New Bill to Clarify Cellphone Contracts

theorem4 writes to tell us that US Senators today unveiled legislation designed to empower cell phone customers across the nation by providing more protections and guaranteed options. "The Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007 will require wireless service providers to share simple, clear information on their services and charges with customers before they enter into long-term contracts; a thirty-day window in which to exit a contract without early termination fees; and greater flexibility to exit contracts with services that don't meet their needs."

Comments

money

[timmarhy]

watch for the "but we need to make money" argument... which is flawed - you also MUST provide a reasonable level of service to deserve said money

Re:money

[Phoenix Wright]

Nonsense.

If someone is willing to pay an amount for any arbitrary level of service (or even no service), that amount can (and will) be charged.

Businesses will always charge the highest amount people are willing to pay. That's capitalism.

"Must"? "Deserve"? These terms have no meaning when it comes to the free market.

Re:money

[KDR_11k]

That only works when the market is overflowing with "sellers". In a near-monopoly position people can be forced into much, MUCH worse conditions simply because they need the service and they can't get a deal that doesn't require pledging their first-born.

Re:money

[Phoenix Wright]

Technically true, but does not apply to this situation.

Is there a monopoly for cell phones? What is the name of this monopoly carrier? Oh, there's more than one? And they compete against each other? Hmm.

I understand what you are saying, but there is no near-monopoly. It's not super expensive to get into the business band and set up a private repeater (a la, Cricket). I mean, sure, it's not hobbiest-level, but with minimal financial backing you could put a service up for your town, and then charge what you want. Would you have national coverage like the big players? No, is that a requirement?

The current prices are what they are because people pay them. If people wouldn't pay them, they'd be some other price.

And, cell service is very rarely a "need". (In my family, we all earned our ham radio licenses. Even in remote areas, we could often find a repeater or autodialer. Of course, the conversations weren't private, but if there were an emergency, we could call for help. And of course, free to use.)

Re:money

[Anonymous Coward]

Businesses will always charge the highest amount people are willing to pay. That's capitalism.

And when there are only two companies on the market for most regions of the U.S., and those two companies engage in collusion, then the "highest amount" rises excessively while quality of service decreases. People are not choosing the service that provides the best value for their money, but instead, are being forced to choose between having some service for a lot of money, or having no service.

That's unregulated capitalism in the real world. Not quite like the textbook examples, eh?

Re:money

[Phoenix Wright]

No, that's exactly how the textbook examples work.

And if you are paying for cell service, you are contributing to this "problem". If it's still worth it to you to pay these prices for these services, then you are getting what you pay for.

If it isn't, cancel. Go without. A cell phone is not a NEED. FOOD is a need; a cell phone is a WANT.

For the record, two companies don't have to engage in collusion to screw you over on prices. It is entirely likely that they are both trying to screw you on prices independently. Because that's how capitalism WORKS. If you raise prices, and people are still paying, the price was TOO LOW INITIALLY. Prices will rise to meet perceived value. If people, like yourself, see cell phones as absolutely essential, prices will continue to rise absolutely.

Re:money

[CBM]

Markets are more efficient when information flows freely and is accurate.

Cell phone companies apparently obscure the terms of service and costs, and consumers end up being less than ideally informed. Competition in the cell phone industry is also limited since spectrum is a limited resource, and the barriers to entry are high.

For contract phones, the companies tend to compete on features rather than costs, for example number of minutes, "friends and family." For the market segment of consumers that are conscious cost, companies do offer prepaid phones.

Re:money

[KDR_11k]

If it isn't, cancel. Go without. A cell phone is not a NEED. FOOD is a need; a cell phone is a WANT.

Yeah unless your job involves them. You won't be paying directly but since your job pays for them they get money anyway.

Re:money

[Anonymous Coward]

This type of legislation is typically promoted by the large businesses in the industry who already provide these services to force their smaller competitors to scramble to meet the legislation or become extinct through government-imposed costs.

Re:money

[bombastinator]

Libertarian philosophy is not physics. Neither America nor almost any successful major government has ever had a totally free market. The American people can decide to "Deserve" anything they want to. Whether it's a good idea for them to do that in a given situation is another question entirely.

Re:money

[Anonymous Coward]

Should there be legislation passed to ensure that you provide a reasonable level of service to your employer? I get the feeling that most on Slashdot would be outraged by such a proposal. Depending on your ability, you may be deemed unfit for the field, and be forced to drop out. This would suck a lot for those below the threshold, but be great for those above. They'd have more job offers than they would know what to do with. However, the businesses that are forced to pay the higher rates as a result may not be all too pleased either.

I'm frequently reminded that slashdot is not a community of business owners.

Re:money

[Orange Crush]

If it isn't, cancel.

Agreed, except that being in a contract prevents this (or forces you to pay stiff penalties). Requiring more transparency in contracts and giving customers more options to cancel when the service doesn't meet their needs/expectations is fine by me.

Re:money

[sjames]

"Must"? "Deserve"? These terms have no meaning when it comes to the free market.

Sure they do. A seller MUST represent the product honestly and the customer deserves to get what he paid for. That is also part of the free market and its enforcement is generally the one government intervention in the market that is generally accepted as a good idea.

In an age where so many cell providers routinely tack on unpredictable surcharges (you only find out about them on the first bill), lie about coverage, make a significant profit from "billing errors", and other such frauds there are really only two choices. Clog the courts with disputes and accept that more than half the population will get screwed over OR mandate that customers can easily exit the contract early to both limit the damage done and punish routine offenders in the market.

Re:money

[TexVex]

And they compete against each other?

No, they don't. How do you compete over customers who are locked into contracts? Cell phone carriers collude, and it doesn't matter if it's complicit or implicit collusion. Each carrier has its own brands of phones, which are built to be incompatible with each others' networks, so that means the cell phone manufacturers are in on the deal as well. Because of the contract-subsidized discounts (it's really usury in disguise) on the locked-in phones, they can and do overcharge for the phones. Computers are dirt cheap because of competition -- why aren't cell phones?

The current prices are what they are because people pay them.

People pay them because they have no other choice.

Re:money

[TooMuchToDo]

No, they don't. How do you compete over customers who are locked into contracts? Cell phone carriers collude, and it doesn't matter if it's complicit or implicit collusion. Each carrier has its own brands of phones, which are built to be incompatible with each others' networks, so that means the cell phone manufacturers are in on the deal as well. Because of the contract-subsidized discounts (it's really usury in disguise) on the locked-in phones, they can and do overcharge for the phones. Computers are dirt cheap because of competition -- why aren't cell phones? Cellphones aren't cheap because it's expensive to build them (and don't give me that whiney BS that it's not expensive to build them. Try R&Ding one yourself, and putting it together). If people want them dirt cheap (example: Free phone with 2 year contract!), carriers have to subsidize the phone purchase, and make the money back over the life of the contact.

On to your next contention: Phone locking. It's true, this can and does happen. But let's be honest. There are only two major GSM networks in the US (AT&T and T-Mobile). There's only one major CDMA carrier (Verizon), one major iDen carrier (Nextel, now owned by Sprint), etc. Phones are not compatible with other networks. Period. This is in stark contrast to other parts of the world where several GSM providers will compete in the same geographic area. Until this occurs in the US, there's no room to quibble about it. You could of course bitch about cellphone manufacturers not building multi-technology phones (GSM, CDMA, etc chipsets all in the same phone), but you'd have to take that up with the manufacturers, not the cellular network providers.

There are many reasons why contracts and phone locking exist in the US, and the main reason is build out costs. Do you know how many billions were outlaid in getting spectrum and towers built out, as well as the rest of the infrastructure needed to run a cellular carrier network? HUGE amounts of money were spent, and companies want to make that money back as well as a return (although how much of a return/margin is a topic for another discussion).

Re:money

[jamar0303]

That's odd- that's exactly how the Chinese wireless market is (2 providers, apparently Virgin Mobile was at one time scheduled to enter the market too but it never happened) but you don't see sky-high prices like in America, and prepaid users are treated essentially the same as postpaid users.

For example, China Mobile charges $.02/minute voice, $.01/text, and $.01/3KB. They also have package plans that work by deducting a set amount monthly from your prepaid account. I have one that gives me 20 minutes and 60 texts for $1.30, and another that gives me 50MB of data (tethered or WAP) for $2.30. Compare to AT&T Mobility which charges $.25/minute, $.10-20/text, and $.01/KB for data. Oh, and they had that wonderful (sarcasm here) $10 for 5MB package. The kicker- for text and data it's cheaper to roam in from China Mobile ($.10/text and $.01/2KB) than to get a prepaid SIM from AT&T. And don't give me any of that "apples and oranges" stuff- AT&T certainly doesn't cover all of the US, just like China Mobile doesn't cover the far reaches of China (China Unicom, however, does a great job of that- and they charge essentially the same rates, except that their data package plan gives 100MB for the price that China Mobile charges for 50MB- I don't go with them because they only have GPRS, while China Mobile has EDGE).

Re:money

[Reaperducer]

How do you compete over customers who are locked into contracts?

Anyone on Slashdot who has a cell phone contract should turn in his geek card. (Except if you did it to get an iPhone)

Re:money

[Anonymous Coward]

And when there are only two companies on the market for most regions of the U.S.,

Two? There are at least five nationwide providers. T-Mobile, AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Nextel.

Re:money

[Repossessed]

A phone *is* a need. Without it I cannot get a job, or arrange for utilities, or keep my mother from showing up at my door every day. The entire reason I got one is that I needed it in order to keep a job at one point. (erratic hours, I usually only got 3 or 4 hours heads up before I needed to be at work, which meant either a cell phone, or being home or working 24/7). Now of course, I'm stuck with a sprint phone for the next year and a half.

That said, cell phones provide a very necessary competition for phone service in general, and I'[m actually able to save a substantial amount over what I would pay for a landline, by manipulating the various deals available to me. (I'm in a family share plan that's large enough I total about 15 dollars a month, and we can spread that out among multiple locations).

Re:money

[tungstencoil]

I beg to differ on your cost analysis, at least to a point.

The US has some of the lowest cost-per-minute in the world. http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070902/COMMEN TARY/109020022 . According to the article, only Hong Kong is cheaper, and that jives with my personal knowledge (almost 10 years in the wireless telecom industry). What you're comparing is one particular carrier's US prepaid service to China's pre-paid. The apples-to-oranges here is that in China, pre-paid is the norm; here in the US, post-paid is. If you take the US's lowest cost per minute (which is less than the average of $.07 quoted in the article) and compare it to China's, you'd find them much closer. Likewise, if you compare the highest to the highest... well, you get my point. If you want to paint an accurate comparison, you should point out that the US' cost for prepaid is much greater than most other countries' cost for prepaid (which is certainly very true).

