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."

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: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

[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: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: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?