Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Technology

Massachusetts Plans a Cell Phone Bill of Rights 258

Posted by Zonk from the power-to-the-callers dept.
freaktheclown writes "Via Engadget, the news that Massachusetts' state legislature is considering a cell phone bill of rights, which would 'limit contracts to one year, require easier to understand monthly bills, and force carriers to fix dead zones.' You may recall that California adopted a similar bill of rights last year before it was shelved last January."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Massachusetts Plans a Cell Phone Bill of Rights More

Massachusetts Plans a Cell Phone Bill of Rights

Comments Filter:

  • All of these "rights"... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jxyama ( 821091 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:37PM (#13751492)
    Are carriers "allowed" to adhere to offer these "rights" by raising the price? Why don't we let the economics of the industry take care of this? T-Mobile offers one year contracts, but makes you (generally) pay more for the phones. You can't eat the cake (heavily subsidized phones) and have it too (short contract).
    • Discounts or free phones are disappearing? Maybe in a short term. Later they will reemerge as the competition goes fiercer. I wouldn't worry for that.
      • I think the competition is already fierce, as many consumers that bought a plan over 2 years ago are now finding themselves free to switch. For example, I recently contacted Sprint PCS to cancel my plan entirely as I now use Vonage for most purposes and only need the phone for emergency purposes. The offered me in succession upon denial of the previous offer: a $15 a month plan, one free month, two free months. I decided there was no harm in taking the 2 free months to decide if I wanted to keep the phon

    • Already happened (Score:3, Insightful)

      by argoff ( 142580 )
      The ironic thing is that people can already get these services if they pay a higher price.

      If someone wants simple billing and no contracts, all they half to do is get pre-paid cellphone service and pick up refil cards at any 7-11 (They got those in MA right?).

      If someone wants more coverage, all they half to do is get a satellite phone.

      All this is really saying is that people are entitled to cell phone freebies at soneone elses expense. Shure has gone downhill from the days where a right ment things like f

      • Re:Already happened (Score:3, Informative)

        by Fnkmaster ( 89084 )
        What Massachusetts does is essentially engage on behalf of consumers as a sort of collective agent. While you may think this is terrible, Massachusetts is one of the few states left in the union where an individual can actually get good health insurance by self-paying. Here in NY, the self-pay plans are all atrocious, the providers have terrible records of denying claims en masse, and your only choices are POS and HMO (i.e. bad and worse - the coverage sucks compared to BCBS/MA PPO Direct Pay). And an in

    • Re:All of these "rights"... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:40PM (#13751785) Journal
      Because the economics of the industry has failed to fix the dead zones or convice carriers to allow people to use any phone they want with any carrier that it's compatible with. We pay universal access fees to promote network development yet that money seems to go into a big black hole, or a CEO's bank account, whichever is available.
      • We pay universal access fees to promote network development yet that money seems to go into a big black hole, or a CEO's bank account, whichever is available.

        No you don't. [fcc.gov]

        Universal service fees are used to subsidize communication services in areas where it doesn't make business sense to provide service (not enough subs to justify network building/upkeep), provide access to public schools, and subsidize phone service for the inpoverished.

        I have yet to see anything about a government fee used to fund the R

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Why don't we let the economics of the industry take care of this?

      Because cellular carriers have blown it when it comes to consumers and it's time for the government to intervene and put a stop to the madness?

      "Economics of industry" is great and all, but we've all seen what happens when companies are allowed to run along on their own (see: CD's still costing > $12-15 when they were supposed to be half that if not lower; landline phone service that costs more now than it did twenty years ago, while the

    • "Why don't we let the economics of the industry take care of this?"

      What's more instructive is to ask how we got to the point where users are complaining to their state representatives about their problems with cell phones. Apparently, "the economics of the industry" aren't addressing these complaints. Organized complaining is far more effective than customers negotiating with cell phone businesses on their own.

  • Fixing Dead Zones? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gbulmash ( 688770 ) * <semi_famous&yahoo,com> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:38PM (#13751499) Homepage Journal
    Fixing dead zones? Then Anthony Michael Hall would be out of a job. [imdb.com]

    But seriously folks...

    Also, fixing dead zones, AFAIK, would require more cell towers. If the lack in some areas was due to municipal zoning issues, how is that reconciled? Does the state bill allow the cell carriers to steamroll city/county planning commissions?