Yes, part of the reason costs are lower for post-paid here is because of contracts, but that doesn't mean it's not cheaper. Oh, and that mobile phone you purchase here for less than a hundred bucks costs two or three times as much for comparable elsewhere. Just visit your favorite manufacturer and compare prices on the same/similar models as to what the carriers offer here with a contract. The contract agreement allows the carrier to buy-down the cost of the hardware to below the cost (e.g. the carrier subsidises the cost for you)

That being said, the contract thing does suck, but if you're going to make the argument that the total cost of ownership for a mobile in the US is always completely higher than elsewhere, well, you're simply incorrect. Prices here are not "sky-high" compared to the rest of the world. As always, one can cherry-pick examples in either direction, but when one looks at typical/average, the US actually comes in pretty good.

Re:money

[David_W]

You could of course bitch about cellphone manufacturers not building multi-technology phones (GSM, CDMA, etc chipsets all in the same phone), but you'd have to take that up with the manufacturers, not the cellular network providers.

Random musing... I've wondered why the manufacturers haven't done that. Is it because the additional costs brought on by the non-compatible technologies would make the phone prices too high? Or could it be because they feel (or know) the carriers wouldn't sell them since they aren't locked to specific networks?

Re:money

[TooMuchToDo]

It's a couple of reasons. One of them is of course carriers would have a problem with it. Another reason is the cost (even if the additional cost is only $2-$5/unit, spread across a million units it adds up, and it may be a cost they can't pass along to the consumer making the phone even more expensive). A big reason though is both size and battery consumption. More chipsets within the device increases the size of the device as well as the current draw. I've been playing with the T-Mobile@Home service, where the phone has both a GSM and Wi-Fi chipset (to run calls over Wi-Fi base stations when available). The Wi-Fi current draw is more then the GSM current draw due to how the specs for 802.11 were drawn out.

Re:money

[Mr. Freeman]

In a truly free market the words "employee rights", "unions", "overtime" don't exist either. The government had to write laws to mandate all of those things because companies were screwing over everyone.

Re:money

[KDR_11k]

How else are you going to get internet when out of WiFi range?

(oh, right, going outside means turning your geek card in, I forgot)

Re:money

[Anonymous Coward]

carriers have to subsidize the phone purchase, and make the money back over the life of the contact.

No they don't. It's just that they found it was easier to sign up new customers that way, because young people can't think more than one paycheck ahead.

Re:money

[Pendersempai]

You know, there is a solution to that: don't sign a long-term contract. You don't have to, after all. You won't get a free phone, of course, but they won't try to stop you.

Re:money

[ciscoguy01]

You know, there is a solution to that: don't sign a long-term contract. You don't have to, after all. You won't get a free phone, of course, but they won't try to stop you.

Try that with ATT.
Call them up and tell them you already have a suitable phone and you want month to month service with no 2 year contract.
NOPE. Not available. Even without a phone subsidy. Except on a really overpriced prepaid service, that it.

I asked them what the 2 year contract was for if I wasn't getting a free or discounted phone. They had no answer. But you can't get service from ATT without a contract. Sleazy. And they are not alone. All cellular carriers in the US are sleazy.

Re:money

[kage.j]

There are multi-technology phones, they're just few and far between (as sibling said, power and cost effectiveness)

Re:money

[jamar0303]

...You're right. Pre-paid is the norm here (I am a US citizen in China) as opposed to the US. It kind of pissed me off that I was stuck with a crap service plan in America because I wasn't staying long enough to be on a contract (although T-Mobile's FlexPay will certainly be something I will consider on my next visit- college). Oh, and I suppose I didn't notice the prices of phones because I usually buy my own unlocked phones. Here in China I *can* get a phone with 1.3MP camera, movie viewer, MP3 player, internet, streaming media, all that jazz for less than $100 without a contract. I hate being locked down to one carrier, so I always make sure to buy off contract.

That was a relatively new habit that sprouted after I moved to China, though. In the States I was fine with being on contract, because, hey, I'm going to be in the same place for high school, I won't be going anywhere for that year of the contract (T-Mobile). Nope- in the 1st semester of 9th grade I was up and moved to China. My phone didn't work with a local SIM, I was unhappy.

On an unrelated note- China's nice... I can find a lot of stuff, including cellphones, for cheaper than in the US. Of course, sometimes you want to pay more for imported stuff just to be on the safe side.

Re:money

[Reaperducer]

On a cell connection without a contract. Duh.

Re:money

[tungstencoil]

You do bring up a good point about the China knock-offs being very inexpensive, and often of high quality http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/e7e48a137b 144110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html . So, perhaps China vs US is just not a typical comparison, huh?

It's cool that you're getting those experiences; I'm very jealous!

Re:money

[jamar0303]

Thanks. You should really try visiting sometime. BTW- I definitely do NOT recommend a non-stop flight if you decide to come to China sometime. I prefer flying a Japanese airline and transferring through Tokyo- the experience is much better given the condition of current US airlines.

Good!

[Phoenix Wright]

I think this is a great idea. I just moved back to the US from Japan. I actually never had a cell phone (gasp!) until I went to Japan. Now that I'm back, I'm looking for a local replacement.

So far, every plan I've seen is incomprehensible or misleading. Or both. As soon as I find a reasonable, understandable plan, I'll jump at it.

Still looking...

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as I find a reasonable, understandable plan, I'll jump at it.

You mean like prepaid?

Re:Good!

[twistedcubic]

I've used prepaid for a few years, and a regular contract for the prior three years. I'm back to a paid plan now with Cingular. It's overpriced at $51/month ($39.99 plan plus taxes), and has by far the worst reception in all parts of the USA where I've traveled, but the rollover minutes are compelling, especially for someone like myself who doesn't live on the phone, and my mother and gf both are on Cingular, so I talk to them for free. Prepaid is good too, if you don't live on the phone, but people do get annoyed when I refuse to add minutes and the phone is off (didn't mind it that much, really, but I had to get a regular line for other reasons).

Re:Good!

[Phoenix Wright]

I've been looking at prepaid for a while. It's probably what I'll eventually go with, since I will have a landline (not paid for by me). I won't be living on my mobile.

$51/month.... (whistles). In Japan I was on the White Plan. What is that now, $9/month? Less?

Re:Good!

[Seumas]

I don't see what the big deal is with cell phone bills. They don't seem all that complex to me. The problems I've had with phone bills is six straight months where I had to spend hours each month on the phone, because they were double-billing me. Or the many months I had to deal with them where they kept adding services to my account that I specifically refused and asked not to have... and that they would add back again after I spent hours on the phone removing them. Or the two times they turned off my unlimited net access on my phone, causing me to rack up thousands of dollars in bills for what should have been a $20 unlimited fee.

None of these were due to the contract. These were all due to crappy business practices and nothing else.

There shouldn't be anything *deceiving* in a phone bill. I can certainly agree with that. But I don't see why they should be legally bound to make a phone bill read at a fifth grade level like the daily newspaper.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think it's a step towards curbing those crappy business practices. If people can understand what they're actually bound to, then they can successfully argue against the companies when they get screwed.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see what the big deal is with cell phone bills. They don't seem all that complex to me. While I don't personally have difficulty understanding my mobile plan or bill, stories like this always remind me of something someone I used to work with once told me: He said when he worked as a management consultant for one of the Bells during the 90s, devising a multitude of plans that were confusing for consumers to understand the details of and moreover difficult for consumers to pick the best plan for their actual usage needs was a deliberate stratagem. It was plainly more profitable if consumers failed to pick the best plan for their needs. I don't know that legislation is necessary, but I can certainly appreciate the benefit of a standard specification for describing plans and bills across carriers: you could actually conduct meaningful machine comparisons.

Re:Good!

[demonlapin]

I looked around a bit and went with T-Mobile. If you can tolerate a bit of up-front cost, you can get a phone for about $80 (phone price + $35 activation fee) and spend $100 to get 1000 prepaid minutes that don't expire for a year (if you put less on there, the minutes expire in 3 months). I got a Motorola v195, which no longer appears on their site, but it's a quad-band GSM - so I could use it worldwide. And T-mobile will unlock a prepaid phone on request after 3 months of use. (I don't work for them, or know anybody who does - but it was a pretty good deal.)

Re:Good!

[sjames]

There shouldn't be anything *deceiving* in a phone bill. I can certainly agree with that. But I don't see why they should be legally bound to make a phone bill read at a fifth grade level like the daily newspaper.

The clearer and simpler the bill must be the harder it is to sweep the many errors under the rug. Complexity is sometimes used as a tool to commit "deception in plain sight". Considering that there's nothing in a cellphone bill that should require more than a 5th grade education to understand, any additional complexity is suspect.

Re:Good!

[zippthorne]

It is not $39.99 + $11.01 in taxes. If you look carefully at your bill, you'll find that there are a few fees that look like they go to the government, and may even have words like "federal" in there somewhere, but if you actually talk to your provider you'll find that they are, in fact,(sometimes federally mandated) costs of doing business.

In other words, they are presenting as fees things that should have been folded into the advertised price.

As an analogy, you wouldn't expect McDonald's to advertise "99 cent hamburgers!" and then charge an extra 18 cents when you buy one as a "State Health Department Cleanliness Fee," would you?

Advice Requested

[pipingguy]

I'll be visiting the US from Canada soon and I have a pay-per-minute cell phone plan (I don't use enough minutes per month to justify a monthly plan). How bad are roaming charges in the US? I've heard nightmare stories of people getting billed ridiculous amounts of money per call when travelling. Is this just FUD or should I just turn the thing off until I need it?

Re:Advice Requested

[rts008]

Really and truly not trying to be a jerk, but wouldn't you try calling your service provider with those same questions to get an at least semi-accurate answer?

Disclaimer:
I do not use/own, or have in my presence a cell phone- I do not really know Jack about this subject, but was just curious.

Hhmm?...There are the 'buy some minutes' type solutions for most of the mainstream service providers...ie: AT&T, NetZero, Xingular, etc... at least in Oklahoma...If we have it, surely it is already thriving everywhere else. After all, we still have Cowboys and Indians out here!!!!

I don't normally go for Country music, but I do understand a lot of the sentiment behind Merle Haggard's "I'm Proud to Be an Okie From Muskogee" after transplanting here 18 years ago.

Re:Advice Requested

[Gnavpot]

I'll be visiting the US from Canada soon and I have a pay-per-minute cell phone plan (I don't use enough minutes per month to justify a monthly plan). How bad are roaming charges in the US? I've heard nightmare stories of people getting billed ridiculous amounts of money per call when travelling. Is this just FUD or should I just turn the thing off until I need it?

I have no idea how it works in Canada/USA. But I can tell you that in Europe, you have to very careful if you have an answering service in your cell phone plan.

If you travel to a foreign country and then switches off the phone, all incoming calls from your home country will still be routed to the foreign country. Since the phone is switched off, the call will then be routed back to the answering service in your home country. And you have to pay foreign calls per minute for this (one or both ways, I don't remember).

I doubt the routing of the call works this way in reality, but on the phone bill it does.

Re:Advice Requested

[Tony Hoyle]

Which carrier is this? I've never heard of it or had it happen and I'd raise hell if one tried to pull it on me.

