Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
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.
...a Bill of Rights for the rest of us?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
DON'T PANIC
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.
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.
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
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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)
My rights don't need management.
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.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
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!
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)
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Suppose your business is the next one the government decides it needs to regulate?
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.
TT
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.
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!
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
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.
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.
How do you know if the terms of service and what not arent bad if your parents pay the bills?
- 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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
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.
My server
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!
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."
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
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.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
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.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)