    The main question on my mind, though, is would the cell phone carriers offer fewer freebies and worse deals if contracts were limited to one year, or would the competition in the market end up causing Mass. consumers to get deals on one-year contract that the rest of the country only gets on two-year contracts.

    - Greg

    • Re:Fixing Dead Zones? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Also, fixing dead zones, AFAIK, would require more cell towers. If the lack in some areas was due to municipal zoning issues, how is that reconciled? Does the state bill allow the cell carriers to steamroll city/county planning commissions?

      That is a big huge if.

      The fact is that my town has been trying to get decent cell phone reception for years. We even offered a company rent-free, tax-free use of the land for 50 years. We'll secure it, and bring power to it.

      And we'll let them put the blasted thing just
      • > The fact is that my town has been trying to get decent cell phone
        > reception for years. We even offered a company rent-free, tax-free
        > use of the land for 50 years. We'll secure it, and bring power to it.
        >
        > And we'll let them put the blasted thing just about anywhere.
        >
        > They just aren't interested, as "the service offered is adequate".

        Very true. One of the reasons this happens is that the vendors look at unit sales. If they don't think it's going to get them the units (common in small

        • Re:Fixing Dead Zones? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Secrity ( 742221 )
          But for services like cell phones and mail, people have a legitimate right to expect they can get the same service (for approximately the same cost) in Tinytown, Wyoming as in Megalopolis, New York.

          Why? It may be that the economics balance out between providing mail or telephone service in Tinytown and Megaopolis and the charges would be similar. If the economics do not balance out there there should be NO guarantee that the charges to customer should be expected to be similar for the two localities.
        • Actually FedEx has one of the trucking contracts to deliver Bulk USMail from town to town. FedEx was NOT prohibted, it couldn't make money at the rate the USPS charged. Notice since USPS has gone private postage has gone up each year?

          FedEx and UPS will deliver almost anywhere. It just won't be there overnight. I have relatives who live the backside of nowhere town in Texas and they get FedEx and UPS just fine. If you got a street address and live in the USA your package will get to you. If you live in Backw

  • Reasons for complaint (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gunpowda ( 825571 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:38PM (#13751500)
    The bill would address common cell phone annoyances...
    Industry sponsors say they'll fight the bill.

    The only grounds they really have for complaint here is the economic feasibility of allowing one year contracts - the longer the contract the easier it is to subsidise the cost of the phone and still obtain a handsome profit.

    But arguing about dead zones and refusing to offer bills consumers can understand? What could the possible justification there be?

    • Re:Reasons for complaint (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:11PM (#13751658) Homepage Journal
      But arguing about dead zones and refusing to offer bills consumers can understand? What could the possible justification there be?
      That's a wrong question. They should not be forced to justify anything. If you don't like them, you can live without a cell phone.

      There is no physiological addiction to the phones, nor are these companies government entities. They don't owe you anything.

      If they don't care to fix "dead zones" and want to send out "cryptic" billing statements (I never had a problem with mine, though), then so be it. The competition is healthy -- either the consumers will switch in droves, or these are not really problems.

      Now, the requirement to allow the phone-number transfer was a good thing, because there was no incentive for a single one company to offer that, if all competitors did not. Better coverage and easier to read statements are quite different.

      • While I find this line of argument compelling in a lot of instances, this isn't one of them. Wireless companies' entire business is predicated on their access to a public asset, spectrum, which is finite and is licensed (in the US) by the federal government. IANAL, but my understanding is that this comes bundled with a number of obligations under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, one of which is to provide universal service. So, in this instance, it's not a simple as "if you don't like it, go s
    • The only grounds they really have for complaint here is the economic feasibility of allowing one year contracts

      Or, you know, the right to run your business as you see fit. You know, where companies can set their business practices, fees, rules. Anything else is glorified price fixing.

  • Maybe it will go federal someday (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:39PM (#13751507) Homepage
    Enough states do this and maybe the feds will take note and Congress will do something. The do-not-call list started this way, and I have gotten no more calls.

    On the other hand, this bill sounds a little vague and doesn't do enough. The pricing schemes of cell companies are terrible, and pay-as-you go plans suck monkey balls in the states. You should be able to buy a sim card and use whatever phone you choose, like the Europeans do. They have it good over there!

