Massachusetts Plans a Cell Phone Bill of Rights

freaktheclown writes "Via Engadget, the news that Massachusetts' state legislature is considering a cell phone bill of rights, which would 'limit contracts to one year, require easier to understand monthly bills, and force carriers to fix dead zones.' You may recall that California adopted a similar bill of rights last year before it was shelved last January."

Comments

All of these "rights"...

[jxyama]

Are carriers "allowed" to adhere to offer these "rights" by raising the price? Why don't we let the economics of the industry take care of this? T-Mobile offers one year contracts, but makes you (generally) pay more for the phones. You can't eat the cake (heavily subsidized phones) and have it too (short contract).

Re:All of these "rights"...

[robbyjo]

Discounts or free phones are disappearing? Maybe in a short term. Later they will reemerge as the competition goes fiercer. I wouldn't worry for that.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[Slashdot_Gandhi]

Are carriers "allowed" to adhere to offer these "rights" by raising the price? Why don't we let the economics of the industry take care of this? T-Mobile offers one year contracts, but makes you (generally) pay more for the phones. You can't eat the cake (heavily subsidized phones) and have it too (short contract).

In california Bay area there is a service called Metro. It provides monthly contracts, i.e. you pay 30-40 dollars at the beginning of each month and you get unlimited local calling. The only bad side is that you cannot call outside the bay area, and in the most basic plan you don't get caller id or voicemail service.

One thing I like about MA is that having so many top quality universities in the area has some effect on how the community deals with issues. I spent about 3 months living there and a good number of laws make more sense than equivalent ones in NY or Cali (I've lived in NY for 2 years, and in cali for 4. In NY they have a law that forbids using the cellphone while driving, which is sheer stupidity. In cali car engine swaps are illegal...). Before I get flamed for this, I am just giving you some examples. MA/NH area laws are very sound in some regards.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are carriers "allowed" to adhere to offer these "rights" by raising the price?

Of course they are allowed to raise their price. But if one company doesn't raise their price as much, they'll win many more customers, increasing profitability. Poorly managed cell companies don't like this much ;-)

Lock in is VERY attractive to the cellcos. Most cell phone carriers HATE a level playing field. That's why they were so up in arms about "number portability", which was supposed to bring doom and gloom and high prices to all.

Now that number-lock-in is gone, cell companies are trying to lock in users with long contracts that they can't get out of even if quality-of-service is piss-poor.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[Peyna]

I think the competition is already fierce, as many consumers that bought a plan over 2 years ago are now finding themselves free to switch. For example, I recently contacted Sprint PCS to cancel my plan entirely as I now use Vonage for most purposes and only need the phone for emergency purposes. The offered me in succession upon denial of the previous offer: a $15 a month plan, one free month, two free months. I decided there was no harm in taking the 2 free months to decide if I wanted to keep the phone. They just lost $60 worth of revenue on the off chance that they might keep a customer they already had.

To me, that says there is definitely competition brewing, but it's more on the lines of attracting customers that already have a plan elsewhere. This is probably because the number of households without a mobile phone is quickly dropping.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[Dot.Com.CEO]

What kind of backwards country do you live in? Delay on mobile phones? Never had any problem like that, anywhere! You are not supposed to drive and use a mobile phone because you have one less hand for driving and reacting in emergencies. Using a hands-free is legal everywhere.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[Qzukk]

Because the economics of the industry has failed to fix the dead zones or convice carriers to allow people to use any phone they want with any carrier that it's compatible with. We pay universal access fees to promote network development yet that money seems to go into a big black hole, or a CEO's bank account, whichever is available.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except studies seem to show that the accident rates are the same for hand-free and non-hands-free phones. The problem isn't one less hand, its that you pay less attention to the road and more to the conversation.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[squiggleslash]

The economics of the industry are not taken care of by allowing carriers to obscuficate their costs using increasingly bizarre tariff and contract systems.

Two year contracts, right now, are about decreasing churn, not better amortizing phone subsidies. Phone subsidies are generally paid back within a couple of months of the user buying the phone. Usual subsidies are in the $100 range. With $50 being about normal as a monthly charge, you can probably figure out that phone subsidies are not, actually, that massive a proportion of your two year contract's revenue.

Why are carriers worried about churn? Because they have an interest in reducing competition. If users can simply skip from one carrier to the next, they'll do exactly that, jumping to whoever does the best deal, and jumping from one carrier to another as their needs change. That creates uncertainty, and it also creates an environment in which mobile telephony is likely to become a commodity service. Nobody wants to be in a commodity industry.

Two year contracts are an absurdity. Most people's needs change more frequently than that. If the cellular companies are able to get away with such things right now, it proves the system isn't working. People can come up with whatever free-market-solves-everything BS they want, the fact is that if the majority of people are doing something dumb, and the people persuading them to do so are doing so largely for the wrong reasons, then the free market is not being a "solution", it's exhibiting a problem. Laws that level playing fields are a good idea, and this is a good proposal.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[yarbo]

call someone who is right next to you, talk to him/her and then you'll hear the delay between when you hear them in person and when you hear them over the phone.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[DarkEdgeX]

Why don't we let the economics of the industry take care of this?

Because cellular carriers have blown it when it comes to consumers and it's time for the government to intervene and put a stop to the madness?

"Economics of industry" is great and all, but we've all seen what happens when companies are allowed to run along on their own (see: CD's still costing > $12-15 when they were supposed to be half that if not lower; landline phone service that costs more now than it did twenty years ago, while the cost of maintaining and installing physical lines has come way down, etc). The consumer only factors in as much as a cow does to a dairy farmer...

Re:All of these "rights"...

[Dot.Com.CEO]

In real conversation such delay is nonexistant. I will, however, avoid calling people standing next to me lest my poor brain gets confused.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are carriers worried about churn? Because they have an interest in reducing competition. If users can simply skip from one carrier to the next, they'll do exactly that, jumping to whoever does the best deal, and jumping from one carrier to another as their needs change. That creates uncertainty, and it also creates an environment in which mobile telephony is likely to become a commodity service. Nobody wants to be in a commodity industry.

You're assuming competition is always good. It's not. The freedom to compete is always a good thing, but whether or not competition is good depends on your perspective. Let me give you an example:

If you are a freelance programmer, people competing with you is bad. Your ideal situation would be hundreds of businesses bidding up your price, and no competing programmers to undermine your price. From the perspective of the businesses, the opposite is true: They would like hundreds of freelance programmers competing for a single project, and no other businesses trying to "steal" those programmers away.

So, which side is right? Neither one. Instead, what is "right" is the freedom of every individual to decide where he or she fits in the market. As time passes, the unhampered market will properly allocate resources by supply and demand.

You are correct when you say that consumers switching from carrier to carrier creates uncertainty, and investors do not like uncertainty. The more money and time it takes to create infrastructure to provide a service, the more important it is for investors to have some degree of certainty. This is the motivation for attempting to "lock" customers into contracts. It creates a certain amount of certainty, which helps convince investors to use their scarce resources to develop and maintain infrastructure necessary for cell phones.

Thus, contracts are a tool for creating certainty where, if nature was left to its own devices, there would be none. When you say, "Two year contracts are an absurdity," you are second-guessing the market. If you are right that two year contracts are foolish, then consumers will not agree to the contracts and no harm will be done. But if you are wrong, then government intervention might stop the market from efficiently meeting consumer demand. If investors can not obtain reasonable certainty, then they will not invest. Thus, the number of cell phone companies will shrink, and eventually we might end up with a monopoly (and people will once again call on the government to "save us" from the problem it created).

If you want to second guess the market, please do it as an investor. Let us see if you can really create a company that gives investors everything they want, consumers everything they want, and employees everything they want. I think that you'll find that sometimes, something has to give. And do not look to the government to help you create this magical company. The government can not change the scarcity of resources; it has the power of violence, that is all.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[SeaFox]

We pay universal access fees to promote network development yet that money seems to go into a big black hole, or a CEO's bank account, whichever is available.

No you don't.

Universal service fees are used to subsidize communication services in areas where it doesn't make business sense to provide service (not enough subs to justify network building/upkeep), provide access to public schools, and subsidize phone service for the inpoverished.

I have yet to see anything about a government fee used to fund the R&D of a private business. That's supposed to paid for by a portion of the telco's own revenue from subscribers.

Revenue from current customers + potential revenue from new customers/services = incentive to develop and improve products/services.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[VagaStorm]

I've seen test sugesting the danger is not the cellphone at all, it's the fact that yhe driver loses consentration while talking. Same as driver losing consentration while talking to someone siting in the car, therefore, that should be ilegal to... right? :p

Re:All of these "rights"...

[Omnifarious]

Network development != R&D. Network development means expansion of the network. And that's exactly what universal service fees are for.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[squiggleslash]

When you say, "Two year contracts are an absurdity," you are second-guessing the market. If you are right that two year contracts are foolish, then consumers will not agree to the contracts and no harm will be done.

That's false. There is no reason to believe that because two year contracts are foolish, consumers will not adopt them. Consumers are adopting them.

Two year contracts are inherently foolish. There is no practical way for a consumer to predict their usage is unchanged 12 months from now. Mobile networks improve and deteriorate and unless you're a savvy, experienced consumer, you really have no idea what to expect and what the time scales are to expect them in. If, as AT&T tried to do a year and a half ago, I'd signed up for two years to get the slightly better offer (free M2M), I'd be fucked right now because since the Cingular take-over, AT&T service has reduced massively in quality around here.

Now, I didn't because I knew what I was doing. I don't think anyone, at the time I made my decision, should have gone for the two year contract. People did, not because they should have done, but because they weren't aware of the consequences of doing so. I'm a mobile phone geek. I'm thoroughly interested in the industry. Most people aren't. They'll make various assumptions, assumptions that are reasonable if you're ignorant of the situation, that are simply plain false. Those assumptions are reasonable because most people assume, rightly, that mobile phone service shouldn't get worse.

Two year contracts are rapidly becoming the norm because service providers are well aware they don't need to offer better terms and conditions for 90% of the people who come to them. That 90% will not know that they're about to be screwed. For the rest of us, if the Big 2 are the only two that actually have the coverage needed, we're increasingly going to be in a position of either massively overpaying for services, signing up for two years, or doing without. And the service providers will not care, either way, because that 10% isn't worth fighting about.

The free market is only good when it's a solution. When it's a problem, it's a problem. Those who act as its apologists under all circumstances, ignoring the basic realities of whether people are better or worse off when the market's doing its thing, instead relying upon the largely false premise that the market will always deliver what's best because of some faith in mass consumer behaviour that has never, ever, been justified, do themselves and the markets they justify a grave injustice. A little bit of regulation to level playing fields and ensure fairness has never been a bad thing. Nothing proposed by MA in this story is a bad thing, consumers will be better off, and the honest operators will benefit from a leveled playing field anyway.

Re:All of these "rights"...

[SeaFox]

Network development means expansion of the network. And that's exactly what universal service fees are for.

That's what I meant by providing services to rural customers - expanding networks to those regions. But that's POTS networks, not wireless coverage.

If you look through what the USF is used for it mentions Lifeline/Link-Up assistance to consmers, and they are obviously referring to "normal" phone service. A phone itself is considered almost a necessity in today's society, but not a cell phone.

Wireless customers pay the fee but don't get more towers because of it. Just like like POTS customers pay the Enhanced 911 fee even though the technology it subsidies is to help locate cell phone users dialing 911.

I do see the point the original poster made. The fee money is not directly tagged and accounted for in how the telcos use it. But the government is expecting companies recieving this money to be actively expanding/maintaining a phone network outside the subscriber hot spots, so to blatanty state all the money just goes into some fat cat's retirement fund is a little silly.

Fixing Dead Zones?

[gbulmash]

Fixing dead zones? Then Anthony Michael Hall would be out of a job.

But seriously folks...

Also, fixing dead zones, AFAIK, would require more cell towers. If the lack in some areas was due to municipal zoning issues, how is that reconciled? Does the state bill allow the cell carriers to steamroll city/county planning commissions?

The main question on my mind, though, is would the cell phone carriers offer fewer freebies and worse deals if contracts were limited to one year, or would the competition in the market end up causing Mass. consumers to get deals on one-year contract that the rest of the country only gets on two-year contracts.

- Greg

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, fixing dead zones, AFAIK, would require more cell towers. If the lack in some areas was due to municipal zoning issues, how is that reconciled? Does the state bill allow the cell carriers to steamroll city/county planning commissions?

That is a big huge if.

The fact is that my town has been trying to get decent cell phone reception for years. We even offered a company rent-free, tax-free use of the land for 50 years. We'll secure it, and bring power to it.

And we'll let them put the blasted thing just about anywhere.

They just aren't interested, as "the service offered is adequate".

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[takeya]

A cell company offered to pay a hefty sum per annum to build a tower at my high school, which would be really good because of all the extra dough the school would get, but they voted it down. For whatever reason.

My area still has no cell reception, unless youre on a mountain.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[QuestorTapes]

> The fact is that my town has been trying to get decent cell phone
> reception for years. We even offered a company rent-free, tax-free
> use of the land for 50 years. We'll secure it, and bring power to it.
>
> And we'll let them put the blasted thing just about anywhere.
>
> They just aren't interested, as "the service offered is adequate".

Very true. One of the reasons this happens is that the vendors look at unit sales. If they don't think it's going to get them the units (common in smaller towns; you can't sell 45,000 phones in a town of 15,000 people), they aren't interested.

This is why the government restricted FedEx and other package delivery services from carrying first class mail. USPS has a mandate to deliver anywhere; the package carriers don't want to deliver everywhere, just selected (more profitable) areas.

But for services like cell phones and mail, people have a legitimate right to expect they can get the same service (for approximately the same cost) in Tinytown, Wyoming as in Megalopolis, New York.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[QuestorTapes]

> A cell company offered to pay a hefty sum per annum to build a
> tower at my high school, which would be really good because of
> all the extra dough the school would get, but they voted it down.
> For whatever reason.

Might have been concerns over health concerns and/or liability for health problems, if the tower was going to be at the school. Or it could be the wrong phase of the moon. Decisions involving schools tend to be weird.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[Secrity]

But for services like cell phones and mail, people have a legitimate right to expect they can get the same service (for approximately the same cost) in Tinytown, Wyoming as in Megalopolis, New York.

Why? It may be that the economics balance out between providing mail or telephone service in Tinytown and Megaopolis and the charges would be similar. If the economics do not balance out there there should be NO guarantee that the charges to customer should be expected to be similar for the two localities. Just because the USPS charges uniform rates and the US government forces telco subsrcibers to subsidise rural telephone service (the the Universal Service scam), there is no reason to expect that wireless service also be subsidised.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[mrjackson2000]

state overrides municipalities just as federal overrised state

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Might have been concerns over health concerns and/or liability for health problems, if the tower was going to be at the school.

What possible health concerns could there be over a cell tower at a school? The only liability issue I can see is if it fell on someone.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[twiddlingbits]

Actually FedEx has one of the trucking contracts to deliver Bulk USMail from town to town. FedEx was NOT prohibted, it couldn't make money at the rate the USPS charged. Notice since USPS has gone private postage has gone up each year?

FedEx and UPS will deliver almost anywhere. It just won't be there overnight. I have relatives who live the backside of nowhere town in Texas and they get FedEx and UPS just fine. If you got a street address and live in the USA your package will get to you. If you live in Backwoods, Alaska it will be dropped at the nearest town, but then again so will your USPS mail at the nearest Post Office.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[numark]

There's a small but vocal group of people (called NIMBYs or "Not In My Back Yards") who claim that having a cell phone tower in the vicinity of their house/school/whatever will dramatically increase their chance of getting cancer from the radio waves coming off of the tower. Surprisingly, they also usually win since your average small-town politician is going to be more sympathetic to the screaming group of citizens who vote than to the cell-phone company from out of town.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[geauxtiggers]

Fixing dead zones is not a bad idea though. I recently tried to get Tmobile to fix a dead area (which THEIR engineering map showed as "strong signal", but which was COMPLETELY dead). They came back to me --after sending an engineer out-- and told me what I already knew "It's dead". I thanked them and asked when it was going to be fixed. They told me that they didn't have it in the budget to correct the problem. sucks to be me.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[ThinkingInBinary]

That is a big huge if.

And it's true. I live in Massachusetts, and all cellular phones have horrible coverage in many parts of Brookline but decent coverage everywhere else. This is because nobody in Brookline wants cell towers disrupting or uglifying their neighborhood. There are times when the cell provider doesn't want to expand coverage but the neighborhood does, and there are times when the provider wants to expand coverage but the neighborhood won't let them. It happens both ways.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[AK Marc]

If you live in Backwoods, Alaska it will be dropped at the nearest town, but then again so will your USPS mail at the nearest Post Office.

