digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Introducing The Most Impressive Cell Phone Bill Of The 110th Congress

consumerist.com — The bill realizes our wildest legislative fantasies: a world where cellphone companies stop inventing official-sounding fees and levying harsh ETFs, and instead allow their customers to take unlocked phones to the company with the best reception according to precise coverage maps provided free of charge.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • kohawks, on 10/10/2007, -5/+207I do believe hell has frozen over.
    • peterjmag, on 10/10/2007, -5/+78I thought this story was going to be about some senator going way over his government-issued minutes, but I was happily disappointed. I hope this passes!
    • APHughes, on 10/10/2007, -5/+33Congress did something right?
      • uhbeta, on 10/10/2007, -3/+37Not yet....... If it passes, well then....
      • swanny89, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Its not so much IF it passes, since every congressman would love to be able to point to this bill to his constituents and yammer about how he cares for the average consumer. Whats more important is what the bill says when its passed. You had better believe that every congressman on the telecom payroll is going to amend this bill to hell and back.
      • Tracon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Looks like the industry forgot to pay the fee not to be regulated.
      • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That depends on how the cellular industry releases its lobbying goons now that this is out. We'll see who gets bought or not.
    • kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21I swear to god if the FCC ***** up the report on locked phones there will be much violence.
      • antdude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I'm ready to riot. ;)
      • dbz253, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3you do know that would require you to go outside right?
    • scrag10, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21It will melt once the bribes make it through the mail.
    • fatesdefiance, on 10/10/2007, -17/+9Yay for more government regulation! Not.
      Leave it the hell alone. If you don't want the fees, sign with a different carrier. The last thing we need is regulations preventing carriers from charging us those extra $10 in various charges--so they can raise their base rates by $15 instead.
      • Outdoor83, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Your logic fails when there aren't ample providers. There are only a few providers which are viable in any one region, meaning they can collude to enforce certain things on the consumers (you can't move to a carrier that doesn't lock phones; typically, one doesn't exist in your area).

        We have government regulation of the free market because laissez-faire back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries proved to be far too pro-business.
      • DiggMasterJ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2That is a stupid argument and doesn't belong on Digg.
    • PimpinOnWelfare, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4What happened was, a few congressmen finally got tired of being screwed over by their wireless carriers and thought just maybe everyone else in the U.S. might be too? If only they felt the same about bush.
      • jackkerouac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yay! This first stupid comment about Bush in an unrelated story! You get the ***** moron prize today. Congratulations!
    • thebrawl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8 fatesdefiance is correct. Carriers would just raise their rates. You just won't see any real cost improvements until the market gets freed up enough to allow new competition in.
      • mousky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2There are over 300 cellular phone companies in the US. Yes, most are local or regional in nature, but for most customers, that's all they need. So the market is competitive. People choose to not do some additional research before buying a cell phone and picking a carrier.
        • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Where I live (and the situation is much the same anywhere outside of major cities), there are two choices: AT&T and Verizon. They're both greedy *****.

          This bill sounds fantastic.
          • moonshn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12 choices?
            At my house (30 miles south of Atlanta) i could use: T-mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nextell, Alltell, and Metro PCS off the top pf my head

            edit: also Sprint
    • EdwardsNH, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Don't just digg the story. Use the links at the bottom to contact your Senator and Rep
    • 80hd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2See this actually effects them since everybody has to deal with ***** phone service... Too bad more laws weren't biased in the favor of common people
    • lavchan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8This thread makes no sense, i thought Digg was full of libertarians. This is completely anti-libertarian and something Ron Paul would be very opposed to. (Yeah i know, Ron Paul blah blah blah, but he IS popular here.)

      Are the Ron Paul supporters all completely avoiding this thread, or are they just, you know, not really as libertarian as they act?
      • synapz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6RP supporter here, and I am digging down all the pro-regulation idiots. There's just so many of them! What happened to freedom? I mean, if we're going to take this route, why don't we just force the cell companies to give us the services we want for 6 dollars a month? Seriously, if you want to take away your own freedom, don't be shy about it, let's nationalize this *****!
      • kalleanka, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Dude, this is about preventing them from creating ***** business practices.
        For example. I have a plan that costs "$30 a month". Sweet, so I pay "$30+govenment fees+tax" a month? No, I pay "$30+govenment fees+arbitrary Sprint fees+tax".
        That is some really ***** practice. No other business in US would get away with that crap, but today the carriers are.

        This is protecting us, the consumers.
        • mtekk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6because you the consumer are too stupid to protect yourself? The government shouldn't have to baby it's people.
          • michaelb1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3actually this IS us(the consumer) protecting ourselves. Government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people.

            We're getting ***** so we make OUR government fight back against entities bigger than us.
          • synapz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Sorry, bub, that's not the way it works. The government only steps in when entities are using force, fraud, or coercion. You protecting yourself would be you reading the contract before you sign it and deciding where to spend your money appropriately. Instead, you use the government to use force against other people because YOU'RE TOO ***** LAZY TO LOOK OUT FOR YOURSELF.
          • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1No, it's because we consumers are often powerless to protect ourselves from predatory corporations, propped up by government hand-outs and corrupt officials.

            When we have an actual free market, free of collusion and bribery of government officials via campaign coffers and lobbyist perks, get back to me about your "libertarian" ideals.
        • lavchan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3'Dude', all that stuff was spelt out when you signed the contract (you did sign a contract). It may be a ***** practice, but it is absolutely moral and legal because you got advance notice of it. You signed the contract, you agreed to it. If you didn't want to deal with their bull-***** fees, you shouldn't have signed.

