09-08-2007, 03:45 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007
http://klobuchar.senate.gov/newsreleases_detail.cfm?id=281970&
"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."
Well, you know what they say. When a politician is coming to help you, you had better grab your wallet. :roll: Senators Amy Klobuchar and Jay Rockefeller are here to help the good citizens of the US and save us from the big bad corporations. Nothing like a populist bill as we enter into the quadrennial election cycle where all of the Representatives, the President and a third of the Senators are up for re-election. Mr. Rockefeller is up for re-election this cycle, but given he has been there over 20 years, it would take large construction equipment to pry him out of office. This bill isn't a make or break for him. To all of you outside of the US, if you haven't paid attention to a presidential election in the US, now is your chance. Better than any sporting event. :lol: Here are the key points of the bill, which, by the way, includes one of those buzzwords you should be eminently suspect of - empowerment. Dilbert would be so proud. Now, on to the points:
�Early Termination Fees - The FCC shall set forth regulations to pro-rate ETFs. At a minimum, the ETF for a 2-year contract shall be reduced by � after 1 year.
Why? As long as you know what the fee is before signing up, and you have a buyer's remorse clause to quickly get out, as most do and this bill proposes be extended to 30 days, you are an adult. You can read. The fee is generally equivalent to 1-2 months of billings. I don't get this one at all.
�Mapping and Service Quality - Maps are to be detailed enough to identify whether or not a consumer shall be able to receive wireless service at the consumer�s home., and wireless providers shall provide the FCC with information on dropped calls and coverage gaps; and the FCC shall make this information publicly available.
On the maps, why? Every carrier in the US I have visited have maps in the stores and at least two of them have these "house level" maps on the internet. Why must this be a regulation? Now, on the dropped calls, that is a good idea. It is one thing to claim coverage. It is another to have it actually work where calls don't drop 5 times in a single zip code.
�Disclosure Requirement for Plans and Contracts - Publication of the terms of a wireless plan shall include information on: contract terms; charges; minutes; information on taxes and surcharges; wireless E-911 service; and other information that the FCC considers appropriate, and shall be given to a consumer prior to entering into any contract.
This is just common sense. I thought this was all in the contract, but if it isn't, then yes, it should be. To make an informed decision of what you are getting into, you should be informed. However, if it isn't clearly spelled out in the contract you sign, then you can't be held liable for it anyway. Large companies, like Comcast, tend to leave out these juicy details knowing 99.995% of the sheeple won't sue. It shouldn't be this way. If you have a download limit, specify it. If you have a surcharge for an item, spell it out. If you don't have E-911, let me know. I actually think the government is pretty good at this kind of thing. Make the big guy tell the little guy all the fine print or unprinted print.
�Contract Billing - Taxes and fees shall be set forth in a separate section of the bill; and roaming charges shall be separately itemized and sent to a subscriber not later than 60 days after such calls were placed. Carriers will not be able to list charges or fees other than fees for the wireless service and any charge expressly authorized by federal, state, or local regulation.
Amen on this one. I've been billed 8 months after a roaming charge before, and since I had changed jobs and it was business related, I was hung out to dry on it. All you phone companies have those fancy boxes with lights and whirring noises we in the geek community like to call "Computers." Use them to tell us the roaming charges on a timely matter.
I am not sure what "Carriers will not be able to list charges or fees other than fees for the wireless service and any charge expressly authorized by federal, state, or local regulation" means exactly. I would prefer they not be able to charge me for anything I didn't expressly ask for. How many with a landline in the US has been slammed by a service on your phone bill you didn't ask for? Ok, all of you can put your hands down. :roll: I've never seen this on a cellular plan though. Maybe there is some other nefarious plot the good senators are trying to put the kibosh on. :?:
�"Contract Extension, Modification or Recission - An extension of a contract shall not be valid unless the wireless provider provides point-of-sale notice of the extension to the customer and allows the customer to cancel the extension within 30 days after such notice. Wireless carriers must provide subscribers with written notices of changes in rates and terms at least 30 days before such changes are to take effect. A contract for wireless service may be canceled upon the request of a subscriber for any reason up to 30 days after entering into the contract."