Yeah, and they charge $70 for a box that they'd charge under $50 for a similar distance within the lower 48. Oh, and "next day" gets it there in about a week. With the postal service, "ground" takes about the same time and about the same cost for a similar distance from the lower 48 as within the lower 48. Of course, nearly all "ground" shipments to Alaska take a plane or two, when they don't in the lower 48. But when there aren't any roads, it's either many months on a barge or in the air.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

There's a small but vocal group of people (called NIMBYs or "Not In My Back Yards") who claim that having a cell phone tower in the vicinity of their house/school/whatever will dramatically increase their chance of getting cancer from the radio waves coming off of the tower.

Yeah, I know about them. Fact is, it's just ignorant hysteria - 50W of radio waves won't do anything to you.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[bluGill]

Federal law prohibits anyone from competing on First Class mail. FedEx has a plan on how they will do first class mail if that monopoly is lifted. (I think UPS does too)

FedEx and the USPS work together on other packages. FedEx even subcontracts shipping of first class packages. However only the USPS is allowed to take and deliver first class packages.

Since the USPS went semi-private (they are still run by the government, but much less than it used to be) they have also managed to not lose money, which is good for the taxpayer. However they still have a monopoly on first class mail. UPS and FedEX do not take first class mail, they take packages, and overnight letters, both of which are not first class.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[Buran]

And sometimes for some reason the project in question gets built anyway. I've heard of it happening with both cell towers and wal-marts. I just got back tonight from a visit to friends in Austin, TX and I asked about some road construction we were driving past and was told it was a new toll road. I then asked why they were putting in a toll road.

I was told that a survey was done (typical government snafu, AFTER construction began) and it was found that 79% of the populace replied they DIDN'T want toll roads. Was the road design changed? Nope.

Typical government BS. They do whatever they want. If you don't like it, they only pretend to give in if you don't like their plans. If the tower plans went away, most likely somehow they found a cheaper place to build it.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[QuestorTapes]

>> But for services like cell phones and mail, people have a
>> legitimate right to expect they can get the same service
>> (for approximately the same cost) in Tinytown, Wyoming as
>> in Megalopolis, New York.

> Why? It may be that the economics balance out between providing
> mail or telephone service in Tinytown and Megaopolis and the
> charges would be similar. If the economics do not balance out
> there there should be NO guarantee that the charges to customer
> should be expected to be similar for the two localities.

We're looking at this from two different and possibly incompatible points of view. I'm talking about setting public policy to govern services provided under a market that isn't truly free. This basis is part of the law, going back to electrical services, public gas, water, and sewer, and more recently, traditional telephones.

Cell phone companies own equipment; but they borrow the airwaves; a limited resource the government allows them use of in exchange for some control over how they use it.

You're looking at this from a purely free-market capitalist viewpoint. On that basis, the cell providers have a great product, but they have no right to expect unrestricted access to the airwaves. As a matter of public policy, I feel they should be required to provide universal service, to the degree that technology and the economics of the situation allow. I feel that history supports my view.

There's always been some conflict between private and public use of shared, limited resources. Water rights in the American Southwest, fencing in the grazing lands in England, the old Jewish Levitical laws governing the use of the land; history is full of examples, all over the world. How we manage these resources varies. But we always see the need to manage them.

Thank you for your comments.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[bhiestand]

This is why the government restricted FedEx and other package delivery services from carrying first class mail. USPS has a mandate to deliver anywhere; the package carriers don't want to deliver everywhere, just selected (more profitable) areas.

It's REALLY funny that you say this. My parents live in the middle of the desert, on a little dirt road. It's way back there, and takes at least ten minutes to get to from the little highway that runs through the area. And that's when I'm flying through in my 4WD SUV, chewing on the dust. USPS refuses to deliver to their house because the roads usually get washed away in the winter. UPS delivers straight to their door. If I want a package to be delivered to them, instead of making them drive all the way to the post office to pick it up, I have to send it UPS. They have to drive to the post office once or twice a week so they can check their mail.

Of course they don't have cable modem or DSL there, either, because both companies stopped offering their services a few thousand feet short of their house, and cell phones only work when the battery is fully charged and you stand on the porch, facing north, with your cell phone at the proper angle.

UPS is, amazingly, the only of the services that is reliable, timely, and doesn't mind serving their area. USPS's motto is a bunch of crap.

Re:Fixing Dead Zones?

[twiddlingbits]

You can send a package first class mail. If you want to pay the postage. FedEx does not handle first class LETTERS to be technically correct. Since FedEx is doing a lot of the heavy lifting for USPS packages and USPS packages are cheaper than FedEx, I use USPS a lot more now. I can send up to 3 lbs overnight for like $12-15 buck USPS versus about $22 for FedEx. Of course my USPS doesn't make it by 10AM or my money back. Time is money :)

Reasons for complaint

[gunpowda]

The bill would address common cell phone annoyances...
Industry sponsors say they'll fight the bill.

The only grounds they really have for complaint here is the economic feasibility of allowing one year contracts - the longer the contract the easier it is to subsidise the cost of the phone and still obtain a handsome profit.

But arguing about dead zones and refusing to offer bills consumers can understand? What could the possible justification there be?

Re:Reasons for complaint

[mi]

But arguing about dead zones and refusing to offer bills consumers can understand? What could the possible justification there be?

That's a wrong question. They should not be forced to justify anything. If you don't like them, you can live without a cell phone.

There is no physiological addiction to the phones, nor are these companies government entities. They don't owe you anything.

If they don't care to fix "dead zones" and want to send out "cryptic" billing statements (I never had a problem with mine, though), then so be it. The competition is healthy -- either the consumers will switch in droves, or these are not really problems.

Now, the requirement to allow the phone-number transfer was a good thing, because there was no incentive for a single one company to offer that, if all competitors did not. Better coverage and easier to read statements are quite different.

Re:Reasons for complaint

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know why people say their phone bills are too cryptic? Because of the myriad government-imposed fees the telcos are required to collect!

Throwing regulation at what is fundamentally a regulatory problem is the dumbest idea ever.

Re:Reasons for complaint

[Cipster]

Yes and no. A lot of those "government-imposed fees" are really telecos fees they hide under fancy names.

Re:Reasons for complaint

[The Bod]

These fees you say the telcos "hide" with fancy names are a result of government regulation. The government didn't mandate that the phone companies charge a certain amount of money for you to have the luxury of taking your phone number with you to another provider, but I'll bet its on your phone bill anyway. The actual amount is debatable, but it costs the phone companies money to abide by this regulation.

Re:Reasons for complaint

[Richthofen80]

The only grounds they really have for complaint here is the economic feasibility of allowing one year contracts

Or, you know, the right to run your business as you see fit. You know, where companies can set their business practices, fees, rules. Anything else is glorified price fixing.

Re:Reasons for complaint

[Anonymous Coward]

they

The problem here is in that word.

If it was one company doing this, they'd run out of customers as soon as the contract expired. Unfortunately ALL the companies do this, so customers don't exactly have a choice, other than to choose to do without. While we're fortunate enough to make sure that critical things like water remain controlled utilities, free of corporate stupidity, it's still annoying when something like this happens with a service that is merely useful, and not required to sustain life (in most cases, I'm sure several can come up with "cell phone saved my life!" stories).

Re:Reasons for complaint

[ElBuf]

While I find this line of argument compelling in a lot of instances, this isn't one of them. Wireless companies' entire business is predicated on their access to a public asset, spectrum, which is finite and is licensed (in the US) by the federal government. IANAL, but my understanding is that this comes bundled with a number of obligations under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, one of which is to provide universal service. So, in this instance, it's not a simple as "if you don't like it, go somewhere else". Under current law, they do owe us some things, though I'm not sure easy-to-read bills is one of them.

el buf.

Re:Reasons for complaint

[DAldredge]

Target, gas stations, frys, newegg.com and a host of other companies have to pay govenment taxes and fees. But they include them in the advertized price of the product (save for sales tax). Telcos add these 'fees' so the CPM advertized will look lower than it really is.

Re:Reasons for complaint

[mi]

Wireless companies' entire business is predicated on their access to a public asset, spectrum, which is finite and is licensed (in the US) by the federal government.

Theoretically, the spectrum is even less limited than air. If some wiz comes up with an idea of Federal Government licensing air consumption -- to everyone, of course, but under certain obligations you see, we will all owe something... In fact, the "brilliant" idea, that driving is a privilege and not a right is just an example.

Practically, if it is the Feds doing the licensing, what the heck is Massachusetts doing harassing the licensees?

Re:Reasons for complaint

[MacDork]

either the consumers will switch in droves, or these are not really problems.

Or they (myself) won't bother owning a mobile phone.

Re:Reasons for complaint

[AK Marc]

These fees you say the telcos "hide" with fancy names are a result of government regulation.

They are well known and easily calculated. They are hidden with the fancy names so that they can claim low rates. There is nothing preventing a company from rolling $10 in fees into $35 of service to charge a unified bill of $45. However, if you were a company and had the opportunity of charging $10 less, wouldn't you?

It's not like you see "rent $10" outside a building, then have the bill come with $10 rent, $200 Property Tax Fee, $200 Maintenance Fee, $30 Administrative Fee, $100 Profit Fee (of course, with the names obfuscated). All the costs are rolled into a single fee. And if additional fees are due some other entity (like utilities), they are paid directly to that entity. If fees are to passed on to a government entity, they are collected without being split out, like property tax. And if the government requires certain things (like upkeep of the property), the fees are also collected without being split out. Aside from recent fuel charges, the telecom charges are about the only example of an industry charging separate fees for the cost of doing business. Oh, and they lie about it when they imply that $35 will get service of a certain level, when they know it is $45. That's the specific reason why I'd be for the simple billing. They mislead people about the costs they know it will take.

Re:Reasons for complaint

[gl4ss]

you can't reason with someone who thinks that cryptic billing(fooling the consumer intentionally) is ok.

it's not. the consumer should know what he is buying and for what price - that is the basis for healthy competition to exist.

Re:Reasons for complaint

[mi]

you can't reason with someone who thinks that cryptic billing (fooling the consumer intentionally) is ok.

A strawman. I don't think, "cryptic billing" it is Ok, but I don't think, there should be a law against it either. And "fooling the customer intentionally" is, of course, not the same as "cryptic billing". Far from it. False advertising, for example, should be illegal.

the consumer should know what he is buying and for what price - that is the basis for healthy competition to exist.

That's correct. And the free market provides all incentives to make the bills as easy to read as possible. Just to save on the phone-support calls, if nothing else.

Anyway, the government's way of making documents "easy to understand" is the "Paperwork Reduction Act". Are your tax-forms easy to understand and fill out -- assuming, you file anything other than the 1040-EZ? Khmm?.. I'd prefer "decyphering" a phone bill to reading a tax form any day...

Maybe it will go federal someday

[dj245]

Enough states do this and maybe the feds will take note and Congress will do something. The do-not-call list started this way, and I have gotten no more calls.

On the other hand, this bill sounds a little vague and doesn't do enough. The pricing schemes of cell companies are terrible, and pay-as-you go plans suck monkey balls in the states. You should be able to buy a sim card and use whatever phone you choose, like the Europeans do. They have it good over there!

Re:Maybe it will go federal someday

[griffjon]

Definitely. The cell phone market is not a good example of a free market system due to the former monopoly players involved, and the monopoly practices they are able to use through tower control.

I predict that US cell companies will one day soon be revealed to be colluding and price-fixing, and doing all sorts of nasty oligopoly/monopoly illegal things.

e.g. why the fuck is text messaging on most carrier 5-10 cents to send and again to receive? that's pure profit (excepting when people are flooding the text channel, evidentally). Why do they charge from opening the line as opposed to the receiver picking up the call? How do they magically attribute 20 minutes of calltime in chunks to my own number? (I don't have that much voicemail!)?

Why do they lock down phones and features within phones?

I'm disgusted with the US cell phone companies compared to options abroad. We as consumers are getting screwed over, and most people don't even realize it.

Re:Maybe it will go federal someday

[rdoger6424]

I thought that they were moving towards our model.

Re:Maybe it will go federal someday

[Osty]

The do-not-call list started this way, and I have gotten no more calls.

Didn't work for me, on my landline anyway. The only way I was able to stop getting phone spam was by getting rid of my landline. I didn't need it, didn't use it, and the only calls that came in over it were spam. Now my cell phone has never been spammed by voice or text, even before the do-not-call list, so I'm happy using it exclusively as my phone service (it probably helps that I average less than an hour of phone time per month).

Re:Maybe it will go federal someday

[Ancil]

I hate paying my celphone bill. -- +2 Interesting, +1 Insightful

This post is a hodge-podge of conspiracy theory and "Workers of the World Unite". Hard to imagine anyone would think it's "Insightful".. I guess they give mod points to just anyone these days.

I predict that US cell companies will one day soon be revealed to be colluding and price-fixing, and doing all sorts of nasty oligopoly/monopoly illegal things.

Riiight. Have they been "colluding" to lower per-minute fees by 90% over the past ten years? People on the left hate competitive, successful businesses. That's why we have anti-trust laws.

why the fuck is text messaging on most carrier 5-10 cents to send and again to receive? that's pure profit

I believe you answered your own question. Oh wait, I forgot that to liberals, profit is bad. If you invest 15 or 20 billion dollars over a decade to bring people celphone service, you are greedy and evil for wanting to make a profit in return.

Re:Maybe it will go federal someday

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped reading that link as soon as it quoted Ayn Rand.

Re:Maybe it will go federal someday

[nolife]

You may call call it a conspiracy theory but I believe there are artificail barriers in place across almost all carriers. Number portability got rid of one of them.
There is a major issue with carrier specific phones which affects the consumers has nmany negatives for the consumers. Think about this.. You HAVE to buy a phone from the specific carrier which leads to:
1) It makes the original price of the phone higher because of many more different models required to be made to support the different carriers.
2) It forces the phone makers to make phones that may be artificially limited to protect the specific carriers profit margins (forcing to pay to get pictures off the phone, force them to not allow transferring your downloads to another phone, many others..)
3) Less incentive for phone makers to come out with new features and functions. The carrier determines what they want and fits into their profit center nicely.
4) You can not take your phone to a different carrier and use it because of the MSL codes and the fact that even if the phone is unlocked, the new carrier will not activate it regardless
5) Limits the resale ability of your phone. You are limited to selling it to someone that has that specific carrier.

I'm sure there are many more negatives as well and not all carriers have all of these restrictions but I think you get my point. These are all artificial barriers.

Re:Maybe it will go federal someday

[GoldAnt]

Well, just remember, power to the people... and a stupid lot we are.

Re:Maybe it will go federal someday

[trixillion]

I guess they give mod points to just anyone these days.

Indeed, it seems they will give an account to just about anyone these days. Lovely bit of trolling there my brash libertarian friend.

Re:Maybe it will go federal someday

[Ledgem]

Amen. Let me tell you a really funny story that happened to me this weekend on the same subject, actually.

I am a Cingular Blue customer - that is, my contract was with AT&T, which were then bought out by Cingular. Cingular was bound to honor the plan that AT&T had given me, but they don't like it one bit. And with an equivalent plan on their end costing $30 more per month, it's easy to see why.

I recently bought a Motorola MPx220. It is Cingular-branded. "No problem, I'm a Cingular customer" I thought to myself. I backed up my old phone to my computer, removed the SIM card (an AT&T SIM card, mind you) and inserted it into the new phone. Booted up, and shortly after the phone rejects the SIM card. The phone demands a PIN code to unlock itself. An unlocked phone, mind you, can work with any cellular provider in the world (GSM providers, that is).

I contact Cingular customer support, and I am informed that they do not hand out unlock codes like that. I can either buy a new phone, or "upgrade" to a Cingular plan. The tech supporter also informed me (somewhat sympathetically, I thought) to search around online - apparently, there are dozens of people charging $40 to $50 to unlock your phone for you. I refuse to pay that amount knowing that Cingular could generate the code for me, and for free. And apparently they have given some customers an unlock code - however, in my case, I have not been so lucky.

The solution is to send the phone back to Motorola (I bought the phone through them, NOT through Cingular!) and request that they send me either an unlocked phone or an AT&T-locked one. Can you believe it? I am a Cingular customer, being locked out of a Cingular phone, and Cingular COULD allow me to use the phone with my current SIM card, but instead they're going to put me through this inconvenience? It's shoddy business tactics, and I dare say that there may even be something illegal with it.

I can understand why cellular providers lock phones to their networks - to make it more difficult for customers to switch and to make themselves a bit more exclusive physically (phone style appeal and so on). In my case, though, I am pretty much infuriated with how they've handled this. It's purely nonsensical, and I don't feel like a valued Cingular customer one bit.