          If they really are charging you for things that were NOT accounted for at signing, then that does constitute breach of contract or fraud, which obviously is wrong... and already unlawful.
    • RoflMyWaffle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and i like it!
    • gamersedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Not only has hell frozen over, the tubes have frozen, pigs are growing wings, and everyones walking on the moon,
      @Kevin and Alex: PLEASE DO THIS STORY NEXT WEEK
    • millersteve, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Being in the military, this bill is great. The deployment phrase they threw in there was great. And since we move around a lot, the option to opt out of the contract cheaper, or to view the detailed coverage map of the location you're moving to gives you some options. i like it.

      It will be interesting to see how the cell phone industry reacts though in terms of pricing - they're not going to let money be taken away from them.
  • yayaja67, on 10/10/2007, -5/+74Maybe now people living in other countries will stop making fun the US consumer cellphone structure.
    • Noctem, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7Yeah, I'm sure that's really hurting the feelings of Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T.
      • asdfrewq, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8They're not laughing at the corporations that are making a killing, they're laughing at the American consumer. Land of the free... my ass.
        • c1ph3ril, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Jesus.. You know you're a geek when you laugh at the fact that the 3 previous comments have 16, 4 and 1 diggs respectively.
          • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's even more amusing to me that you now have -4 diggs ... aren't ordered number sequences great?
        • synapz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2You blithering idiot. "Land of the free" doesn't mean you GET things for free. Why should the government have any say at all in how a company runs its business unless that company is using force or coercion? That is the definition of freedom, not "free from prices". Whatever, go live in a nationalist/socialist hell hole if you want; I'm moving to hong kong.
    • bizzay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Well, we still have multiple, redundant cellular technologies in place, whereas Europe and Asia have a single, agreed-upon system that enables faster growth, cheaper infrastructure, cheaper costs for the consumer, and newer technology adoption. So, they can make fun of the US for a while.
      • renegadeafk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Communists
        • Tracon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You can't tell the difference between effective government and communists now that's funny.
        • renegadeafk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2/sarcasm
  • Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -3/+131Passing this bill may actually help raise the pitiful 'congressional approval' rating. It would be nice to see a bill pass that actually supports the average citizen instead of the corporations.
    • Noctem, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Sorry, but federal regulations on cell phone providers wasn't even a blip on the radar for me. How about getting around to some useful legislature. Besides, approval ratings are overrated :)
      • Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I can tell you that if my phone bill dropped from eliminating the ridiculous fees, I sure as hell would notice. Being an electronics geek myself, I would notice all of the other aspects of the bill as well, but I think everyone appreciates saving a bit of money.
        • Noctem, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4This bill doesn't say ANYTHING about eliminating fees from your monthly bill. Only cutting the ETF in half after a year. All it helps to do is reorganize the bill so whatever fees you DO accumulate are easier to discover than previously.
        • nebbo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Umm.... If the telecos can't make the same profit from the ETFs and extra fees, they will just raise the prices of the basic plans. They aren't going to cut into their bottom line.
        • quazywabbit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6but thats just it you won't save a thing. I say don't pass it and let the telco's and the market decide the price. If this passes then the price for your cell phone will just raise to compensate for the removal of fees, etc. Telling businesses how they can run there business is why we can't manage our government and why it is as large as it is.
    • EdwardsNH, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Don't just digg the story. Use the links at the bottom to contact your Senator and Rep
    • thebrawl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That's the idea - raise government approval ratings before people realize that the government is preventing Google from giving everyone FREE Internet. It's funny because all people could have free cell phone service (and free-just-about-everything-else) if they were not so easily tricked into these things. Dig, diggers dig.
      • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Any links to the Google Internet 'ban' as it were? I haven't heard anything about that.
    • ericrous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Exactly why it's either going to fail to pass altogether or will be so watered down by the time it does as to be worthless. Telcoms bribe Congressmen. Consumers don't.
    • ingxia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If it works. I'm sure the Telcos will find a new way to charge hidden fees, whether it be loopholes in the law, fine print, new ways of billing, etc. Basically, contracts will always be expensive and surprising for those who don't read and understand them. Don't want a contract, use a pay as you go phone...which BTW costs more in the long run.
  • jceagles81, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18i don't want to sound like a fanboy but does this mean i'll be able to get an iphone unlocked without having to hack it
    • zweben, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4*Maybe* as an indirect result if the bill passes, but not automatically. Best case scenario for the bill: it passes, and as a result, the FCC urges Congress to ban the practice of locking cell phones.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3After the bill is passed and enacted, and after the FCC has given their report on the damage done by phone locking, and after the congress after the next drums up the bill to introduce mandatory unlocked phones on all cellular networks, yes.

      In other words, no. It's a pipedream at this point, the Repubicrats that let AT&T reform will /never/ allow the latter bill to pass, even if this one somehow makes it through committee.
    • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1in theory it would.... or that's the spirit of the law at least.....
      maybe you know this, but i know a lot of people do not...... unless you have a GSM local carrier option, an unlocked iPhone is only going to work with TMobile. *if* you hop it to TMobile, you will lose some features that had to be built into the network (visual vox mail and maybe something else?).
      basically the country is split with AT&T + TMobile using GSM, and Sprint and Verizon using CDMA. i've never had TMobile, but i do realize some people love them (compared to AT&T?).

      the iPhone specific unlocking is probably a bigger deal for our friends outside the United States? that's why some of the iPhone hackers are focused on 3rd party apps etc.
  • bullware, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7this would be just amazing, cross breeding cell phone technology would be fun to watch. Knowing that my T-mobile (GSM) won't work on Verizon (CDMA) they just don't mesh.
  • dunderballer, on 10/10/2007, -25/+11Good Hell. There is enough regulation in the telecom industry already. I hate a lot of the practices mentioned such as ETFs, locking phones, uncertainty of coverage areas. However, we, as consumers have the responsibility to use our purchasing power to achieve desired solutions. If you are a fan of Friedman economics (or hell even Ron Paul for you diggers) than join me in supporting a market solution rather than unnecessary legislation on this important issue.
    • goat2, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15..........ALL CELL PHONE COMPANIES PULL THE SAME *****


      there IS no alternative in this situation other than government intervention, the government is supposed to serve the people, which is what theyre doing here.
      • pete6677, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8When has government intervention ever helped anything? Name one government program that actually works.
        • williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Name a cell phone company, insurance company, or cable TV company that works better than, say AmTrak. They all suck. To hell with them all. If a law gives me what I want from a telco, ***** the telco.
        • Outdoor83, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Oh, this is an easy one... During the 1980's stock market crash, the Federal Reserve took a series of steps involving dumping more money into the economy and a few other things. It probably averted another Great Depression.