This is pretty good. I could live with 15 days. Don't care too much for T-Mobile's, which is about 3 days. You need time to live with your device and make sure it works when and where you need it, and you can't do that in less than a week. Take time to visit clients, church, the office, your kid's schools, sporting events, etc. Eliminates the need for the regulated map above, which they all have anyway.
�"Report on Handset Portability and Handset Quality - The FCC shall submit a report to Congress that studies the practice of handset locking in the United States and the effect of handset locking on consumer behavior and competition."
This is totally foreign to most people in the US, and I am of two minds on it. I love the unlocked phone universe of Europe, but hate the thought of no all-you-can-eat data plans. The carriers are going to make money. They will do it by locking you in with subsidized hardware, or will nickel-and-dime you to death with charges for text messages, data consumption, etc. I say, leave well enough alone on this one. It only applies to AT &T and T-Mobile as Sprint and Verizon use CDMA networks, and are generally evil anyway. The savvy consumer can get an unlocked phone if they want for their GSM phone service. I haven't had a locked phone with T-Mobile since my Nokia 3650 days, which was way back when Palm devices still ran PalmOS 5! Oh... wait. ;-)
�"Termination of Contracts for Armed Service Personnel - U.S. military personnel may terminate their cell phone contracts if, during the term of the contract, the member receives orders for deployment outside of the U.S. for a period of not less than 90 days."
Can I get an "amen" and a "hallelujah" on this one? Anyone in the armed forces called up for duty, or just moved out of their carrier's service area for that matter, should get special treatment. What those guys and gals sacrifice for their country cannot be repaid in any shape, fashion or form. The last thing they need is some jerk at the cell phone provider arguing over early termination fees and "well, we're sorry. It is in the contract." Idiots. That this even got to the attention of Congress means someone needs to beat the carriers with a clue-stick, and I think a ticked off Marine would be just the guy to do it. 
�"Enforecement - The FCC shall enforce the legislation�s provisions and the attorney general of a State, or the public utility commission of a State may bring a civil action in federal district court or establish or use existing administrative procedures to enforce the Act�s provisions. The Act preempts state law, except that the Act does not preempt state laws that provide additional protections to wireless subscribers."
Ahhh... more money. And who will pay these enforcers? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.
About half of this should be outright thrown away and the rest scaled back some.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-08-2007, 07:37 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 484
|
|
Re: Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry
�Disclosure Requirement for Plans and Contracts - Publication of the terms of a wireless plan shall include information on: contract terms; charges; minutes; information on taxes and surcharges; wireless E-911 service; and other information that the FCC considers appropriate, and shall be given to a consumer prior to entering into any contract.
This is just common sense. I thought this was all in the contract, but if it isn't, then yes, it should be.
|
Unfortunately, it's not. The thing that is bad is that they advertise a rate, such as $39.95, but then the first bill comes in with a bunch of fees and and taxes that make the actual amount $10 or $15 higher! This should be like gas prices: They are required to break out the fees on the bill, but any advertised price should be the bottom line you pay.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry
I am not sure what "Carriers will not be able to list charges or fees other than fees for the wireless service and any charge expressly authorized by federal, state, or local regulation" means exactly.
|
It means they can't add in things like "wireless service maintenance fee" or other similar meaningless "fee" that is simply a part of their cost of doing business that, as I noted above, they like to break out so they can charge more than the amount advertised.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry
�"Report on Handset Portability and Handset Quality - The FCC shall submit a report to Congress that studies the practice of handset locking in the United States and the effect of handset locking on consumer behavior and competition."
|
I think that the end result of this "report" should be that the carriers must agree to unlock phones at no - or reasonable - charge after the initial contract period ends. They have a right to re coop the "subsidy" that they give of the phone costs over the life of the contract. But once the contract is over, it's your phone - you paid for it and you should have the right to use it on the carrier of your choice. Also, Sprint and Verizon should be required to accept any CDMA phone onto their network. They can do this, they simply choose not to. ATT played this game years ago when they would only allow you to connect Western Electric phones to the network. They can't do this now, and the CDMA carriers should not be allowed to claim they can't do it when hey certainly can.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry
�"Termination of Contracts for Armed Service Personnel - U.S. military personnel may terminate their cell phone contracts if, during the term of the contract, the member receives orders for deployment outside of the U.S. for a period of not less than 90 days."
