Saturday, September 8, 2007
Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007
Posted by Ed Hansberry in "NEWS" @ 07:45 AM
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. :D
•"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.
"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. :D
•"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.