    • Re:Maybe it will go federal someday (Score:5, Interesting)

      by griffjon ( 14945 ) <`GriffJon' `at' `gmail.com'> on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:04PM (#13751621) Homepage Journal
      Definitely. The cell phone market is not a good example of a free market system due to the former monopoly players involved, and the monopoly practices they are able to use through tower control.

      I predict that US cell companies will one day soon be revealed to be colluding and price-fixing, and doing all sorts of nasty oligopoly/monopoly illegal things.

      e.g. why the fuck is text messaging on most carrier 5-10 cents to send and again to receive? that's pure profit (excepting when people are flooding the text channel, evidentally). Why do they charge from opening the line as opposed to the receiver picking up the call? How do they magically attribute 20 minutes of calltime in chunks to my own number? (I don't have that much voicemail!)?

      Why do they lock down phones and features within phones?

      I'm disgusted with the US cell phone companies compared to options abroad. We as consumers are getting screwed over, and most people don't even realize it.

      • I hate paying my celphone bill. -- +2 Interesting, +1 Insightful

        This post is a hodge-podge of conspiracy theory and "Workers of the World Unite". Hard to imagine anyone would think it's "Insightful".. I guess they give mod points to just anyone these days.

        I predict that US cell companies will one day soon be revealed to be colluding and price-fixing, and doing all sorts of nasty oligopoly/monopoly illegal things.

        Riiight. Have they been "colluding" to lower per-minute fees by 90% over the past ten

        • You may call call it a conspiracy theory but I believe there are artificail barriers in place across almost all carriers. Number portability got rid of one of them.
          There is a major issue with carrier specific phones which affects the consumers has nmany negatives for the consumers. Think about this.. You HAVE to buy a phone from the specific carrier which leads to:
          1) It makes the original price of the phone higher because of many more different models required to be made to support the different carriers

  • A bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Snamh Da Ean ( 916391 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:41PM (#13751518)
    Why should the government get involved with a market like this? Where is there evidence of market failure, such as excessive market power by the cell companies? Why does the state think people necessarily want to have only one year contracts, and why does it think it knows better than consumers? If the market is competitive, then it should be able to provide most of what people want. If the market is not competitive, the state should encourage entry, but it should not get involved with dictating the terms of businesses to those better qualified to assess their reasonableness. TFA article makes no mention of customer groups complaining about these features - is it a case of politicians throwing their weight about unneccessarily? Anyone from MA know of consumer initiatives in this area. Right, that sould be about enough questions! Ok?
    • The government will get involved when lots of people are unhappy and complain a lot - and an election season is on the horizon.
    • Why should the government get involved with a market like this?

      I'm a huge believer in the free market, and the only reason I would ever advocate government involvement is when you're dealing with a scarce resource. In the case of cell phones, there is a limited amount of bandwidth available. It would be virtually impossible for someone today to start a cell phone company without having to deal with the existing players in some way. Maybe you can explain how you think MA could encourage new entries into

  • I don't see a lot of strong evidence that that's not the case. One danger in imposing caps and restrictions like this is that it provides a convenient collusion point for all carriers. The government mandates this is the worst we can do, and gosh-darn-it, that restriction is awfully chafin, we would like to do even worse than that, but this stupid regulation prevents us, so we're stuck here doing the worst we're allowed.

    While doing things that reduce the barriers to switching to a competing carrier are good, and making sure that no one carrier can ever get a lock on a particular market would also be good, I don't see a lot of point in these other restrictions.

    What I would like to see in a 'cell phone bill of rights' are things like "I have the right to not be called for commercial (profit or non-profit) purposes by entitities that I have not given explicit permission to call me. And if you do receive any such calls, you have the right to not be charged the airtime for them.".

    Commercials are an ever-present creeping kudzu that will take over any vehicle of communication if given half-a-chance. Even google is starting to put commercials inline with search results and only marking them off with a colored box.

  • There ain't no free lunch (Score:4, Insightful)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:43PM (#13751527)
    Long contracts are how cell companies manage to offer you "free" or low-cost phones, "free" minutes, etc. If contracts are limited to one year, you'll see those sorts of offers disappear or go up in cost. Maybe that's an acceptable result, but no one should expect that this regulation will somehow usher in a utopia for the consumer in which all sorts of new rights adhere at no cost.
    • Not quite. I can go to consumer cellular, and sign up for NO CONTRACT service, and get a phone from them ranging from FREE to $215 for the top of the line model. Try that with the big carriers directly, and they'll tack at least $300 onto even the most basic phone.