It doesn't even make sense - if your phone is off it isn't even on the network so there's nowhere for it to route.. the have no idea what country you're in.

Re:Advice Requested

[JackHoffman]

All providers do it that way. It only happens if you use conditional call diversion: You're in a foreign country, your cellphone rings and you don't answer it (or you reject the call or the phone is off), the call is diverted (back) to your mailbox, you pay roaming charges for "receiving" the call in the foreign country and for diverting the call back to your home country. Yes, it's a trap. It's particularly dangerous for people who live close to a border where the phone often switches to the foreign network based on reception strength.

Re:Advice Requested

[Anonymous Coward]

You're probably better off buying that low-end Motorola phone with the eInk screen and a US PAYG SIM if you plan to talk for more than 20 hours on the phone in the states, to people in the states. Or buy a Nokia N800 and stick Skype on it, and call from coffee shops...

Re:Advice Requested

[Gnavpot]

It doesn't even make sense - if your phone is off it isn't even on the network so there's nowhere for it to route.. the have no idea what country you're in.

Of course it makes sense. Otherwise I would not have written it.

The phone will be "registered" to the network it was last connected to. So all calls go to that network, also when it is switched off.

Re:Advice Requested

[m.ducharme]

Pay as you go service in Canada is very low-margin, and they've set up their phone systems so that you never, ever, talk to a human. I used to sell Rogers phones when I worked at Radio Shack a few years ago, and even when the dealer called to activate a Paygo phone, we never, ever, talked to a human. Only customers with contracts get human customer service.

Re:Advice Requested

[cyberwench]

Nightmarish. Make sure you read all the small print - usually if you dig enough you can find the full description of fees in the middle of some contract on their web site. If you've got a GSM phone, you can ask the carrier to unlock it for you and then just get a prepaid SIM in the US. It'll probably be much cheaper in the long run. Another thing to keep in mind is that if your phone is on and a call goes through to it - even if you don't answer it, you'll be charged for that call. That was a fun charge to figure out. =)

Re:Advice Requested

[pipingguy]

...at least in Oklahoma...

I hope to get to OK someday, we Canucks hear about these places but never visit them. Even though we know more about you than you know about us the US is still interesting. Stereotypes abound eh.

Re:Advice Requested

[Phoobarnvaz]

I'll be visiting the US from Canada soon and I have a pay-per-minute cell phone plan (I don't use enough minutes per month to justify a monthly plan). How bad are roaming charges in the US? I've heard nightmare stories of people getting billed ridiculous amounts of money per call when travelling.

Another option you have available...maybe even in Canada...is going to a pre-paid provider like Virgin Mobile or Tracfone. Been using VM for several years...since I only use it for emergencies & $20 every 3 months is fine with me.

The only thing you need to watch out for with VM is that I have never had mine roam...either I have service or I don't. On the other hand...from what I've heard...Tracfone will do roaming & it's paid for with your amount of minutes.

New Contract--Sample

[Anonymous Coward]

The undersigned agrees to give the service provider as much money as demanded at any time up to and including selling dogs, cats, children, and/or spouse into slavery.

In the event that the cellphone causes the death of the undersigned, the service provider will be exempt from lawsuits and given permission to riffle through the pockets of the deceased for spare change.

30 days not enough

[Anonymous Coward]

You need more than one billing period to know for sure.

m10

They need to ban locked phones like in some places

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read about some countries that make "locked phones" -- phones which without modification can only be used with a single carrier -- illegal to put on the market. I think that is the right idea. Such vendor lock-in goes against capitalist principles, and is the other reason carriers have a strangle-hold on consumers in the US.

If the government wants to empower consumers in the cell phone marketplace, it'd let them do with their phones what they wish -- including switching carriers. Ban locked phones.

It's about time

[jt2377]

I've t-mobile and it used to be you can enter for one year contract and renew it every year but now t-mobile require its customer to enter at least two years contract and if you want change plan or phone. the contract will get extended again for another two years.

Re:It's about time

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you can get a one-year contract from T-Mobile, but you have to ask for it.

You know what I want?

[evanbd]

I want a $39.95 plan to actually cost $39.95. As in, that's the number at the bottom of the bill that I have to pay each month.

I don't want to pay "regulatory surcharges" or "cost recovery fees" or anything else that isn't included in the advertised price. And this goes for all these sorts of contracts, not just cell phones.

Re:You know what I want?

[bwave]

Easy, go prepay. I pay $30 a month to Verizon, $30 flat, no extra BS. Of course I call only VZ customers or nights weekends. I at most use about 8 minutes a month outside network peak hours @ 10cents a min. I don't understand these people I know with $69+ monthly bills, WTF are you talking to for 1200 minutes, that's 20 hours a month on the phone??!? I have friends that use 2400min and 400+ texts a month = CRAZY!

Re:You know what I want?

[frdmfghtr]

WTF are you talking to for 1200 minutes, that's 20 hours a month on the phone??!?

I used to think that as well, until recently when I started burning over 1000 minutes per month, and don't consider myself a phone junkie. 1200 minutes per month is about 40 minutes per day; if your cellphone is your only line, your usage will add up fast, esp. if your family and friends don't use instant messaging.

Much like a nickel here and a dime there adds up to real money over time, cell phone use does the same thing.

Re:You know what I want?

[Shivetya]

blame the governments, local, state, and federal, for this crap.

If they didn't have so many different ways to steal our money do you think Cellphone companies would have this sort of problem?

It is just like the junk fees we have with plane tickets. The flight is only "X" dollars - what the airline wants for the ticket, but you have to tack on taxes, some nearly double digit, landing fees, luggage fees, security fees, and anything else the locals can dream up (stadium fees anyone). Fees are just taxes with a different name but I don't see people bitching about the government, no they go off in their little brainwashed way blaming the corporations because the politicians vilify those entities with aplomb

Re:You know what I want?

[csnydermvpsoft]

"Fees" aren't the same as taxes. Think about what "regulatory cost recovery charge (as seen on my ATT Wireless bill)" means: the carrier incurred an extra expense to implement something required by the government (emergency service support, rural location service, etc.). Whether you like the regulations or not, the cell phone providers should include them in their base price - they're part of the cost of doing business, after all.

Re:You know what I want?

[AncientPC]

Old billing system:

Monthly charge 39.95
x fee 2.00
y fee 1.00
Subtotal 42.95

New billing system:

Monthly charge 42.95
Subtotal 42.95

Yup, much better.

Re:You know what I want?

[Aerosiecki]

I don't want to pay "regulatory surcharges" or "cost recovery fees" or anything else that isn't included in the advertised price. Surprise, surprise - many of those extra fees are levied by the same government that so desparately wants to 'protect' you from unfair contracts. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me that if a bill like this passed, we'd see an extra $1.49 every month for "Contract Clarity Compliance". Every time the government steps into business, it hurts smart, capable consumers. Period.

Re:You know what I want?

[cartmans_trapperkeep]

Want it all you want. It won't happen. The regulatory charges and taxes vary depending on your location. It will seriously foul up advertising to even attempt it. Everytime I sign up for service my provider can tell me exactly what I will be paying, but the TV ads certainly can't.

Re:You know what I want?

[Moofie]

Um, OK, smart guy. What wireless phone provider do the allegedly "smart, capable consumers" use?

Re:You know what I want?

[RealGrouchy]

Want it all you want. It won't happen. I call bull.

I have just that sort of plan. $30/month plus tax, period.

Any additional charges are for extras that I have added to the plan.

Bell Canada introduced a few of these such plans after Virgin Mobile came to town with its easy-to-understand, no-contract, no-hidden-fees, pay-by-the-minute plans.

So it is possible.

- RG>

Wrong crowd...

[Hamster Lover]

Why are you directing your call to what I assume are American Slashdotters? You need to contact your carrier in Canada and ask them what the charges are when using your phone in the United States.

You mention that you are on a pay as you go plan. I looked up the various roaming charges while in the United States for you:

Rogers Pay as You Go and Fido pre-paid:

Calls Back to Canada from the U.S. $2.49 per minute
Calls within the U.S. while in the U.S. (local and long distance calls) $2.49 per minute
Incoming calls while in the U.S. $2.49 per minute
Received in the U.S. Free
Sent from the U.S. 40 per message

Telus Pay and Talk:

U.S. roaming not available.

Bell prepaid wireless:

$0.99/min long distance + $1.80 local call charge

So, in a word, it's not worth it.

Re:Wrong crowd...

[pipingguy]

I did try to ask my provider (it's a major one), waited for too long for an answer (we're transferring you now.......CLICK), and gave up. Perhaps customer service is not a priority for those not paying monthly or maybe it was just a really busy day for CSRs. Then I called my ex-wife, who used to work for the cell phone company in question, and she told me to fuck off (I guess I should have expected that).

I was hoping for some feedback/personal experience from Canadians that have roamed in the US. There must be at least a few dozen Canucks reading Slashdot that could offer advice.

Re:Wrong crowd...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hamster Lover gave you the relevant prices. What more do you need? Generally speaking, roaming is too expensive unless you choose a plan specifically for low roaming costs. Better get a local prepaid SIM and put an away message on your mailbox with your "new" number.

Re:Wrong crowd...

[m.ducharme]

Actually, you need a bit more information. The prices GP quoted are probably for roaming on Partner networks only. If you roam to a network that isn't partnered up with your Canadian carrier, the roaming charges go waaaaaay up. Pay as you go is the worst, because they will often demand a credit card number before you can connect and roam. Turn the phone off within 25 miles of the border, and save yourself the hassle and money.

Re:Wrong crowd...

[pipingguy]

Merci. It's not like I can't afford the extra cost, I just don't want to get screwed and encourage them. People need to start asking more questions about cell phone services and costs. I suspect that too many just accept what they're offered and I resent the liberties that the cell phone companies take.

I know it's Saturday AM, but now (I just tried three times) I'm getting bounced around from automated service to automated service only to find out that "our offices are open Mond...".

Why didn't they just say that in the first place and save some wear off my fingertips and patience? Oops, I forgot, they laid-off the actual humans, they were too expensive.

Re:Wrong crowd...

[eihab]

It also depends on which area you're visiting in the US and which cell phone providers cover that area.

If you're coming down to California, T-Mobile is a pretty good choice for pre-paid phones.

I second everyone's opinion on roaming charges being expensive compared to a local pre-paid phone. I have no exact numbers to back this up, so hopefully you can get a hold of your provider soon.

Bottom line, you have to ask yourself: how valuable is it for you to have your Canadian phone number, how long are you going to stay, how many calls are you expecting to make/receive, etc. And then choose the cheapest (or most convenient) option based on your budget.

Just my 2 cents.

Novel Idea

[eggman9713]

How many people actually read the contracts? I actually read my entire contract and understand it, and have nothing to complain about. People need to actually read and understand their current contracts beofre they can complain about them.

