the right to cancel their wireless service within 30 days of signing a contract.

Other changes include requiring all rates and other services terms to be posted on the Internet; requiring key contract terms to be in readable type, not fine print; and requiring carriers to list the address and toll-free number of regulators to make it easier for customers to file complaints.

"These are 'Thou Shalt Not Deceive The Customer' rules," said commission board member Geoffrey Brown, who wrote the proposal passed Thursday.

My cell phone is an incredibly affordable and efficient means of communication, especially given its portability. My main concern with my cell phone is privacy, so my main concern with this cell phone "bill of rights" is that it says nothing about keeping cell phone numbers private. This is because, quite simply, the phone companies have every right to distribute our information at will as long as such distribution is discussed in the terms of service that we agree to when we sign up. And even if it isn't, I don't think wireless users would have any legal footing if their provider gave out their number, because it is the company's number too.

Keeping customers' phone numbers private is a feature of every wireless service provider. In the not-too-distant future, I expect it to become a premium feature -- we will be forced to py a higher price and read even more paperwork before we will be guaranteed that our phone numbers will not be distributed to the next corporate entity that bids on them.

I guess my point is that, while this bill of "rights" appears to be nice, I don't see what it should be such a big deal. Most of the topics covered in the bill seem to be topics that a savvy legal mind could take a phone company to court for anyway.

Re:My problem with this "Bill of Rights"

[SeaFox]

Keeping customers' phone numbers private is a feature of every wireless service provider. In the not-too-distant future, I expect it to become a premium feature -- we will be forced to py a higher price and read even more paperwork before we will be guaranteed that our phone numbers will not be distributed to the next corporate entity that bids on them.

I called T-Mobile the other day to request I NOT be included in the cell phone directory. The customer care rep I got didn't know anything about it. He had to put me on hold to "research" it (probably meant ask helpdesk). Either they don't have the directory set up yet, which everything I've read in the media states otherwise, or they simply have not bothered to create a way for customers to preemptivly opt-out (they don't want to give us the oppertunity until after they have published the first list, making the whole point of opting out moot). Once the number's out there some other anonymous third party can pass the number around.

Re:My problem with this "Bill of Rights"

[Ironica]

My main concern with my cell phone is privacy, so my main concern with this cell phone "bill of rights" is that it says nothing about keeping cell phone numbers private.

That's a separate legislative issue right now. Someone (I forget who) wants to make a directory of cellular numbers, which would then mean paying to stay off of it (like with landline). It's being fought.

I guess my point is that, while this bill of "rights" appears to be nice, I don't see what it should be such a big deal. Most of the topics covered in the bill seem to be topics that a savvy legal mind could take a phone company to court for anyway.

It shouldn't take a savvy legal mind to get a company to adhere to standard good business practices. Maybe the reason why we have something like 3x the number of lawyers per capita of other industrialized nations is because increasingly, you can't go about your daily life without a good training in law. It shouldn't have to be that way, in my opinion.

Re:My problem with this "Bill of Rights"

[Kiryat Malachi]

Actually, I suspect that part of the reason telemarketers don't hit cellphones is because they could be sued on the same theory as the junk faxers were way back when.

Since I pay for calls I receive, anyone making an unsolicited call to me has just cost me money. Shouldn't be too hard to take them to court and win.

Re:My problem with this "Bill of Rights"

[crashnbur]

An excellent point, and one I overlooked. This should be modded +1 Insightful, +1 Informative, and +1 Interesting. :-P

Re:My problem with this "Bill of Rights"

[ln -sf head ass]

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits telemarketing calls to numbers for which the subscriber would bear a cost for the telemarketing call. Here's an article by the telemarketing "industry" whining about the law as it relates to number portability.

Re:My problem with this "Bill of Rights"

[crashnbur]

Two points, two responses:

Someone (I forget who) wants to make a directory of cellular numbers, which would then mean paying to stay off of it (like with landline). It's being fought.

Right, that was Slashdot story a week ago or so. Another response to my comment above just made the good point that it shouldn't be difficult to win a lawsuit (class action or otherwise) by making the argument that their spam costs us money. But then again, the free nights and weekends might get in the way of that. We can only fear a day when smart spammers are legally allowed to spam our cell phones during our free minutes time.

Maybe the reason why we have something like 3x the number of lawyers per capita of other industrialized nations is because increasingly, you can't go about your daily life without a good training in law. It shouldn't have to be that way, in my opinion.