          Want some more? Ok... the Sherman Antitrust Act is what gives us guaranteed choices and freedom from monopolistic abuse (you know, to implement the "don't like it, get your own" policies everyone here is advocating). Roosevelt's Lend-Lease program, though controversial at the time, kept Britain on the allied side long enough for us to get truly involved.

          In Iraq, there's constant abuse from private-sector for-profit companies. This didn't happen when they were simple governmental entities. That's a case where we let the private sector get involved, and they assed everything up.

          I'm not saying all governmental intervention is good; just give them credit for when they didn't ***** up.
    • Vash265, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Okay...so....what's that market solution again?
    • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Too bad the market has failed—miserably. There is nothing, as consumers, we can do to change anything. What are we all going to do? Move to AT&T? Move to Verizon? Move to T-Mobile? Move to Sprint? Those are our four choices, and they all suck equally. Some people don't even realistically have all four choices. What else do we do? Stop using cell phones all together?

      This is where libertarian economics falls apart.

      I suppose that *technically* there is no more MaBell, but realistically nothing changed. It might have even been better had AT&T never been broken up. At least then we might not be stuck in the logistical quagmire we are in of upgrading the networks.
      • Noctem, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2The market has failed? How can you say that when, essentially, the market is at saturation levels?
        • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Issues of local monopoly are often referred to as market failures, unless you are talking about the Chicago school of thought.
          • Noctem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3How does having multiple cell phone providers in almost every area of the country equate to a monopoly?
          • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4What you have is an oligopoly, but because all the providers originated from AT&T, you have this backwards retarded intermittent collusion like activity. Long story short: you get have the same kind of problems you would if you actually had a monopoly. All your choices are bad, and they don't respond to consumer demand, rather they respond to each other.
          • Noctem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Sprint originated from AT&T? That's news to me.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_Nextel
          • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You completely miss the point.
          • onefix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1HerrEisenheim,

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alltel
      • pete6677, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If AT&T (Ma Bell) had never been broken up, we wouldn't even have cell phones. And we sure as hell wouldn't have DSL. You'd still be using a black rotary dial bell ringer phone and by now you would be paying $100/month for it. And $2.00 a minute for long distance.
        • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Why does everyone suggest this? Everyone acts as if AT&T held back technology. Bell Labs invented the transistor (which made the modern computer possible), the C programming language, UNIX, and more-or-less, the internet, and most of the other things that made the so-called technological revolution possible at all.
        • fezzen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@ HerriEisenheim: because cell phone technology would have been very much against their business model, not in their best interests, and not at all as profitable as their system at the time. Competiton creates and proliferates new technology, not monopolies.
    • redawgts, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0While in general I believe we have too many laws already and don't need anymore, I have to say, in this case, that the law is necessary. All phone companies do this, so your purchasing power is meaningless. Sure you could choose to not have a cell phone but really that's not really a choice at all in this day and age.
    • dunderballer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Market based solutions:
      1) Create a stir in the press about consumer dissatisfaction. This scares away investors and creditors. This threat is far more significant to the carriers than increased subscriber churn caused by loosened contract terms and increased competition caused by disclosure.
      2) Form a buying consortium(consumers union) large enough to negotiate the terms of your own contracts
      3) Use 2nd tier carriers until the top tier carriers give in.
      4) Simply make a point to choose the carrier with the least egregious contract terms . Let it be known that this is what you base your purchasing decision on!
      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1i dont have a cell phone and wont get one until this legislation passes. im pretty much the only one out of my friends who doesnt have one but i feel a lot better for it. the best part is i dont ever get called into work on my day off like all the other suckers. ***** american corporatism.
        • mmazing, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Listen douchebag, I live in america and think it sucks ass, but I'm not so stupid as to associate the usage of cellphones with the general stupidity of americans today. I'll agree with you that many many many americans are clueless, but your logic in your above statement makes you equally retarded.

          I ONLY use a cellphone because ... the landline system is worse, I don't have a home phone. I need a phone because I have an actual job. Get out of high school and you'll learn :P
      • mmazing, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1PS : If you really want to know what all this stupidity is all about, why don't you take 30 seconds and examine religion, instead of complaining about cellphones.

        Edit - this was meant as a response to Quaxon. Sorry :D
        • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1lol, if you take a look at my comment history you would know im one of the biggest opponents of religion, in fact i despise it. i wasnt equating the general use of cell phones to the stupidity of americans. to explain it further i just want to point out that we once claimed that technology (such as cell phones) would make our productivety go up while our total work time went down, leaving us with more time for leisure, while the exact opposite is true. we are now working more than ever, taking much less vacation times, and our technology is getting better and our work is becoming more and more productive and efficient. im a college student and i do have a job, but i refuse to carry around a cell phone and be bitched at when i cant be reached, i dont want anybody to be able to find me whenever they want.
      • Outdoor83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11) Consumer dissatisfaction scares away no one: they know we're all locked into these ***** contracts anyway. They also know that we're all pretty much universally dissatisfied, so there's nowhere to go that's better.
        2) There's no way we could form a consortium large enough to affect contract practices: only huge businesses getting businesses phones could organize well enough to swing it, and they wouldn't get that many deals.
        3) There are no 2nd tier carriers in most areas
        4) Doesn't this not work because you need the size you mentioned in #2?
    • Hananda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The government has been intervening in the market in favor of one faction or another since day one in the tele-com industry. AT&T would never have become the monster it did had it not been granted unfair advantages over competitors in terms of subsidization, government contracts, and so on, since the 1880's, not to mention the Kingsbury Commitment, among others. While I feel that this interventionism is the root of the problem, I fail to see how a sudden cessation would help anyone. Friedman himself advocated a gradual transition in industries like this.
    • leogodin217, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The problem is this isn't a free market now. Hananda is making a good point in his comment. A free market would not have allowed cell phone companies to become the way they are now. That being said, I'm not sure if this bill is the answer. I like the service maps idea. I'd also like a bill that lets me actually own hardware I purchase. It's ridiculous that I cannot unlock a phone or modify an XBOX. That's the direction I would go in.