Re:Maybe it will go federal someday

[rising_hope]

I echo your sentiment completely. I am also a Cingular Blue customer. I was so fed up with my phone (Audiovox PPC4100) that I decided it was high time for a new one. (PDA phone, was locking up on me 5-6 times daily.) Of course, since AT&T was no longer in existence, they forced me to "upgrade" my contract in order to purchase a new phone. I liked it (Nokia 6620), but I've never been that satisified with Cingular customer service, and really didn't want to extend my contract. So, after 28 days, I decided that I was going back to Blue from Orange. Then, my troubles *really* began. Cingular tried to charge me a $175 early termination fee... FOR STICKING WITH THE SAME COMPANY, and going back to my old contract!! I was still within the return policy period. It's also AGAINST STATE LAW in Michigan, as all contracts have a 30 day refundable period. They tried to tell me my phone had a 30 day policy, but the contract was only 14 days. BULLSHIT. Not in the documentation I signed. Finally, after 3 hours on the phone, I got the refund. Then, I get my next bill. Whoa! 238 minutes over my minutes? The most I've ever used was 300 minutes less than my 900 the original contract allowed. Turns out, they cancelled all my blue "extras" like in network calling, nights and weekends starting at 7pm. Things I signed a 2 year contract just to have. They tried sticking me to the original 2yr length, yet eliminating the features I had. BULLSHIT. Finally, I got a sympathetic blue person on the line. She added my features back, but their system was so fucked up, I had to re-call and re-"sign up" for my two year contract (aka, my original contract is more like a 3 year contract, something I'd have NEVER agreed to.) Not to mention, she would only give me credit for the calls I could verify on my billing statement were in network. 90% of my calls are in network. But, for some reason, their system "can't verify" who called me, any more than shows up on the billing statement. I'm sorry, but I REFUSE to be billed for incoming calls that should be free just because their system "can't verify" who it was from. Fix it! All told, I reduced my bill by nearly $70, but still paid more than $50 more than any normal cycle, and get screwed by an additional two years with a cell carrier I hate. I will be taking my business to a new carrier. (I've been through t-mobile's horrible service, sprint's random call dropping, and Cingular's horrible customer service and lewd ways of treating their customers.) My last option is Verizon. I only hope they're better.

Re:Maybe it will go federal someday

[griffjon]

I believe you answered your own question. Oh wait, I forgot that to liberals, profit is bad. If you invest 15 or 20 billion dollars over a decade to bring people celphone service, you are greedy and evil for wanting to make a profit in return.

No, you twit, profit is fine. Limited competition enabling a higher price than pure competition isn't. In more competitive markets, we as the consumer would be getting a much better deal than American cell consumers are. I've lived in 3 countries in the past 4 years, and only in America did texts cost money to receive. Hell, in Jamaica, receiving a call on your cellphone was free, only making it cost money -- mainly due to the new entrant into the Ja cell market entering into a fierce competition with the former monopoly. Wow, actual competition! What a concept!

Amusing extracurricular work: Trace the fracturing of the AT&T telephone monopoly through the baby bells to their current incarnations. Here's a hint.

Cingular = co-owned by BellSouth and Southwestern Bell (two former Ma Bells!)
Verizon = Bell Atlantic
AT&T = AT&T, obviously, bought by Cingular
T-Mobile: now Duetsche Telecom, but they bought the VoiceStream/PrimeCo/GTE Wireless network, which was also tied up in Bell Atlantic
Sprint/MCI/Nextel : the independents. In fact we have MCI to thank for the original breakup of AT&T's gov't-sponsored monopoly.

So, tell me again that the cell phone industry doesn't have oligopolistic/monopolistic tendencies, seeing as how by and large they're slowly re-forming Ma Bell in a very Transformers-esque fashion?

Further, if you're going to be anti-liberal, at least be a decent economist. Oh, right, sorry. Neocons can't keep a balanced budget, my bad.

Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiots can not read their contracts and SMS themselves into oblivion for all I care

A bad idea

[Snamh Da Ean]

Why should the government get involved with a market like this? Where is there evidence of market failure, such as excessive market power by the cell companies? Why does the state think people necessarily want to have only one year contracts, and why does it think it knows better than consumers? If the market is competitive, then it should be able to provide most of what people want. If the market is not competitive, the state should encourage entry, but it should not get involved with dictating the terms of businesses to those better qualified to assess their reasonableness. TFA article makes no mention of customer groups complaining about these features - is it a case of politicians throwing their weight about unneccessarily? Anyone from MA know of consumer initiatives in this area. Right, that sould be about enough questions! Ok?

Re:A bad idea

[hazem]

The government will get involved when lots of people are unhappy and complain a lot - and an election season is on the horizon.

Re:A bad idea

[toddbu]

Why should the government get involved with a market like this?

I'm a huge believer in the free market, and the only reason I would ever advocate government involvement is when you're dealing with a scarce resource. In the case of cell phones, there is a limited amount of bandwidth available. It would be virtually impossible for someone today to start a cell phone company without having to deal with the existing players in some way. Maybe you can explain how you think MA could encourage new entries into the market. They certainly can't start allocating new frequencies for cell phone use.

Re:A bad idea

[Snamh Da Ean]

I don't know what the exact situation in MA is, but you could mandate third party access to the bandwidth using regulated access prices. This happens all over the world. In the UK, British Telecom was a nationalised monopoly, and owned all the wires and capacity. When the market was deregulated, it was forced to allow other companies use its network in return for competitive fees for the access. How do you know that all the bandwidth has been allocated? With all due respect to you, your point on the government getting involved in markets when a scarce resource is involved is not something I would subscribe too. To take a frivolous example, Nicholas Cage is a scarce resource. There is only one of them in the world, and he combines the uniqueness of being Nicholas Cage with great acting ability and good looks. That is why he is so well paid - he is a scarce and valuable resource (although I don't particularly care for films, you can see the point I am making). Should the government regulate his wages? Excellent C++ programmers who combine project managment skills with excellenet social skills are a very scarce resource - should the government set their wages or tell them how long their contracts should be? Resectfully, SdE

These problems can be fixed by the market

[Omnifarious]

I don't see a lot of strong evidence that that's not the case. One danger in imposing caps and restrictions like this is that it provides a convenient collusion point for all carriers. The government mandates this is the worst we can do, and gosh-darn-it, that restriction is awfully chafin, we would like to do even worse than that, but this stupid regulation prevents us, so we're stuck here doing the worst we're allowed.

While doing things that reduce the barriers to switching to a competing carrier are good, and making sure that no one carrier can ever get a lock on a particular market would also be good, I don't see a lot of point in these other restrictions.

What I would like to see in a 'cell phone bill of rights' are things like "I have the right to not be called for commercial (profit or non-profit) purposes by entitities that I have not given explicit permission to call me. And if you do receive any such calls, you have the right to not be charged the airtime for them.".

Commercials are an ever-present creeping kudzu that will take over any vehicle of communication if given half-a-chance. Even google is starting to put commercials inline with search results and only marking them off with a colored box.

There ain't no free lunch

[John Jorsett]

Long contracts are how cell companies manage to offer you "free" or low-cost phones, "free" minutes, etc. If contracts are limited to one year, you'll see those sorts of offers disappear or go up in cost. Maybe that's an acceptable result, but no one should expect that this regulation will somehow usher in a utopia for the consumer in which all sorts of new rights adhere at no cost.

Re:There ain't no free lunch

[HairyCanary]

Not quite. I can go to consumer cellular, and sign up for NO CONTRACT service, and get a phone from them ranging from FREE to $215 for the top of the line model. Try that with the big carriers directly, and they'll tack at least $300 onto even the most basic phone.

The problem as I see it is that the big carriers are using each other to ratchet up the contract requirement. Until the consumer screams loud enough, none of them have an incentive to lower the minimum contract length. And the cost of entry into the cellular market for a new company is very high, and in some cases may be nearly impossible. This is a classic case of where some governmental oversight is necessary.

Re:There ain't no free lunch

[qbwiz]

Until the consumer screams loud enough, none of them have an incentive to lower the minimum contract length.

Consumers don't need to scream, they just need to vote with their dollars. If everybody were going to carriers with contract lengths of 1 year or less, you could be certain that other carriers would change. People don't, so the carriers don't

Re:There ain't no free lunch

[Hektor_Troy]

HRmm... odd. We have 6 month limit, and they are forced to tell you the total cost in those six months.

And we still have 15 cents cell phones.

That's in Denmark by the way.

Re:There ain't no free lunch

[anethema]

What is to stop you from getting your free phones with no contract, immediatly cancelling and selling them on ebay?

Re:There ain't no free lunch

[SagSaw]

If contracts are limited to one year, you'll see those sorts of offers disappear or go up in cost.

I don't buy it. If that were entirely the case, I should be able to go to any of the wireless provider's website or store and see them advertising bring-your-own-phone month-to-month plans. So far, I haven't seen anything like that. Yes, part of the reason for the long contracts is to pay back the cost of the phone they provide. However, I think ensuring that they continue to get $50+ per month from you for the next two years, even if you no longer want or need their service is the bigger reason.

Also, if the reason for the long contracts is simply to recover the cost of the phone, then the early termination fees shouldn't be much more that the cost of the telephone. An early termination fee which is 6x the monthly fee is insane unless it is simply the pro-rated cost of the phone. A sane value would be an early termination fee of one month's service fee plus the prorated cost of the phone.

Re:There ain't no free lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

If shortening contract length reduces profit, then there are people who want to switch off their carrier but can't because of contract length. Sounds like a plus to me.

Re:There ain't no free lunch

[JimBobJoe]

I don't buy it. If that were entirely the case, I should be able to go to any of the wireless provider's website or store and see them advertising bring-your-own-phone month-to-month plans.

Technically, that is indeed the case. If you look closely at just the plans themselves, they often don't mention service contracts. The companies themselves don't necessarily want you to do things this way, so they don't draw attention to it, but it's very doable. (Verizon and Cingular, as I recall, offered the plans month to month gratis, Sprint charged an extra $5/month to do it.)

People buy old cell phones off ebay all the time and mate them to month to month plans.

Re:There ain't no free lunch

[JimBobJoe]

And we still have 15 cents cell phones.

My last cell phone, which I bought for $99, had $300 in rebates from Amazon and Cingular. Therefore, I received a profit of $200 on the cell phone (had to do a 2year contract to get the rebates.)

I don't believe I've seen anything like that outside of the United States.

Re:There ain't no free lunch

[Hektor_Troy]

No clue how rebates work.

But I can show you a fairly average current example from Denmark:

Nokia 7260 - price: 16 dollars. Minimum cost after 6 months: 218 dollar. Price with no subscription: 276 dollars.

You are bound to that contract for 6 months, then you're free to do what you want. In this case the subscription is 16 dollars per month, and you pay 8 dollars to start the contract.

As to what you get in that subscription, I really don't know - besides you didn't mention what you got in yours, nor do I really care to browse around finding matching contracts.

Re:There ain't no free lunch

[Eil]

Long contracts are how cell companies manage to offer you "free" or low-cost phones, "free" minutes, etc. If contracts are limited to one year, you'll see those sorts of offers disappear or go up in cost.

I'd be more than happy to pay for the phone if there was a provider without the lopsided contracts. The way it is now, every provider locks you into a contract where they change the terms, price, penalties, etc without having to notify the customer. I want to be able to cancel my service at any time and change providers without paying an arm and a leg first. I want to buy a phone and use it with any provider. I don't mind paying a little more for minutes than I do on my land line ($0.025 or so), but getting robbed after accidentally going over n number of minutes per month should be illegal. Free local calls would be nice.

Lastly, I want some kind of quality with the service. It seems like the audio quality of cell phones has been getting worse rather than better. About once a week, a family member or friend calls me up on a dodgy signal and I can't understand a word they're saying. Rather than repeat every sentence three times, I usually just ask them to call me later on a land line and hang right up. I've been getting fewer and fewer of those calls, but probably because of my own efforts rather than those of the cell phone companies.

It is really just totally unprofitable to offer a service that is both reliable and fair?

<rant mode="off">

Re:There ain't no free lunch

[Patersmith]

I don't think carriers should be in the business of selling cell phones anyway.

What do you think the landscape would look like if you had to buy your PC from your internet provider?

Things sure would be a lot more interesting if the cell phone industry was driven by the innovation of the manufacturers, and vice versa. Imagine if the cell phone companies were under pressure by the consumers to support new whizbang features of the phone you just bought at Best Buy rather than just being forcefed whatever phones they choose to support and are available with a contract.

Re:There ain't no free lunch

[Scudsucker]

Consumers don't need to scream, they just need to vote with their dollars.

Pfft. A complete waste of time when all the carriers suck. If one the big carriers launches a price/service war, then this will happen. Until then, it's a pipe dream.

Re:There ain't no free lunch

[JimBobJoe]

No clue how rebates work.

Rebates are an odd (and I suspect uniquely American) concept.

A product is being sold at $50 with a $25 rebate. You purchase the product for $50, and once you get it home, you send in the receipt and UPC code from the box to the manufacturer. In about 6-10 weeks (usually) you get a cheque in the mail for $25.

Hence, while you did pay $50 originally, you'll eventually get $25 back, so you really only spent $25. Rebates are typically found on electronics products (but they can be found on cheaper things. The other day I bought a bottle of motor oil that had a rebate for the full purchase price, and yes, 6 weeks later I got a check in the mail for $1.79. In that situation, the hope of the manufacturer is that people don't take the time to complete the rebate paperwork.)

In my instance, I paid $99 for my cell phone, but my rebates were for $300, so I was paid to buy my cell phone (paid $201 that is.) My phone is a Sony Ericcson T637, which would have been enormously expensive otherwise (the phone was probably $250-$350 new, so since they gave me $200 you can safely assume that Cingular subsizied the phone for about $500.)

In order to get the rebates (which took about 5 months to get) I had to sign a 2 year contract with Cingular. There was no requirement as to which plan I had to buy (they were all standard Cingular plans) the cheapest plan being 450 minutes day/unlimited night minutes at$39/month.

Here's an example of a current offer with a price of negative $120.

Ringtones?

[Bazman]

Will they be banning annoying ringtones? What about the rights of us non-cellphone users!?

Re:Ringtones?

[Kohath]

Yeah, the "right" not to be annoyed. Your silly emotional whims aren't a "right".

You sound like a 12-year-old girl. Stop whining and grow up why don't you?

Re:Ringtones?

[game kid]

I second that, with "annoying ringtones" including the completely unnecessary beep-sound when one PTTs with a Nextel DirectConnect thingy. You try riding on a bus or sitting in a class when that sound repeatedly comes up--they confused "trademark" with "hair-pullingly sickening noise" there.

Oh, and if you can choose a provider, you had better be able to buy and have YOUR OWN CELLPHONE of YOUR CHOICE with ANY OF THEM. And no price increases over 10%/year for two years after the bill passes, either. They better wait for their raise.

Re:Ringtones?

[DrIdiot]

Who modded parent troll? It's called a joke, meaning he's not serious. Sometimes I'm amazed at the lack of sense of humor some /. user moderators have.

Re:Ringtones?

[CDPatten]

Very well put. Too bad slashdot mods rate the truth they disagree with as trolling.

Re:Ringtones?

[monoggler]

I am in the UK right now and people are complaining about the bills passed here. The bills made "easier to understand phone plans" but all it really did is round off every charge to the highest dollar and have a flat rate. In other words it ripps everyone off.

Re:Ringtones?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's more amazing is that 20% + 20% + 20% == 100...

Re:Ringtones?

[Bazman]

If I was a 12 year old girl I'd be too busy downloading the latest ringtones to be whining on slashdot!

That's certainly the market for ringtones in the UK. Get 'em young. Get 'em wanting the latest cool things. Pre-teens. Cartoon adverts. Crazy Frogs. More money spent on ringtones than CDs. Small print on ads shown for such a short time even a speed-reader couldn't catch it. Lock-in systems where you need a code to opt out or you get charged 50p a month. Its an evil business.

At least train operators over here have mobile-free 'quiet' coaches! No annoying ringtones, no tss-tss-tss of the iPod swarm in the next carriage, just peace and quiet where you can read a book or just kick back and gaze out of the window...

How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like:

- Cell phones prohibited in libraries, theaters, conferences, etc. punishable by death.
- Cell phones prohibited while driving.
- Loud ringers prohibited.
- Obnoxious ringtones prohibited.
- Make it legal to smack cell phone users for whatever reason.
- Cell phone towers only allowed in yards of cell phone users.

unlocked phones

[pyros]

The only requirement I'm waiting to see is unlocked phones so the carriers can't keep stifling cool new technology. Verizon really screws customers be disabling/removing nice features that the manufacturers put in and advertise.

Re:unlocked phones

[Namronorman]

I agree, in fact I was going to post the same thing. In my opinion, I think it's wrong for the phone companies to shaft its consumers.

Often times in order to get these cool new phones, there must be a contract in place to get them at low or no cost, but what's the point if half of the features are locked anyways?