It shouldn't have to be that way, but I think it's definitely a good thing that so many young American minds have found good reason, in forums like Slashdot and elsewhere, to inform themselves of a few behind-the-scenes legal processes and procedures. The fact that our young adults are motivated by the acquisition, spread, and integrity of useful information is a good sign for the next generation's worth of American government. Let's hope.

Re:My problem with this "Bill of Rights"

[crashnbur]

...or they simply have not bothered to create a way for customers to preemptivly opt-out (they don't want to give us the oppertunity until after they have published the first list, making the whole point of opting out moot.

We can only hope that this is the case with some phone company, because that company would then be used as an example, and they would be crucified for unfair practices, and tons of their customers would leave for another company.

I sympathize for those who would be forced to endure the aggravation of switching companies and phones and having to reprogram their phone books... :-P

Re:My problem with this "Bill of Rights"

[Kiryat Malachi]

From reading that page, it appears it only prohibits autodialed and prerecorded calls to cost-bearing numbers. This does eliminate *most* opportunity for telemarketers, but they could have humans dialing from a list and not violate the law.

On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet that if the telemarketers need it bad enough, suddenly a star-code will appear that will allow you to accept the other sides' air charges; *44, maybe. If the telemarketer dialed with 'accept air-charges' then they could get around all of this.

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[Crizp]

Quite the same here in Norway... I spend $25 a month on my pre-paid card and you can get a phone with a pre-paid start pack for $50.

However, we have a situation a bit similar to the US also. We have the one Evil former government phone company, that after privatization turned into a monster the US companies would be proud of. Hidden fees, small print contracts etc. They had free-use DSL, which became $5 for 6 gigs a month, which now has become free-use again. Guess they lost too many customers.

There's one main competitor, 10 years old now, which in general is more customer-friendly, no small print, you know exactly what you pay for. There's also a slew of smaller telephone companies mostly targeted at youths. The fun part is that most of these are either owned by the Evil company, or 0wn3d by the Evil company since everyone has to lease capacity from one of the two competing companies - they're the only ones with the infrastructure for cell phone communication. The Evil company is the only one with the infrastructure for line-based comms like ISDN and xDSL.

What I'm waiting for...

[DragonMagic]

Is for a state to start cracking down on advertised prices which really aren't the advertised prices. From mail-in rebate prices ($799, after $300 mail-in rebates), which may be applicable to one per household, so really, you only get one of that price if you get it at all, to ads which include prices for a multitude of prices, details at store, wherein a person must purchase another item at retail to get the reduced price on the second.

Seriously, consumers need regulations against businesses when they purposely attempt to mislead to get sales. Let's start forcing business to print details of sales on the same media in the same print as the sales itself, and eliminate pricing after mail-in or non-instant rebates on any advertisement, including in store.

I'm glad California's helping consumers who get hit with hidden or hard-to-determine fees and locked into harsh contracts when the service ends up being horrible, but let's get more states helping with more problems!

They forgot the most important right...

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to be executed on the spot when your cellphone rings on the theatre.

People can't help it

[Anonymous Coward]

They think they need these phone to stay in touch with their friends...so they can, uh...chit chat about nothing.

I wish you people could have a transcript of your phone calls. 99% of humanity has diarrhea of the mouth.

Believe me, if you have to wait til you get home to get a message, your life won't change once little bit. Not one tiny bit.

Not a power creep.

[El Camino SS]

On the other hand, I've got to agree with the Governator, if for different reasons. I'm not sure if this is within the power of the commission that did it, for whatever benefit. This kind of power creep is exactly the kind of thing citizens should oppose.



Yeah, but currently the power creep is from the cell phone companies. These restrictions look more like lemon laws than anything.

Ask yourself this: What if you bought a cell with a contract that said it had essential coverage, and it didn't (as often cell companies do)? What if you got crappy reception at your own home even though it clearly says that you are clearly in the footprint? What could you do?

The answer? NOTHING FOR A YEAR. Buy another contract and pray. Smells like bull to me.

Long, long ago in the United States, things such as electrical power, natural gas lines, phone service, and other major mass entities were declared utilities.

Cell phones, through daily use, are becoming more and more important to daily life, and although we have lived without them, we have also lived without electricity as well... so don't even argue that right now. Currently due to tricks that the entire industry uses, they are continuing to charge the same rates for an older technology that is more ubiquitous. The value and cost of cell is dropping. The prices are not. Does that sound like good trade to you? Cell phones, under certain circumstances should be regulated like any other utility, due to the fact that they are a necessity, and they are currently price gouging.