      As for free market solutions, our only hope is Google jumping into this business
  • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -12/+149 diggs and 8 comments... wordpress choked.

    • Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4WTF are you talking about? This link is to the Consumerist (Not an average wordpress blog), and it is working just fine.
  • cdawzrd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21This would mean the end of an era of ebay-ing phones in various states of unlocked-ness
  • websyndicate, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3iPhone goes verizon with that EVDO that would be awsome :)
    • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2That has nothing to do with this article, and it's Verizon's fault that there is no iPhone on the Verizon network. Want an EV-DO iPhone? Cry about it to Verizon—they are the ones to blame.
    • wayback09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Too bad Verizon didn't take Apple up on it's offer to get the iphone first, thus Apple going to Cingular (name at the time) for the 2nd offer. A CMDA version and GSM version iphone would have made both sides happy. I believe Verizon wouldn't back down from Apple not to include the standard Verizon GUI for the iphone.
      • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1being a verizon customer, i am guessing they freaked out at the "free" things the iPhone included. Verizon charges for a way to post pictures called pix place (though there are workarounds). they charge to watch video content through the VCast stuff. hell, they charge a few dollars a month just to have an email app running on your phone, let alone other apps like a mapping software (that iPhone users get for free through google).
        Verizon is notorious for crippling phones so they can add all those a la carte items and rack up tour bill. they also obviously underestimated the iPhone, they really think the LG VX10000 is going to be an iPhone killer.
        http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/05/lgs-vx10000-and-vx8800-touchscreen-spyshots/
  • Puppetfunk, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16Still doesn't solve the problem that all cell phone company's have ***** reception where I live.
    • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You just can't satisfy people, huh?
    • 4UIDigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1item 2:
      Service Maps: Cellphone companies would be required to provide detailed maps showing call quality down to the street level. The maps would be augmented by data on dropped calls and coverage gaps collected and publicized by the FCC.
      (you would be able to use that when choosing providers)
  • eliasg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+67Wow, great for consumers, much like the way things work in Europe.
    This bill is going to die in 3…2…1…
    • FizixMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3BOOM! HEADSHOT!
    • 4UIDigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1except that the d1cks who'll try to shoot it down will get famous for that and will not get re-elected
  • DjBlic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0are the planets and moons alligned differnt? is this even possible?!?!?!?!?
  • CompIsMyRx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+90This still has to go through a subcommittee, a full committee, the Senate, the House, and President Bush. Don't hold your breath.
  • mal1964, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Amy was the lead Prosecutor for the city of Minneapolis she is one tough lady she will get things done. Not a bad start for a Freshman Senator. they usually just keep their mouths shut for the first term.
    • magni, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Amy K. kicks ass. She always found time to make the annual parents of murdered children banquet and she worked hard to prosecute wife beaters. She genuinely cares about us as opposed to just trying to further a political career. She also made Kennedy look like the ***** he is in the debates. Awesome woman.
      • mstebbins, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Where does Amy find federal government jurisdiction over wife beaters in the Constitution? That's a state matter. If you really want crime to be handled at a federal level, you'd better get happy about the federal government criminalizing everything, including abortion. You can't have it both ways.
      • mal1964, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm not a Kennedy fan but she is a Lawyer and he is a CPA , A Lawyer should beat a CPA, not all the time but most of the time in a debate. She is a awesome women; she is very smart has common sense and is level headed and down to earth. Watch for her to run for President down the road
    • IEatHamburgers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Amazing she found the time in between cleaning up all the capital graffiti.

      /obligatory Simpsons plug
  • Xorsist, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5this bill wont fukin make it, are you kidding me?
  • Fragowell, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13 I hope there are no Paul supporters excited about this bill.
    • majorrick, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0I support Ron. I may not support all of his ideas (complete market defederalization would probably see things bonk up a little bit, I presume) but I support him in general.

      And I think this bill would be a great idea. The markets suck and carrier lock-outs and EFTs are ridiculous. This is obviously for the better good of the consumer.

      How is this wrong?
      • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because it is not better for MOST consumers. The ones who will lose their free phones every two years, even though they have no intentions of ever leacing their cell provider. And this represents the vast majority of the market. Are you actually under the idiotic impression that most people change their cell providers a lot?
        • carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't see where that sort of plan couldn't still be made, this sort of legislation would just make it easier for people who have a service which has gotten progressivly worse while they're still under a long term contract from being able to leave an abusive or manipulative financial deal.
      • kingsaliva, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Ron Paul will vote against it.
    • danconia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Agreed, one of the authors of the bill is a Rockefeller and is in the CFR...
    • justinjstark, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Totally agree. Ron Paul would never be for government intervention like this. I don't think people here understand how extreme Paul really is.
    • bowe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5That doesn't mean that Ron Paul likes the cellphone companies practices. He'd rather open up the spectrum, get rid of the FCC, and let the free market rule. The cellphone companies got this way because our government handed them an oligopoly. Since the cellular industry is so heavily regulated we end up with consumers having no choice at all.
      • Fragowell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Agreed. People are quick to say, "Look at the way big business works. The free market does not work for consumers." What these people fail to recognize is that what we have is pretty far from a free market; the free market has never had a chance to thrive due to constant and crippling government regulations. For decades, we have been legislating more and more to try to fix our problems, in effect piling new problems on the old ones. Instead, we should really be looking at why the problems are there in the first place. Real, honest to goodness logic has long been thrown out the window for most policy makers. Paul can bring it back.
  • morganm, on 10/10/2007, -9/+31I don't know if people in general think legislation is a magic bullet, but I think people here might, and it's sad. There's a reason your phone is free, or cheap. Because you trade, for that cheapness, a contract to stay until the phone's paid off.