Re:Novel Idea

[stewbacca]

The complaint is that no matter what service you pick, you have to sign a contract. Consumers have no choice (in America, not true in the UK), because EVERY company uses the exact same contract model. People don't read the contracts because they are all basically the same...x minutes...x data...blah blah blah...eight million dollars to cancel early...small print...blah...legalese....blah.

Re:Novel Idea

[illuminus86]

Even though there is the financial aspect, there is really nothing stopping someone from walking in, buying a phone at full price, and getting a month-to-month service. The problem is that universally, the contracts themselves, are unfair. There is always clear print about the customer's responsibilities - pay X monthly, or pay Y (which is about 5x) to cancel early. But the companies are always covered by a clause that usually reads something like "terms are subject to change without notice". And very few companies offer a trial period that is long enough, and unrestrictive enough, to help the customer. Its an unfair business practice because there is no alternative that is financially similar. I don't think a bill such as this one would pass, but I do think it would be interesting to see someone sue a cell company over the potential illegality of their contracts.

Hallelujah

[clarkkent09]

My coworker switched phone companies and didn't get a chance to try the new phone from home for the three days window they give you (can't remember why but he had a good reason). Guess what, it turns out he didn't have any service in his house, as in zero bars. He wrangled with them for weeks but in the end he had to pay cancellation fees.

That's the problem with the buyer beware libertarian crowd. What if the buyer is not a trained lawyer and does not understand every small print clause in every contract for everything he buys which is deliberately made as convoluted as possible? Is there any good reason why there shouldn't be some legal requirement for the seller to make it clear in plain english what the hell exactly are you getting for your money, not just in cell phone contracts but in general?

Re:Hallelujah

[bombastinator]

One of the standard arguments against Libertarian philosophy, and especially that section of it embraced by many neo-conservative groups is that a lot of the time it ends up merely being an excuse for those who want to prey on the weak.

Re:Hallelujah

[Phoenix Wright]

That's the problem with the buyer beware libertarian crowd.

Fraud is against libertarian principles. "Buyer beware" is not a libertarian maxim. The situation you describe, the convoluted contracts and small print, is contrary to libertarian ideals.

Just fyi.

Re:Hallelujah

[clarkkent09]

Actually, we are not talking about fraud here. Would a libertarian prosecute the phone company for fraud for writing some contract details in small font or in a complicated legalistic language? Are you going to tell me that government regulation of what can and cannot be written in a contract between two consenting parties is not directly contrary to libertarian ideals?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against libertarian philosophy in principle but this case is just a small illustration of the practical problems.

Re:Hallelujah

[carpe.cervisiam]

DISCLAIMER: I work for a cell phone company. I happen to agree with you that 3 days is too short of a time to cancel without early termination fees. The company I work for, who i will not name, offers three days with no fees whatsoever and you can cancel within 30 days for any reason and only be responsible for the actual usage and prorated monthly service charges. That seems pretty reasonable to me, try it and if you don't like the way it works return it and only pay for the service that you used. As far as early termination fees go, the only reason they exist is to recoup the subsidy on discounted phones. If Congress makes it illegal to charge an early termination fee, expect to pay a lot more for a new cell phone. The article talks about ETFs as being "budget-busters". The price difference between the full retail price and the discounted price of a phone with a new contract is usually greater than the amount of the ETF. For instance, the motorola v3xx with no service can be had from motorola's website for 289.99, the same phone from at&t's website is 99.99 with a two year contract. At&t charges a 175.00 ETF. You do the math.

Re:Hallelujah

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a case of libertarian philosophy, or buyer beware or anything else. It's a case of this man agreeing to buy a phone when the time wasn't right for him. The time limit could have been 1 year and there'd be an excuse to need more time (lost my hearing, global thermonuclear war, leprosy, etc, etc). Three days is plenty and if he had such pressing matters he could not check the phone in his house at that time (they would have to be seriously pressing before I'd even feel bad for the guy, pressing like a spouse/mother/father/son/daughter's death or being strapped to a hospital bed and not being allowed visitors--I can't think of anything else that would work for me) then he has to pay the dues. Even if those things happened to him, he still needs to pay, but he gets my sympathies.

Does a court feel bad for you if you find excuses for not paying your fines on time resulting in your license being suspended and you being hauled into a prison cell for the night? Fuck no. Neither do I. Why the hell should a company feel for you if a judge can't?

Re:Hallelujah

[mr_matticus]

That sounds like the ETF exactly covers their losses. You don't honestly believe that your provider pays retail price for handsets, do you?

This is the problem with early termination fees. They are exactly priced to ensure that the cellular provider doesn't suffer a loss. That's perfectly fine and reasonable for people who take subsidized phones. However, when I bring my own phone to a provider and pay an activation fee (which would be waived if I bought a phone from them), and THEN they still try to charge an early termination fee, they're just extorting money. I paid for the service I used, I didn't put them in the hole even one penny by getting a subsidized phone, and I want to leave because I'm leaving the country. They don't seem to care.

Re:Hallelujah

[Baricom]

If the only purpose of early termination fees is to recoup phone subsidies, then the carriers should have no problem prorating them based on how much you've already paid toward the phone.

Re:Hallelujah

[maztuhblastah]

You realize that, in the example you gave, it was your friend's inaction that caused him to have to pay the cancellation fees? He decided that he had other priorities during those three days. Fine. But if he decided that he had more important things to do than test his cellphone (something that takes 20 seconds), then he should be prepared to deal with the consequences (either no service, or a cancellation fee.)

But that's not the real problem. The real reason that the US cellphone market SUCKS is the FCC. By artificially raising the entry barrier to such heights, they prevent the creation of any new competitors. We're left with the same group, albeit a group that constantly reshuffles, rebrands, and renames themselves to make it look as though there's an active market. If we get rid of such governmentally-enforced barriers, we'd have real competition. As it is now, we have three companies working together to keep the market locked in place.

Re:Hallelujah

[ewl1217]

This isn't about limiting what can be put in a contract; this is about rqeuiring everything to be in clear, straightforward language, rather than intentionally confusing and overcomplicated language. Just thought I would clarify that for you.

Re:Hallelujah

[carpe.cervisiam]

I completely agree. Just because I work for them doesn't mean I tow the company line without thinking for myself.

Hahaha... These americans...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007

The Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007

T C P C E A, motherfuckers ! ! ! !

I love you guys... :D (swipes tear from cheek)

Re:They need to ban locked phones like in some pla

[compro01]

hear hear! anyone who argues that the cell industry is a free market is either being paid, has no idea what a free market is, or is certifiably insane.

Re:They need to ban locked phones like in some pla

[Phoenix Wright]

It is nearly the definition of a free market.

What it is not is an efficient market (which is what I think you meant).

More regulation could make it more efficient, but less free.

hopefully

[spottedkangaroo]

Hopefully this will make the contracts less attractive as a whole.

Seriously, can you think of any other service industry like this? power, cable, phone, trash pickup, isp, hosting provider, magazine subscription, ...

Sure, sometimes you'll see a special rate that only applies if you continue the service for a fixed period, but why is that you cannot get cell service at all without the contract? (Well, I suppose there are those shitty prepaid networks.)

Something is completely flawed with the whole setup. If they made it so people could get off shitty networks within 30 days, three things would happen: 1) all the services would have to do a better job, 2) all the rates would come down, 3) we'd all have to actually start paying for our $400 phones after they gave up on the whole contract model.

Re:hopefully

[TheAverageGuy]

but why is that you cannot get cell service at all without the contract?

As far as I know, AT&T, Alltel, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless offer cellular service without a contract.

Re:hopefully

[twistedcubic]

I would personally offer service without a contract to anyone willing to pay $1,000,000/month. That's not the point. The point is that for a person who uses their phone semi-regularly, the cost of a non-contract service is much higher than contract service, which is way overpriced anyway. The current prices are not what people are willing to pay, but HAVE to pay. This is not a free market. Consider the effect Google's info number 1-800-GOOG-411 (or text info: "GOOGL") have on the $2 usually charged for calling information on a ell phone.

In DC, an ACT always means the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an old saying in D.C. that an "act" -The cellphone empowerment whatever whatever funny acronym ACT- usually means the opposite of whatever it claims in the title.

The Patriot Act took away things the patriots fought for, the tax freedom act put in more restraints and took away freedoms, and so on. If they had a "Save the babies act" it would probably involve NOT saving them. Seriously, it's THAT bad.

So when you hear about some new act, assume it's out to get you somehow and respond accordingly.

Re:In DC, an ACT always means the opposite

[bombastinator]

Personally I mistrust this bill on the grounds of the lobby oriented track record of the current administration.

If (and I say if) it's actually a net gain for the people it is possible that it is a compromise bill and there is something very unpleasant coming down down the pipe.

This bill would allow a given representative when confronted in reelection with having voted for a particularly odious cell phone bill can then reply that he also voted for this one.

What have the cell phone companies been lobbying for most lately that the American public has most disliked? We may see it real soon now.

Re:In DC, an ACT always means the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just a shakedown. Apparently the political donations are not coming in like they used to from the phone companies so they threaten a bill like this.

Back when the Bells wanted into long distance the congress would go and pit the bells vs. AT&T and MCI and collect record donations and end up doing nothing.

Whenever you see anything like this all I can think of is shakedown. They are testing the waters to see if they have a new cash cow.

Re:In DC, an ACT always means the opposite

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ludicrous. This was introduced by a DEMOCRAT and a SENATOR. It has nothing to do, whatsoever, with the administration.

Why even that?

[TheMCP]

I intend to write my senators to oppose the bill, on the basis that it gives a stamp of approval to the whole idea of long term cell contracts: even if my cell provider provides perfectly good service, I should be able to drop them any time I feel like it, just like a landline phone. I can cancel a landline phone any time I want to, and the phone company has to cut the bill off based on the number of days of the month I actually had the phone line active. Why should a cellular provider be able to give me any less generous terms?

Many negative factors about the US cell phone system rely on the lengthy contracts or are caused by them: the US gets only the crappy phones the carriers choose to offer and not all the exciting phones sold in europe and japan, because in the US the carriers sell all the phones, because it's the excuse for the lengthy contracts. Indeed, the only really innovative phone to come along in the US is the iPhone, and even that is contractually tied to a single carrier. Also, in the US we have less technological advancement in the network itself because the carriers know you're locked in and can only use the phones they select, so they have less incentive to upgrade because you can't leave them and there's little competition if you could. Further, all the carriers have reputations for poor customer service and network reliability issues in some locations, and frankly they're also all reputed to not care very much, because they know that any customer churn they suffer will be replaced by incoming competitors fleeing the exact same problems from their "competitors".

If we eliminated the lengthy contracts, cell companies would lose their incentive to offer discounts on phones, and would likely choose to start charging full price for phones. This would likely result in a competitive market for equipment arising, resulting in more consumer choice. Further, carriers would then have to directly compete on plan prices and services, resulting in more consumer choice on plans, likely lower prices, and probably also the companies improving their network speed in an effort to actually compete with each other for a change. And of course, they'd have to start giving a damn about dropped calls instead of just blaming the customer, because the customer can actually drop them on the spot and go to someone else until they find someone who can actually give them reliable service.