Simply put, if everyone makes you sign up for a year, then you are screwed. The power company CAN'T do that. The POTS phone company cannot do that to you. They are regulated. Granted they are regulated monopolies, but at the same time, if there are only a few major cell carriers left in a few years, you are in the same boat.

Yes, there are alternatives. You can buy cell packages in all different manners. However, if you want one with good coverage outside of an urban market where altrernatives are plentiful, you not only have to pay, and most likely you have to be restricted by contracts.

It is a service. You pay for it. All of the air conditioning services don't come over and tell you that you need to sign a year contract and pay whether you use your A/C or not. The plumber doesn't make you sign a contract. There is no fine print in a plumber. There is no automatic withdrawl, or shady account management.

These days cell telephones are important for the succesful completion of the vast majority of business tasks. Collusion, or restriction of cell phone services by the way of binding contracts or other such behaviors should be considered predatory practice, and it ultimately restricts free trade.

That is why you need some slight regulation. After all, this isn't price restricting... it just sounds like cell phone lemon laws.

Re:Not a power creep.

[squiggleslash]

It doesn't really matter if a cellphone is a utility service or not. The fact is:

• No company trying to sell you something should be dishonest
• No company trying to sell you something should seek to actively deceive you
• No company trying to sell you something should be able to levy made up charges
• No company trying to sell you something should be able to vary their contract with you without your consent
• No company trying to sell you something should be able to provide substandard service that makes their product unusable

It doesn't matter if it's a cellphone company, a computer maker, a car maker, or a toy maker. Dishonesty should be punishable, moreover it should be easily punishable. If a computer maker sells me a computer that doesn't work, I can take it back. A computer company cannot hide charges that I'll be unaware of until after I've bought the item.

However, if a cell phone company oversubscribes its network, invents new taxes, changes tariffs, etc, then I have little recourse, especially if I'm locked into a contract. Right now the only way to avoid such things is to simply not get a cellphone. Libertarians may see that as OK, I see it as absurd. As a consumer, I should have the right to rely upon certain minimum levels of comfort. I shouldn't have to disbelieve information stated as fact by default.

Re:Not a power creep.

[Ho-Lee-Cow!]

More inportant, deception on this level constitutes breach of contract.

Breach of contract USED to be actionable.

You also shouldn't need a lawyer to buy a friggin cell phone.

Re:Not a power creep.

[Ironica]

The value and cost of cell is dropping. The prices are not.

I disagree. Every year to 18 months, I wander into my local Cingular Authorized Reseller, get a new phone for free, and a lower-priced package that includes more bells and whistles. I have to sign up for a two-year contract for that, but I've actually reduced my contract to a lower service just a few months after signing a new one with *no penalty*. As long as I don't up and quit, the contract doesn't seem to matter.

Next time I do this, I'll be paying the same monthly rate for the same number of minutes, but they'll roll over from month to month. When my husband's phone moves over to Cingular (probably we'll wait until the AT&T buyout does this for us, since he's on AT&TW right now), we can sign up for FamilyTalk and pay even less for the same service.

Maybe this is why California can make these laws... cellular competition *is* already pretty fierce, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. So we can say "ok, but you gotta play by the rules" and grumble as they might, they will play.

Frankly, of the major carriers available in California, the only ones I expect to be significantly affected by these rules are Sprint and Nextel. I've never heard any billing boondoggles with Cingular, Verizon, T-Mobile, or AT&T Wireless. We'll see who squawks loudest...

Re:Not a power creep.

[jratcliffe]

But you don't have to have a contract. If you do, it's cheaper, but you can go month-to-month. Catch is, you have to pay full price for your handset. Currently, the cellular companies subsidize the cost of the handset, and need the one-year-contract to ensure that they'll earn enough on you to cover the cost of the subsidy as well as the admin costs of bringing you online, the commission to the salesman (if you got service through one of their stores) or the commission of the third party (if you bought service through Ed's Cellular Hut). If you show up with your own handset (bought off eBay, or wherever), they'll be happy to activate it for you, no contract required.

Re:Not a power creep.

[gpinzone]

A long-term contract doesn't mean they should have the right to not provide proper service or customer support during that time. It's as if you rented an apartment and the apartment became inhabitable. The landlord can't force you to stay, nor could he/she force you to pay rent for the rest of the contract (i.e., lease).

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[DerProfi]

I've got to agree with you despite the fact that some overly sensitive cell phone owners have modded you down.