    Do you believe that this bill would make manufacturing a phone cheaper? Or providing cell service? Because if a piece of paper can do that, then maybe congress should go ahead and run the whole thing, it's genius.

    There is already an option like this, with places like Cricket where you actually buy your phone and have no contract. Unfortunately people too stupid to read their contracts, instead of making a choice, push for government mandate. And once it's done, people who actually like amortizing the cost of their phone over a couple of years won't have that option, because a bunch of grown-up children can't apparently understand the idea of a voluntary contract.

    Dear Lord these comments are sad to read. You are all for taking away people's choice in order to get things specifically the way you want them, except after this bill it WILL NOT be what you apparently expect. You will pay for the phone either by contract or up front. And you will take the option away from others to sign an ordinary type of contract. Retarded but expected.
    • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -16/+2The only thing this bill seeks to provide is one thing: choice. Don't believe in choice? Sounds like you don't believe in liberalism. GTFO America.
      • nebbo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10You already have a choice of owning a cell phone or not. You have the choice of signing a contract or not. You have the choice of buying the phone outright or not. Why do you need more laws passed?
      • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Herr..what the ***** goes through your head when you post such a ridiculous comment like that. The comment you were replying too clearly points out how people alreayd HAVE a choice. And that they CHOOSE to sign a contract in exchange for a free phone every two years.
        This bill actually TAKES AWAY choice. Because cell companies will no longer offer free phones if they can't guarantee that the custeomrs will stay with them for long enough to make it worth the cost of giving them the phone free.
    • fatesdefiance, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Exactly right, morganm. We should be erring to the side of LESS regulation, not more regulation. The smaller the government is, the more efficiently it can work--and our government needs all the efficiency it can get.
    • bobane, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5You are exactly right. Congress should be repealing laws, not making more, to allow the free market to take care of these problems WITHOUT government interference.

      And to the comment by Salviati concerning corporations above - who do you think gives people jobs?
      • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I always avoid being conned into free market fundamentalism by thinking of two gas stations in my town. They're right across the street from each other, and they have the exact same price every damn day. Wouldn't competition drive down the price of gas at those two stations to well below two dollars? That's direct competition and the only thing that separates the two places is a left turn as opposed to a right turn.

        Free marketism is a sham.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They have to pay for that gas and they have no control over the price. Driving the price below $2 = out of business. You picked a very bad example.
        • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Lol... you just fully admitted that competition is meaningless. In what industry is there no cost of paying for the goods you are selling? These companies should be streamlining those particular stores to compensate for having to lower prices. This of course is assuming that businesses are always looking to maximize profits in a competitive market and are always looking to streamline their stores in order to do so, so they can attract customers. This is clearly not happening here. It's a status quo just like $150 dollar termination fees have been for at least a decade now.
    • curzondax, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Thank you for saying what you said Morganm. Why do people believe that it should be the privy of Congress to stick its nose into the business of private enterprise? As with everything, the free market and competition should (and would) start to dictate what cell phone companies do. There is no place for congress to do this based on the founding documents provided for this country.
      • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There was no place in the free market to provide electricity to rural areas in the early twentieth century. There was no place in the free market for companies to put seat belts in their vehicles. There was no place in the free market to run roads across the nation. These all happened by government initiatives.
        • curzondax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11. The REA which you cited was created during the great depression as part of the new deal to try to stimulate the economy in a typical Keynesian economic move to try to create jobs to pull a country out of a depression, not to provide the good will of electricity to the rural areas. As we all know, what ended up pulling this country out of the depression was WWII. 2. Don't you believe a free marketplace would have requested seat belts if it really wanted them? While I wear mine, I don't like it that I am told I have to wear it. The only thing that makes that somewhat bearable is the fact it has been left up to the individual states (think...we have "free choice" for a woman to get an abortion but not to get in her minivan and take off down the road...I see a fallacy in this). 3. Roads were a natural extension of railroads which were lead by railroad companies. Even our national interstate system was constructed out of a need of defense by the government, which is one of the tenets the government is charged with providing.

          Government needs to be limited. If the marketplace demands something, either those companies who exist will change or new companies will arise to supplant them. We don't need the help of congress on this.
    • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4"Dear Lord these comments are sad to read. You are all for taking away people's choice in order to get things specifically the way you want them, except after this bill it WILL NOT be what you apparently expect. You will pay for the phone either by contract or up front. And you will take the option away from others to sign an ordinary type of contract. Retarded but expected."