So, I intend to write to my senators and tell them that if they really want to do any good in the cellular phone market, they should ban all cell phone contracts... or at least, ban all fees for breaking the contract, which would have essentially the same effect.

Re:Why even that?

[Skater]

Uh, I believe you can get cellphone service without a contract. Buy the phone outright then go monthly. Or get a prepaid cellular phone.

Re:Why even that?

[leenks]

Europe really isn't all that different you know... We generally have lengthy contracts (though O2 in the UK recently offered a 1month notice contract, but you BringYourOwnPhone and it is an exception to the norm) - many are 18 or 24 months now, and the phones are offered free or at a big discount if you take these contracts. Termination fees apply if you are within the contract period just the same as in the US.

Re:Why even that?

[GooberToo]

I should be able to drop them any time I feel like it, just like a landline phone. I can cancel a landline phone any time I want to, and the phone company has to cut the bill off based on the number of days of the month I actually had the phone line active. Why should a cellular provider be able to give me any less generous terms?

Because unlike a land line, these days you most likely get a phone in the deal. The expense has to be covered. If you own your phone free and clear, I agree. Otherwise, they have a right to make money like any other business, which includes recouping their investment in you as a customer.

Re:Why even that?

[VanessaE]

At the risk of sounding like a TV commercial, and ignoring the fact that pre-paid cell phones exist all over the country and can save money if you're careful with your usage, there's a service in California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, and Texas called MetroPCS. They don't have long-term contracts, and you buy your own phone (only from them, it seems). Charges work like a land-line, in that you can shut it off any time you want without early-cancellation fees, and you pay a fixed price per month for the features you want. They sell most of the features either as packages or a la carte. The basic unlimited-local-calls plan runs $30/mo and you can add unlimited long distance for $10/mo. MetroPCS main page

Disclaimer: This info is from their ads. I am neither affiliated with, nor a customer of MetroPCS.

Re:Why even that?

[cartmans_trapperkeep]

You don't NEED to sign a contract.There has never been an absolute need to sign a contract to get cell service with ANY company. The reason contracts have become so common place is the need for Americans to have everything as CHEAP as possible. During college I worked selling cell phones for most of the big telecom players and with any of them you could purchase any of their phones at retail price and start service without a contract. Occasionally there were promotional deals you could not get under a month-to-month plan, but largely they didn't care. The reason for the contract is they simply need to recoup the price of the phone. Of course they add some extra time beyond getting the money back for their handset in order to profit, but that's the deal people accept. You don't have the cash to buy a house? Well you get screwed with interest in order to buy it on loan. You want a free phone? Well you get screwed with a two year contract. QUIT BEING CHEAP AMERICA!

Re:Why even that?

[Skapare]

I have to disagree with you. Contracts should not be banned. Some people even like those. They can get a new phone every couple years without paying a lot up front. These are the same people that lease cars and trade up every 2 or 3 years.

Cell phone contracts used to be the only way the majority of people could afford a cell phone. This practice emerged from the days of mobile phones before cellular technology, which existed at least as far back as the 1950's although I don't know what all the terms were then. The first one I ever saw even used tubes (not transistors) inside a pair of large boxes installed in the trunk of a car. When cellular technology emerged, the phones were still fairly large and also expensive due to lack of economy of scale. That, of course, eventually changed.

The problem is, of course, the cell phone service providers still like the term contracts for many reasons I'm sure you are aware of. They try to make it hard for people to get phone service, or even phones, any other way.

But you can buy an unlocked cell phone even in the USA, and then sign up with the carrier of your choice. A friend of mine who works for a major cell phone service provider based on GSM technology in the customer service inbound call center has told me that a fraction of a percent of customers are in fact monthly no-term customers using unlocked phones. They are trained not to offer such services, but do know how to sign people up if someone wants it. He also told me that it is a full price service that way, about as costly as a pre-paid phone.

You can find unlocked phones easily. For example at Amazon.Com, look at the left side of the home page under "Consumer Electronics" and click on that link. From that page of cell phones, on the left side find a whole subsection of links for unlocked phones. Be sure you get 850/1900 MHz phones for use in the USA and a few other countries in the Americas. If you want a phone good for international use, get a triband (850/1800/1900 for both USA bands) or quadband phone.

These phones are apparently overseas phones that may or may not come with a USA warranty. That's one of the problems in the USA is that the manufacturers are not selling directly to retailers here that I can find. It could help if we get wording added to this law change that requires the manufacturers to make their phones available to resellers that want to sell them a full price as no contract unlocked phones. Then people can have a choice.

Some other places to look for unlocked phones are here, here, here, here, and here.

Re:Why even that?

[insanepenguin]

which includes recouping their investment in you as a customer. What does that mean? what investment does a cell phone company make when I walk in the door asking for service?

Re:Why even that?

[MrCool80s]

Agreed. But I don't believe legislation can really be introduced to prevent people from entering into 'reasonable' contracts. I could see it working if the bill if every change in the TOS/billing fees/policy required all customers be granted a new 30-day, penalty-free contract termination period--no matter what stage each respective customer is at in their contract. Including when you move up to a new contract to get some new feature such as more minutes.

Re:Why even that?

[InvalidError]

If you want fancy phones not offered by your carrier, Nokia has a few retail stores in NA where you can get whatever you want and with GSM networks, the service provider never has to hear about it or approve it.

My current cell service provider offers free phones of comparable value to the sign-up model with each contract renewal - 1 year for low-end phone, 2 years for mid-range and 3 years for high-end. Open by-the-month contracts cost between $5 and $10 extra per month and you get neither subsidized phones nor free upgrades.

As for termination fees, they would have to abolish subsidized phones first since the termination fees (at least those my provider charges) are mostly meant to cover the subsidized part of the phones. (Last time I read one of their contracts, it was $20 per remaining contract month or $200, whichever is least - sounds fair enough to me.)

Since I do not use my cell phone much, I am sticking to prepaid: $10/month and I get all the services including extended network as a freebie... the same extras (CallerID, call-waiting, voice-mail, etc.) on my land-line would cost over $15/month. The cheapest cell contract with the same services (excluding extended network) would cost almost $40/month. The "trade-off" is I get 30 cummulative minutes/month instead of 150 use-'em-or-lose-'em minutes/month... can't say I feel like I'm losing anything since I can buy up to 200 minutes with the same $40 ($20/100min refills) if necessary.

Re:Why even that?

[Agarax]

When they give you a phone for a fraction of what it actually costs.

Re:Why even that?

[Lehk228]

30 min / month? Net10 service is $15/month minimum purchase and that gets you 150 minutes per month. on their web site you can get refurb phones dirt cheap as well.

Re:Why even that?

[Ajehals]

You can get monthly contracts if you don't need or want a "free" phone, the issue is that all the high street retail shops will try to push a phone plus contract deal (to the point where some of the third party suppliers will tell you its the only way to do it). If you call a given carrier and tell them you have a phone and want to use it on their network with terms similar to one of their contracts they will set it up for you.

Re:Why even that?

[koalapeck]

Here is the problem. If contracts are no longer allowed, or can be broken at any time, phones will of course cease to be discounted so heavily. The effect that'll have on a lot of consumers could be pretty substantial. A lot of people only have a cell phone because they were able to get it for $0 with a 3 year contract. A lot of people would have a hard time justifying a $400 phone purchase. What ends up happening is that the retailers and cell phone companies win in this situation, because their margins on equipment sales will increase by an order of magnitude. Consumers should have a choice between a discounted phone with a contract, or paying full price with no contract. That's the way it is currently, and it makes sense for the majority. I do feel they need to streamline everything and be more transparent about how people are charged and what sort of coverage they actually get. And that's what this bill is designed to address.

Re:Why even that?

[cyberwench]

Honestly, I think if people didn't have the option of getting a free or heavily discounted phone, you'd see cell prices drop rapidly from $400 down to the $100-200 range. The discounts seem to be a lot like the "SALE!" signs you see in stores that advertise the original price as being suggested retail, when no one ever charges suggested retail.

Re:Why even that?

[Belial6]

I agree with you to an extent, but I take exception to the "QUIT BEING CHEAP AMERICA!" Statement. It should be "QUIT BEING STUPID AMERICA!". The fact is, the argument that the phone companies need to recoup their costs, and thus put you under contract that requires you pay for the full price of the phone over time means that IT IS NOT A FEE PHONE. Thats right. If you are contractually obliged to pay for the whole phone through a service contract. It is not free.

The first thing that needs to be done is require companies to stop their blatant false advertising, and lying in contracts. They should require the companies to state that the phone is "financed" instead of allowing them to call it "free". Of course, it would be nice if the music and movie industry were required to say "license" instead of "buy" as well, and music downloads should be requried to be called "rentals".

Until the NewSpeak is stopped, we will continue to have these kinds of problems.

Re:Why even that?

[QuantumRiff]

While I agree with you, keep in mind that in the US, there are a half dozen different kinds of cell phone technology. This causes 2 big problems, one, you can't take your Sprint Cell phone and move to T-Mobile service, because the phone won't work. And number 2, it is not cost effective to manufacture cheap, simple cell-phones in the US, because you would have to make several different types of the same phone. So the companies work closely with the cell-phone service companies, and develop the phones that the company wants. This results in expensive, customized phones that have loads of features I don't want!

Re:Why even that?

[sjames]

I would say a better option is to require all phones to come unlocked and use sim cards. Even a customer that is happy in a long term contract may have good reason to want to use it on more than one account, for example, a work account on weekdays and put the personal simcard in on nights and weekends. A customer that wants the cheap or free phone is free to enter into a long-term contract to get it. Customers that want to keep their old phone are free to do so with the sim card. Carriers should be required to allow absolutely any phone that meets FCC requirements, no questions asked, just send the sim card.

A lot of carriers want to use locked phones so thay can nickel and dime you to death over feature activations that have nothing at all to do with using resources on their network.

Re:Why even that?

[FrostDust]

I think Net10 has phased out the 150 minutes card, and at the very least, i'm sure you had to buy it every 15 days, which is why they were able to offer it at such a low rate. I get you rpoint though. Many prepaid companies have low monthly rates if you rarely use your phone. AT&T and Virgin Mobile have a minimum of about $20 every three months.

Re:Why even that?

[jamar0303]

And if you bring your own?

Re:Why even that?

[dgatwood]

Unfortunately, they use CDMA, which puts them out of touch with almost the entire world. Thus, you either end up with phones that can't be used outside the U.S. or you have to have two separate hardware radios---one for CDMA in the U.S., and one for GSM anywhere else on the planet.

Re:Why even that?

[dgatwood]

Agreed. To achieve this, though, you have to be more subtle. Pass a law that says that the bill must clearly spell out the portion of the bill that is amortizing the cost of the phone over the contract period, and mandate that the monthly cost be reduced by that amount after the initial contract period unless the customer explicitly requests and receives a new phone.

