Massachusetts considering cellphone Bill of Rights
By Peter Rojas 
posted October 8th 2005 9:38PM
posted October 8th 2005 9:38PM
California's cellphone users' Bill of Rights might
have met an untimely demise when it was voted down by public utility commissioners friendly to the wireless industry,
but it looks like Massachusetts is getting ready to carry the torch, with the legislature there considering a law which
would limit contracts to one year, require easier to understand monthly bills, and force carriers to fix dead zones.
The carriers, naturally, aren't too enthused about this and are vowing to fight the bill.
[Via textually.org]
An awesome idea. One of the few times I'm happy about living in MA.
go ahead and get the ball rolling MA so MI can follow.
Good luck. Look what happened to California's Consumer Bill of Rights. It's been raped by the industry since it was introduced. One state won't make ANY different. The cell phone companies will win. They will stall this for as many years as possible, pull nationwide plans out of Mass., or raise everyone's rates to defer the costs. This is a no-win situation.
Laws making it easier for networks to construct towers would make more sense but whatever. Who doesnt like a new bill of rights. After all, the old one is so 18th century. I mean, it says that people should be allowed to own guns!
#1 - My thoughts exactly. Between the snow, humid summers, and the roads being a wreck after winter, there's not much to get excited about except the prefect fall weather, the Patriots, and the Red Sox.
This sounds pretty good. Being a Republican I should disagree with this wholeheartedly, but mobiles are life so this sounds great. The dead zone thing sounds the best. I find the bills to be very comprehensive and self explanatory, at least with T-Mobile; if you can't understand them then you don't deserve to own a phone. Now we just have to abolish CDMA.
What a terrible idea. Having a government FORCE a cell phone company to improve its service is sinister. Governments need to get out of the way. Limiting contract lengths? If a customer feels it is beneficial to sign a two-year contract, he should be able to.
Forcing them to fix dead zones? What if the zones are in an area where they do not feel it is beneficial to add service? Rural areas? Some people actually think this bill is a GOOD idea??
"Bill of Rights"? Cell phone customers have no "rights", they have privileges granted to them from the cell phone company.
The only thing this sort of forced regulation will do is raise the price of doing business in Massachusetts, which will mean higher bills and more fees. The wireless companies will pass along any higher prices to their customers.
Amendment VI - "All carriers must stock a minimum of one high-end phone for every ten crappy free-with-contract phones."
=)
Fine. I'd pay a little more for no contracts and better coverage. Bring the regulation on!
"The only thing this sort of forced regulation will do is raise the price of doing business in Massachusetts, which will mean higher bills and more fees. The wireless companies will pass along any higher prices to their customers."
Tristan your comments have merit, but in some industries regulations actually benefit the consumer and tax base as a whole. A good example was the airlines. Yes, it was more expensive to fly then, but I didn't have my tax money being used to support an entire industry like we do now. And if the bill(s) is(are) written correctly, the legislature can make it so the telcos are unable to pass along the costs to consumers. The only problem I have with this is the wireless telcos in this country are all in red ink. Making it more expensive for them to operate and at the same time limiting their revenue streams will either lead to more consolidation or many of them going bankrupt. Neither of which will help the consumer, which is what they are trying to do.
= O Team mobile is screwed! = )
#5:
Oh yes, although we don't really have the Red Sox to be proud of anymore. And the Patriots aren't exactly filling me with confidence.
As a Republican, I should be against it as well. Then again, I also shouldn't be living in MA. :)
Michael Roach (#1) - I just had to notice that your linked web site is about Apples (cool site). I just thought about how funny it is that you are:
a) republican
b) live in MA (I could stop here)
c) love Apple (a conservative loving Apple?)
d) want to "abolish CDMA" even though you're generally republicans are for economic/corporate freedom
Truly, I mean this as no personal offense to you, I just think that you are in a very strange demographic.. :)
I also really don't want to start flame wars, which is why I'm not posting my personal opinions on any of these subjects, I just thought that this was sort of noteworthy in a funny way. I'll say that I agree with 1 thing in the list, disagree with 2 things, and love MA.. ;)
I meant poster number 5, not 1. Sorry!