      The problem as I see it is that the big carriers are using each other to ratchet up the contract requirement. Until the consumer screams loud enough, none of them have an incentive to lower the minimum contract length. And the cost of entry in

      • Until the consumer screams loud enough, none of them have an incentive to lower the minimum contract length.

        Consumers don't need to scream, they just need to vote with their dollars. If everybody were going to carriers with contract lengths of 1 year or less, you could be certain that other carriers would change. People don't, so the carriers don't
      • What is to stop you from getting your free phones with no contract, immediatly cancelling and selling them on ebay?

    • Re:There ain't no free lunch (Score:5, Informative)

      by Hektor_Troy ( 262592 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:17PM (#13751690)
      HRmm... odd. We have 6 month limit, and they are forced to tell you the total cost in those six months.

      And we still have 15 cents cell phones.

      That's in Denmark by the way.
      • And we still have 15 cents cell phones.

        My last cell phone, which I bought for $99, had $300 in rebates from Amazon and Cingular. Therefore, I received a profit of $200 on the cell phone (had to do a 2year contract to get the rebates.)

        I don't believe I've seen anything like that outside of the United States.

  • How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:44PM (#13751530)
    Like:

    - Cell phones prohibited in libraries, theaters, conferences, etc. punishable by death.
    - Cell phones prohibited while driving.
    - Loud ringers prohibited.
    - Obnoxious ringtones prohibited.
    - Make it legal to smack cell phone users for whatever reason.
    - Cell phone towers only allowed in yards of cell phone users.
    • How does it feel to be in the 2/3rds?

      1 in 3 people in the world have a mobile phone. That ratio is only going to increase.

      Get used to it.

  • unlocked phones (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pyros ( 61399 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:45PM (#13751541) Journal
    The only requirement I'm waiting to see is unlocked phones so the carriers can't keep stifling cool new technology. Verizon really screws customers be disabling/removing nice features that the manufacturers put in and advertise.

    • Re:unlocked phones (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MBCook ( 132727 )
      Bingo. These are the rights that I care about:
      • If the feature is available on the phone, it must be enabled and not crippled
      • Data on the phone belongs to the user, not the carrier, and must be accessible by the user (to pull data off the phone/put it on without having to go through the carrier).
      • Use of one feature on the phone (such as downloading new games) should not require use of another feature (such as accessing the internet) that may cost extra.
      • If a user wishes to use a cellphone on your network th
      • I agree with all of these points. Especially the last one. Every time I hear a Jamster "ringtone" I want to shoot the person with that phone. repetedly. starting with the feet and working my way up.
      • Wow, thanks for the inspiration. Because you reminded me of the problem, I sent the following email to the sponsors of the bill (I hope you don't mind that I copied your list):

        --------

        Dear Sen. Barrios and Rep. Linsky,

        I want to thank you for sponsoring the "Cell Phone Bill of Rights." I'm not even a citizen of Massachusetts (I live in Georgia), but I wanted to show my support anyway because this could serve as a good prototype for similar legislation in my state.

        I am concerned, though, that the bill doesn

  • Fixing dead zones... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by doormat ( 63648 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @01:48PM (#13751553) Homepage Journal
    I moved into a new house 6 months ago, and low and behold, my cellphone doesnt work in all but one room of the house (no signal or emergency only). I'm locked into a contract with Cingular until next summer. So should I be charged $300 to get out of the contract because their service sucks at my new house?
    • You're the one who signed the contract; it's your responsibility to negotiate an escape clause for the poor service after a change of residence. Or, when buying the house, you could have checked cell coverage when seeing how the neighbors are and if the faucets leak. Blaming the company for you not thinking ahead is kind of silly.

      • Re:Fixing dead zones... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by hazem ( 472289 )
        Negotiate? You're kidding, right? Negotiate with Verizon for different contract terms - when all they have is a generic, Verizon-friendly, contract that comes out of a receipt printer? Right. You say, "I'd like to ammend the contract.", and after consulting their manager, they'll say, "I'm sorry we can't do that."

        I know - I can walk away.

        Go to Sprint - same thing.

        Go to Cingular - turn around and walk away before you even talk to them...

        Negotiating a new contract is just not available. That's why I'm sw

      • Hello, pointless liberarian comment!

