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." Massachusetts Plans a Cell Phone Bill of Rights Log in/Create an Account | Top | 64 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 64 comments 0: 61 comments 1: 51 comments 2: 40 comments 3: 6 comments 4: 4 comments 5: 3 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. All of these "rights"... (Score:5, Insightful) by jxyama (821091) on Sunday October 09, @02:37PM (#13751492) (Last Journal: Sunday January 30, @10:49PM) 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). [ Reply to ThisRe:All of these "rights"... by robbyjo (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @02:53PMRe:All of these "rights"... by Peyna (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:09PMRe:All of these "rights"... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @03:02PMAlready happened by argoff (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:12PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Fixing Dead Zones? (Score:5, Insightful) by gbulmash (688770) * <semi_famous@@@yahoo...com> on Sunday October 09, @02:38PM (#13751499) (http://www.funnybutsick.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday May 22, @04:48AM) 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 [ Reply to ThisRe:Fixing Dead Zones? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @02:48PMRe:Fixing Dead Zones? by takeya (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @03:08PMRe:Fixing Dead Zones? by QuestorTapes (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:27PMRe:Fixing Dead Zones? by QuestorTapes (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:24PM Reasons for complaint (Score:2) by gunpowda (825571) on Sunday October 09, @02:38PM (#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? [ Reply to ThisRe:Reasons for complaint by mi (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:11PMRe:Reasons for complaint by Cipster (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @03:28PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Maybe it will go federal someday (Score:2) by dj245 (732906) on Sunday October 09, @02:39PM (#13751507) (http://www.rogertheshrubber.net/) 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! [ Reply to ThisRe:Maybe it will go federal someday by griffjon (Score:3)Sunday October 09, @03:04PMRe:Maybe it will go federal someday by rdoger6424 (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @03:13PM cell phone bill of rights (Score:1) by dmx11523 (840399) on Sunday October 09, @02:40PM (#13751513) (http://dmx11523.blogspot.com/) The price of the equipment will just double or triple.....good thinking..... [ Reply to ThisRe:cell phone bill of rights by hazem (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:04PM A bad idea (Score:2, Insightful) by Snamh Da Ean (916391) on Sunday October 09, @02:41PM (#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? [ Reply to ThisRe:A bad idea by hazem (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:11PM These problems can be fixed by the market (Score:3, Insightful) by Omnifarious (11933) * on Sunday October 09, @02:41PM (#13751520) (http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper | Last Journal: Monday May 10, @03:19AM) 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. [ Reply to This There ain't no free lunch (Score:4, Insightful) by John Jorsett (171560) on Sunday October 09, @02:43PM (#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. [ Reply to ThisRe:There ain't no free lunch by HairyCanary (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:04PMRe:There ain't no free lunch by qbwiz (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:16PMRe:There ain't no free lunch by anethema (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:18PMRe:There ain't no free lunch by Hektor_Troy (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:17PMRe:There ain't no free lunch by SagSaw (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @03:23PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Ringtones? (Score:1, Troll) by Bazman (4849) on Sunday October 09, @02:43PM (#13751528) (http://www.maths.lancs.ac.uk/~rowlings | Last Journal: Sunday July 13, @11:38AM) Will they be banning annoying ringtones? What about the rights of us non-cellphone users!? [ Reply to ThisRe:Ringtones? by Kohath (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:20PMRe:Ringtones? by game kid (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:20PM How About a Non-Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights? (Score:2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 09, @02:44PM (#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. [ Reply to ThisNon-cell user bill of rights by typical (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:32PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. unlocked phones (Score:5, Insightful) by pyros (61399) on Sunday October 09, @02:45PM (#13751541) (http://www.lopht.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday May 13, @08:26PM) 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. [ Reply to ThisRe:unlocked phones by Namronorman (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @02:49PMRe:unlocked phones by MBCook (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:26PM Fixing dead zones... (Score:2) by doormat (63648) on Sunday October 09, @02:48PM (#13751553) (Last Journal: Thursday September 09, @10:38PM) 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? [ Reply to ThisRe:Fixing dead zones... by TheGavster (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @02:57PMProvider suggestion? by tepples (Score:1)Sunday October 09, @03:16PMRe:Provider suggestion? by typical (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:24PM Length of Contract (Score:1) by otherniceman (180671) on Sunday October 09, @02:48PM (#13751560) What is the normal length of contract then? In the UK the standard is 12 months, though some ask for 18 months for some 'special deals' (latest top of the range free, 6 months free line rental).Also how complicated is the bill? There is only line rental, call charages (possibly itemised) and maybe misc (insurance). [ Reply to This1 reply beneath your current threshold. Danish law (Score:2, Informative) by Waerloga (155578) on Sunday October 09, @03:01PM (#13751613) Danish law limits contracts to half a year. [ Reply to This Rights? (Score:2) by argoff (142580) on Sunday October 09, @03:02PM (#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. [ Reply to ThisRe:mass is 32nd in tax burden by argoff (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:17PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Oh God. (Score:2) by Renraku (518261) on Sunday October 09, @03:04PM (#13751622) (http://slashdot.org/) 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. [ Reply to ThisRe:Oh God. by multiplexo (Score:2)Sunday October 09, @03:30PM Tracking (Score:2) by Mr2cents (323101) on Sunday October 09, @03:12PM (#13751667) 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] [ Reply to This Locking phones to one carrier (Score:2) by stevejsmith (614145) on Sunday October 09, @03:14PM (#13751674) 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? [ Reply to This Fixing the last 5% of the problem... (Score:2) by mi (197448) <mi+slashdot@aldan.algebra.com> on Sunday October 09, @03:16PM (#13751685) 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... [ Reply to This While we're at it... (Score:2) by KrackHouse (628313) on Sunday October 09, @03:17PM (#13751689) (http://motorsport-sim.org/) 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. [ Reply to This Excuse me, (Score:2) by zappepcs (820751) on Sunday October 09, @03:31PM (#13751760) (http://www.asomaworld.net/zinn | Last Journal: Tuesday October 04, @08:28PM) 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 involves a "contract". (even if its not really a contract)What they are trying to fight here is the knock-on effects of commoditization of services. The reason that cellphones are cheap is because they make their money on the backend. The only way to be fair to all parties is to make you pay for your phone up front, regulate roaming issues, and 'encourage' carriers to cooperate on network peering agreements. In other words, forcibly make carriers be nothing more than airtime providers, split away from the carrier any content providing services, etc.Its just going to backfire on the state... [ Reply to This Re:Bill of Rights? (Score:2) by superpulpsicle (533373) on Sunday October 09, @03:18PM (#13751700) The politicians are trying to do something about this problem and giving it a fancy name. The bad contracts, service, signal receptions should have been ALL resolved automatically without customers intervention.Can you imagine every car company selling all their models as off-road vehicles. And then claiming it's not their fault when the car doesn't work in the mud. Not only that, but you are tied up to some piece of paper. [ Reply to This | Parent3 replies beneath your current threshold.