      Or the supposed free market competition will drive down the prices of phones, in spite of the new regulation. How come you free market fundamentalists get so picky and choosy about when "free markets" apply? Maybe you should come around to admitting that free markets simply do not exist and you just use the term to put down any attempt at regulation of industry.
      • Hananda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Of course free markets don't exist. They haven't since the advent of agriculture. How is that relevant to the discussion at hand? Governmental interventionism made this mess possible, and the question is whether or not this particular piece of legislation will improve the overall situation.
    • magni, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2These wireless companies have us by the nuts and you think it feels good. Free market zealots.
    • montagg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I completely agree there shouldn't be more regulation where it isn't needed. But cell phone companies aren't just going to magically change their minds about these issues. The more cash flow a company has, the less it really needs to respond to market changes, and cell phone companies have set themselves up contractually to guarantee cash flow for a long time. A pure free market solution would work only if the consumer had a real choice, but if they want to engage in any business with these companies they're forced to sign away that choice. However, I agree this kind of regulation is over the top. The regulation should support consumer choice with some sort of incentive or penalty regarding removing that choice instead of mandating what cell phone companies can and cannot do.
    • sarmatt, on 10/29/2007, -0/+0How to you it?
      http://phone-cheap.pushline.com/
  • CWal37, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8***** call your congressmen email then send real, physical letters, whatever. Please try to help to get this passed, it would be ***** sweet. Too bad it's from a freshman senator and the companies "donate" *****.
  • kahlessreborn, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6If this bill made it, I might actually like believe in Congress
  • airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6The free market is supposed to stop these things. Why introduce these regulations? If companies can't be free to confuse people any more, we may as well be living in Communist China.
    • jdbeast00, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I can't wait to see how much more I will be charged so the phone companies can comply with the 'detailed maps' requirement. Wasn't google's proposal going to address most of these issues anyways? Why do we need more overhead?
      • TTURabble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Actually, they can already do this, go into your local cell phone store and ask to see the street view coverage map, they won't want to show it to you but I think they have to by regulation.
    • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12The "free market" has problems and may not always produce a socially efficient outcome. The free market only works when companies act independently and respond to consumer demand. When they all act together, against consumers, adopting industry policies like locking phones and early termination fees, you get the same kind of effects that you would if there was no free market at all.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The 4 (or 5 if you wish) major companies act as an oligopoly. They don't give good value to the customer in these particular areas, and yet they keep other companies (who might do these things better) out of the market.

      As to your Communist China comment, have you been to China lately?
      • mousky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Then choose one of the 300 or so local and regional alternatives. Really, how hard is to do a little bit more research and find alternatives to your fictional oligopoly?
    • hexydes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The crux of the issue here is that there is only a limited amount of bandwidth. This bandwidth is owned by the public, in the form of the United States government, and is under the jurisdiction of the FCC. In a free market, you generally don't have that constraint, and you can let the companies duke it out for market share, with consumers deciding who wins and loses.

      Unfortunately, because of all of the above, it is basically impossible for new players to enter the market, with new technology, or cheaper services, or something else that is appealing to the consumer. That is why this type of legislation ends up getting brought up, and sometimes passed.

      At the end of the day, it is the fault of the companies for being so anti-consumer. It is absolutely within their right to do this (it is a free market), but unfortunately, the type of market they are in relies on a public system, and when you ***** your consumers off enough, and there is no other option available, they eventually just start tearing you apart with legislation.

      This is why what Google was trying to do with the newly-opening spectrum was so important. They were trying to introduce a method that helped a limited system work within a free market. It looks like the FCC didn't totally screw it up, but there are certainly going to be ways that their rules can get exploited in the future, and ultimately, I'm sure we'll be seeing senators and congressmen/women in the future passing legislation on whatever system ultimately comes to exist within that spectrum.
    • carkmouch, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1What free market?
  • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2How about they just require unlocked phones instead of just sending a nasty letter about it.
  • gossipninja, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5from TFA
    " # Early Termination Fees: FCC regulations would require companies to prorate ETFs, with the penalty for escaping a 2-year contract cut in half at the end of the first year.
    # Service Maps: Cellphone companies would be required to provide detailed maps showing call quality down to the street level. The maps would be augmented by data on dropped calls and coverage gaps collected and publicized by the FCC.
    # Fee Disclosure: Overage charges would be displayed separately from taxes, and companies would be prohibited from levying any fees, apart from the basic service charge, not expressly authorized by federal, state, or local regulation.
    # Contract Disclosure: Depriving us of a source of many posts, companies would be prohibited from extending contracts without "point-of-sale notification," and customers would have 30 days to cancel any contract, new or extended. Any contract changes would need to be sent to consumers in writing, and could not take affect for 30 days.
    # Unlocked Phones: The bill would give the FCC a homework assignment: a single-spaced report to Congress on the harmful and anti-competitive practice of locking handsets.
    # Military Exemptions: Companies would be required to release military members awaiting deployment from their contracts."

    I would imagine lobbyists will kill this, but i do like it a lot. Prorating ETF's is great for consumers but will seriously ***** off the cell-cos to a point where they will spend bookoo bucks to kill it. I also like who it will allow military to not get *****, My bro and some of his friends on base got tagged by sprint for cancelling when they were being deployed to Japan. The street level maps things wouldn't be to hard for the cellcos to do either, just mash up a google map with coverage.
    • nebbo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3People could just not sign the contract????
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Gettig rid of, or forcing pro-rating ETFs will actually HURT most users. The vat majority of cell phone users are HAPPY with their provider and don't jump from one to another. Maybe many do at first, but once they find a network that suits them, they keep it. So they have no problem with ETFs becuase htey never have to pay them. And because of this proposed law, cell companies are no longer going to foot the bill for the newest $250 phone for these loyal customers.
      • MrSteamTank, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1bingobongony. Cell phones companies are colluding with each other to screw customers the most. They almost always raise rates universally and that is not "free market". The fact that the "technologically" advanced US has worse service, higher rates, and less choices than most other western countries. Some third world countries have better rates than the US as well.

        "Free Market" isn't magic anyways. When investment rates are so ridiculously high it locks out all competition then that is not free market. For free market to actually be free market then players have to be able to compete against each other. With cell phones and many other services this isn't possible. Government regulation IS a good thing sometimes.
        • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0No they don't. You just made that up. ther are plenty of differences in pricing. Many similarities as well, sure. But that is simply free market pricing. If one company offers a better price, the others will have to follow or else lose too many customers. If another company raises their prices, the other companies will do the same becuase they don't have to worry about losing customers, and htey will get a larger profit.

          Pretty mcuh EVERY industry, or product has the same situation. One one competitor lowers prices, the others follow. And when they raise, the others follow again.

