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

[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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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?

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.

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!

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: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.