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
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.
The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. -- Calvin & Hobbes
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
when does it go into effect?
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.
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. :) :) :)
:P)
(j/k of course
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
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.
-------
Support Indy Music. Buy
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.
The next pasture is always greener
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!
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
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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.
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.
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
--- [Insert intresting Sig here]
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
./R My blog
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.
-------
1. Enjoy your job
2. Make lots of money
3. Work within the law
Choose any two.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That sounds excellent. Please share your parents with the rest of us so we can take advantage of this excellent deal, 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.
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.
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
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.
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!
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
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.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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.
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
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.
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.
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?
"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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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!
... 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
Imagine all the people...
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.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
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.
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
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?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
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.
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.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
$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.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
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.)
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.
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.
Vote for Pedro
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"?
[o]_O
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.
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.
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.
Freedom: "I won't!"
"-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...)
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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
emt 377 emt 4
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.
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...
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>The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
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.
~~~
Click here, you know you wanna!
a company using confusion to mislead?
Should companies be free to be dishonest?
emt 377 emt 4
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 sure about other carriers 'cuz I use Vz, but they prolly have something similar.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
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.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
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.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
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/