          And who hte ***** cares what the rates of other countries are? Cell phones service is NOT a necessity. They charge whatever they want. You have the CHOICE of what provider you want, as well as the choice to not have any. NO ONE needs a personal cell phone. No ones life is that special. No matter what they think.
    • sarmatt, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Very interestingly
      http://phone-cheap.pushline.com/
  • BuzzFriendly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Great bill now lets go one step further an either adopt a single standard OR have phone that can move between CDMA and GSM providers.
    • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Let's go ahead an adopt the world standard, which is GSM/UMTS/HSDPA, and while we are at it lets go ahead an adopt the proper frequencies.
      Aw, who am I kidding. This bill will never pass, and none of this will ever happen.
    • gamersedge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hell yeah, i'd want an iPhone on Verizon, because they did offer it to them originally. Bastards, didnt take it because they would've had to rewrite thier voicemail system. ATt has made hundreds of millions off it.
    • Raytown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually Verizon Wireless has the Blackberry 8830 which is CDMA with an optional SIM chip slot for GSM/CDMA capability. The only ***** thing is Verizon won't allow you to connect to US GSM networks, only GSM networks in another Countries.

      Typical Verizon *****.

      It can be done, the technology is already in place to be able to do it. But all the greedy-ass telco companies want to do is make as much money as possible, and make us pay for it whenever they can.
  • MasterChi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4If this bill goes through then I will finally buy a cell phone since i won't completely feel like i sold my soul.....i will only feel that a tiny bit.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If you are going to BUY a cell phone, then you don't have to worry about ETFs in the first place. Contracts are only for people who expect the company to give them an expesnive phone for free
      • undetected, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're mistaken if you believe that. Even if you brought your own phone, they'll still lock you in a one year contract. Go ahead, try it.
    • davewho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you couldn't bring yourself to get a cell phone to this point, you have larger issues to worry about.
  • bovox, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5I agree that the Free Market should be allowed to do what it does, however, the current practices of the Cell Phone Industry work against the free market. ETF's, locking cell phones ... all of these practices are designed to limit consumer choice, thus working AGAINST the free market. These things are as bad as monopolies. Pass this legislation and let the free market do its thing.
    • nebbo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Legislation = regulated market. Just a matter of time until some future Congress comes along and amends it.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7You have no idea what the concept of "free market" is if you think that contracts and early termination fees violate that. Consumers have the CHOICE to sign a contract with one of SEVERAL cell phone companies. They CHOOSE (freely, in the market, I might add) one based on which one gives them the shiniest new phone for free. To think that cell phone companies are going to keep giving out free phones with no guarantee that you are going to stay a customer is idiotic.

      So really, the people who don't like to jump around to new providers are going to get HURT by this. (And this is most people. Most poeple stick with the same provider even after their contract is up becuase it is reliable and gives them what they want.) People who WANT to stay with a provider and don't mind the 2 year contract are now no longer going to get $200 off their new phone.
      • MrSteamTank, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1bingobongony. Cell phones companies are colluding with each other to screw customers the most. They almost always raise rates universally and that is not "free market". The fact that the "technologically" advanced US has worse service, higher rates, and less choices than most other western countries. Some third world countries have better rates than the US as well.

        "Free Market" isn't magic anyways. When investment rates are so ridiculously high it locks out all competition then that is not free market. For free market to actually be free market then players have to be able to compete against each other. With cell phones and many other services this isn't possible. Government regulation IS a good thing sometimes.
        • mousky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Lock out competition? There are more than 300 cellular phone companies in the US. Yes, most of these companies are local or regional, but for most people, that's all they need. Most local and regional carriers have agreements for nationwide coverage. People need to start seeking out alternatives instead of going with the big names.
  • psykiv, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10I just can't trust someone with the last name "ROCKEFELLER" to do something good for consumers. Buried as inaccurate.
  • ErrorS, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13I'm a democrat, this is the kind of ***** my party exists for.. so I don't have to feel like a hypocrite because I support this bill.

    I laugh at all the people surprised by this.. you complain about Democrats yet you obviously know nothing about the party, this bill is the perfect example of why people don't support Democrats. Government intervention is bad, free reign for corporations, etc. Ron Paul and the entire Republican party is based on the very principle that this bill goes against.

    From the splitting of Microsoft to government regulation of automobile manufacturers to splitting of phone companies to this bill, these are Democrat's doings.. please don't forget that. If you LIKE these kinds of bills, vote Democrat.

    Not saying everyone should vote Democrat, many disagree with these views. Just pointing out that most Democrats will support this bill, most Republicans (and Libertarians) will foam at the mouth complaining about it when it comes to the floor. Mark my words..
    • quazywabbit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3exactly. why waste the money trying to regulate companies, let the companies decide how they want to run there business. Let the consumer decide what company he wants to buy into. There are lots of choices today from prepay, one year contracts (where the phone isn't subsided) to two year contracts (where the phone is usually subsided). If this passes there no longer be subsided phones, extra cost due to mapping. Now I would like to see a bill stating that the government would pay for the costs of being in the military such as paying home loan, cell phone bill, etc. while away from home. It might cause the government to think twice before going to war.
      • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think you didn't even read Error's comment. But that's hardly important. In reality, there will probably be a short boost in cell phone prices, then now what? The exact same free market nonsense that you spew about will take over again and start driving down those prices. Unless of course you're going to tell me that free markets don't exist anymore somehow... Which I think is partially accurate, though I doubt you'll agree.
        It's funny seeing free marketists arguing against free marketism the second there's a little bit of government regulation involved.
        • bowe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not a free-market when for instance, Verizon and AT&T are the only providers in your area. For the free market to pay off you need many competitors (not just 3 or 4)
    • alvinrod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Some of the points in this bill aren't necessarily something many right-leaning people would oppose. I have no problem with the government passing laws that prohibit companies from deceitful billing practices. Most will object, however, if you try to regulate the way an industry does business. If they want to sell you a cheap phone with a two-year contract agreement, then they should be able to do so. Additionally, anyone who buys a GSM phone is essentially locked in to T-Mobile or AT&T because Verizon uses CDMA. There's no way (other than offering phones that can use both technologies or phone companies changing their standards) to make that provision work out easily.