        This really doesn't have anything to do with the rational world where people actually live--no cell phone company in existence currently allows any degree of negotiation.
        • I think you missed my point. The grandparent thinks there should be a law allowing him to breach contract at any time. I said that's silly, what you're really looking for is a law that allows you to get a contract you won't need to breach. Yes, the comment was libertarian in nature, but I think that the suggested action was if anything more practical than the original proposed law.
    • I have the same problem with my cell-phone only having service in parts of the house while it works beautifully in others.. I don't understand why this is, it's a wood framed house, there's no big towers or obstacles that would limit service in this neighbourhood. The cell phone works in my dining room but not my bedroom or living room, and they're all within 10 steps of each other.

      Works in the basement just fine though :-|
    • You shoulda tried your phone at the new house, if the phone is that important.

  • Danish law (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Waerloga ( 155578 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:01PM (#13751613)
    Danish law limits contracts to half a year.

  • Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:02PM (#13751616)
    With all due respect, things like free speech and posession of waepons are a right. Cell phone freebies coercively imposed on everyone else it not. How about MA start focusing on the real rights, like quit pouncing on everyone with high taxes and regulations, and stop focusing on pretend rights like cell phone freebies.

  • Oh God. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:04PM (#13751622) Homepage
    How about contract reform?

    Generally, contracts are very one-sided. I mean the cell phone company can cut you off at any time, but if you cut them off when on a contract, you must pay.

    Anything they can get their hands on means a swift and harsh punishment will be coming.

    I mean you can always say 'don't sign the contract!' that's fine and dandy, but the very act of looking at the contract usually means you want (and sometimes need!) whatever service is being provided.

    Look at any contract. When you apply for a job and get hired, you usually have to sign a contract saying something like 'everything i do on company time is owned by the company, even if i'm on break or lunch, i have the right to be fired at any time without warning or reason, i must donate all worldy goods to the company, etc.' in exchange for employment and getting paid for what you're working on.
    • You sir are a communist. Don't you understand the /. meme. Big corporations should be allowed to fuck over anyone they want in any way they want in the name of the free market. Of course the fact that in a truly free market you wouldn't have the concept of the limited liability corporation which shields the stockholders, the owners, of the corporation for liability concerning its actions, is a mere bagatelle that must be disregarded. Big corporations are good, unless of course they're Microsoft, SCO, Disney
    • Here's a very simple reform:

      Any contract in which one party is allowed to modify the terms without the other's express written permission is void, and unenforceable in a court of law.

      It would be a very simple law to pass, but would give a huge amount of freedom to consumers. How often have you been given a set of conditions of service with a clause like that in it?

    • This is a form of contract reform. Contract law states that a contract cannot break any existing laws.

      Since a "Cell phone bill of rights" would set forth laws to which a carrier contract cannot break, it would effectively be reforming their contracts.

      If MA passes this law and Cingular still sells two-year contracts, after one year that part of the contract would be null and void. They could argue that you signed it, but you'd have the law on your side.

      Unfortunately, it would still probably cost you more t
      • I suspect that a 2 year contract would be OK.

        Cingular could not *REQUIRE* a 2 year contract, but if you wanted one, they could give it to you.
  • How about the right to go where you want without your position being tracked and stored for later use?

    BTW, If you are against data retention, please sign the petition:

    http://www.dataretentionisnosolution.com/ [dataretent...lution.com]
  • Nobody's mentioned the thing that irks me the most: when companies sell phones that are locked to that provider. Sure, you can unlock them by paying some shady person $40, but if it's so trivial for the consumer to unlock them (and doesn't bring a dime to the original company), what's the point?
  • Often takes as much effort and resources as the first 95%. Many companies choose not to bother. Do we really want laws to force them?

    Must all web-sites support Lynx, for example? It'd be great if there did, but legally (i.e. at gun-point) forcing them too? I don't think so...

  • While we're at it... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KrackHouse ( 628313 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @02:17PM (#13751689) Homepage
    I really hate how supermarkets close at night, we should create the Bureaucracy of Consumer Annoyances which will employ thousands of well paid experts to make sure lines aren't too long or fast food places never run out of diet coke.

    I can see it now, businesses will cower in fear as the regulators roll through businesses looking for anything that might cause consumer disgust.