Can I get an "amen" and a "hallelujah" on this one?
|
Yes, you can: "amen and hallelujah" 8)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry
�"Enforcement - The FCC shall enforce the legislation�s provisions and the attorney general of a State, or the public utility commission of a State may bring a civil action in federal district court or establish or use existing administrative procedures to enforce the Act�s provisions. The Act preempts state law, except that the Act does not preempt state laws that provide additional protections to wireless subscribers."
Ahhh... more money. And who will pay these enforcers? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.
|
Actually, it should be less money. What this is about is that some states (such as California) are trying to enact their own laws regulating cellular carriers. This would create 50 different sets of rules for national carriers. What the bill is saying is that states can enforce this law, but can't add additional regulations that would apply only to their state.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-08-2007, 10:19 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 718
|
|
Too bad politicians are missing the point, as usual. There should be no contracts whatsoever and no early quitting fees. This isn't the old days of cell phones, where it took days to set up an account and activate it. Now you can have an account set up and active in five minutes. There is no way the networks can justify a $100-$200 fee to deactivate an account early. The fee is only there because they can, not to cover some great cost on their part to deactivate a phone. Plus, there are enough subscribers. Hundreds quit and join daily on these networks. Losing a customer is easily replaced with another. Again, no justification with having contracts and early termination fees.
It's time we stop letting the cell phone companies act like loan sharks and extortionists.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-08-2007, 10:53 PM
|
|
Editorial Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,411
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaleReeck
Again, no justification with having contracts and early termination fees.
|
I don't really agree with that. I consider the contract and ETF the concession for getting some expensive hardware at a reduced price. I don't pay any more per month because I got a nearly free phone, and I don't feel bad that the carrier would like to ensure I pay that for a reasonable amount of time. It's not a fee to do the work.
Whether I should pay a lower monthly rate if I walk in with my own phone is a different issue. I have walked in with my own phone and the two year contract has a zero early termination fee, so is it really a big deal.
I do like the disclosure aspects. I would like to see ATT explain their dozen or so different data plans clearly, without acknowledging that unlimited is different for different devices/classes of users, i.e they want to charge you more if they think you are going to use more of your unlimited plan.
__________________
Sometimes you are the anteater, sometimes you are the ant.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-08-2007, 11:48 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 718
|
|
===I don't really agree with that. I consider the contract and ETF the concession for getting some expensive hardware at a reduced price. I don't pay any more per month because I got a nearly free phone, and I don't feel bad that the carrier would like to ensure I pay that for a reasonable amount of time. It's not a fee to do the work.===
Personally, I think the reduced phone price thing is questionable. I suspect the prices we pay for the "reduced" phone costs are closer to the actual production costs of the phone than than the non-contract prices they state. For instance, the 8525 I had cost $399 contract and $599 non-contract. But there's no way that thing has more than a $300 production cost (if I remember , someone took one apart and priced the components separately). That's a $99 profit, even with a contract.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-09-2007, 12:10 AM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaleReeck
Personally, I think the reduced phone price thing is questionable. I suspect the prices we pay for the "reduced" phone costs are closer to the actual production costs of the phone than than the non-contract prices they state. For instance, the 8525 I had cost $399 contract and $599 non-contract. But there's no way that thing has more than a $300 production cost (if I remember , someone took one apart and priced the components separately). That's a $99 profit, even with a contract.
|
So? Aren't they allowed to make a profit? That is how business works. You pay more for an item than the cost. It is why the person making the items goes to the trouble to make the item. It is why I get up from bed every morning and go to work. It is with the hope that someone will buy what we sell at a price above what it costs us to make it.
But to analyze your statement a bit further that the reduced price is closer to the cost, did the phone I just got for free for a family member cost free?