Re:unlocked phones

[MBCook]

Bingo. These are the rights that I care about:

• If the feature is available on the phone, it must be enabled and not crippled
• Data on the phone belongs to the user, not the carrier, and must be accessible by the user (to pull data off the phone/put it on without having to go through the carrier).
• Use of one feature on the phone (such as downloading new games) should not require use of another feature (such as accessing the internet) that may cost extra.
• If a user wishes to use a cellphone on your network that is compatible (i.e. use a CDMA phone on Sprint's network) the company CAN NOT refuse the customer on the basis that the phone was not purchased through the company's store. (This is to create a free-market of cell-phone suppliers)
• If a feature is on a phone but does not work to the fullest capacity (see: bluetooth on most any phone is the US) these facts MUST BE EXPLICITLY STATED ON THE BOX.
• Jamster is not allowed to operate in the US (OK, so I couldn't think of one more, but this one seems good enough).

Re:unlocked phones

[bladesjester]

I agree with all of these points. Especially the last one. Every time I hear a Jamster "ringtone" I want to shoot the person with that phone. repetedly. starting with the feet and working my way up.

Re:unlocked phones

[mrchaotica]

Wow, thanks for the inspiration. Because you reminded me of the problem, I sent the following email to the sponsors of the bill (I hope you don't mind that I copied your list):

--------

Dear Sen. Barrios and Rep. Linsky,

I want to thank you for sponsoring the "Cell Phone Bill of Rights." I'm not even a citizen of Massachusetts (I live in Georgia), but I wanted to show my support anyway because this could serve as a good prototype for similar legislation in my state.

I am concerned, though, that the bill doesn't address some of the worst abuses of the cell phone industry. Some carriers use strategies beyond contracts to "lock-in" the customer. Most new cell phones have the ability to connect to a computer, similarly to a PDA, and transfer address book data, ringtones, images, etc. directly from the PC to the phone (and vice versa). However, many carriers disable this feature, instead forcing customers to pay extra to transfer the data over the network instead, or even buy it from the carrier.

For example, imagine that a user has a MP3 (which he copied from a CD he owns) that they want to use as a ringtone. He should be able to copy the song to the phone for free, but instead he has to buy the ringtone from the carrier for $2.50. The carrier disabled the feature for no good reason, just greed. It's even more absurd once you realize that a higher-quality, full version (instead of 30-second clip) of the song could be bought on iTunes for $0.99. Customers are paying more and getting less because the cellphone carriers have a monopoly on phones that (they allow to) work on their service.

Ringtones aren't the only case; the carriers also hold hostage photos that the user took himself (and therefore owns), make it impossible to freely synchronize the phone's address book with a PC (e.g. by disabling Bluetooth, except for headsets), among other things.

The following issues should be addressed:

        * If a feature is available on the phone, it must be enabled and not crippled
        * Data on the phone belongs to the user, not the carrier, and must be accessible by the user (to pull data off the phone/put it on without having to go through the carrier).
        * Use of one feature on the phone (such as downloading new games) should not require use of another feature (such as accessing the internet) that may cost extra.
        * If a user wishes to use a cellphone on your network that is compatible (i.e. use a CDMA phone on Sprint's network) the company CAN NOT refuse the customer on the basis that the phone was not purchased through the company's store. (This is to create a free-market of cell-phone suppliers)
        * If a feature is on a phone but does not work to the fullest capacity (see: bluetooth on most any phone is the US) these facts MUST BE EXPLICITLY STATED ON THE BOX.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion, despite the fact that I'm not a constituant. I do believe these changes would be in the best interests of Massachusetts citizens, though! Good luck -- I hope you pass a law that's worth emulating!

[email signature omitted]

--------

In case you're wondering, their email addresses are Jarrett.Barrios@state.ma.us and Rep.DavidLinsky@hou.state.ma.us

Re:unlocked phones

[spxero]

You must be a verizon customer.

If the feature is available on the phone, it must be enabled and not crippled
My s710a(from cingular) has bluetooth, Ir, and memory stick- all of which can transfer data (songs, pictures, etc.)

Data on the phone belongs to the user, not the carrier, and must be accessible by the user (to pull data off the phone/put it on without having to go through the carrier).
I can't agree more! Now only if others would start to realize this and only buy the phones that have these abilities.

If a feature is on a phone but does not work to the fullest capacity (see: bluetooth on most any phone is the US) these facts MUST BE EXPLICITLY STATED ON THE BOX.
This is the argument I use for not switching to verizon. Sure, I may get coverage everywhere, but at what cost? If I can't bluetooth to whoever I want, what good is it?

Jamster is not allowed to operate in the US (OK, so I couldn't think of one more, but this one seems good enough).
Agreed, but more as a protection for stupid people and the people who sit near them.

Fixing dead zones...

[doormat]

I moved into a new house 6 months ago, and low and behold, my cellphone doesnt work in all but one room of the house (no signal or emergency only). I'm locked into a contract with Cingular until next summer. So should I be charged $300 to get out of the contract because their service sucks at my new house?

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[TheGavster]

You're the one who signed the contract; it's your responsibility to negotiate an escape clause for the poor service after a change of residence. Or, when buying the house, you could have checked cell coverage when seeing how the neighbors are and if the faucets leak. Blaming the company for you not thinking ahead is kind of silly.

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[doormat]

1. New construction - I had no neighbors when I signed the purchase agreement (a new subdivision).
2. There is no way in hell any carrier would agree to such a term - they're the ones making the rules here, not me. They'll go tell me to piss up a rope if I ask for that.
3. Yes, cell phone service should be right up there on the list of things when buying a home. Not quality of construction or customer service, but whether or not I can get cell phone service. Dumbass.

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[hazem]

Negotiate? You're kidding, right? Negotiate with Verizon for different contract terms - when all they have is a generic, Verizon-friendly, contract that comes out of a receipt printer? Right. You say, "I'd like to ammend the contract.", and after consulting their manager, they'll say, "I'm sorry we can't do that."

I know - I can walk away.

Go to Sprint - same thing.

Go to Cingular - turn around and walk away before you even talk to them...

Negotiating a new contract is just not available. That's why I'm switching back to a pre-paid when my current contract expires.

And someone should not buy a house because the cellphone company they're locked into has bad coverage? Why should that even have to be part of the calculus... "I can't buy this house because my cellphone company will fuck me out of $300". That's irrational! Why are we even stuck in a world like that? Hell, with a lease on an apartment, they can't stick it to you for the rest of your term when you quit unless they fail to fill the apartment after making a good-faith effort.

The industry is working in a way that fucks the customers - the customers really want cellphones and they have few options. How is that nearly all the companies work in the same fucked-up way? It really looks like there is some kind of collusion - and that's when governments have to step in.

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[Adult film producer]

I have the same problem with my cell-phone only having service in parts of the house while it works beautifully in others.. I don't understand why this is, it's a wood framed house, there's no big towers or obstacles that would limit service in this neighbourhood. The cell phone works in my dining room but not my bedroom or living room, and they're all within 10 steps of each other.

Works in the basement just fine though :-|

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[eliktronik]

While going around and calling people dumbasses is fun and all, I must say the parent had a good point regarding your third statement. If you're about to build a house, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to walk around and check the strength of cell service before buying the property. After all, having cell service is pretty important to most people (myself included) and you are presumably going to live there for a while. If you barely get service on your property, then you will have none inside your future house.

If the signal is just weak you may want to get an external cell phone antenna...

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[Anonymous Coward]

My mom complained to Sprint and they gave her some sort of signal booster to put in her home. I think it works pretty well for her. It is worth a shot.

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[mikedaisey]

Hello, pointless liberarian comment!

This really doesn't have anything to do with the rational world where people actually live--no cell phone company in existence currently allows any degree of negotiation.

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[/dev/trash]

You shoulda tried your phone at the new house, if the phone is that important.

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[TheGavster]

1 - OK, good for you.
2 - If you don't like the terms, don't sign, simple as that. If the man at the cell phone store intimidates you, that's your problem.
3 - Well, apparently it *is* important to you. You only shop for a house a few times; checking one more thing isn't that big of a deal.

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[TheGavster]

I think you missed my point. The grandparent thinks there should be a law allowing him to breach contract at any time. I said that's silly, what you're really looking for is a law that allows you to get a contract you won't need to breach. Yes, the comment was libertarian in nature, but I think that the suggested action was if anything more practical than the original proposed law.

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[DAldredge]

Does your house show as being covered on the cell nets coverage maps?

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[DAldredge]

If the damn cell companies would publish the maps they already have of where the dead areas are this would not be an issue.

But they won't do that.

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[jafac]

After all, having cell service is pretty important to most people

It's only important if you're locked into a contract where the terms (ie. precise nature of area coverage) were not known at the time you signed the contract.

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[nolife]

The grandparent thinks there should be a law allowing him to breach contract at any time.

On that note. Remember that charge or fee you started getting about 2 years ago for WNP? That was a breach of contract. The carriers complained to the FCC that the cost of adding portability was going to cost them a lot of money. The FCC gave the carriers the "right" to charge a fee to recoup those costs. That fee was not a tax and not a surcharge. It was an across the board increase in your monthly bill which was not part of your contract. The phone companies justified this as making up for the cost of doing business. Basically, they locked you into a long contract and got burned when the cost for them went up. The FCC gave them the authority to break the contract and charge you more and they did. The real questionable part of this was there was no checks and balances or justification or reporting required back to the FCC or the customers as to what the carriers could charge to make up for this cost and what these costs actually were. There still is not to this day.
I know there was a lot of noise on alt.cellular.sprintpcs at the time and people were able to cancel their service without penalty because of the contract change by Sprint to add to the monthly fees. Sprint first tried to claim that this was a government surcharge and later backed down and were honoring contract cancellations and service credits to those that complained.

So yes, the carriers already have the ability to lock YOU into a long contract and also the ability to modify that long contract after the fact.

Clarification. There is some confusion on the way some people looked at this additional charge. Bottom line though is that was/is a recurring static monthly fee, and not a tax. The money goes straight to the carrier and not the government. If the government raised the minimum wage, the carriers would not be allowed to pass the increase in costs on to your exisiting contract, how were they able to pass number portability charges on?

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[kent_eh]

So... You move into a house that acts as a Faraday cage, and somehow it's the cell provider's problem?

No wireless technology guarentees coverage everywhere. The laws of physics must be obeyed.

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[Scudsucker]

So... You move into a house that acts as a Faraday cage, and somehow it's the cell provider's problem?

As long as his new house is inside their coverage area, and he doesn't have lead walls or anything...yes, it should be.

No wireless technology guarentees coverage everywhere. The laws of physics must be obeyed.

Considering how the Japanese can frequently use their phones for internet access in the subway, my sympathy for the U.S. cell phone carries on this issue is between slim and none, and Slims on his way out of town.

Re:Fixing dead zones...

[WryCoder]

It's caused by radio energy moving on multiple paths, which are formed by reflections off buildings or local terrain. When the various path's energy arrives in phase you get a good signal. When it's out of phase, you don't. Since the wavelengths involved are less than a foot, small movements in phone position can make a big difference.

In strong signal areas, even the out of phase paths are usually energetic enough to provide good signals.

Length of Contract

[otherniceman]

What is the normal length of contract then? In the UK the standard is 12 months, though some ask for 18 months for some 'special deals' (latest top of the range free, 6 months free line rental).

Also how complicated is the bill? There is only line rental, call charages (possibly itemised) and maybe misc (insurance).

Re:Length of Contract

[msdschris]

Length of contract depends on what pricing level you want. Usually 2 years for the best deals and 1 year for middle of the road. Bills are complicated by different surcharges, taxes, recovery fees, insurance, and others. Most often listed in a manner that is not easy to understand for many.

Re:Length of Contract

[otherniceman]

Good grief!

In the UK you have the 12 month contract then you chose a monthly fee (general with x minutes / texts free per month) which generally sets your cost / minutes.

My wife pays GBP 17.00 month, she gets 30 free minutes a month (unused minutes carry over max of 3 months), itemised billing and voicemail and got a free Nokia 6230i with the contract 11 months ago.

I pay GBP 40.00 month, I get 400 minutes free (unused minutes carry over max of 3 months), itemised billing, voicemail and discounted international calls, with my call levels I got a p910i for GBP100.00 again 11 months ago.

The phones are not locked, I took over one of my old phones to my brother in France. He put in his simcard and it worked without any problems.

Re:Length of Contract

[msdschris]

Perhaps you have misunderstood? Rate plans work very similar here for example... When gettng new service from Carrier A you have the option of contract length. 2 years might get you a 299.00 phone for 99.00 1 year would get the same phone for 199.00 and obviously no contract you would pay full price. I also believe that certain rate plans are only available if you choose a certain contract length. I pay $90 for 800 outgoing, vm, caller id, detailed billing, and whatever other useless features are included. I do get free incomming calls which is not universal but becomming more common. All together I use approxomatly 2500 minutes a month but never exceed my plan minutes. However with taxes, insurance, misc fees I end up paying about 105 dollars.

Re:Length of Contract

[Helios1182]

Both plans would be considered expensive by US standards. I pay $35/month and I get 350 day minutes, and unlimited nights and weekend. I get 20 or so sms also, but I never use them. I still get voicemail, 3-way calling, itemized billing, call-waiting, etc. So, my plan is roughly 1/2 the cost of yours (assuming 35USD ~= 20GBP).

Re:Length of Contract

[Anonymous Coward]

US$20/month here, 1000 regular minutes, free night & weekend minutes (9p-9a, Sat & Sun), voicemail, caller id, call forewarding, mobile web access, unlimited text messaging (send & receive), email, unlimited mobile-to-mobile calling, 3-way calling, and free LD to anyone in the US or Canada.

Employee plan, though, sorry.

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

A-fucking-men.

Danish law

[Waerloga]

Danish law limits contracts to half a year.

Rights?

[argoff]

With all due respect, things like free speech and posession of waepons are a right. Cell phone freebies coercively imposed on everyone else it not. How about MA start focusing on the real rights, like quit pouncing on everyone with high taxes and regulations, and stop focusing on pretend rights like cell phone freebies.

Re:Rights?

[argoff]

Like fuck it is. Freedom from harm is. Freedom from having to worry about armed losers who probably can't even spell "safety catch" should be.

Do you even know why the 2nd amendment was placed into the US constitution? Do you even know why it's worded, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" instead of saying "the people may own shot guns" (hint, because it's presumed to be a right that exists above government). The right to bear arms *is* about freedom from harm, the right to bear arms *is* about having the freedom not to worry about armed loosers (especially armed loosers that govern). The right to secure your rights is a right, and because of that the 2nd amendment almost was made the first amendment.

When the US became a seperate nation and the Brits invaded to take it back - they encountered something never encountered before. Citizens armed with guns.

Year later, after the civil war, they were very quick to turn it back into a free territory, why? Because the army worried that it couldn't controll citizens with guns.

After sanctioning the killing of indians for over 100 years, the US govt did an about face and decided to try and make treaties and peace with them, why? Because the indians were comming to posess guns and the cost of killing them became huge.

What about how soviet invasion plans for american territories were scrapped time and time again, what about one of the reasons why the swiss were spared from the german advance during WW2, or how german citizens had their gun rights revoked just before ww2. What about countless other nations and, and countless other conflicts, and countless other genocides that simply could not have happened in a gun ownership environment. I think you're the one that needs to be educated.

Re:Rights?

[Magnus Pym]

I don't know about the Indians in the US (sounds suspiciously like an NRA legend to me), but the reason why Germany did not invade Switzerland was simply because lots of Nazis had loot in the Swiss banks, and the last thing they wanted to do was to risk losing their money. Nothing to do with the Swiss possessing guns. Also, the proliferation of guns has caused lots more deaths and genocide than the converse, as is obvious to anyone who has an understanding of the recent history of many third-world countries.

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, all the nations (why, even individuals) should be allowed to possess Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons. Look at all the wars it would prevent! Why, lots of honest businessmen could make a good buck selling these things! I don't know why the US govt. gets its panties in a twist about this whole "Nuclear Non-proliferation" thing. The NRA should lobby to proliferate nuclear weapons far and wide.

Magnus.

Re:Rights?

[argoff]

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, all the nations (why, even individuals) should be allowed to possess Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons. Look at all the wars it would prevent!

I'm glad you mentioned that. Lets take it to it's logical conclusion. In fact, you're naieve if you don't think technology is going in that direction anyhow.

In such an environment, lets see how many would play back against white, man against woman, young against old, rich against poor, christian against muslim for political gain. In such a system, lets see how many criminals who make violent choices would get the revolving door treatment. Lets see how many victimless crimes would be witch hunted. Lets see how many tyrranical governments would be quietly ignored, rather then rooted out at all costs from day one. Lets see if government would coerce resources, land use, and policy to favor cramming people into packed metropolitan areas. Yeah, there'd be a rouge risk. Yeah, there is one now. But the point and logical conclusion still is: governments do not attempt to control ownership of weapons to prevent violence, they only attempt to control ownership of weapons to avoid reaping the hatred and appathy towards liberty that they sew.

