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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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.

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..

[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"?

What about...

[Black Parrot]

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

Re:What about...

[timmyf2371]

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

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

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...

[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.

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.

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.

[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)

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.

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

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

[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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

[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.

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!

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.

[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: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! :-)

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.

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.

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: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?

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."

*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!

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.

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.

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>