Such a law would force the actual cost of the phone to be more obvious to the consumer and would cause a huge shift away from subsidized phones and the lock-in they provide. At that point, once people realize consciously that they are buying the phone either way, you would see people asking why they should pay for a CDMA-only phone that they can't take with them if they change services instead of a GSM phone that they can. The transition to universal GSM in the U.S. would quickly follow.

Re:Why even that?

[jZnat]

... they have a right to make money like any other business, which includes recouping their investment in you as a customer. Nobody, and I mean nobody has a right to make money in any sort of capitalistic market. The only right you have is the right to start your own business in that market if you can cover the costs of starting said business.

Re:Why even that?

[JoelKatz]

"Why should a cellular provider be able to give me any less generous terms?"

You don't have to accept any terms you don't like. So what you are asking is, "why should I be allowed to accept bad terms?" And the answer is that you are a responsible adult who can make their own decisions. You don't need anyone else to protect you from your own stupidity because you aren't stupid.

If you want to accept some level of lock-in in exchange for a lower price, why should someone else prevent you from doing so?

That said, there are providers that use deception and, in some cases, outright fraud. *That* should not be allowed. But it makes no sense to prohibit deals agreeable to both sides where both sides understand all the details of the deal just because third parties think it's not a particularly good deal.

Re:Why even that?

[Agarax]

Then you sign up for a prepaid or pay as you go service.

Re:Why even that?

[InvalidError]

Do your unused minutes carry over to the next month? Does it include call-waiting, call forwarding, voice messaging, GPRS, text and roaming?

While my $10 prepaid plan is only 30 minutes, the unused part does carry over to the next month and I have all the services. My carrier also has $15 unlimited night&weekend and $20 unlimited incoming plans if I needed them. In all cases, unused package time carries over.

Re:Why even that?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the start of your comment you're incorrectly conflating phone discounts and contracts. There's no reason you can't have no-contract service and still have subsidized phones.

The long held, but disingenuous, argument by cell phone companies is that long contracts are the only way they can recover the costs of those subsidized phones. There are a couple problems with this claim, and the cellular companies hope you won't notice them -- it works, because most people don't.

1) Cell phones aren't usually terribly expensive. If you apply a $150 subsidy to a $200 phone over 24 months, that works out to about $6.25/month. Furthermore, not all phones are subsidized. Look at the iPhone for example. Why are people being roped in to a long term contracts with it? Simple: the cell phone companies want contracts and subsidies are just a convenient cover story.

2) Long term contracts aren't the only way to recover subsidies. The cellular companies should be able to subsidize phones, but they should be upfront about it. First, they should list the actual price of the phone when you buy it. Then to subsidize it you should be told how much subsidy will be paid by the cellular company each month (equal to the cost of the phone divided by number of months with no lump sum grand payoff in the last month or other such tricks), the subsidy should be limited to a certain number of months (probably six or twelve, in order to prevent the provider from saying it subsidizes $0.05/month on a $200 phone), and if you cancel before the total cost of the phone is paid off your cancellation fees will be limited to ONLY the remaining subsidy payments on the phone.

3) All devices should be available without service, and exclusive contracts between cellular makers and cellular providers should be banned.

4) All devices should be available both for an up front charge, and be unlocked. Once you can use any device on any technically compatible network you won't be forced to turn to the cellular provider to buy equipment. Then the already weak argument for contracts unravels.

When seen from this perspective it's even more clear that device lock-in and contract lock-in are both what they appear on the surface before cellular networks pretend to try to justify them: they're simply intended to make it hard as possible to escape from a provider they know you'll be unhappy with. Contracts and device lock-in exist to prevent competition, and they work. Simple as that.

I'm not holding my breath for real reform.

Re:Why even that?

[quux4]

It's not actually 'right to make money'. It's 'right to set their own price and terms'.

In the case where they are giving you a $200 phone for "free", they get you to sign a contract for a number of months or years so that they can earn back their cash outlay for the "free" phone. They don't have a 'right to make money' ... they could write the contract foolishly, leaving you a way to keep the phone without their being able to recoup costs. But they'd soon be out of business if they did, so they learn not to write foolish contracts.

They certainly do have a right to make their delivery of phone + service conditional on your entrance into a contract with them (as long as nothing in the contract is illegal). Just as you have a right to say no to the whole deal.

Re:Why even that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Contracts should not be banned. Some people even like those. They can get a new phone every couple years without paying a lot up front. Then they can take out a loan to buy the phone, at no up-front cost to them, and pay only the loan repayments. Having the carriers effectively bundle each phone with a loan causes the market-failure problems that everyone else is posting about.

Re:Why even that?

[Lehk228]

roaming is free, rollover is very yes, call waiting is yes, afaik no forewarding, voicemail is very yes, and the menus more responsive and less wasted time (minutes) than verizon, text is cheap (5c each way on new phones, mine is 3 out 0 in, and no on GPRS. the 150 card USED to be every 15 days but they boosted it to 30 and the $30 card to 60 then recently dropped the $15 card, so it's $30 every other month.

Re:Why even that?

[twistedcubic]

No, not true. For the major carriers, you have to buy a 1 or 2 year contract to get the lowest price.

Re:Why even that?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not true. For the major carriers, you have to buy a 1 or 2 year contract to get the lowest price. He didn't say it'd be cheap, he just said you could do it.

Re:Why even that?

[Skapare]

1) Cell phones aren't usually terribly expensive. If you apply a $150 subsidy to a $200 phone over 24 months, that works out to about $6.25/month. Furthermore, not all phones are subsidized. Look at the iPhone for example. Why are people being roped in to a long term contracts with it? Simple: the cell phone companies want contracts and subsidies are just a convenient cover story.

They once were expensive, which is how it got started. It's just that the service providers aren't passing on all the savings; they are pocketing it as profit. The fact that so many people don't know they can buy an unlocked phone now at a reasonable price and sign up month to month means there is still a "locked market" for phones that look cheap and are expensive. But this can be changed without banning term contracts. With alternatives, the market for term contracts can then be competitive.

2) Long term contracts aren't the only way to recover subsidies. The cellular companies should be able to subsidize phones, but they should be upfront about it. First, they should list the actual price of the phone when you buy it. Then to subsidize it you should be told how much subsidy will be paid by the cellular company each month (equal to the cost of the phone divided by number of months with no lump sum grand payoff in the last month or other such tricks), the subsidy should be limited to a certain number of months (probably six or twelve, in order to prevent the provider from saying it subsidizes $0.05/month on a $200 phone), and if you cancel before the total cost of the phone is paid off your cancellation fees will be limited to ONLY the remaining subsidy payments on the phone.

That sounds reasonable to me. That's not banning contracts; that's "full disclosure" (which we need).

3) All devices should be available without service, and exclusive contracts between cellular makers and cellular providers should be banned.

I'm not sure if I totally agree. It would be great if Apple decided to cell the iPhone unlocked and unbound to anyone who wanted to pay for it. Where things get complicated is that a lot of phones are really platforms in which service providers add software to add features. And there is a long history of manufacturers contracted by other companies to produce a product for that other company to sell. I'm not all opposed to this idea, but it would have to be done very very carefully.

4) All devices should be available both for an up front charge, and be unlocked. Once you can use any device on any technically compatible network you won't be forced to turn to the cellular provider to buy equipment. Then the already weak argument for contracts unravels.

We do need to have a clear separation between service provider and manufacturer, prohibiting any one entity from doing both. Same for other things like cable set top boxes.

Re:Why even that?

[ciscoguy01]

How much do you really think it costs for Motorola to make a phone in a plant in Mexico. $4? $6?

The phones are either subsidized very little or not at all. Walk into any Sprint store, how much do you think it costs to make those phones? Not the $180 or $249 they are trying to charge. Not even $30 for most.

The problem is the only place you can get a phone is from the carrier, the carriers keep a stranglehold on the equipment, and *pretend* they are subsidizing your phone.
The *free phone* is really just a mechanism to keep you signed up on long contracts.
If you want real competition the phones should be sold on the wall at Walmart, who would buy them directly from Motorola, Samsung, LG. High volume, the prices would be much lower than they are today because of volume and the lack of shenanigans by phone carriers.

You would activate them on whatever carrier you want, and the carrier would then have to satisfy you with their service or you would switch to a carrier that did better.
The phone would work on whatever network you want it to and you could get a different one when you want at competitive prices.
As it is now, there is *NO COMPETITION*. Not for equipment or service.

Re:Why even that?

[petermgreen]

$100 is about £50, I'm sure i've seen new sim free phones that low in the uk. You won't get anything very fancy at that price but you will get a functional sim free phone. Getting a phone posted accross the pond can't be that expensive.

Re:Why even that?

[TheMCP]

It depends on which provider you're using, and which plan. Some providers will not offer service without a contract. Among those that do, I know for a fact that my provider will not offer certain plans without a contract. Now, think about that for a minute: that means that I have to commit to a year of being locked into that provider just so that I can have the privilige of... paying them money every month. And for that commitment, they give me... nothing special. And I paid full price for my own phone!

So, I'm getting fewer minutes for my money than others are, because I don't want any of the crappy phones my provider offers, so I get nothing out of signing a contract.

Re:Why even that?

[Nevyn]

I have to disagree with you. Contracts should not be banned. Some people even like those. They can get a new phone every couple years without paying a lot up front. These are the same people that lease cars and trade up every 2 or 3 years.

People like paying a small monthly fee instead of a single "large" payment, News at 11. Leasing a car is a pretty bad analogy for a start most people don't get them that way, opting for 3-6 year loans (an option not really available with cell phones). This is more like the "gas" companies selling the gas and the cars, and subsidizing the later by large overheads on the former ... and if they tried that it would be stopped immediately due to illegally tying of products.

On the other hand, all the telcos are thieving scum ... so even if they "fixed" this tying problem they'd all still screw everyone over.

Re:Why even that?

[TheMCP]

And when they have recouped their investment, how come I'm still locked in until the contract is up? Or do you think all phone values come in nice neat multiples of one or two years of profit margin?

And if I want out, why can't I just pay off the difference between the amount they have recouped and the discount they gave me on the phone? Why do I have to pay an outrageous fee (which is probably more than they paid for the phone in the first place) instead?

Re:Why even that?

[TheMCP]

I don't know more polite way to put this, so I'm going to have to say it bluntly: Are you stupid or something?

When a customer gets a phone for $0 with a 3 year contract, they're paying for that phone, in full: it raises the cost of the service. The cell companies are not financially incompetent. If they "give" you a phone, they're going to make sure their rate plan is correspondingly higher to ensure that they recoup that cost. And further, once they have recouped that cost, they're not going to lower the price of your plan - why should they? You're locked into a contract, after all. So you're going to keep paying for that phone, and paying for it, and paying for it, forever, until you replace it or drop the service.