Since when is having a cellphone a right in this country? Funny how legislatures didn't pick up this idea when Bell created the telephone, or Edison the lightbulb... god the idiocy of these politicians is astounding.
Whats next? Forcing ISPs to fix coverage so people can have an internet bill of rights? "Look Comcast, we know there are only 100 people in that area and that we the government haven't been to nice to you on zoning and allowing you to lay cable, but now we think we know how to run your business better than you so get to work."
There's a surprising amount of libertarianism 'round these parts.
Personally I don't think you can leave certain industries to just regulate themselves. The cell phone service in this country is defined by bad phones and worse service.
A few laws to end the rediculous contracts and the locked/unlocked phones nonsense would be a very good thing.
I think there needs to be an Electronic Retailer Bill of Rights (ERBOR).
Every Circuit City, every Best Buy, every Fry's Electronics, et al must have:
1. More detailed reciepts.
2. Whatever you're looking for in stock at all times.
3. No discounts if you buy more than one (quantity discounts).
#11 - I take no offense at all! People have actually pointed out that odd mix of attributes before, I think it's pretty funny. I'd actually describe myself as a Libertarian with Republican voting tendencies. I may as well vote Libertarian though since voting anything but blue in this state is futile.
Abolishing CDMA actually does conflict with my belief that companies should be able to do whatever they want; it was a facetious comment. I'd still be happy if it were to go away.
I'm very opposed to the government telling a company what they can and can't do, especially for a company that provides a non-necessary service such as mobile phone service. Forcing them to offer coverage is absurd and it's a disgrace. If you want to live out in the sticks, fine, just don't expect the nice amenities of the real world.
For those that are complaining about phone selection: buy a phone overseas and put your SIM in it, problem solved. It's up to the carrier to sell nice phones or not.
#16 - Good points made. I generally take the liberal approach to things, and I am obsessive about my phone, but I would have to agree with you that it is a non-essential service that shouldn't be regulated in this way. I have been upset in the past at some of the tactics that the cell phone companies have used, and contracts in general, but if you sign them, they are a contract. I don't see a reason for the government to step into this subject.
I live in a fairly urban area of Michigan (urban for this state, anyway). I travel to the more rural areas quite often for family visits, trips, etc, so CDMA is a must. I had a Cingular phone for a while, and it worked wonderfully where I live, but it had a lot of coverage holes in other areas. They did not want to let me out of my contract for free (or even believe me?!), and I was upset at the time. Looking back, a little more mature now, I realize that it was a contract. I signed it. It's not their fault that I didn't try it out more in the first 30 days.
I did like the way GSM worked in my local area here, and they have patched a lot of the holes. I wouldn't mind giving it a try again once my VZW contract is up. I miss the cool phones and much better battery life. Service wasn't much different locally.
Nice to see someone grown up enough on these forums to resist having a catfight out of the bag. I was scared to post my first comment for fear that it might be construed the wrong way, it's good to see that you took it the right way. Thanks!
Being on Tmoobile.. contracts are only one year, anyway.
But it would be nice for them to fix the dead:zones.
mmk
wtg, MA.
Here are the cellphone "bill of rights" for Norway:
* Contracts are limited to 12 months
* Phone ads must state the minimum cost of the first year
* Infrastructure providers must reach some minimum coverage within a time limit, this is a requirement of the frequency licence.
* The networks are required to be open to virtual providers, who buy bandwith from the infrastructure providers and handle calls to outside the network.
* The government organisation which enforce the above runs a website (telepriser.no) where it is really simple to check how your contract compares to every other possible contract.
Basically you get a lot of competion and guaranteed good coverage. The organisation which oversees this handles complaints and enforces the regulation for roaming and such.