Cell phones used to be totally out of reach to anyone below a certain income level. In the 80's and 90's, TV and movies turned the simple act of talking on a cell phone into a huge status symbol, to which the masses naturally aspired. Cut to 2004, and many more people can now actually afford this fantastic technology. Unfortunately, a huge percentage of new cell phone users are in EXACTLY the situation that the OP mentions: they want the status symbol even though they can't really afford it. Why should that surprise us in the days of rampant credit card debt and record levels of personal bankruptcy?

Just within the past month, I was in line at Safeway who was paying for her groceries with one of those newfangled food stamp debit cards so I knew she was economically challenged. But to my amazement, she was talking on a cell phone the whole freakin' time she was in line. Now there's someone who's well on the way to financial responsibility and welfare independence...

Meanwhile, as an IT professional who was permanently attached to both a cell phone AND a pager for 6 years, I was only too happy to finally reach a position where I could be rid of both. I now wear my unreachability as a badge of honor! :-)

Proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actually, it's not uncommon here that young people skip the "landline" completely and go for cellular instead."

Proving the point that its the inexperienced that think cell phones are more important than they really are.

Why would you tie yourself to a gadget like that? Really a sad comment.

Re:Proving the point

[Keeper]

You don't have to carry it with you wherever you go.

For $20 more than basic landline phone service you get a phone you can take anywhere you want (like on roadtrip where you may need to call for help if your car breaks down), has caller id, voice mail, and (the big one) free long distance.

"Young people" skip the landline because it is more cost effective to only use a cell phone.

Re:Proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Caller ID. Got that.
Voice mail. Got that.
Free long distance. Got that too - to the US & Canada both.

On top of that, I can use any $10 phone I pick up at wal-mart, and don't have to pay by the minute simply for the opportunity to use my phone, anytime day or night.

On my land line, and for less than $60 a month. What's that about cost effectiveness?

Re:Proving the point

[Kiryat Malachi]

How much do you think I pay for my cellphone?

Less than 60 a month.

It would cost me more to have a landline than it would to have a cellphone. That's called cost-effectiveness.

Re:Proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to make calls outside your home? Can't do that.

On my land line, and for less than $60 a month. What's that about cost effectiveness?

Wow, for $20 more than your basic cell phone, which lets you take or make calls anywhere. Fucktard.

Contracts of Adhesion

[Detritus]

The problem is that the consumer is rarely in a position to negotiate a contract. It's take it or leave it. Go to the competition, if any, and you find that the objectionable parts of the contract are considered "standard industry practices", and are present in everyone's contract. That's why we have truth in lending laws, lemon laws, warranty laws and other laws that impose standards on the marketplace.

Because of Early termination Fees.

[VendettaMF]

Because once they (the cell phone companies) have your signature or credit card details any attempt to dissassociate from them results in a large (X hundred dollars) early termination fee. And any attempt to evade this termination fee will result in either their fraudulent trashing of your credit rating and/or collection goons hounding you on the phone and/or your doorstep.

Looking back at it, these are pretty similiar tactics to those used by loan sharks and various organised crime syndicates.

I just saw this a few weeks ago

[tkrotchko]

In front of my office, a woman got stopped for some traffic violation, she had a cell phone in hand yakking away.

The officer came to the window, and she wouldn't hang up the phone. He got her license and registration, and she wouldn't hang up the phone. She sat there for 10 minutes while he did the radio check, wrote up the ticket, and still she wouldn't hang up the phone. He handed her the ticket, he drove off, she drove off and last I saw here, she was still on the phone.

Based on the cop's reaction, I've got to believe this wasn't' the first time it happened.

30 days vs. 1 billing cycle + 10

[chiph]

The Bill enables consumers to cancel their wireless contracts within 30 days of signing on.

Shouldn't that be something like within 10 days after the end of the first billing cycle? If the cell company is going to screw you, you won't know it until you receive your first statement.

Chip H.

Re:30 days vs. 1 billing cycle + 10

[RobertLTux]

vast majority of the time first bill + 10 days would be less than 30 days due to the way billing cycles are done Ive seen customers get hotlined* two days after they got their phone because they got billed the next day! (* hotlined is when the phone gets cut due to nonpayment and a limit is put on the account)

Credit rating Fraud contract law

[nuggz]

Termination fee, are these legal?
Could this be considered penalty clause in the contract, and hence invalid (in some areas)?

If you have a cell phone bill, and you don't pay it, I think it is justified that they mark it on your credit record.

If it is a fraudulent claim, file the correction with the credit bureau. The credit bureaus don't want bad data on their records either.