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reasons for the right to bear arms has been forgotten because the US has been relatively static and safe for over two hundred years. There is no way that some strange twist of the US government or any foreign government could ever "take over" the US because we do have the ability to bear arms and many people do have them. I am not not into history much so bear with me but looking at this in the most simple terms... How were the Germans so easily able to round up and send so many people to the death camps? Do you think something like that could happen in the US if the US government went on the flip?

Just for reference, I do not and never have owned a gun but I would get one if I felt I needed to.

Re:Rights?

[Lord Omlette]

You forgot to mention that the Right to Bear Arms helped defend Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein for decades... then that crazy Coalition of the Willing came in and started taking all their guns. Because the invaders only believe in freedom long enough to hate it.

Oh God.

[Renraku]

How about contract reform?

Generally, contracts are very one-sided. I mean the cell phone company can cut you off at any time, but if you cut them off when on a contract, you must pay.

Anything they can get their hands on means a swift and harsh punishment will be coming.

I mean you can always say 'don't sign the contract!' that's fine and dandy, but the very act of looking at the contract usually means you want (and sometimes need!) whatever service is being provided.

Look at any contract. When you apply for a job and get hired, you usually have to sign a contract saying something like 'everything i do on company time is owned by the company, even if i'm on break or lunch, i have the right to be fired at any time without warning or reason, i must donate all worldy goods to the company, etc.' in exchange for employment and getting paid for what you're working on.

Re:Oh God.

[multiplexo]

You sir are a communist. Don't you understand the /. meme. Big corporations should be allowed to fuck over anyone they want in any way they want in the name of the free market. Of course the fact that in a truly free market you wouldn't have the concept of the limited liability corporation which shields the stockholders, the owners, of the corporation for liability concerning its actions, is a mere bagatelle that must be disregarded. Big corporations are good, unless of course they're Microsoft, SCO, Disney, any RIAA member or an MPAA member, in which case they're bad and evil and you can flame them as much as you like. How dare you post something rational and thoughtful about contract reform. You are a bad, bad communist and if people read your post the terrorists will have won.

Re:Oh God.

[Anonymous Coward]

One step further...

In a truly free market the concept of a corporation itself would evaporate. Then a company can no longer hide behind some mythical persona when it commits crimes, instead the people responsible would be arrested and tried for them.

Re:Oh God.

[TheRaven64]

Here's a very simple reform:

Any contract in which one party is allowed to modify the terms without the other's express written permission is void, and unenforceable in a court of law.

It would be a very simple law to pass, but would give a huge amount of freedom to consumers. How often have you been given a set of conditions of service with a clause like that in it?

Re:Oh God.

[Riskable]

This is a form of contract reform. Contract law states that a contract cannot break any existing laws.

Since a "Cell phone bill of rights" would set forth laws to which a carrier contract cannot break, it would effectively be reforming their contracts.

If MA passes this law and Cingular still sells two-year contracts, after one year that part of the contract would be null and void. They could argue that you signed it, but you'd have the law on your side.

Unfortunately, it would still probably cost you more than $300 to fight a claim in court and even if you won you'd be fighting with their collection agency for years trying to get that removed from your credit history.

Re:Oh God.

[sconeu]

I suspect that a 2 year contract would be OK.

Cingular could not *REQUIRE* a 2 year contract, but if you wanted one, they could give it to you.

Re:cell phone bill of rights

[hazem]

I disagree. The pre-paids typically have you pay for your phone upfront and they don't have the benefit of tying you into an overpriced service for 2 years. I used a Virgin Mobile phone for a year and I was much more impressed with it than I am with the Verizon phone I'm stuck with until December. It's going to shit. Of course, Verizon will give me a new phone - for another 2 year contract.

All I know is that in December, I'm going back to Virgin Mobile. Cheaper service, no contract, and a phone that's "just a phone" that works great.

Bill of Rights?

[Anyletter]

Is anyone else sick of the "Bill of Rights" buzzword? It's so 1990's. Started with the Patient's Bill of Rights, and it's only gotten worse from there. Can we just go ahead and accept that there's only one Bill of Rights, the first 10 ammendments to the US Constitution. Let's not trivialize the original by overuse of the phrase. /rant

Re:Bill of Rights?

[superpulpsicle]

The politicians are trying to do something about this problem and giving it a fancy name. The bad contracts, service, signal receptions should have been ALL resolved automatically without customers intervention.

Can you imagine every car company selling all their models as off-road vehicles. And then claiming it's not their fault when the car doesn't work in the mud. Not only that, but you are tied up to some piece of paper.

Re:Bill of Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do any of you actually live in Massachusetts???

Grab your cell phone and visit sometime and you will see the hell it is 2 live here and use a cell...

Although all Cell carriers coverage maps claim cells work over our state, I have ended agreements with all carriers dut to the lies they spew...

Cell phones /pagers/ broadband does not work over the western half of our state...

Cell phone / broad band companies will only work for people around the Major cities so I really hope this changes that. No longer will I be forced to use land line phones! Finally hopefully, if this passes and maybe in 5 years when the dead zones are gone, I can finally be on-call for work and make back all the money I have missed out all these years from my coworkers who live near cities and can be on-call....

As a Doctor, I literally have to choose where I can live in Taxachusetts so I can do my job...

mass is 32nd in tax burden

[Anonymous Coward]

massachusetts tax burden is the 32nd lowest out of the 50 states.

but don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices.

Re:mass is 32nd in tax burden

[argoff]

Taxes are just a part of the way people can have their economic freedoms restricted:

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/entrep/2004 /econ_freedom/00_summary.html

They seem to be in the worst 10, so now who'se letting the facts get in the way.

Tracking

[Mr2cents]

How about the right to go where you want without your position being tracked and stored for later use?

BTW, If you are against data retention, please sign the petition:

http://www.dataretentionisnosolution.com/

Already happened

[argoff]

The ironic thing is that people can already get these services if they pay a higher price.

If someone wants simple billing and no contracts, all they half to do is get pre-paid cellphone service and pick up refil cards at any 7-11 (They got those in MA right?).

If someone wants more coverage, all they half to do is get a satellite phone.

All this is really saying is that people are entitled to cell phone freebies at soneone elses expense. Shure has gone downhill from the days where a right ment things like free press and free religion. If MA wants to think about rights, perhaps they should look at the economic freedom rankings of their own state.

Re:Already happened

[Sorthum]

Prepaid phones cost an arm and a leg to use for, say, 500 minutes a month.

Satellite phones don't work inside.

I'd argue we have rights to protect us from corporations in some instances as well.

Re:Already happened

[Fnkmaster]

What Massachusetts does is essentially engage on behalf of consumers as a sort of collective agent. While you may think this is terrible, Massachusetts is one of the few states left in the union where an individual can actually get good health insurance by self-paying. Here in NY, the self-pay plans are all atrocious, the providers have terrible records of denying claims en masse, and your only choices are POS and HMO (i.e. bad and worse - the coverage sucks compared to BCBS/MA PPO Direct Pay). And an individual plan in MA, while expensive as hell, is still only 60% of the price of the best POS plan available here in New York.

As for "economic freedom", there's generally plenty of it in Massachusetts. It's an incredibly entrepreneurial state, with large tech and life sciences industry presence, a huge venture capital industry, lots of financial services companies, etc. I don't know what kind of economic freedom you mean, but I don't need the freedom to deal with abusive cell phone companies that aren't upfront about their terms or real costs, or health insurance providers that shit on me as an individual consumer because I'm not in a group plan with buying power.

I miss living in Massachusetts and would love to return at some point. If you don't like it, fine, don't go there.

Locking phones to one carrier

[stevejsmith]

Nobody's mentioned the thing that irks me the most: when companies sell phones that are locked to that provider. Sure, you can unlock them by paying some shady person $40, but if it's so trivial for the consumer to unlock them (and doesn't bring a dime to the original company), what's the point?

Re:Locking phones to one carrier

[MoonBuggy]

It's pretty simple really, people are uninformed/dumb/lazy and therefore don't bother to get their phone unlocked, so the carriers keep making money on them. It costs little to nothing for the carriers to implement the lock so it makes business sense for them to do it, even if it does piss of paying customers. As for "shady people" and "$40", this might be helpful to all you Nokia owners (I know they aren't as popular over there as they are here, but it's a start).

Provider suggestion?

[tepples]

it's your responsibility to negotiate an escape clause for the poor service after a change of residence.

Which provider is willing to accept such an escape clause for residential service?

Re:Provider suggestion?

[typical]

I don't have a cell phone; however, I suspect that it is possible to get a plan of more limited duration if one purchases the ($400 or so) cellular phone onesself.

Currently, the cell companies essentially give you a phone and then expect to make the money back on your contract; this is why they force you to have contract lengths.

The real problem is that it *costs money* to design and produce phones and to set up and maintain cell towers and pay to set up and maintain long distance and transcontinental lines.

Re:Provider suggestion?

[TheGavster]

Arguing for the right to negotiate is one thing; arguing for the right to renege on a contract is another.

Re:Provider suggestion?

[tepples]

I currently do not have cell phone service. Which provider should I switch to that offers short term contracts and lets me use all the features of the phone listed by the manufacturer?

Re:Provider suggestion?

[TheRaven64]

if one purchases the ($400 or so) cellular phone onesself.

$400 for a cell 'phone? My current 'phone came with my contract, but I bought my last one (which was almost identical to the current one - slightly earlier model) for £40. It had all of the features I wanted - calendar, address book, bluetooth and GPRS - and that was two or three years ago. Unless the exchange rate is a lot worse than I think it is, you really should shop around a bit more.

Re:Provider suggestion?

[MoneyT]

Any pre-paid calling service

Re:Provider suggestion?

[tepples]

The only pre-paid mobile phone providers that I've seen in my area generally make only basic phones available (specifically, no ability to download and play Java MIDP games), and many lock the phones such that all downloads must go through the provider's store (Verizon's Get It Now anyone?) and I can't take the phone from one provider to the next.

Re:Provider suggestion?

[squiggleslash]

Couple of options, ignoring the prepaid pay-by-the-minute deals.

I believe T-Mobile will sell you a SIM-only, no-contract deal if you deal with them directly. You'll need to buy the phone, separately, and the rate plans are usually not quite as good as their contract plans (usually no free nights, etc.) They're also testing a service in some select markets that includes the phone called Take Control that's also contract free.

Cingular has the GoPhone deal which is a monthly prepaid package structured similar to their normal tariffs but doesn't have any kind of contract associated with it. You get fewer minutes, but the higher monthly tariffs include free nights and weekends, and free mobile to mobile calls. You can't get this SIM only, but they usually will sell you a reconditioned phone for $30 if you want to go down that route, and you can then go off and get the phone you actually want from eBay, etc.

I have a spare GoPhone SIM which I use with a slightly different prepaid plan ($1 a day if the phone is used that day, unlimited M2M) and wasn't terribly impressed by the call quality, but I haven't used it much (it's there as a back-up to my T-Mobile account.) I'd recommend T-Mobile.

I don't believe Verizon does anything similar though they do the usual gaggle of prepaid pay-by-the-minute plans. Sprint PCS used to (in fact, they originally didn't have contracts), but you had to use a Sprint PCS locked phone.

Re:Provider suggestion?

[squiggleslash]

You can buy unlocked GSM phones from various sources (try eBay, shopping.yahoo.com, and others.) As long as the phone supports 1900 and 850MHz you'll not have any problem with any US carrier.

Just buy the cheapest you-must-buy-a-phone-to-initiate-service phone you can get (assuming you can't get a SIM-only deal by contacting the carrier directly) (you're looking at around $30 at the moment), and then select from the myriad of unlocked phones on the Internet. The phone you buy, as long as it's unlocked, will be transferable between both major US GSM operators (and the smaller ones, if there are any left.)

Fixing the last 5% of the problem...

[mi]

Often takes as much effort and resources as the first 95%. Many companies choose not to bother. Do we really want laws to force them?

Must all web-sites support Lynx, for example? It'd be great if there did, but legally (i.e. at gun-point) forcing them too? I don't think so...

While we're at it...

[KrackHouse]

I really hate how supermarkets close at night, we should create the Bureaucracy of Consumer Annoyances which will employ thousands of well paid experts to make sure lines aren't too long or fast food places never run out of diet coke.

I can see it now, businesses will cower in fear as the regulators roll through businesses looking for anything that might cause consumer disgust.

Nobody is dumb enough to actually try to enforce this which is why it died on the vine in California. France actually passes laws like this which is why they have 10% unemployment.

Re:While we're at it...

[Anonymous Coward]

... to make sure lines aren't too long or ...

Just today, I abandoned a semi-filled shopping cart at the Sam's Club because the line was too damn long (yes, I let someone know the cart was left so someone could put it away). More people should do that and then stores won't devote a dozen people to giving free samples and only a half dozen people to ringing the shit up.

As consumers, the power to walk away is far greater than any contract.

Luddite.

[Anonymous Coward]

- Cell phones prohibited in libraries, theaters, conferences, etc. punishable by death.

Yeah, that's ok, I'll keep mine on vibrate. Then the first time I'll ignore it (and hit the button to acknowledge to the phone that I felt it, now leave me alone). If it rings again immediately I'll excuse myself and go elsewhere to take the call because it's an emergency. I'd like to know immediately if my daughter breaks an arm and needs to be taken to the hospital. One car family right now.


- Cell phones prohibited while driving.

Depends entirely on the person. If your arugment is that it's distracting then you should forbid radio in the car too. I've been nearly sideswiped (dodged) by asshats yelling at the radio. And some people shouldn't be allowed to drive period. Though I do shudder and think about what idiots people are when they use their arms to talk to the person on the other side of the conversation.. it's not a video phone, moron..


- Loud ringers prohibited.

Agreed here, but then again it doesn't stop the assholes that like to play "window rattling music" so it's not like a law will make a difference.


- Obnoxious ringtones prohibited.

Obnoxious according to...? People have different tastes.


- Make it legal to smack cell phone users for whatever reason.

I'd rather make it legal to smack people that want to smack people for whatever reason.


- Cell phone towers only allowed in yards of cell phone users.

You point being? So many people have cell phones now that this is just someone who doesn't have one whining. I'm sure you'd rather have a bunch of little antennae sticking up all over your neighborhood. No, then you'd be bitching "They should only have one so it obscures less of the view."

Re:Luddite.

[Anonymous Coward]

- Radios are nowhere near as distracting as cell phones. Unless you're a moron.
- Ban cell phone towers. They're fucking ugly.
- You should be smacked.

Excuse me,

[zappepcs]

but what exactly happens to this bill of rights crap when all the carriers go to IP based communications where the FCC has yet to implement ANY legislation on data networks. Your next phone is likely to be a voice over WiFi or over WiMax, or some other form of VoIP.

I seriously doubt that regulating voice communications will ever do anything correctly. What is needed is to lay out standards of business for those companies offering services, such cable, broadband, telephone, gas, electricity, anything that involves a "contract". (even if its not really a contract)

What they are trying to fight here is the knock-on effects of commoditization of services. The reason that cellphones are cheap is because they make their money on the backend. The only way to be fair to all parties is to make you pay for your phone up front, regulate roaming issues, and 'encourage' carriers to cooperate on network peering agreements. In other words, forcibly make carriers be nothing more than airtime providers, split away from the carrier any content providing services, etc.

Its just going to backfire on the state...

Non-cell user bill of rights

[typical]

- Cell phones prohibited while driving.

Depends entirely on the person.

I don't agree. Everyone thinks that *they* are "such a skillful driver/cell users that an accident could *never* happen to them". Problem is that the numbers demonstrate that it *does* happen, and that when it happens, it hurts someone else that *isn't* necessarily using a cell phone.

Finally, I completely disagree that it is "essential" to make or take cell calls while driving. If you absolutely have an emergency call that must be made, pull off the goddamn road.

- loud ringers prohibited

Agreed here, but then again it doesn't stop the assholes that like to play "window rattling music" so it's not like a law will make a difference.

Those are annoying, but this is not cell-specific (though cells may be the most common instance of a disruptive loud-noise producing device). If this problem became truly epidemic, I could see a requirement that portable consumer devices (PDAs, etc) be sold with a maximum sound output in decibels. I think that making this cell-specific is not very helpful.

- Obnoxious ringtones prohibited.

Obnoxious according to...? People have different tastes.

Agreed.

Those Communists!

[jhylkema]

How dare those pinko commie terrorists in the Taxachusetts legislature try to push around poor little Verizon or Cingular! Why, they're just honest businessmen trying to scrape by and earn a meager living, but these ruthlesss government bastards want to regulate them right out of business!

(This is rhetorical and not meant as a troll.)