You want to buy it unlocked, go to Expansys and see what the market price is. You don't like the price, go elsewhere. It works that way with just about everything in our economy. Well, except for those things the governement noses in on.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-09-2007, 02:06 AM
|
|
Magi
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,341
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sven
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaleReeck
Again, no justification with having contracts and early termination fees.
|
I don't really agree with that. I consider the contract and ETF the concession for getting some expensive hardware at a reduced price. I don't pay any more per month because I got a nearly free phone, and I don't feel bad that the carrier would like to ensure I pay that for a reasonable amount of time. It's not a fee to do the work. |
I absolutely agree with you Sven.
My last two phones were from Telus up here in Canada. The 6700 cost me $199 and my new P4000Mogul was a free upgrade...yes a FREE upgrade, and all I had to do was agree to do business with them for 3 years. I have to give someone the money each month, why not agree to give it to the guy who agrees to give me cheap/free phones. My alternative is to buy unlocked GSM devices. Here in Canada they run about $1000 each. Not to mention that when dealing with a carrier and I have a problem with a device, I walk into the store and come out with a replacement. Somehow I don't see this happening for long when we aren't tethered together with a contract.
BTW...I sure hope they are making a profit off me. I have yet to get long term service or support of any kind from anyone not making a profit. For some reason they just don't seem to stay in business very long.... 
Dave
|
| |
|
|
|
09-09-2007, 02:38 AM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaleReeck
Personally, I think the reduced phone price thing is questionable. I suspect the prices we pay for the "reduced" phone costs are closer to the actual production costs of the phone than than the non-contract prices they state. For instance, the 8525 I had cost $399 contract and $599 non-contract. But there's no way that thing has more than a $300 production cost (if I remember , someone took one apart and priced the components separately). That's a $99 profit, even with a contract.
|
So? Aren't they allowed to make a profit? That is how business works. You pay more for an item than the cost. It is why the person making the items goes to the trouble to make the item. It is why I get up from bed every morning and go to work. It is with the hope that someone will buy what we sell at a price above what it costs us to make it.
But to analyze your statement a bit further that the reduced price is closer to the cost, did the phone I just got for free for a family member cost free?
You want to buy it unlocked, go to Expansys and see what the market price is. You don't like the price, go elsewhere. It works that way with just about everything in our economy. Well, except for those things the governement noses in on. |
You can't have it both ways Ed. Making a profit is one thing but double dipping is another. The carriers claim that the early termination fee is to make up for the loss on the phones. If I go with your defense they are already making a profit on the phone so why the early termination fee then? No offense but in this case government intervention is a good thing to keep these corporations honest.
Regulation isn't always a bad thing. The alternative is deregulation which basically means 'screw you the consumer'. Just happy to finally see that some oversight is actually occurring in this day and age.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-09-2007, 02:47 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 718
|
|
I'm not arguing against making profit. My argument is, in most cases, the phones are already making a profit even when they are "discounted". Why should they gouge even more money? At what about the service? How come Sprint can only charge $15 for unlimited internet when VZW and AT&T are $45+? Sprint wouldn't sell unlimited internet for $15 if they were losing money on it. And I doubt VZW and AT&T internet costs three times as much to implement. That tells me VZW and AT&T are soaking us even more. And now they would hit us again for early termination too? And I'm not even going to get into some of the stupid mystery fees that charge on top of our normal bill. The cell phone companies are making PLENTY of profit. I don't see why you guys are so eager in giving them even more of your money. If the cable industry can let you quit whenever you want (while giving you free equipment and free installation), there's no reason the cell phone makers need contracts either.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-09-2007, 04:22 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,202
|
|
I typically agree that the government has little to no business sticking their noses into an agreement between a consumer and a private business. However, in the US, we currently have as close to a government granted monopoly on wireless service as you can get. The government licenses the Spectrum at HUGE cost, meaning there are very view companies that can compete for our business. Because of this, the "free market" competition you would expect to see does not exist. When one of the 4 major carriers raises it's ETF to $175, they all do. When one raises their text message rate to .15, they all do.
They all add ridiculous surcharges to their advertised price. In the US at least, if we want phone service, we have no choice but to agree to near identical terms from each of the providers. Ideally, the FCC would do it's job and fix the mess it's created. However, they seem unwilling or unable to regulate one of the industries they are entrusted to. In cases like this, I would say congress has no choice but to step in and attempt to level the playing field. I just wish I had more confidence that any changes passed into law will actually have the intended affect.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