Hidden fees should be illegal for all services

[bigmattana]

Speaking of making the "recovery fee" for cell phones part of the regular monthly charge, instead of an "add-on", I think this should be true of e everything. I get so tired of agreeing to some service for a particular price, and being charge extra fees after the initial agreement. I don't care what expenses my local oil change place needs to pay for "shop fees" or "oil disposal", I should know exactly what I will be paying before I make a verbal agreement to have my oil change. I can think of a million other things in which this could apply.

Re:Hidden fees should be illegal for all services

[Ironica]

I should know exactly what I will be paying before I make a verbal agreement to have my oil change.

Maybe it's because I live in California, but if I take a car in for an oil change (at an actual garage, and not just to a friend who's a mechanic) I have to sign something that tells me the price and what they're going to do before they start.

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[TEMM]

How do you know if the terms of service and what not arent bad if your parents pay the bills?

Finally !! A US law we'd like in Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

After all the US law (DMCA, Patriot Act) that I wish would stay south of the border, here is a law I wish they'd bring to Canada.

Thirty days is more than fair, because it takes that long for you to find out that your cell company rep (in my case Telus) misrepresented the manner in which they bill (no, Telus don't bill by the second).

Way to go, California!!

FIGHT THE POWER - YOU DON'T NEED A CELLPHONE!!!

[ferrellcat]

I'm in my 30's and have lived my entire life in silicon valley. I've had every electronic gadget imaginable, except for a cellphone! The things are evil and unnecessary, and I refuse to have one. Everthing about the industry is slimy, and every time I have been slightly tempted, this slime repels me back. 1) Why does every cellphone salesperson have to be an annoying teenager? These people are the used car salespeople of the malls! 2) I have email and voicemail at home and at work. If you cannot reach me at either of these two places, chances are I really don't want to talk to you in the first place. 3) The things are designed with planned obsolence. Have you noticed how cheaply your phone is built? Have you noticed how horribly the power connector was engineered? Have you noticed that your 6 month old phone lacks the latest features? 4) In the case of a real emergency, theres a cheap pager. What do these things cost? $0.08 a year? 5) If you use them where most people use them (in the car, on the bus, in the theatre, within earshot of anyone) you will piss me (and others) the hell off! Any place where a cellphone CAN be used politely will have a payphone/cube phone anyway. 6) You are spending hard earned money on an industry who purposefully tries to deceive you at every turn. Now if that's not enough, what is?

Re:FIGHT THE POWER - YOU DON'T NEED A CELLPHONE!!!

[dpete4552]

6) You are spending hard earned money on an industry who purposefully tries to deceive you at every turn

That more or less describes every industry.

Re:FIGHT THE POWER - YOU DON'T NEED A CELLPHONE!!!

[Kiryat Malachi]

1. That's just retail. Get over it.

2. I don't have voicemail at home. You might, but many people only need one phone line and have chosen to have a portable one.

3. Have you ever designed a cellphone? Do you work with the engineers that design them? Then STFU, because I have worked with some of them, and they aren't intentionally designed to break. If people wanted quality over cost, they'd pay for it, but the market shows they don't, and the phone makers can't afford to make cheap phones that won't break because not breaking costs money.

And of course a 6 month old phone lacks features; it's called progress. Your 6 month old computer probably lacks a feature or two as well; get over it.

4. Who said I keep a cellphone for emergencies? And 2 way text pagers cost as much as a cellphone does these days; one way numerics leave you with the problem of finding a phone.

5. The lab at work. On my porch at home. Waiting for the bus (I refuse to use the things on the bus/train, I find it rude, but I can walk 5 feet away from the bus stop and not annoy anyone). Payphones are less and less common. Also, if I need to make a personal call at work, I can use my cellphone and keep it off my employers lines. Finally (and this is entirely a personal thing) I can telecommute. I have unlimited data on my cellphone. I have a laptop. These three things put together means that once or twice a month, I can go out, sit at a nice cafe or in the park or somewhere else where there's no wifi hotspot, and work.

6. So what else is new?

If you don't want one, that's cool. But calling them evil is flamebait, and unnecessary is very, very arguable.

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[EvanED]

You can't read terms of service that you're not paying for? Seems to me that a simple "hey Dad, can I see the cell phone contract?" would suffice...

My two cents

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that no matter how well intentioned this seems on the surface the reality is increased regulations inevitable lead to either mergers and or fee increases. This sort of thing also tends to lead to offshoring.

Re:My two cents

[base3]

They might be able to offshore their labor, but aren't going to be able to escape California's laws at the point of sale to the public. Good for California, and I hope this law will serve as a model for a federal law to clamp down on the rampant abuse of "recovery fees," etc. in the cellular industry.