Re:cell phone bill of rights

[dmx11523]

Virgin mobile is not cheaper. If you only call 2 people a day, sure. Pre-paid is usually double per minute if you break it down. I use 3400 minutes a month. You show me a pre-paid plan allowing that?......I use about 900 peak and the rest peak m2m. Also virgin phones are trash. I have a bluetooth, mp3, dual color screen, dual speaker phone, 1.3 mega pixel camera/video phone. You show me a pre-paid phone for 90 bucks that can do all that?.

Honesty needed to control $$ inflation

[enmane]

Here's the question that I'd like answered:

Why is it that I can't even get an inexpensive plan?
5 yrs ago when I started with my cell-phone my phone company had an inexpensive $20/month plan with 60 minutes and more expensive plans that scaled with subscription costs but the base plan started at $20. By the time my 1 yr contract expired the base plan was $25/month with 100 minutes. 2 yrs after that contract expired the base plan was $35 w/300 minutes, free nights & weekends, and a slew of other features. All the plans offered a free phone w/the contract. We just need a phone for emergency situations so paying this much money for an emergency phone is pretty ridiculous. No plan even offers a low-cost plan and I think that this is price inflation & price fixing by the industry.

I find it hard to believe that either:
1) the phones cost that much more
2) the cost of providing the service is 100% more expensive now than before

I would imagine that like everything in the tech sector that the phones are actually cheaper to subsidize now compared to before and that the cost of doing business per customer is cheaper now than before - YET - the prices are going up with no options for inexpensive plans.

Re:Honesty needed to control $$ inflation

[HermanAB]

Emergencies only? First of all, you can always dial 911 on a cell phone. The only thing you need is a charged battery, no contract required. If you need more than that, get a CB radio.

Re:Honesty needed to control $$ inflation

[MoonBuggy]

If you really do need it for emergencies only, why not just buy a Pay as You Go SIM card and put it in your existing phone? Sure, calls are a rip compared to contract, but for occasional use it shouldn't matter. If you can't just get SIMs over there (I can't see why you couldn't, but I don't really know the US market) then just buy a cheap PAYG phone package and sell either your existing phone or the new one, whichever is worth more, or work out a contract plan where you can get a high value phone, sell it and use your old one. If you play your cards right you can sometimes even make a profit.

Re:Honesty needed to control $$ inflation

[enmane]

Admittedly, "emergencies" should have been clarified. I'm not talking 911 emergencies but "oh crap, can you pick up a loaf of bread on your way home" emergencies :-) - ya, know - the 1 minute conversation ones or the "I'm at work late tonight" or "I'm out with the girls". That's the use that I'm talking about instead of the "blah-blah-blah I'm just out driving around - oh shit, I almost ran someone off the road - so what were you saying" type of use.

Here's to hoping that some legislation passes to keep people from using cell phones while driving unless it is an emergency as I live near a college town and

18-22 yr olds + cell phones = hazardous roads.

When I grew up, I learned about blind spots due to design flaws in automobiles - I never thought that blind spots would change definition. The new definition is that a blind spot is to the side of the head that the driver is holding their phone to (i.e. if a driver has a phone on the left side of their head then they don't bother looking to the left). Oh well.

On a side note, I can just see my wife with a CB radio, LOL.

Re:Honesty needed to control $$ inflation

[HermanAB]

Hmmm, I can see your wife when you call her and say that you are 'out with the girls'. You may need the 911 capability when you finally do get home...

Re:Honesty needed to control $$ inflation

[RobertLTux]

umm lets try this in the US there are two types of carriers running about
CDMA (alltel - Sprint -Verizon) and GSM (ATT/Cingular-T-Mobile-SunnComm)

The CDMA group has good coverage (up to - "if you don't have a signal you are either in No WheresVille or on a Mountain") BUT DOES NOT USE SIM CARDS

The GSM group has about half or worse coverage but does use SIM cards
so no the just get a Pay-As-You-Go SIM won't work.

Re:Honesty needed to control $$ inflation

[ckd]

Verizon, Sprint, and former Nextel phones aren't GSM, so you can't put a SIM in them.

Cingular and T-Mobile phones are usually SIM-locked, so you need to get them unlocked before you can put in a PAYG SIM.

Re:Honesty needed to control $$ inflation

[Stonehand]

Verizon Wireless offers pay-as-you-go plans. So does Cingular, if memory serves.

TracFone offers a similar service by reselling airtime via cards. I don't think they're the only ones, either.

For very light use, these may work for you.

Re:Honesty needed to control $$ inflation

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a Nextel reseller. They're not GSM, but any three-digit model numbered phone does use a SIM card. These phones make up the vast majority of the current subscriber base.

For more information, visit http://www.nextel.com/sim

Re:Honesty needed to control $$ inflation

[Detritus]

I had the same problem. All of the carriers seem to be raising the minimum price of their plans. I used to have a $15 a month plan, which was discontinued by the carrier. The last time I shopped for a new plan, I couldn't find any cheap monthly plans. I ended switching to a Cingular pay-as-you-go phone and plan. After paying $60 for the phone, it costs $25 every three months for airtime refills. It's cheap, it works, and I'm not locked in to a contract.

Re:Honesty needed to control $$ inflation

[Anonymous Coward]

5 yrs ago when I started with my cell-phone my phone company had an inexpensive $20/month plan with 60 minutes and more expensive plans that scaled with subscription costs but the base plan started at $20.

And you can still get that today with a prepaid mobile phone. Better, actually. Take Virgin Mobile, for example. Worst case is $0.25/minute (calls drop to $0.10/minute after the first 10 minutes on any day). That's $15/month, which is less than the $20/month plan you claim no longer exists.

We just need a phone for emergency situations so paying this much money for an emergency phone is pretty ridiculous.

Then a pre-paid plan should be perfect for you. With Virgin Mobile, your cost would be as low as about $7/month. That would give you, worst case, about 30 minutes/month of calls. You also get voice mail (which is free to retrieve from another phone).

What's best is that the costs above are all inclusive, with no extra fees, taxes, or domestic long distance tacked on to the bill. It's those extra costs that piss me off most about mobile phone plans. It's nothing short of false advertising and deceptive trade when a company claims to have a $39.99/month plan that actually winds up at $49.99/month. While I don't go as far as calling for the outlaw of multi-year contracts, I do think that the government should require all advertising to include the complete monthly cost of the plan, perhaps with the exclusion of any actual state and local taxes levied.

Re:Honesty needed to control $$ inflation

[Magius_AR]

Why is it that I can't even get an inexpensive plan?
We just need a phone for emergency situations so paying this much money for an emergency phone is pretty ridiculous. No plan even offers a low-cost plan

Incorrect, sir.

There most certainly are options, especially for people in your situation (emergency only phone use). The answer lies in pre-paid cell phone plans, such as Liberty Wireless who offer low premium, no-frills, no-contract plans as low as $30/month. These are ideal for those who only use the phone infrequently or only in emergencies. You can cancel the plan at any time without any penalty, and payment method is identical to non-prepaid (monthly fee). There are other pre-paid carriers around as well, some of whom have even lower rates (I saw one for $20/month somewhere I remember). Even some of the big names such as Cingular are beginning to offer pre-paid plans due to growing popularity.

They're not for everybody, but in your situation, I think it's what you want.

Data Charges?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does it cost so much for data instead of voice? If it's digital, it shouldn't be different, right?

Paying by the kilobyte for the Internet on my cell is not something I'm going to do.

handsets aint cheap, contracts aint evil

[a_greer2005]

I hate "big telco" as much as the next slashdotter, but I think the two year contract is acctually reasonable if you get the phone at a steap discount: Do you think that a RaizorV3 only costs cingular / bestbuy $99???? The answer is HELL NO, it costs much more than that, the companies understand that most people cant afford $250-$700 per family member to get a nice phone, but they want the share plan so mom and dad can always reach billy and jenny, so the contracts help everyone to win, the company gets your business for two years, and over that time, your profitability makes up for the initial freebee, and you the customer win by not having to pay $200 for a really crappy phone and $400+ for a good one.

If you buy the hardware at full price upfront, you should be able to have the same or better pricing, and no contract...I bought a phone at full cost once (long story -- dont ask) and didnt have to sign a contract...May not be true for all cariers but it should be.

Re:handsets aint cheap, contracts aint evil

[EvilMagnus]

So let's have it both ways. Sure, 2 year contracts for a Razr you got from the carrier is fine. I can live with that. But what if you're bringing your own phone to the party? Say I own my own unlocked Motorola v600 , and all I need to get basic voice service (all I need anyway) is a SIM? Can I get a SIM card for a small fee, then get billed monthly with no cancellation penalty?

No, I can't. I can get a "Free" phone, but that comes with a 1 year contract. I can get a 'pay as you go' phone, but I have to buy the phone from them, and the call rates are higher.

Last I checked, Cingular/ATT don't let you bring your own phone. T-mobile *might*, as they're tiny here in the US, but are owned by Deutsch Mobile, a Euro firm that has a clue. Verizon won't, because they're CDMA and they seek to 'value add' by only having crippled phones on their network.

In the end, it's all about profit maximisation. There's less profit to be had from flexible billing structures, so they don't do it. And that leads to lopsided contracts that favor the carriers. (of the 'we can cut you off at any time, but if you cancel before term that's $300 please' variety).

Re:handsets aint cheap, contracts aint evil

[Mr2001]

Last I checked, Cingular/ATT don't let you bring your own phone. T-mobile *might*, as they're tiny here in the US, but are owned by Deutsch Mobile, a Euro firm that has a clue. Verizon won't, because they're CDMA and they seek to 'value add' by only having crippled phones on their network.

Check again - Verizon will activate many phones from other carriers. If they give you a hard time about it in the store, you can just activate it online. Sprint PCS, on the other hand, refuses to activate any phone they didn't sell, even if it's the exact same model.

Re:cell phone bill of rights

[dmx11523]

If I remember correctly Virgin mobile is using cingular airtime. You are probably in an area that has strong cingular coverage. Overall there is not a company that rivals verizon. It's been proven over and over. It is a fact. We are a premium serivce, we are the highest priced for the least minutes, same as BMW doesn't compare price to Ford. We simply are a higher end service and are completely justified in charging more.......the only bad thing to say about verizon is they never have the newest high tech phones, which is changing as we speak. They are getting better, slowly. I don't understand you people who change companies every 6 months / 1 year. I have a phone it works and why change, it's a pain in the ass. What you people that bitch about contracts don't understand is that when I sell you a phone your getting it for free/40-50 dollars and I'm paying 2-400 for it. I will just start charging you the real cost of a phone and you monkeys will then complain how much phones cost. So in order to make sure i make my money back, i must make sure u stay a customer. The 175 dollar cancel fee plus the price of your phone usually equals about what my store pays for the phone. Also, the reason virgin, cingular, sprint, and everyone else stinks is because they don't spend the money on towers, testing and everything else verizon does. Dam america wants everything for nothing, personally I'd rather pay more and have a higher standard of service. Ok done ranting......

It's the Dead Zones

[Deanasc]

I'm from Massachusetts and don't mind a 2 year contract but dead zones are a big problem around here. For the kind of population density that Metro Boston and surrounding suburbs offer there should be nothing less then 4 full bars of signal anywhere. Sadly this is far from the case. In fact I found a new dead zone just the other day. It's kind of like my new hobby. Luckily my home is in 4 bars of service but just a few blocks away is a dead zone. Raymond St in Salem is a dead zone. North Beverly is a huge dead zone. Manchester-by-the-Sea barely hits one bar. Ironically, 5 miles out to sea is a great place for signal. I've even got signal 300 miles out but that was at night with a 3watt handset phone. I think if you can show that your home or office, anywhere you spend most of the day, is a dead zone you should be let out of the contract no matter how long it is or how much is left before expiration.

Re:It's the Dead Zones

[adrenalinekick]

I agree - I'm also from Mass and a Verizon customer. I signed up for my 2 year contract, got a nifty new phone, took it home, and then found out that I could not get any signal anywhere near my house. Great, how useful is this. The best part is Verizon had claimed it would work fine at my house. Now I am stuck for 2 years with a cell phone I can't use from home. Sounds real fair to me... And the icing on the cake - I am also a student, and I rent a house at college (2 hours away from home, also in MA). I am in an area that is supposed to get perfect reception, but guess what - I can't be on the phone for more than 10 minutes before I get disconnected. Customer support simply said that there is some source of interference and there is nothing they can do. Wonderful - screwed again. I can walk 200 feet down the road and talk fine for hours, but I can't check my voicemail from my front porch. I'm all for a Bill of Rights for cell phone users. Customers should have a right to cancel their plans if they can't actually use their plans - aka dead spots. But why would a big company give a crap if I get reception or not once I am locked into a 2 year contract? They don't. Well I want the service I pay for to actually work, or I want to be able to drop the service with no penalty. Makes sense to me...

Re:It's the Dead Zones

[boberthepker]

I'm glad you understand the reason behind the contract, but I would recommend researching the reason behind the lack of signal strength in some areas. It's not because they don't care because believe me they would much rather fix it than to have to deal with all the complaints and the bad word of mouth advertising it causes. Signal strength is affected by many things. In large cities you have lots and lots of EMI (electro-magnetic interference) that is caused by anything and everything that runs on electricity. Not to mention all the steel and concrete that the radio waves can't penetrate. On the other hand if you're not in a large city there are probably lots of trees around. Tree leaves do a lot to radio waves. Whether they scatter the signal or absorb it I'm not sure, but you get the picture. Now the biggest problem is the answer to the issues above. The answer is more towers or putting towers closer together. The big problem is government regulations. YOU CANNOT JUST PUT A CELL PHONE TOWER ANYWHERE! You have to go through the FCC, the FAA, and other government bodies as well. In fact to cut through the red tape is the hardest part and the most time consuming (it takes over a year). From an idea in a business meeting to a fully functional, live, call-processing tower takes about 18 months. Oh yeah, forgot to mention you have to property to put it on. This isn't that big of an issue in a city where you can lease a spot on a building and no one ever notices it, but outside of the city there are lots of people that fight to keep towers out of their neighborhoods (wonder if their grandparents fought against utility poles). On another note, cell towers aren't even allowed in most state and national parks. About your experience with good signal out at sea, there isn't as much EMI, nor is there buildings and trees to get in the way, but 300 miles out to see probably has something to do with the way radio waves bounce off of different layers in the atmosphere. As for you wanting out of the contract due to dead zones, most if not all contracts state there is no guarantee of coverage, but most carriers have a 15 or 30 day guarantee to test the phone and network and still get out of the contract. I've said a lot but the main point I wanted to make was to quit complaining to the companies and start complaining to the government about how the tons or restrictions and regulations make it to build a great wireless network.

Re:It's the Dead Zones

[Deanasc]

I was definately bouncing signal off the ionosphere. 300 miles out to sea pretty much means that I'd have to have a mast over 1000 feet tall to achieve a line of sight radio signal.

Right.. to bear arms...

[Duncan3]

What we really need is the right to bear arms against people using cellphones in a car, in a movie theater, or anywhere else they are yelling into one.

I'm sure deaths by cellphone driver have long passed death by drunk driver, I get nearly run off the road by one of these morons at least a couple times a month. At least the drunk ones are _trying_ not to hit things, the cellphone users don't even know where they are.

So save the innocent, kill all cellphone users. Think of the children!

Re:cell phone bill of rights

[hazem]

Well, I don't talk that much on the phone - in fact, I usually use my phone to arrange to meet with people so I can talk to them in person. I only use about 500 minutes/month. It costs just a bit less than my Verizon service.

Virgin Mobile is not the best for everyone, but I like it and find the service great.

I got a cheap $29 discounted phone for Virgin Mobile. It makes calls (good reception/signal, etc), keeps my phonebook, and tells me the time. That's all I want in a phone. When I want a camera, I get a camera that's good at being a camera. 1.3 Megapixels' great, but you have shitty plastic lens in front of it.

VM's not good for you, but for a lot of people, I think it's a great way to go. Plus it comes without any stupid contracts. I can't wait to get out from under my Verizon contract.

To be fair, Verizon has had great service. But, I'm one of the freedom-loving Americans (not all of us are), and I don't like to be bound by a contract when it's not necessary.

Why not?

[hackwrench]

Justification is a good that can be negotiated for. They owe whatever is contracted for, and government is just another contract. If the cell phone companies don't like the rules the government has, they don't have to provide service there. If the people don't think they are getting enough cell phone choice under the rules passed by their government, they have the right to change that government.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the people don't think they are getting enough cell phone choice under the rules passed by their government, they have the right to change that government.

There is no such thing as "the people". There are only individuals. What happens if most people enjoy the government rules, but a minority does not? Then the minority is screwed. Contrast this to an unhampered market, where no consumer has any say over another consumer. Consumers can pick any company they want, and thus, any rule-set they want. If consumers don't like any of the options presented to them, then "the people" can start their own damn cell phone company.

Re:Why not?

[jp10558]

Well, in this case (theoretically) the people went to their own damn government to have it represent them. You know, the whole presumed reason for the government in the US.

Re:Why not?