IMHO it is pretty naive to think that big companies won't cooperate to screw their customers if they're allowed too, having a government around to enforce competion is "good for the people".
The government should keep its grubby hands off business, and instead focus on what it does best: Killing people.
Great, government is sticking their nose in again and telling companies how to run their affairs, when no one asked.
If you don't like your service, pick a different carrier. If you don't like the contracts, then don't go with one. You can pay more to get a shorter contract NOW.
If this bill should change anything, it should force the providers to all get on the same technology, so consumers are able to switch providers and keep their phones. They should also not be allowed to advertise a calling plan for $29.95 a month, and then tack on $14 in "taxes and regulatory fees", which no doubt will go up even MORE after this useless "bill of rights' is passed.
...."The government should keep its grubby hands off business".....actually, business should keep its grubby hands off government.
Case in point the digital millenium copyright act....which was the brainchild of various 'special interests' (read that as big business) and has done more to trample on consumer rights........than pretty much any other legislation in the past 10 years....It's latest incarnation....using it as a means to prevent cell phone customers from unlocking their phones (which they have paid for)at the end of their contract. Big business has so riddled the workings of government, that we need legislation to protect ourselves from them.....absolute belief in a laissez faire approach to all business, is so f$cking naive, it's laughable!!!!
having telcos fix dead spots is just ludicrous, dead spots are simply the nature of the beast.
you think telcos will spend ~300k if not more per tower plus assembly, operation.... to service 2k people? no YOUR bill will reflect that.
plus people who sign up w/ cingular for 2 years to get a mediocre samsung phone for free or 50 bucks need to learn about amazon and other retailers. 2 years is a real long time to save ~$200 on a crappy phone.
So what happens when Beacon Hill requires a carrier to fix a dead zone, but the only reason the dead spot is there is because the carrier has been trying to build a tower for 5 years but some rich town won't issue a permit?
You already have the option of a one-year contract with every provider in the USA. What happened to consumer choice? If you want the free phone, you sell your soul for another year. Otherwise you pay $50 for the phone and call it good. So, then people will complain that they have to pay more for phones, the regulations will change to "address" that, and sooner or later the carriers won't be making a profit. Then they pull out of the market altogether, since nothing requires them to provide service here at all.
This is, after all, a state so anti-business that it costs $3 to drive a Ford Excursion through the tunnel if it's privately owned, but your printshop's Focus costs $4.50.
#18 stated-
"P.S. #9 'Not being able to pass along costs to consumers' is very very similar to 'not being able to hire as many people' but it just feels better to say it the first way, regardless of reality."
No, they are not the same. Just because the company has more money because it is not forced to perfect its coverage does NOT mean it will hire more people.
#26 - You're 100% correct about towns interfering with tower building. I believe there's already a law that they can't say no to having a tower constructed, but towns like mine (Boxford, MA) have been giving T-Mobile the runaround for about three years now. They keep moving the acceptable site of the two towers they want to build so nothing is getting done. The only service I get it is from towers in other towns. There's a big dead spot on I-95 thanks to my town. Exits 53-A and 53-B, try it out sometime.
Ignore my previous post, apparently the post i was refering to got deleted (what is going on here?)
Rhode Island better follow suit.
Isn't gay marriage legal in MA, damn, they're progressive.
We deleted a post by someone who has been spamming the comments here.
Companies SHOULD fix their dead spots (areas where they say they cover but users can't get coverage there). If not, then don't say on their maps and the like that they do provide coverage. It's that simple.
Yay Socialism! Clearly working in France with the 10% unemployment 70% taxes and endless strikes. The problem with free markets is that they take time to work out the fat. It happened in the long distance business and it will happen with cell phones in time.
Most people aren't that patient so they call for more government which never goes away even after the problem is gone.