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[TEMM]

This is true, but if his parents are paying the bills (and judging by the tone of his post) it isnt likely he has ever seen the contract.

Taxes and fees are not the same thing.

[fmaxwell]

As someone who travels alot, let me tell you, taxes and what they apply to are not clear until you check out.

Taxes and fees are totally different things. The mobile phone industry regularly makes up fees which they deceptively name so that consumers believe that they are some kind of government-imposed tax. For example, T-Mobile has a "Regulatory Programs Fee" of $.86 per month. Nextel subscribers pay $1.55 a month for "Federal-Programs Cost Recovery." Other Nextel fees include a "Federal TRS Charge" and "State-Gross Receipts Recovery." Not one of those fees represents a federal, state, or local tax. No governmental agency required, or even approved, the collection of any of those fees.

If you are on business travel and you are charged a "tax" of 7.5% on your hotel room, it's because the state and/or local government requires it. If the hotel makes up a fictitious "tax", they can face criminal prosecution. If you want to know what the tax rates are, you can call state agencies and verify that you are being charged appropriately. That's a far cry from the mobile phone industry which simply makes up fees to fatten their wallets.

Re:Taxes and fees are not the same thing.

[bladernr]

If you are on business travel and you are charged a "tax" of 7.5% on your hotel room, it's because the state and/or local government requires it. If the hotel makes up a fictitious "tax", they can face criminal prosecution.

What about airline fuel surcharges? Security fees? They are not quoted as part of the fare, appear along with other Tax, Fees, and Surcharges, and go directly to the airline.

I'm not defending the practice, because I do believe it is deceptive. I'm only pointing out that it is not only the phone industry doing it, as the original poster claimed.

FYI, Southwest airlines just raised fares to compensate for fuel, where other airlines added a "surcharge." Southwest CEO said he did it to be clear and honest with customers, and, "Call it what it is: a fare increase."

Re:Taxes and fees are not the same thing.

[fmaxwell]

What about airline fuel surcharges? Security fees? They are not quoted as part of the fare, appear along with other Tax, Fees, and Surcharges, and go directly to the airline.

At least a fuel surcharge represents an actual, quantifiable, understandable cost incurred by the airlines due to higher fuel prices. It's not given some kind of deceptive name to make it appear as if it were a government-imposed tax.

I'm not defending the practice, because I do believe it is deceptive. I'm only pointing out that it is not only the phone industry doing it, as the original poster claimed.

I agree that this deceptive practice takes place in other industries, but nowhere is is more rampant than in the telecom industry. I'd like to see a law passed that made all hidden fees illegal. If a company advertises a price of $39/month, that should be all that you pay unless the government requires that the provider collect taxes.

Re:Taxes and fees are not the same thing.

[Hognoxious]

Taxes and fees are totally different things.

They are? Sigh. I wish I had an MBA.
So tell me, why would any vendor attempt to blur the two together, other than as a rip-off? Can't be that, surely!

*sputter*

[shumway]

wrecked its economy by going too far with some socialistic ideals!?!?!?

The California *I* live in was wrecked due to horrifically ill-advised energy deregulation.

Damn those "socialists" and their free market!

The REAL Bill of Rights in CA

[ari_j]

Why does California give all the wrong rights but take away all those recognized by the US Constitution? They probably honor 3 of the first 10 amendments, and then make up dozens of their own "bills of rights". Do they have a Dangerous Sex Offender Bill of Rights yet?

Face it.

[BCW2]

Any law the affected industry hates, is probably a good one. This one doesn't appear perfect but is a decent start, which is surprising for anything comming out of California: land of the fruit and home of the flake.

In all fairnes....

[SvnLyrBrto]

... despite the sheer bastardry of many of the cellular carriers, it's actually CHEAPER, in many instances, to own and use a cell phone than a landline; the landline carrier, in many locales being a monopoly with no incentive to be competitive, and all.

Where *I* live, there's ONE option for landline service. And if you don't like SBC, well too fucking bad. You're stuck with them, or you do without a phone. But just off the top of my head, I have SEVEN wireless options, all scrambling with each other for my business.

*MY* cellular plan is only $5/month more than what it would cost for me to have my own landline, and I get the added convenience of taking my phone with me wherever I go. And if I'm in a restaurant or theater, or simply don't want to be reached; I just put it on silent mode.

And when I do lots of long-distance calling to out-of-town friends and family, the wireless is actually CHEAPER. (Long distance is included with my airtime.)

cya,,
john

OH Come on

[Anonymous Coward]

Local Lines cost $22 a month, unlimited dialing, no minimum terms of service, no special equipment, nothing.