[mi]

Well, in this case (theoretically) the people went to their own damn government to have it represent them.

Well, by this theory the people can -- Democratically -- vote to execute someone on the spot and without trial. Athens -- the history's first Democracy -- used to do such things.

They can't now, of course. Individual's freedoms trump those of "the people".

Cell-phone companies are also privately owned and anything they do (or don't do) is between them and their subscribers.

Yes, I do derive corporations' rights from those of their owners (stockholders).

Re:Why not?

[jp10558]

Well, by this theory the people can -- Democratically -- vote to execute someone on the spot and without trial. Athens -- the history's first Democracy -- used to do such things.

Well, no, they can't as this is a representative democracy. But I would guess the representitives could, thought it would be a PITA and need a constitutional amendment.

And I really don't see much wrong with this idea - on one side you have a large group of people, the company, who have apparently pissed off enough other people to cause them to get together and work within the system of govenrment. Government is really just a bunch of people working for a large group of people's interests.

Re:Why not?

[mi]

You really don't see "much wrong" with an idea of someone getting executed, because (s)he pissed off too many people?

Nice... Ancient Athens -- at the time of Socrates' death -- would be a perfect home for you...

Re:Why not?

[jp10558]

I don't see anything wrong with people setting the laws they want through democracy.

First of all, there are many differences between what you're arguing and the original statement I responded to.

What I'm talikig about is people petitioning their representatives to make a law that presumably would apply to everyone equally that fell under the law. To clarify, I would not expect someone only selling land lines or hot dogs for that matter to be affected directly by a law regulating Wireless/Cellular service. But I would expect that all Cellular providers to be affected the same way, as put forth in the law.

What you are claiming I'm for is so different to be a straw man, you aren't attacking my original position.

This occurance is not about Massachusetts citizens all voting to force one company to suddenly do something, and then have a different vote for each company, possibly with different results.

And none of this has anything to do with executing anyone.

Re:Why not?

[mi]

First of all, there are many differences between what you're arguing and the original statement I responded to.

You just don't realize, how few and between the differences are...

And none of this has anything to do with executing anyone.

Let's see. I wrote:

Well, by this theory the people can -- Democratically -- vote to execute someone on the spot and without trial. Athens -- the history's first Democracy -- used to do such things.

You responded:

[...] I would guess the representitives could, thought it would be a PITA and need a constitutional amendment. And I really don't see much wrong with this idea [...]

Now, I guess you meant to say, that people voting for a certain way a private company must do business is different from people voting to execute someone.

It is different alright, but it simply takes to the extreme your suggestion, that "the people" (the majority) can do whatever they vote for.

My point is, the companies exist not to provide goods or services to "the people" (which would've made them subject to people's regulation), but simply and utterly because individuals are free to pursue happiness in any way they please (subject to boundaries imposed by other individuals' pursuits, of course). Corporations exist not because that is the most efficient form of running an economy, but because their owners rights to create and run them are as inalienable as those explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights.

Is this too Libertarian?

Re:Why not?

[UserGoogol]

Compare this to an unhampered market, where no consumer has any say over any other consumer.

Bullshit. In most industries, there exists a certain price that needs to be paid in order to exist as a business, which is typically more than the income made by one person. Thus, your options are still retsricted by other people, because you can only shop at a business if there are enough other customers to keep the business afloat.

Thus, the free market is no escape from the tyranny of other idiots.

Re:Why not?

[jp10558]

My point is I don't see anything wrong with people being able to vote for the laws they want to live under. That's what our entire system is about - though the voting is one step removed because this is a representative democracy.

You seem to be promoting either not having laws beyond do whatever you want that doesn't obviously hurt me (ignoring all the indirect issues that often have major affects on people) or that businesses are better than government. I.E. you'd rather a private business's policy trump the government's policy.

In general, I hold that a government carrying out the will of it's constituitants should hold over a private organization. That said, there's no simple answer here - the reason our founding fathers came up with a representative democracy was so that hopefully our government would also be able to hold back *from acting* when a popular vote would be disasterous - say right after 9/11, I think the majority wanted to start nuking places, and that would have been worse than what we've done so far.

Is there a reason you are against government carring out the will of the people? Are you advocating something other than democracy? Because in any somewhat working democracy, I can't see the government ignoring what the people want in general, even if it may be a bad idea.

Cell Public Utility?

[jpellino]

If the trend continues, with people moving from landline POTS to cells (we could cover VOIP too) for their phone service, then the DPUCs could quite easily end up with the responsibility here.

If we felt it necessary to have a DPUC for land phones, why not cell too? Granted it was when there was a single provider that this all started, but the field is shrinking - we've gone from T-Mobile, ATT, Verizon, Nextel, Cingular, Sprint to just four of those in a year. That trend seems to indicate competition is narrowing. Prices are plateauing - the "offers" are mostly now thru rebates and a bunch of add-on goodies nobody needs anyway. Were we dying to take picutres with our phones? No. Were we foundering before we could watch TV on a 1" screen? Of course not - you can't GIVE pocket TVs away - they're a cute oddity at Radio Shack. The overall level of cell provider attitude is "lump it or leave it". Last month's cell shopping was interesting - holding the other carrier(s) over their heads no longer works - every sales person in the big 4 said essentiallty the same thing when I left store X by saying I needed to check out store Y - "You're not going to do any better there - it's about the same plan - but we have blah blah blah..."

Cell phone serice has essentially become a 'par' product - they're all really the same can of beans, and cutthroat pricing wars end up with everyone dead.

I know from shopping last month for a new plan, there's not a hair's breadth between their plans as far as actual usage goes - and this nonsense about needing lengthy contracts to pay off phone costs is specious - e.g., They'll charge me $50 for an LG 1400 that I can buy NIB from a discount dealer for $120. That's a $70 discount at retail. It certainly can't take 2 years' profit on sales of $60 per month to make that $70 back. And if they can still charge ANYTHING for a Motorola 180 with a straight face... they're laughing at us afterwards.

If this is going to be our basic connectivity, then yes - someone should ensure that we have a phone and a signal that works and does a basic core of service. After that, it's the consumer's choice. You want a gold-plated toilet to run your public utility water thru? great. You want to use public utility power to run your own carousel? Knock yourself out. You want a B&O phone every five feet in your home connected to the DPUC guaranteed land line? Boo-yah. A RAZR in every pocket? Sweet.

But let's get the basics done to the public good. Katrina and Rita showed us that cell is more flexible and adaptable than land lines when the chips are down (yes, I know a cell tower needs a T1, but that's one circuit to supply hindreds of lines - not hundreds of lines to supply hundreds of lines) then it should be

What they need is a fair lending act...

[9Nails]

One that protects the consumer from paying 99% interest when they take out a loan. And one that protects the consumer from paying 200% on the loan value. Banks are such a rip off...

Don't get me started on insurance companies either...

Re:What they need is a fair lending act...

[HermanAB]

If a company is ripping you off, but you are still using that company, then they are doing something right and is probably highly profitable - so get your revenge on them by buying their stock.

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[kamileon]

I have a better idea:

- Doing things distruptive to others in public places punishable by death. How is talking loudly in a movie to your 17 year old best friend better than a cell phone?
- Being a crappy driver and swerving all over the road for any reason whatsoever prohibited.
- Loud ringers: already covered, see point 1. if it's loud in the privacy of one's home, who the hell cares?
- Make it legal to smack people who blame the symptom and not the cause.

Seriously, how the hell did this get modded insightful? This attitude of "If only people didn't use cell phones everything would be better" is ridiculous. Obnoxious cell phone users are obnoxious because they have terrible manners and no respect for others. Do you think that taking that little device away will help? Or do you think they'll just switch over to talking loudly to friends in movies, drinking lattes and putting on their makeup while driving, and continuing to ruin the world for everyone else?

out of control

[CDPatten]

The biggest problem in society today is our government is out of control. The reason that is the case is because the public is uneducated and lacks the testicular fortitude to take a principled stance without relying solely on how they "feel" at that second. Many of our fellow citizens believe in misguided "good intentions" over principled, moral, and most importantly constitutional stances.

Our politicians pass laws with no regard for what freedoms they violate, what their constitutionally defined role in society is, and laws that promote unconstitutional behavior. Instead of all these "ground breaking laws" they pass every other month, how about we try enforcing the hundreds of thousands of laws already on the books in the country.

It all makes me sick. republican and democrats are both greedy blood sucking traitors that only care about self interest. Our fore fathers would most certainly be rolling over in their graves.

But I think what scares me most is America is the freest nation in the world. Like the policies or not, we offer and defend more freedoms then anyone else. So where were can we go?

Re:out of control

[mdakin]

The biggest problem in society today is our government is out of control. The reason that is the case is because the public is uneducated

Your argument is contradicted by the fact that this legislation is happening in Massachusetts which has been ranked the "smartest" state in the country several years running (See: http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm). ;)

How did we get here?

[jbn-o]

"Why don't we let the economics of the industry take care of this?"

What's more instructive is to ask how we got to the point where users are complaining to their state representatives about their problems with cell phones. Apparently, "the economics of the industry" aren't addressing these complaints. Organized complaining is far more effective than customers negotiating with cell phone businesses on their own.

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think getting a cell phone jammer will help. Fuck cell phone users. As they say, 99% of cell phone users give the rest a bad name.

Yeah this is stupid.

[fone]

Sorry but the only thing this will do is raise the end cost for consumers. First off understand I work for one of the bigger big 4 cell companies, but I'm not corporate coating any of this post =P .
1.) 1 year contracts will make customers pay more for cell phones. We subsidize them based on the contract you sign. However its only about a 50$ difference, but expect that to change if they are forced into it.
2.) fixing dead spots... ok this is the most economically and logistically unfeasible things I've ever heard of. I live in a dead spot.. know why? Cause my apartment building is in the bottom of a small valley. I walk a block up the hill and I have signal. So are they supposed to put a tower beside my house because I have a dead spot even though signal picks up strong less than a block away? It is wireless folks, there are going to be places you can't make a call live with it or don't get a phone.
3.) The bills are not that difficult to understand. No more than any other utility. Just sit down and read the damn thing. There's no reason to legislate stupidity.

Re:Yeah this is stupid.

[adrenalinekick]

I agree with your points 1 and 3, but the dead spot issue is not purely an issue of feasibility with me. I don't really care if I live in a valley or if I live on a mountain. If I am paying for a service, I want it to work. Period. And if it doesn't work, I should not be forced to pay for it with lopsided 2 year contracts. Give the customer more rights to get out of their contracts if they live/work in a dead zone and maybe then I'll agree that fixing those dead spots in the valley is not a priority.

Re:Yeah this is stupid.

[boberthepker]

The following is not a result of corporate brainwashing and is not being typed on a company monitored PC. I am sitting at home typing MY thoughts about this in the middle of the night. I do tech support for one of the top 8 cell providers in the U.S. and I would recommend researching the reason behind the lack of signal strength in some areas. It's not because they don't care because believe me they would much rather fix it than to have to deal with all the complaints and the bad word of mouth advertising it causes. Signal strength is affected by many things. In large cities you have lots and lots of EMI (electro-magnetic interference) that is caused by anything and everything that runs on electricity. Not to mention all the steel and concrete that the radio waves can't penetrate. On the other hand if you're not in a large city there are probably lots of trees around. Tree leaves do a lot to radio waves. Whether they scatter the signal or absorb it I'm not sure, but you get the picture. Now the biggest problem is the answer to the issues above. The answer is more towers or putting towers closer together. The big problem is government regulations. YOU CANNOT JUST PUT A CELL PHONE TOWER ANYWHERE! You have to go through the FCC, the FAA, and other government bodies as well. In fact to cut through the red tape is the hardest part and the most time consuming (it takes over a year). From an idea in a business meeting to a fully functional, live, call-processing tower takes about 18 months. Oh yeah, forgot to mention you have to property to put it on. This isn't that big of an issue in a city where you can lease a spot on a building and no one ever notices it, but outside of the city there are lots of people that fight to keep towers out of their neighborhoods (wonder if their grandparents fought against utility poles). On another note, cell towers aren't even allowed in most state and national parks. About your experience with good signal out at sea, there isn't as much EMI, nor is there buildings and trees to get in the way, but 300 miles out to see probably has something to do with the way radio waves bounce off of different layers in the atmosphere. As for you wanting out of the contract due to dead zones, most if not all contracts state there is no guarantee of coverage, but most carriers have a 15 or 30 day guarantee to test the phone and network and still get out of the contract. I've said a lot but the main point I wanted to make was to quit complaining to the companies and start complaining to the government about how the tons or restrictions and regulations make it to build a great wireless network.

Re:Yeah this is stupid.

[boberthepker]

Sorry, I cut and paste too much from another post of mine in my first reply, please ignore the part about signal strength out at sea and contract stuff.

Why not follow Europe/Asia?

[WreckingCru]

I live in NYC and have a t-mobile cell phone connection, but I'm originally from India where the business model is very different from the US. Same with Europe (mainland at least from what I know).

There are no contracts. Mostly there is GSM service (and some CDMA) ...the competition is never on service - virtually anywhere you go in the country, you have full service - I don't think Indians have (in the last 4 years or so) ever experienced a 'dead zone'.
What you really pay for is the quality of the service and the cost. You CAN buy cellphones from the service provider but only the morons do that. Most phones are sold by retail outlets at *reasonable* prices (def not $400-500 for a monochrome model, like here) and you are charged by the minute rather than 'X minutes for $Y' plans. So the customer's choice is really value-added services provided, like GPRS, wireless internet access, special plans for special needs (for eg, if you send a lot of SMS, then you can pay a certain premium so that your per-sms cost goes down significantly, or if you travel abroad a lot, a particular service provider may have more tie-ins for intl roaming). There are no contracts at all - if you realise you don't like a service provider anymore, you can drop them tomorrow and sign up with another.

Personally, I prefer the X-min-for-$Y style plans, but I see the Indian/European business models as being more customer friendly. I'm currently searching for a new apartment, and my first concern is always "Will I have reception?" - something that is never of any concern in India.

The service providers must work towards changing the customer's mentality to get out these rebate+locked cell phones - it just gives the provider too much control over a device that is rightfully yours (like they can lock out some features). Users must be encouraged to get their own cellphones; it not only promotes independance for the consumer, but also technological knowledge of knowing what cellphone to get, what features you need etc (something a 10 year old kid as well as a 80 year old grandfather knows simply by virtue of being forced into buying their own phones).

It's obviously too much to ask for from service providers - they would like to keep max control over their customer base...but that's just stupid. It's prob one of the biggest reasons why the cell phone industry in the US is prob one of the most backward. And it's clearly not going anywhere anytime soon.

I have a Motorola A768i (which I procured separately) because I hate being tied down to T-mobile with their craptacular phones.

Now, please excuse me while I run outside and wave my hands in various directions like a madman hoping that some combination will cause my cellphone to find reception.

retarded

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

why the government needs to get involved in completely voluntary and non-essential cell phone contracts I have no idea. if you don't like a cell phone contract, don't sign it. if you don't like any cell phone contracts, start your own cell phone provider and offer your great terms and rule the world.

from the article ...

[Neuropol]

"... regulation isn't necessary because the industry is so competitive it has to adjusts to consumer demands."

Lies. All of them. The industry adjusts according to consumer demand but it does not, however, do so at a discount. Profit stands to the primary motive or else it wouldn't be such a competitive industry to have gotten so deeply involved in. Done so by having convinced the world we need it to survive now.

People choke when they hear the price of plans. One of the common questions is whether or not home phone number service can be ported in or not because it's just too expensive at times to maintain both. Often times it can happen and people dump their LAND line and just do every thing via cell.

On the negative side of that, where I live, due to local stranglehold on tower installations, the tower installations happen few and far between. So here most people are, stuck paying a premium for service they can't depend upon. I'm all for mandation of coverage. In fact, I just wish the companies would just shit or get off the pot on just switching every thing to GSM and put a few more birds up in the sky and make every one happy.

And No charges for incoming calls

[Maclir]

Any incoming calls to my cell phone should not count against my minutes, or incur any charges to me at all.

Hey - that's how it works in other counties.

Re:And No charges for incoming calls

[nemik]

Yes but other countries get 1/4 of the minutes you do per month. They will also look at you with a blank stare when you mention the words 'free weekend minutes' and 'night minutes' to them.

Re:And No charges for incoming calls

[Trip Ericson]

I have US Cellular, a regional carrier, for cell service. I get unlimited incoming while not roaming.

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[kamileon]

That's funny, I thought it was "100% of trolls give the rest a bad name".

Cell phone usage nationwide is on the order of 200 million subscribers, or roughly 2/3 of the US population. Since they aren't handing out cellphones to 3 year olds or the terminally old, that pretty much covers every adult in the US. Good luck getting a girlfriend that doesn't use a cellphone. Or a job. You can rage and complain all you want, but in the end we will crush your soul and dance on your Luddite corpse. MUAHAHAHA! (Err, where was I?) Oh right. I was pointing out the trollish absurdity of positing that 2/3 of the population are such horrible people as to deserve abuse for no reason.