Hogwash. Why shouldn't consumers be protected against unscrupulous corporations. If a contract says that you are covered for a particular area then that area should be covered. Period. As far as socialism goes, yes France has 10% unemployment and high taxes but they also have one of the best education systems in the world and their citizens have access to health care. Compare this to america where the eduation system is a joke, 5% unemployment, 30% of people live in abject poverty, more than 2million people are incarcerated, over 25000 people are murdered each year, etc...
To much regulation can itself be restrictive but study after study has shown when deregulation of industry is implemented (Teleco's, energy, health care )prices for consumers go up.
25. "You already have the option of a one-year contract with every provider in the USA."
Um, not over here we don't. Nextel/Sprint requires one year contracts now, as do Verizon and Cingular/AT&T. the only one left, in my area, with a one year contract is T-Mobile, and right here, right now, I wish I could switch, but I refuse to be locked in for two years to something I know I'm not going to want a year from now. That's just how I am, and I know it's basically my problem, but I'm sure others feel the same way. Some of the things in the 'Bill of Rights' are a good idea. although not all of them are, I'm sure.
The tower thing? Yeah, in MA, a lot of 'old money' doesn't want those things in their neighborhoods, so we suffer for it.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Nice how the legacy of the Bill of Rights -- a non-comprehensive set of rights against state power -- is exploited nowadays for legislation that in fact restricts the freedom to conduct business and contract in certain ways. Such can hardly be called "rights".
If you could make it so that women in Mass would not talk on their cell phone while driving, I would agree to just about anything. Boston drivers are the worst in New England; women are the worst of the worst. Put a cell phone in her hand, and you'd better reserve two lanes for her. Put a family in the back seat of her SUV, and it's a famlicide waiting to happen.
It's not the cell phone, it's just the idea that many women have that they can do more than one thing at a time. They do one thing well. Everything else they do, they do poorly, and when doing multiple things, it's a disaster.
Only my 2/c
#37 get a life. ALL boston drivers suck. All boston Area drivers suck Male and female. I've been nearly been hit by as many men as women. Female/male put a cell phone in someone's hand and they can't drive.
Try driving through Sudbury, Stow and Wayland on your phone- almost no service. They don't want the towers in their back yards but you should hear them bitch about the lack of service. Don't even think of going North Shore and being able to talk for more than 5 minutes without static or breaks in coverage.
The cell companies need to come up with less obtrusive towers that the rich folk won't mind in their back yard.
It would be nice to see them force cell phone carriers to give us the *real* base charge of our service every month, instead of the "$39.99, plus taxes, plus some random fee, plus this, plus that, plus everything else, and the *actual* minimum you will pay every month if abiding by all restrictions, is $54.99"
I find it funny that some of you american consumers have been so brainashed by the 'free market' ideology, that you are actually SUPPORTING (!) the cell phone companies being allowed to rip us off and to leave the poor consumer powerless.
OBVIOUSLY this is a great idea. I think it should be pushed further. whats the deal with text message legnth these days? We are aware how much data can be sent through the air at no real cost to the network, and yet i still have to pay 10p for a measley 150 ish characters? GET IT FIXED
Yes I am a libertarian for the most part. Kinda think this is a good and bad idea. I think the government needs to get into a little more worryin' about roads and police and fire and less about cellphones. But on the same side of things I know that Sprint has screwed over my best friend quite a bit on things he didnt do and also charged my family 100 somthing dollars many times that were "mistakes" that they had to chase down. Same with cingular and verizon. Tmobile screwed me, I was in a jam because my sprint phone from when I worked at radio shack got shut off and I had a sidekick2 just for data. Well the guy I talked to said it was 9.99 a month on top of my $30 a month to sign up for the phone plan... so of course I signed up on the spot after asking him over and over if that was right. Then I got my first bill 69 bucks. Dont tell me cellphone companies just like the cable companies aren't out there tryin' to f#@k us. On a lighter note I talked to a friend that lives in Texas about how I wished I could have some land with a barn on it to work on cars and have a dog and such, and she said well move out of MA to Texas and I could. I told her I couldn't do that cause I liked my gay friends :)
Just jokeing Texas!