Show me a cellular plan like that anywhere.

Re:OH Come on

[MoneyT]

$22/month for local service only.

Where as I can pay $50/month and pick up local and long distance, unlimited night and weekend, unlimited calling to other mobile phones, roll over minutes, 3 way calling, voice mail, and I get to take the phone anywhere and turn the damn thing off.

FLAMEBAIT?!?!

[ferrellcat]

I post well thought out reasons why I do not own a cellphone and that constitutes flamebait?!?! FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING COCKSUCKING CELLPHONE FANBOY!!! Now THERES some FLAMEBAIT!!!

Bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Customer Care rep for a major wireless company I would welcome such support from the goverment. That way when a person calls to complain that they did not agree to such and such I can point to the large print. As a whole the industry needs to have a little (a lot?) more concern for what that are selling and how the customer responds to it. On the other hand....there are millions of induhviduals with a wireless phone whom will never read the terms or ever fully understand them. Despite the best efforts of the the State of CA and the Wireless industry problems will persist. Law or no.

No Position to Negotiate

[Renraku]

You have a problem with the contract but you want the service. You can't negotiate the contract, because it was drawn up by a legal team that was paid just for that purpose. So then you have to decide. Whats more important to you? Remaining out of a binding contract and going without the service, or signing the binding contract and being with service, knowing that they could jack your prices up 10x and you'd still have to pay a fee to drop the service. Around Knoxville, there are lots of empty payphone boxes. Because companies are realizing that upkeep costs are geting too unproportional with the profit that comes in from the payphones. I've stopped at three different payphones before only to find that there was no payphone in the box. So whats more important? Your ability to communicate or not having to fight some corporation that lacks a soul over its monthly rate increase?

All this will do is...

[Rai]

Raise the cost of rate plans. What was $39.99 with $5 or so dollars or "recovery fees" will now be $44.99 or more. Anytime you tell a company they can't charge customers for one thing, they just charge more for something else.

This bill will do nothing except shift the costs around.

Re:All this will do is...

[ln -sf head ass]

They already charge it--now they'll have to say so in their advertising, instead of luring customers with a low come-on price then loading it up with $10 worth of phony taxes and dubious fees every month.

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[crashnbur]

Because I'm the one that reads all the fine details and overanalyzes the bill every month. It's the price I pay for not coughing up the cash. Kthxbye.

What right has the govt.

[geekee]

to attack freedom this way. Contracts are the basis of civilzation. Govts. imposing restrictions on contracts to give one person undeserved rights at the expense of the other person is an attack on a fundamental freedom, free trade.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

The saying is "As goes California, so goes the rest of the U.S." which makes sense because they're the 5th biggest economy in the world. I don't know if this is true, I just know that during the recent Arnold brouhaha, "they" kept shoving those 2 down my throat.

So how long until the rest of the United States gets a "cellular bill of rights"?

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[crashnbur]

Exactly. I'm the college kid. The price I pay for not coughing up the cash is that my overanalytical mind is charged with the task of analyzing the bill for dotted i's and crossed t's, not to mention the fact that daddy wasn't exactly hip to what constitutes a good cell phone service provider or even a good phone.

But, in a world where most young adults and anyone younger are raised with computers and increasingly wireless technology, I thought it would be obvious that I had RTFTOS.

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[crashnbur]

It's probably too late for that. The key is to be a good kid (i.e., never get caught) and keep your grades in good shape, but still never let them know where you're going, what you're doing, or when you'll be home, and never call while you're out to let them know you're okay unless you're not. This way, they're detached enough that they're compelled to buy the cell phone for you. The decision to call them once in a while on this fine piece of technology is a small price to pay for an otherwise free phone.

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[No Such Agency]

Just within the past month, I was in line at Safeway who was paying for her groceries with one of those newfangled food stamp debit cards so I knew she was economically challenged. But to my amazement, she was talking on a cell phone the whole freakin' time she was in line. Now there's someone who's well on the way to financial responsibility and welfare independence...

It's probably cheaper for her than having a land line. If she's unemployed, then a cell phone might (theoretically) be a good option as a contact for prospective employers. I doubt she was arranging an interview when you saw her, granted...

If I was king of the world everyone on welfare would get a cell phone with free incoming calls, also free to call 911 and the welfare/employment office of course. It'd make sense.

MOD PARENT UP

[Pfhorrest]

"-1 Offtopic" does not mean "I don't get it".