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatthefuckever. There are plenty of professionals who DON'T have cell phones. It's only lameass no-life asshats like yourself that have the free time to yack on cell phones continuously. And don't further prove that you're a pathological liar by claiming you have a girlfriend.

Cell phones are nothing more than status symbols for people who are losers.

Negative impacts of typical MA socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

Another feel good proposal that sounds good but will screw consumers with less choice and higher rates. Who doesn't think the cell phone companies will pass on the costs of implementing special rules for MA, just like the phone companies pass on the Al Gore tax?

Car insurance in MA is already a wreck because of socialist government meddling: I recently moved from IN (lived in a town of ~40,000 with little crime and 3 mile commute) to MA (living in a town of 10,000 with little crime and a 3 mile commute). I haven't had a car insurance claim since 1996. My car insurance nearly tripled when I moved to MA. Reason: Socialist MA politicians have decided that good drivers living in low-accident, low-crime towns like mine should subsidize bad drivers in high-accident, high-crime areas, and the state sets the insurance rates. Result: few insurance companies even do business in MA, the rates are essentially set by the government, and good drivers get screwed. I and my Toyota are helping pay insurance for some bad driver who parks his Hummer near a crack house and wrecks it every three months, so that he has more pocket money to go buy cigarettes. :( And this is in addition to the 40% of my income that already goes straight to payroll and income taxes to pay the welfare check of the three women the same guy got pregnant out of wedlock. (20% fed + 5% state + 15% social-security and medicare including the hidden "employer" contribution)

MA: Stay away from my cell phone.

What Verizon's CEO Says About Your Rights

[ctwxman]

From a San Francisco Chronicle interview this past April. Speaking is Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon's CEO. As much as I want the market to decide, this attitude makes it tough to believe I'll always get a fair deal.

"Why in the world would you think your (cell) phone would work in your house?" he said. "The customer has come to expect so much. They want it to work in the elevator; they want it to work in the basement."

Seidenberg said it's not Verizon's responsibility to correct the misconception by giving out statistics on how often Verizon's service works inside homes or by distributing more detailed coverage maps, showing all the possible dead zones. He pointed out that there are five major wireless networks, none of which works perfectly everywhere.

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

How does it feel to be in the 2/3rds?

1 in 3 people in the world have a mobile phone. That ratio is only going to increase.

Get used to it.

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatthefuckever. There are plenty of professionals who DON'T have cell phones. It's only lameass no-life asshats like yourself that have the free time to yack on cell phones continuously. And don't further prove that you're a pathological liar by claiming you have a girlfriend.

Cell phones are nothing more than status symbols for people who are losers.
Yeah, high there. A few points.

Most importantly: Fuck you.

I don't have time to "talk on it incessantly" but it's cheaper to pay for a couple of cell phones for myself and my wife and be able to call our family members free anytime (on their cell phones) half a state away then to pay for a "basic phone with no fluff ($30)" + long distance by the minute for how much we communicate.

So go fuck yourself.

What's so special about cell phones?

[Sloppy]

One of the ways you can tell this is bullshit, is that it's about cell phones. If long contracts are a bad idea -- so bad, in fact, that citizens can't be trusted to Just Say No in their own interest, and the law must prohibit them from being offered -- then why only apply them to cell phones? If it's a horrible thing, then it's a horrible thing no matter what I'm buying.

Hard to read bills? The same thing. You think a cell phone bill is the only kind of bill that can be hard to figure out?

Re:What's so special about cell phones?

[Detritus]

Cell phones aren't special. That's why there have been a number of federal laws passed to curtail abuses in lending, consumer credit, telephone sales and other areas where the free market wasn't working. Industry specific laws are not unusual either. That's why there are public utility commissions, insurance regulators, and other license and regulatory bodies.

Only without mutual agreement.

[SeaFox]

That only works if everybody is being competitive. If there are only a handful of players in an industry they can all get together and collectively raise rates $2, Company A won't lose any cutomers to Company B and vice versa, because it won't gain the consumer anything. The only differnce is everyone will suddenly be paying $2 a month more in cell phone service.

Didn't you notice this happen when those upstart cell phone providers began offering per-second billing years ago? Where did that concept go?

The big boys at that time bought all the upstarts, then they all began to drop the per-second billing rate plans at about the same time. Consumers who were on them were given advance notice they were being ended and were given the choice of continuing service under one of the rate plans their new provider company offered or leaving. With no providers offering new customers per-second billing they didn't have a choice unless they wanted to stop having a cell phone completely (note that number portability not being an option at this time only made it easier to keep them with the current provider).

So now, once again you can't get per second billing. It's not an issue so much because plans cost so much less per minute now than they did then. But it shows exactly how innovation in services can be easily stopped when you can have lunch with all your competitors at McDonald's and only take one booth.

I hope it works!

[rebelx2]

My apartment building in downtown Boston is directly underneath a Cingular 5 bars billboard advertisement. Yet... I can't get squat on my cell phone in said apartment. Cingular may be good in other cities, but in Boston it's an utter joke. I quote Cingular when I called to complain about not being able to get any singal at all in DOWNTOWN Boston, "I'm sorry you are in a low population area with limited cell towers, we apologize for the inconvience. Is there any thing else I can help you with?" Boston = Low population? Guess the call center in India doesn't know which cities in the USA of large populations...

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Get used to cell phone jammers, fuckhead.

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. Real nice you're giving your family brain cancer (that explains your retardation), while annoying the rest of us. What a fuckhead you are.

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

As Animal Mother said in Full Metal Jacket, "All fucking cell phone users must fucking die!"

My taxes spent forcing carriers to raise my rates

[Xel]

Great, government is sticking their nose in again and telling companies how to run their affairs, when no one asked.

Be a grownup. If you don't like your service, pick a different carrier. If you don't like the contracts, then don't go with one. You can already find carriers that offer no-contract service plans, and even the carriers that DO offer service plans, do so at a discount- I had the choice of signing up for a 2 year plan, 1 year plan, or no contract.

If this bill should change anything, it should force the providers to all play nice and finally get on the same technology, so consumers are able to switch providers and keep their phones. They should also not be allowed to advertise a calling plan for $29.95 a month, and then tack on $14 in "taxes and regulatory fees", which no doubt will go up even MORE after this useless "bill of rights' is passed.

Very Quick Solution

[cr@ckwhore]

There's a very quick solution to the problem ...

If MA passes this, then all the cell providers in MA should pull out of the state and stop service. Period. How long do you think this "bill of rights" would last if there were suddenly no service? I give it about 2 days maximum before lawmakers reverse their decision, although it'll probably be a matter of only hours.

Besides this "bill of rights", what about the rights of the cell providers? The government of MA has no business meddling in private business like this. Thank god for New Hampshire!

Re:Very Quick Solution

[Enry]

If MA passes this, then all the cell providers in MA should pull out of the state and stop service. Period. How long do you think this "bill of rights" would last if there were suddenly no service? I give it about 2 days maximum before lawmakers reverse their decision, although it'll probably be a matter of only hours.

They tried that with car insurance a while back (before I moved here about 9 years ago). The state regulates car insurance premiums. Every year, the insurance companies want a double-digit increase, and the state asks for a single-digit increase. An independent comission then sets the rate, usually closer to what the state wants.

This year, both the state and insurance companies agreed that premiums should go down as a result of reduced costs to the insurance companies. The state is asking for ~10% decrease, the insurance companies .1%. I'll let you know how it turns out in two months when the rate gets set.

BTW, my car insurance is about 1/2 that of each of my brothers who live in different states and we're all pretty good drivers.

Re:Very Quick Solution

[cr@ckwhore]

Car insurance is a different matter ... in my example of shutting down cell service, the reason it would be so effective is that it would cause a significant disruption to most of the population in simple terms: "What the fsck, my cell phone stopped working."

At first, people would call (somehow) the cell phone companies, where they would be informed to instead call their lawmakers. Likewise, the cell companies would need to be vocal about the problem and make it a very public issue, just so people would understand *why* service had to be stopped.

Car insurance is a different matter. I don't think it would be easy (or even possible) to simply stop serving insurance. (The car insurance industry is a fraud anyway, but that's a different discussion)

Re:Very Quick Solution

[squiggleslash]

So what you're saying is that Cingular, Verizon, etc, are so reliant upon consumers screwing up and signing contracts that are not in the best interests, that if they were forced to play fair, they'd be unable to make a profit?

I mean, that's the only reason to withdraw from an area, right?

Or could they (*gasp*) make a profit in MA even if "limited" to one year contracts, if they were forced to honestly report pricing, and were required to provide coverage in exchange for consumer dollars, but they should act like a bunch of whiny crybabies if required to do all of these things?

Re:Very Quick Solution

[cr@ckwhore]

Unlike you, I believe in free markets where consumers can make their own decisions without any notion of government babysitting.

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. Real nice you're giving your family brain cancer (that explains your retardation), while annoying the rest of us. What a fuckhead you are.

Ahh yes, better adjust that tin foil. By the way, you'd better stop using the microwave and sitting in front of that monitor if you don't want cancer. In fact, do the world a favor and continue to wank off to porn on your monitor every night, with luck you'll develop testicular cancer and won't be able to breed.

because I (consumer) demand it

[bluGill]

As a consumer I demand the same rates in TinyTown and Megalopolis. Now I don't care what you charge the 100 residents of tinytown (I'm thinking one of many similar towns across the US). As a resident of Megalopolis I just want my phone to work at no extra charge no matter where I happen to be. If my travels take me to TinyTown, I want my phone to work.

Once you have a tower in tinyTown to serve me, it costs you more to setup a different billingplan for those residents who also want a phone, so you are better off giving them the same rates. I don't care much. Though if I find you are charging my friend in tonyTown (Remember there are thousands of TinyTowns that I might have a friend in) more than you charge me, but you have a competitor with the same rates and service, I'll go to your competitor out of sympathy.

Re:because I (consumer) demand it

[Secrity]

That would be one of the many reason that MegaCell doesn't sell service to the residents of Tinytown. In practice, both MegaCell and Tinytown Cellco provide uniform pricing in the areas that they do business. MegaCell will probably contract with a Tinytown Cellco to provide roaming service to MegaCell's Megalopolis customers (and probably to provide Megalopolis roaming service to Tinytown Cellco subscribers). If TinyTown is near an Interstate highway or it is in an area that many of MegaCell's customers expect service, MegaCell might arrange to have the contracted service branded as being MegaCell and not charge roaming charges to MegaCell's customers. Just because MegaCell has service available in Tinytown does not mean that MegaCell will provide service to the residents of Tinytown.

Re:because I (consumer) demand it

[bluGill]

True, but less and less true every day. Verizon, Cingular, and T-Mobil are buying companies out (and merging) all over to get service under the name.

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're so ignorant it's amazing you're able to even figure out how to breathe! What a fucktard.

Length of Contract Violates Your Rights?

[geoffrobinson]

If the government prevents you from entering into a mutually agreed upon contract length, how can that not strip you, however small, of some of your rights?

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're so ignorant it's amazing you're able to even figure out how to breathe! What a fucktard.

Then you show your own ignorance, asshat. Breathing doesn't require thought. Though maybe I shouldn't have told you that, you're obviously an exception. I bet that now you're real mad that your parents told you those "Breath in, Breath out" tapes were a normal part of growing up.

Re:My taxes spent forcing carriers to raise my rat

[mdakin]

They should also not be allowed to advertise a calling plan for $29.95 a month, and then tack on $14 in "taxes and regulatory fees", which no doubt will go up even MORE after this useless "bill of rights' is passed.

This is exactly one of the things that the proposed law would do. I thought you were against it?

From the text of S.B. 1790:

Section 117. (a) The department of telecommunications and energy shall promulgate regulations requiring that any publication, including publication on the internet, of a wireless telephone service provider concerning the terms of its plans or contracts for wireless telephone service shall set forth, in a plain and conspicuous manner, the following information:

...

(4) Information on taxes to be collected by the carrier for, and paid to, a state, local, or other governmental agency.

(5) Information on surcharges imposed by the carrier for the costs of compliance with regulations or for other purposes.

See: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st01/st0179 0.htm

lead walls?

[YesIAmAScript]

Is he having problems with his cell phone or his x-ray vision?

Subways work in Japan (and the US) because they put additional antennas inside the subway tunnels. They do this because there is a lot of money ot be made that way.

Do you think there's a lot of money to be made putting extra antennas inside this genteleman's house, regardless of which country it is in?

Re:How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, what a pathetic attempt at a comeback.

One "right" I don't understand....

[Jyms]

My contract is coming to an end. I do NOT want a new phone. I have to pay a penalty for the "right" NOT to get a new phone. This is worse than the M$ tax. I do not understand why I have to pay more for a contract (same rates, same free minutes, etc.) without a new phone then with a new phone. Can someone please explain how this works?

What REALLY causes accidents?

[bhiestand]

I've seen test sugesting the danger is not the cellphone at all, it's the fact that yhe driver loses consentration while talking. Same as driver losing consentration while talking to someone siting in the car, therefore, that should be ilegal to... right? :p

You should've read the whole study! The driver loses concentration because they're focusing on the person they're talking to, yes. This is the same in both situations. The difference is that the non-passenger can't see what's going on on the driver's side.

A passenger will recognize immediate danger and shutup, gasp, scream, or do something. Sometimes their reaction actually forces the driver to notice it. Most of the time it's more helpful than them continuing the conversation as normal.

The person you're talking to on the cell phone is going to keep talking like normal until you yell "SHIT" or they hear your car smash into another vehicle.

Hands-free headsets don't help with these problems at all; it's just more bullshit feel-good legislation designed to make people feel better about a perceived problem.

Actually, under a related theory, I propose that driving while receiving road head actually decreases accident rates infinitely more than using handsfree headsets. It not only gets your passenger to shutup, but forces you to be more alert and cautious as a driver (looking out for people with cameras, police, ad infinitum). It also has a tendency to temporarily reduce aggression, even after road head has reached its climax, which is known to be the cause of many accidents, all violence, and many unsafe habits.

I'd go so far as to say that all vehicles should be equipped with such devices by 2010. I'm even willing to risk my own safety and volunteer my time and technical skills as an alpha or beta tester.

Coffee drinkers bill of rights

[Anonymous Coward]

There simply aren't enough Dunkin Donuts franchises around the country, I mean the dead zones for getting my DD's fix when I am outside New England can be simply enormous in some places. I say we get some legislation going that requires DD's to have more store fronts in more locations. I simply shouldn't have to walk more than two blocks to get a cup of coffee and a cruller.

DD's makes so much money from consumers they should be required to provide better service coverage.

That's how STUPID a Cell Phone users bill of rights sounds. You DON'T have a right to have a cell phone or be a cell phone user or have any level of service at all! Rights are things that come w/o cost (breathing, living, speaking, thinking). Remember those things by which we are "endowed by our Creator".

Wait, even better, a GOVERNMENT sponsored cell phone company! Everybody gets a cell phone for free and we use the efficiancy of the government to keep prices low and ensure quality service!

Re:Coffee drinkers bill of rights

[squiggleslash]

Ok, one 69c sprinkle doughnut, and a $1.20 coffee... that's $12.

What do you mean that doesn't add up? It's quite simple: 6% sales tax, $5.75 Kitchen Hygene Upgrade surcharge, plus a few dollars in miscellaneous fees. You want to leave the restaurant and not buy this doughnut? I'm sorry, that'll be $250. What do you mean half the doughnut's missing? That's just a fault of the technology Sir, sometimes the dough just doesn't all stick together when we throw it in the frier, you're certainly not getting a discount or getting out of your contact because you've been dealt a bad one.

Look, you don't have to agree to a fucking CONTRACT to buy a doughnut. It's not normal business practice in the doughnut industry to lie about pricing and costs. It's not a complicated business for which the answers are often simply not available until you actually try to use the service. It's something that requires a voluntary outlay of a few dollars, when you can spare them. And if you don't like the local doughnut shops, you have a right to start your own if you think you can do better.

Besides which, since when has consumer protection laws, relevent to the products and services being regulated, been considered bad?

Trivializing the Bill of Rights

[bobcote]

Maybe this is off topic, but I am tired of two bit legislators (and Massachusetts has plenty) trivializing the US Constitution's Bill of Rights by attaching "Insert cause here Bill of Rights" to every bill they file.

Consumers of a given service should have certain rights and protections ,but these pale in comparison to the rights spelled out in the first 10 ammendments of the US Constitution. Maybe they aren't as fairly applied as they are supposed to be, but faults can be addressed and it's a goal to strive toward.

These "bills of rights" are just politicians trying to get re-elected.

Don't get me started on legislators who try to gain political support by capitalizing on the victim of a tragedy.