Slashdot Mirror
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."
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).
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
Start a happiness pandemic
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?
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!
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
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?
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.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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.
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.
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.
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?
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Danish law limits contracts to half a year.
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.
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.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
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.
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.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
Taxes are just a part of the way people can have their economic freedoms restricted:
4 /econ_freedom/00_summary.html
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/entrep/200
They seem to be in the worst 10, so now who'se letting the facts get in the way.
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!
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
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.
"You are only the sum of your thoughts."