(for the clue-impaired: cellular rights... amoebas are single-celled organisms... penecillin is produced from bacteria...)

as catalan modern artist...

[Anonymous Coward]

also catalan abstract artist...
also catalan conceptual artist...
my question is the following:
could Dali's or Warhol make use of cellular technology like they booth use televisons in the past ??
so: with completelly freedom and without any possibility of being in jail?

Lluis Vila

If only

[Duhavid]

If only it were true that companies wanted people to be able to trust them.

If that were the case, would car dealerships have been able to get away with all the slimy things they do?

Unfortunatly, people succumb to the pressure. They resent the heck out of it, but few companies of any size do the right thing ( and if they did, how would you know it? ). And people always seem to make their purchases on price alone. So, it works for them. I hate it, and wish it were otherwise, but that is where that is at.

!/u

Proving you are retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Proving the point that its the inexperienced that think cell phones are more important than they really are.

No, they just have more common sense, and a bigger dick, than you do.

Why would you tie yourself to a gadget like that? Really a sad comment.

What, tying yourself to a cell phone is so much more limiting than being tied to a land line when you are waiting for a call?

Dumbass.

baloney

[Scudsucker]

Unfortunately, a huge percentage of new cell phone users are in EXACTLY the situation that the OP mentions: they want the status symbol even though they can't really afford it.

Sure, thats the ONLY reason why people use cell phones. Wouldn't have anything to do with portability or convienience...just like how no one would have a practical reason for buying a laptop.

why not?

[Scudsucker]

The first 10 amendments limit the power of the government so as not to screw people over, this cell phone 'bill of rights' limits what cell carriers can do to screw people over. Not so different after all...

About these provisions

[rfc1394]

While it may be arguable whether California can impose upon a wireless carrier these provisions and make them stick, there is one way they can make them stick: by denying court access and credit reporting.

If they are not allowed to sue in any California court to collect their unpaid bills if they do not comply, are not permitted to file with any California court or collect upon a judgement obtained from any court or from an arbitration panel, and are forbidden to file with credit reporting agencies reports of bad debts if they do not comply with these rules, they can still be held to them even if they can't be required to do so to operate.

The California Public Utilities Commission has plenty of authority. The California Constitution gives the legislature the authority to write any provision into the Public Utilities Code to regulate any form of public utility even if that provision would otherwise violate the State Constitution. And choosing whether a corporate entity has a right to access the courts and under what terms has long been within a state's province.

Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[wantedman]

Just within the past month, I was in line at Safeway who was paying for her groceries with one of those newfangled food stamp debit cards so I knew she was economically challenged. But to my amazement, she was talking on a cell phone the whole freakin' time she was in line. Now there's someone who's well on the way to financial responsibility and welfare independence...

Pay as you go. It's a lot safer than a landline. No monthly fee, so you don't have to worry about not having the money.

What is free about

[Duhavid]

a company using confusion to mislead?

Should companies be free to be dishonest?

What right has the corporation

[nbahi15]

What right do they have to keep the customer in the dark? To abuse their position of power in the market so that they can benefit? The government is in charge of protecting us from harm, which includes abusive monopolistic corporations.

Not all wireless companies are created equal

[lorcha]

Ask yourself this: What if you bought a cell with a contract that said it had essential coverage, and it didn't (as often cell companies do)? What if you got crappy reception at your own home even though it clearly says that you are clearly in the footprint? What could you do?

The answer? NOTHING FOR A YEAR. Buy another contract and pray. Smells like bull to me.

Verizon wireless has a 15 day trial period where you can return anything no questions asked. 15 days ought to be enough time to determine whether or not you have adequate service at home, work, etc.

Not sure about other carriers 'cuz I use Vz, but they prolly have something similar.

Try Verizon, then

[lorcha]

They have a 15 day trial period where you can return and/or cancel for any reason. More than enough time to take the phone home and make sure it works.

Actual Signal Maps

[PMuse]

Until there are regulations requiring companies to publish what they know about their actual (measured, not predicted) signal strengths, consumers cannot base their purchasing decisions on the single most-important criterion: will the phone work.

Sure, Verizon knows if I can hear them now, but they won't show me the map.

Re:You people bring it on yourselves

[kb7oeb]

In Phoenix,AZ Cricket offers unlimited local service for $29.99 Its only about $10 more than a land line. I know a lot of low income people who have this cell service and no land line. Since its prepay there are no credit checks and its actually a lot easier to get than a land line from qwest and the basic phone is free after a rebate.

https://www.mycricket.com/