If consumers didn't get phones "free" from their provider, you're right, they'd have to pay for it. And you know what? Hardly anyone justifies a $400 phone purchase. That phone the cell company is "giving" you ISN'T A $400 PHONE. I have a $400 phone. Let me tell you, a $400 phone is a pretty high end phone. It's way nicer than any of the crappy phones my cell provider offers for "free", or even any of the phones they charge for in addition to locking you into a contract. Consumers will still be able to buy a cheap phone if they want to: they're just going to have to wise up and actually save up the money to buy what they want instead of expecting it to fall from the sky as a gift.

And if consumers have to pay for their own phones, they're no longer going to be willing to accept some of the high prices and unreasonable terms of the cell providers, because, after all, they're not getting a "free" phone any more. So if the companies abuse them, they'll go elsewhere. That's called a competitive market, and it's something we don't really have right now.

I didn't suggest banning the contracts because I'm an idiot and don't realize the consequences. I suggested banning the contracts because I'm smart and can forsee the consequences and those are the consequences I think would be best for our society.

Re:Why even that?

[koalapeck]

See, you're speaking from the standpoint of someone that is educated. You and I both know when they say the phone is normally $400, its obviously not worth anything near that. But the typical person doesn't know they can go buy an unlocked phone online for substantially less. They might truly believe buying a phone from the service provider is their only option. I remember when I got an unlocked phone a few years back that wasn't even on the Canadian market. No one understood how I was using it with Fido. The average person really has no idea options like these exist. And you're right, hardly anyone justifies a $400 phone purchase, I said this in my original post, look closely. I'm just really curious to see how this plays out for you Americans. Will be interesting to see what would actually happen to phone prices if contracts were no longer allowed by law.

Re:Why even that?

[GooberToo]

how come I'm still locked in until the contract is up?

Because of the obvious answer, people are stupid. For years they moved away from contracts but the consumer pissed their pants waiting in lines to sign back up for stupid contracts. You're a victim of being surrounded by morons.

Re:Why even that?

[GooberToo]

Nobody, and I mean nobody has a right to make money in any sort of capitalistic market.

That is of course, completely incorrect. Everybody has the right to make money when both parties agree to the terms up front. If you don't want him to make money, don't give him the right by signing the contract.

Is this, "I have no common sense or business knowledge day" on Slashdot or what? Shesh.

Re:Why even that?

[GooberToo]

How much do you really think it costs for Motorola to make a phone in a plant in Mexico. $4? $6?

Next, just wave your hand and admit you have no clue. You really think they can make a phone for $4? $6? Sure they abuse their position with their customers...but that hardly means they can magically make products for a small percentage of what the raw materials cost while completely ignoring the cost of design, software creation, testing, certification, packaging, training, documentation, and distribution. Heck, I bet the packaging alone costs them a buck or more.

Ignoring all that, you really think businesses should be in business to give away hundreds of dollars worth of hardware, free of charge, to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that passes through their doors? It sure seems you believe that non-sense, which means we don't have much to talk about until you're willing to deal with reality.

Shesh.

Re:Why even that?

[GooberToo]

Is general business practices in a free market and customer retention really this much of a mystery to you?

Re:Why even that?

[ciscoguy01]

How much do you really think it costs for Motorola to make a phone in a plant in Mexico. $4? $6?

Next, just wave your hand and admit you have no clue. You really think they can make a phone for $4? $6? Sure they abuse their position with their customers...but that hardly means they can magically make products for a small percentage of what the raw materials cost while completely ignoring the cost of design, software creation, testing, certification, packaging, training, documentation, and distribution. Heck, I bet the packaging alone costs them a buck or more.

Ignoring all that, you really think businesses should be in business to give away hundreds of dollars worth of hardware, free of charge, to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that passes through their doors?
You are confusing phone carriers with phone manufacturers. I am sure Motorola can make phones in very large volume at very low cost. Not that they sell them to the carriers quite that cheap. Just that if the phone didn't have to pass through the carrier's hands the prices would be lower and the competitive market would be able to work. But Motorola, as an example, is put in the position of being a contract manufacturer for phone carriers, rather than being an innovative manufacturer making products for us that we actually want.
No, I don't think anyone should "give away" anything.
I think the carriers should be carriers, and the phones should be sold on the competitive market, rather than the no-competition carrier locked fake competition we have now.

The carriers maintain a stranglehold on the equipment. In order to get a new phone you practically have to sign a new contract. It's a distortion of the competitive market, which if it worked would result in better service at lower prices.

Even the iphone, which no one argues you are not paying the full cost of requires a 2 year contract with ATT.
Apple has now sold a million iphones. What do you want to bet ATT has paid Apple at least $100 million for those phone sales?

Where do you think that money comes from? From you and I in our cellphone bills. Our bills could be lower if we paid for our own phone and ATT didn't pay Apple.

Re:Why even that?

[GooberToo]

You are confusing phone carriers with phone manufacturers. I am sure Motorola can make phones in very large volume at very low cost.

I'm actually not. Since most people buy their phones from their carrier, your making a distinction which doesn't matter. My point still stands so I'm really not sure why it was mentioned.

They rest of your message, I really have no idea where it's coming from because it has nothing to do with imaginary $4 and $6 dollar phones. Like it or not, phones are computers which require a lot of expertise to create. It is strictly fantasy to image your typical phone can be had for anything near $6 dollars. Note, I said your typical phone, not the specifically designed, no frills, disposable phones...but even those cost well over $6 to manufacture; most like $20-$40 last I heard...and they are made of very cheap, low quality materials.

Re:Why even that?

[ciscoguy01]

No, most people have no real alternative to buying their phones from their carrier.

We're in complete agreement then. Most phones cost $20-$40. I said $30, with an actual manufacturer cost of about $4 or $6.

This doesn't explain why phones priced at $180-$500 but they will give you a fake discount if you sign a 2 year contract is good for you or me. It's good for the carrier, sure. But it's not good for customers or the phone manufacturer.

The system has become distorted by the phones being only available from the carrier.

I am sure you have noticed how competitively priced computers have become. Imagine if you had Comcast cable internet, and could only buy your computer from Comcast. How much more would they cost than they do right now, with giant manufacturers and retailers duking it out in the Sunday ads and online?
*Lots* more than we are enjoying.

Re:Why even that?

[GooberToo]

Most phones cost $20-$40. I said $30, with an actual manufacturer cost of about $4 or $6.

This is completely untrue. Most phones in the US cost a hundred dollars on up to make, which ignores packaging, training, support, software development, certification, and distribution. Most phones are not disposable phones, especially when you look at phones used in other, non-US markets (Japan, Korea, Canada, most of Europe, etc). Disposable phones actually target a small percentage of the population but are especially profitable because the phones are super cheap and they can charge extortion rates for air time, while paying as they go. Most people don't do this and actually get their phone from their carrier while paying for a phone service on contract.

Phones on contract are on contract because it normally requires the carrier to retain the customer for at least a year to pay off THEIR cost on the phone. This is why phone costs vary with the phone contract details. So no, we are not in complete agreement. I'm using realistic numbers, you're using wishful thinking and imaginary numbers.

I think you have a lot to learn about business in general, let alone raw material, manufacturing, and product development costs before you come back to the table in this discussion.

What prompted this legislation?

[BrianRagle]

I may sound cynical (though where the Congress is concerned, is that possible?), but how many here wonder whether or not a Congressman/woman or someone from his/her immediate family was recently jacked up on cell phone charges? Forgive me, but I am always somewhat suspicious when legislation is suddenly introduced to allegedly empower consumers given the amount of money it truly takes to lobby the Congress to get anything done these days.

crazy AT&T

[scolbert]

For the first time in years, I was "forced" to sign up for a new contract for my iPhone with AT&T. I hated the idea, but I wanted my iPhone. Later my friend told me about the pre-pay option. He bought his iPhone and choose to pre-pay the account. No contract. He didn't (or couldn't) port his old number with this option (as guess what, he was still tied to his T-Mobile account! ironical.)

Regulate the Business

[stewbacca]

Wake me up when I can have cell phone service like I had when I lived in England, otherwise, this is a bunch of posturing by politicians wanting to look hip. There are a few industries in America (telecomunications, cable television, for example) with such messed up business models, yet strong monopolistic locks, it just angers me to no end. Once business gets this far out of control (or actually IN control, but so much so, they are out of control) it is time to regulate. I don't mind lock-in, as long as I have the choice to NOT be locked in elsewhere. The problem now is, even if you go "elsewhere", you are locked in with them.

I have a feeling this bill will do the same thing for my cell phone servcie that the Digital Millenium Act has done for my "choice" of telecommunications/cable companies: nothing.

Nothing will become of this

[DaMattster]

The telecommunications lobby in this country is huge and I guarrantee that the bill will be defeated. Anyway, as is prototypical of politics these days, the bill is only half-assed concieved. A contract usually implies a guarrantee of minimum service level. What about when the Sprint, ATT, and T-Mobile's of the worlds service works great for thirty days and all of a sudden quality drops off sharply? I am sure this has happened before. Shouldn't you have a right to kick the provider to the curb if this happens and they fail consistently to fix the problem? If you are paying for a service, shouldn't you have the right to recieve what you pay for? My guess, and correct me if I am wrong, that paying for a service and not recieving it is criminal. There needs to be a recourse for those who enter into a contract against abuses such as this. Well, at least there is an easy way to get out of a Sprint contract: call customer service 30 times a month for two months. Then, they'll fire you without termination fee!!

unnecessary government intervention

[tazochai]

This is the kind of crap that annoys me about today's government, sticking their nose where it isn't needed. The economy and consumers can take care of themselves. Businesses only provide what consumers will buy.

Case in point, I got really mad at my last cell phone provider for many things listed in this security blanket of a bill. So I took care of myself, bought an unlocked phone, and went with a different cell phone company where I pay by the minute and do not have a contract.

We all have choices already. I've been a very happy cell phone customer ever since I've had no contract.

How about consumers stop being so complacent and stop giving your money to businesses and contracts that we don't want.

Government, get out of my life and get out of my choices.

Saudi Arabia , USA

[OJDot]

I've lived in Saudi Arabia and USA. moving back and forth on regular basis. I can safely say that we in Saudi are way behind in technology. the broadband service was just introduced few years back and it sucks (disconnection, etc) and the highest speed available speed is something about 1MB/S. you could find higher speeds but they'll cost a fortune. with that being said, I have to say that the cell phone service in USA is equally as retarded. In saudi we only have 2 providers, but the way they compete is beyond amazing. needless to say that all the phones sold are unlocked. and you're talking about the latest phones in the whole industry (Samsung, Nokia, Sony-Erickson, etc) and the Iphones have a long way to go to catch the latest phone from nokia N95. I dont want to go in details with comparing the phones here and there, but i hope you get the idea. well, now lets go to the core of this discussion, the phone service. here are some services i have from my cell phone provider in Saudi 1) Missed calls notifications. (if you turn your phone off (lets say battery!) and turn on back again, and you missed a call in between, you get a message notifying you with the numbers that called you along with the date/time of the call) 2) all received calls are FREE! 3) we pay per minutes used. 4) you could set a 'ceiling' for your bill and they'll will stop the outgoing calls once you reach it (you could change it instantly) 5) you could transfer all your contacts/pictures/videos to their servers, and retrieve it whenever. its helpful to make you get your life back easier if you happen to lose your phone someday. and there are many things i can't think off right now. i gotta go back to work!

