New Bill to Clarify Cellphone Contracts 177
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."
money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:money (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Novel Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:money (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Why even that? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why even that? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [cellular-blowout.com], here [puremobile.com], here [ustronics.com], here [cellhut.com], and here [cellularcountry.com].
Re:money (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
A Good Point, Keep Going. (Score:-1, Insightful)
[plan slamming that cost days of life or thousands of dollars] These were all due to crappy business practices and nothing else.
So, simple plans will be of little use if the phone company, aka ATT, continues these kinds of practices. You might imagine a world where that kind of practice would lead to massive fines, class actions and the like to keep that from happening. Perhaps that's part of this bill?
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.
An honest plan would work like that. There's no need for confusing bills, even at the rape you by the minute level of service people expect from Ma Bell. You should know what to expect when you sign the dotted line. Pretending your operating costs are taxes is really low, even for operators as corrupt as ATT.
All of the above changes are useless in a country that has crooked bandwith auctions, allows wholesale invasion of privacy and requires wiretapping. In the US, you are going to be raped for mobile communications and this "empowerment" bill does not address the root causes. It's nice of Klobuchar to notice people are angry, but the honorable Senator should do more. In this case, clarity will not really provide honesty, it will instead create a false and misleading controversy to be waged without resolution for years in the corporate controlled media. In short, it's a farce that provides the illusion of democratic regulation of an industry that is calling the shots in collusion with a corrupt government. Without privacy and freedom, the airwaves usurped by these companies are of limited business use.
Re:You know what I want? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why even that? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.