    Nobody is dumb enough to actually try to enforce this which is why it died on the vine in California. France actually passes laws like this which is why they have 10% unemployment.
  • but what exactly happens to this bill of rights crap when all the carriers go to IP based communications where the FCC has yet to implement ANY legislation on data networks. Your next phone is likely to be a voice over WiFi or over WiMax, or some other form of VoIP.

    I seriously doubt that regulating voice communications will ever do anything correctly. What is needed is to lay out standards of business for those companies offering services, such cable, broadband, telephone, gas, electricity, anything that in
  • How dare those pinko commie terrorists in the Taxachusetts legislature try to push around poor little Verizon or Cingular! Why, they're just honest businessmen trying to scrape by and earn a meager living, but these ruthlesss government bastards want to regulate them right out of business!

    (This is rhetorical and not meant as a troll.)
  • I hate "big telco" as much as the next slashdotter, but I think the two year contract is acctually reasonable if you get the phone at a steap discount: Do you think that a RaizorV3 only costs cingular / bestbuy $99???? The answer is HELL NO, it costs much more than that, the companies understand that most people cant afford $250-$700 per family member to get a nice phone, but they want the share plan so mom and dad can always reach billy and jenny, so the contracts help everyone to win, the company gets you
    • So let's have it both ways. Sure, 2 year contracts for a Razr you got from the carrier is fine. I can live with that. But what if you're bringing your own phone to the party? Say I own my own unlocked Motorola v600 , and all I need to get basic voice service (all I need anyway) is a SIM? Can I get a SIM card for a small fee, then get billed monthly with no cancellation penalty?

      No, I can't. I can get a "Free" phone, but that comes with a 1 year contract. I can get a 'pay as you go' phone, but I have to buy t
  • I'm from Massachusetts and don't mind a 2 year contract but dead zones are a big problem around here. For the kind of population density that Metro Boston and surrounding suburbs offer there should be nothing less then 4 full bars of signal anywhere. Sadly this is far from the case. In fact I found a new dead zone just the other day. It's kind of like my new hobby. Luckily my home is in 4 bars of service but just a few blocks away is a dead zone. Raymond St in Salem is a dead zone. North Beverly is a

  • Right.. to bear arms... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Duncan3 ( 10537 ) on Sunday October 09, 2005 @03:12PM (#13752012) Homepage
    What we really need is the right to bear arms against people using cellphones in a car, in a movie theater, or anywhere else they are yelling into one.

    I'm sure deaths by cellphone driver have long passed death by drunk driver, I get nearly run off the road by one of these morons at least a couple times a month. At least the drunk ones are _trying_ not to hit things, the cellphone users don't even know where they are.

    So save the innocent, kill all cellphone users. Think of the children!
  • If the trend continues, with people moving from landline POTS to cells (we could cover VOIP too) for their phone service, then the DPUCs could quite easily end up with the responsibility here.

    If we felt it necessary to have a DPUC for land phones, why not cell too? Granted it was when there was a single provider that this all started, but the field is shrinking - we've gone from T-Mobile, ATT, Verizon, Nextel, Cingular, Sprint to just four of those in a year. That trend seems to indicate competition is na

  • Yeah this is stupid. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fone ( 24398 )
    Sorry but the only thing this will do is raise the end cost for consumers. First off understand I work for one of the bigger big 4 cell companies, but I'm not corporate coating any of this post =P .
    1.) 1 year contracts will make customers pay more for cell phones. We subsidize them based on the contract you sign. However its only about a 50$ difference, but expect that to change if they are forced into it.
    2.) fixing dead spots... ok this is the most economically and logistically unfeasible things I've ever
  • why the government needs to get involved in completely voluntary and non-essential cell phone contracts I have no idea. if you don't like a cell phone contract, don't sign it. if you don't like any cell phone contracts, start your own cell phone provider and offer your great terms and rule the world.
  • Any incoming calls to my cell phone should not count against my minutes, or incur any charges to me at all.

    Hey - that's how it works in other counties.
  • From a San Francisco Chronicle interview [sfgate.com] this past April. Speaking is Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon's CEO. As much as I want the market to decide, this attitude makes it tough to believe I'll always get a fair deal.

    "Why in the world would you think your (cell) phone would work in your house?" he said. "The customer has come to expect so much. They want it to work in the elevator; they want it to work in the basement."

    Seidenberg said it's not Verizon's responsibility to correct the misconception by giving o

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close