You would be locking out ...

[Skapare]

You would be locking out the poor from even getting a cell phone at all, since they can't afford to pay the full cost of a phone up front. You would be preventing an entire class of big businesses from exploiting them and keeping them poor. Then these people would have to find something else to do instead of chatting on the phone all day, like actually going to work and keeping their job.

Re:You would be locking out ...

[Xenogyst]

You would be locking out the poor from even getting a cell phone at all, since they can't afford to pay the full cost of a phone up front.

I work in the wireless retail business, and as far as I can understand the high prices of those phones are mostly a racket (phones tend to be around $200-350 without a contract). What I mean by that is if you look at some of the pre-paid phones you can get a fully featured camera phone with bluetooth for around $60-80 no contract. If you don't care about being fancy the cheap phones go for less than $20. There is simply no reason that phones need to be expensive like that; it's just a trap to keep people in contract.

In fact, there's no reason you can't use pre-paid phones on the post-paid networks. With GSM phones you can even put your contract phone SIMM card into a prepaid phone (assuming it's the same carrier) and it works the same, which is a nice trick if your GSM phone breaks and you don't qualify for the upgrade rebate.

Re:You would be locking out ...

[yuna49]

There's also the used phone option. eBay has a very active market in used cell phones at quite reasonable prices.

Anybody here remember when AT&T was forced to allow its customers to buy their own equipment and attach it to the landline network? What do you supposed happened? That's right, the cost of the terminal equipment plunged, and the variety of devices offered increased, as new competitors entered the market. Why the same logic doesn't apply to the regulation of cell phones escapes me.

All I need is a service provider and a SIMM card. Let me find the phone I want at the price I want to pay. If the service provider wants to sell phones, that's fine with me, but let them compete against Radio Shack, Wal-Mart, and eBay in that part of the business. This whole business where providers like Verizon disable features in phones to protect their profits from services like music downloads just reeks of anti-competitiveness. Landline providers would no doubt prefer to sell you voice messaging for a few bucks a month, but you might prefer to buy an answering machine instead. The same principles should apply to cellular service.

Just my 2/100th's of a US$.

Re:money, crime is wrong, but maybe legal

[OldHawk777]

Fraud is never capitalism. Fraud is a crime that frequently will not be investigated/prosecuted in the USA. USA capitalism ended shortly after the civil war. The USA economy for the last 50 to 100 years has been a government mandated corporatist-zombie. The accumulation of profits are very personal focused, reinvestment of profits decrease for more accounting/stock-scams (not development/expansion), and gains are protected by government protected closed corporate market shenanigans. The new law will provide walk through room for different/more fraud.

Definition of Fraud: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. A piece of trickery; a trick.

Definition of Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

IOW: Yes, USA Biz-Management schools and the graduates are scam/crime factories with fool/criminal professors spewing and spinning plutocrat-dogma as CAPITALISM.

Your comments are a prevailing accepted truth about capitalist economics in the USA. Your comments help to prove pseudo-capitalism, lies, and crime are the defining functional factors of current USA economics.

Corporatist owned politicians are directed a/o puppet actors not leaders in the USA. The Iraq conflict profiteering, faux-patriotism rhetoric, and myth-faith preaching are used as marketeer hype for more legalized criminal activity digging another recession/depression pit for the general public with less than a $7-figure enfranchising annual income.

Allegorically, the public has become the metaphorical trash left behind by proverbial assholes who keep their hands clean by using brown-nose, fart-sucking, shit-eating politicians (most not all).

Anyway don't define reality by word-spin to support dogma.
Dogma is always a bullshit refuge for genocidal megalomaniacs and fools.
THINK or suffer the consequences, never use dogma to blame others.

What about the tax code?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, now all we need is a bill to clarify the tax code

Cell phones as a social rite of passage?

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO the idea that not having a cell phone is "weird" is part of what creates the problem of outrageous contracts and hidden fees. The companies can get away with it because people have convinced themselves that they cannot live without being reachable 24x7, naturally companies take advantage of this and make a killing off of people's lack of rational thought.

However...

The one thing that a cell phone is uniquely good for is for calling 9/11 in an emergency while on the road. For this purpose I have a phone (that I got for free) in my car trunk.

payoff money

[p51d007]

What this means, in simpler terms.......is that the cell phone carriers association hasn't been giving enough money to politicians, so, they will introduce a bill which could possibly threaten their stranglehold on the market. When the carrier association ponies up the money, watch how the bill will either get watered down, changed, or just simply disappear. After all, 08 is an election year. Watch all the "pro" consumer bills that will suddenly pop up, only to disappear and fade away early in 09.

Interesting contradiction...

[argent]

You start out saying that contracts shouldn't be banned, and then every point after the first (contracts make financing a new phone simpler) is a problem caused by the ubiquity of contracts or tricks they use to force you into a contract. Delete the first paragraph and the remaining points are all good arguments for banning long-term cellphone contracts.

Re:Interesting contradiction...

[Skapare]

I still stand by my position that the term contracts should not be banned. Instead, the phone companies should be required to divulge that alternatives exist. And manufacturers need to be required to make the phones available to domestic resellers under standand warranty sale.

I don't want to take away one particular method of purchase. While that might speed up getting decent phone service for those that hate contracts (I being one of them), I'm opposed to the idea of taking away an option some people will find useful.

Re:Interesting contradiction...

[argent]

Instead, the phone companies should be required to divulge that alternatives exist.

They would just make it unpleasant and expensive enough to get a phone without a contract that it wouldn't matter for most people.

And manufacturers need to be required to make the phones available to domestic resellers under standand warranty sale.

It wold be more useful to make limitations on any warranties (or other restrictions on purchase or use) based on the country violations of free trade agreements.

But that kind of *consumer friendly* interpretation of globalism is about as unlikely as getting laws that force companies in Europe to sell products in the US.

Re:money, crime is wrong, but maybe legal

[KDR_11k]

Isn't capitalism a dogma, too? Or at least a central piece of a dogma that proclaims a free market knows no wrongs?

Why only cell-phone contracts?

[Rich Klein]

VOIP and POTS contracts can be pretty obtuse, too. And how about those "triple play" contracts that include TV and internet access, too? Even the name of the bill is short-sighted.

Re:money, crime is wrong, but maybe legal

[OldHawk777]

Capitalism is an economic model.
Capitalism is market governed.
Dogma is irrational emotional doctrine of cult/sect followers.

So, capitalism cannot be dogma, but dogmatist can preach pseudo-capitalism as capitalism to faithful followers.
Capitalism as an economic institution (model/architecture implemented) in a society/country is neither good or bad.
Capitalism when market governed is a reasonable industrial age economics model (best, ?IDK?).
Capitalism does not exist in a corporatist/plutocrat controlled totalitarian market.
Dogmatist pseudo-capitalism has more in common with a serf/barter feudal/cast economic model.

Anyway, if the oppressed/ruled suffer, do the rulers/plutocrats feel hurt/pain?
Yes, then there may be some democratic government and capitalist/meritocracy economy with free citizens and open culture.
No, then the minimum required (democracy, meritocracy, and freedom) for a free society does not exist.

Manipulated/controlled politics, economics, religion, citizens ... indicates a collectivism, communism, socialism ... economics model.
This is the main reason, I define the USA as a corporatist-welfare state. Freedom in the USA is a delusion/illusion for citizens trusting in the benevolence, honor, character, and ethics of their ruling plutocrat who are always hoping the public will never see/seek the truth.

Having said the above ... three points remain: (1) I think the above is true, (2) the USA is the best place to live & die, and (3) US Citizens may one day make the USA and world better by exercising the force, strengths, and freedoms expressed in "The USA Constitution", reason, and learning.

Insurance companies

[Anonymous Coward]

will require wireless service providers to share simple, clear information on their services and charges with customers

Now if only they'd pass something similar for the insurance industry. My cell phone bill is a lot easier to read than my insurance statements. I often times have no clue what is covered, and when I call customer service, it is not unusual for them not to know either and have to "get back to me."

(Posted anonymously because I work for an insurance company)

How about a REAL bill?

[retro128]

How about we make cell branding and locking illegal?
How about exclusive contracts cell manufacturers and service providers illegal?
How about we make disabling features on the cell phone you paid for unless you ransom it back from your service provider illegal? (Verizon Bluetooth OBEX transfer, anyone? Using your phone as a DUN connection for your laptop?)

The reason the North American cell industry sucks so much is because manufacturers and service providers are working too closely together and nerfing our phones for the purpose of shaking more change out of our pockets. Implementing the above would bring us in line with how everyone else in the world does things. The bill in TFA is a joke. Congress is stroking it, as usual.

Wrong

[Rix]

The businesses can and should be absorbing those fees.

Duh...

[bteeter]

Making a contract easier to read is not going to help anyone who doesn't read it. I'd bet most cell phone customers never read the terms, if they did they wouldn't sign up and agree so easily.

a luxury

[Anonymous Coward]

Cell phones are a luxury. They are not required to live. They are not an emergency tool. They are not mandatory. If you don't like the was the products are sold and the business model that are being used you can spend your money on something else. You all have the option of having NO phone. I hate hearing about how people feel it cost to much. Fine, use a pay phone. It is less convenient, but it still works. I hate hearing people complain about poor or no service in some specific area like their house. They act like they are entitled to coverage where they live. You are paying for access to a network.

Re:a luxury

[acidradio]

I guess on that token, regular landlines and electricity are luxuries too. I don't absolutely need a telephone to live, nor do I need electricity. All I really need are air, water and food. Air is generally here. Water, I guess I could go out to the well and pump it. Oh wait I don't have one of those. I pay the city to pump it for me and deliver it in the faucet. Food? I go to the store for that. But then I bring it home and it requires refrigeration which requires power. Just like the 1800's, right?

Re:They need to ban locked phones like in some pla

[compro01]

i guess that depends on which end of the market is free. in my opinion, there seem to be 2 kinds of "free" markets. one where the company(ies) are free (no regulation) and one where the consumer is free (your efficient market), which requires either regulation or *active* competition.

I thought Slashdot was full of Libratarians....

[astro128]

A couple of weeks ago there was a Slashdot Poll asking your Political Affiliation. The responses indicated that the majority of voters here on Slashdot ("This whole thing is wildly inaccurate." yada yada yada) were Libertarian. I only mention this because I wonder if the people that voted for Libertarian actually know what that means. I have been a Libertarian for quite some time now and if you ask me I wonder why we actually need a bill like this. It seems to me that politicians should have better things to do with there time than to clarify cellular phone bills. I say if you have a problem with your bill call you cell phone company and complain. If you don't want a contract, don't get one - its possible with some carriers and keep politicians out of regulating consumer-business practices just because people find them annoying and let the market work itself out.