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
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?
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.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.