      I would like to see a phone company sell unlocked phones at their regular price to see how well it will compete with the other cell companies. Perhaps I might even be temped to take my business to them.
    • Mothrog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm not a Democrat, and mindless ***** like this is exactly why I'm not. Democrats are the adult version of the kid that ran for class president in high school and won on the promise of eliminating homework.
  • danconia, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Congrats, Congress is patching up part of an industry that they regulated into a pile of *****. If Congress had kept their hands off of this stuff in the first place then we wouldn't have this mess.

    As was said above, lobbyists will kill this and to think that regulation will fix anything is a very naive position.
  • rakslice, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Mandated cellular signal quality maps! New from the people who brought you pi == 3.
  • OG1502, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0***** my 300 page iPhone bill with .0000001 cents in fees for 1000's of data transmissions!
  • adenansu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1i like it in idea, but there are going to be so many headaches when people try to jump between carriers and find that their advanced network features don't work anymore.
  • Phlosten, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Introduced? To the congress paper shredder? As nice as it seems I am sure the dream will be killed by industry heavyweights in the same way that American politics has worked for many moons. Money talks.
  • ShaneApex, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Believe it when you see it.
  • japherwocky, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Why the ***** are we doing this while we're at war?
  • cuoops, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3This is the way it should be. All other countries do this even though you can still get service contracts. All you do is go down to the convenient store, buy a sim card and scratch off card for minutes. I have three cards and one for worldwide service.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You can do that in hte US too, moron. IT is just MUCH more expensive for peopel who use their phones a lot.
      • cuoops, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh really? Maybe in big cities. It will not work with Verizon. And you can't go down to the local 7-11 and have a choice of sim cards like in other countries. You don't have to worry about getting coverage either.
        • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You are so wrong it is not even funny. You can get prepaid phjoens in any department store, and in many drug stores. My local CVS has Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Virgin Mobile. Both the phones and the refill cards. My local Target and Walmart do as well. Circuit City has Verizon, including prepaid. And all the provider stores in my area offer both contract and non-contract/prepaid offers. And I don't live in a big city.
          Are you under the impression that everyone with a cell phone is paying a monthly fee and in a 2 year contract? Newsflash for you...more than half of the cell phone users in the United Staes are PREPAID users.

          I mean...did you even bother to do RESEARCH before posting such an erroneous comment?
  • mrfunybuny, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4This bill is fluff. If you really want to shake up the industry make them follow the rules Google requested the FCC to apply to the new spectrum.

    Here's my take on the bills features:
    *Early Termination Fees: Big deal, don't sign a contract that has ETF's..use a month-to-month plan
    *Service Maps: Doubt this is even a problem for most people.
    *Fee Disclosure: If people read their contracts this would not be a problem.
    *Contract Disclosure: I've had contracts... I never let them become extended automatically because I prefer not to live with my head inside my ass
    *Unlocked Phones: Don't buy locked phones, the locked ones are the ones they give you for 'free' if you sign a contract. Just buy your own phone, better than being locked into some ***** contract....

    --***What we really need is more start-up companies being free to enter the market provide new services.. don't see this bill addressing this issue.***--

    I wouldn't be surprised if the cell phone companies worked together with Congress to throw us a bone because they know how ***** we all are --fact is all they really want to do is cool us sown so we don't all get behind Google and push the FCC to adopt their rules.
    • lcarsdeveloper, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Month to month plans aren't an option for people who can't afford to go out and buy a handset outright, especially the elderly who might only be using it as an emergency phone. Service/coverage maps are useful information to have, so you can avoid signing up with a company that doesn't service your area. Nothing wrong with locking a prepaid phone, but for a postpaid contract it shouldn't be locked at all. You can pay it off for a small amount per month, but if you cancel your contract or decide to get a new phone then you'll have to pay the outstanding amount as a lump sum. Locking is unnecessary in those cases. It's still very elitist to tell everyone they have to go out and pay a huge upfront cost for a phone, some people just can't do that, they may not be able to get one unless they spread the cost out over 2 years. Some people have things called "living expenses" to worry about, as well as families and mortgages.
      I do agree with your last point, more competition in the industry would be great for the consumer, with everyone trying to provide reasons why you should go with them instead of their competitors.
      • mousky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If some people have "'living expenses' to worry about" then maybe a new fancy cell phone is the last thing they need? Maybe a used phone with a prepaid card is the way to go? Why do we have to regulate an industry just so it can provide phones cheaply to the lowest common denominator? Since when did a cell phone become a necessity?

        As to more competition, how many cellular phone companies do you think there are in the US? What if I told there were over 300 cellular phone companies? The market is competitive. People choose not to seek local or regional alternatives.
        • lcarsdeveloper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Senior Citizens who might need a phone for an emergency, like if they go out walking and need to contact someone if they have a heart attack or something. Even a basic phone can be quite expensive when you buy it outright. I don't know how many companies in the US, I'm from Australia.
      • wvernon1981, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There are credit cards people can use. They can pay them off over time. Or if enough people wanted them, retailers could sell cheaper phones. Phones do not have to cost 500 bucks. Besides, many people in third world countries have cell phones and they are much poorer than most of us here. Why does the government need to get involved to "help" people out. Every time they "help", it seems like everyone gets screwed because they end up distorting markets.
  • buuch, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1wrong story
  • icekold, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Reading this made me realize that there has been very few moments in recent memory that I can recall hearing about an act of our Lawmakers that actually made me feel like there was someone up on the hill that, for lack of a better term, "has my back". For once I kinda feel like someone up there does give a damn about us regular old Americans and some of our frustrations. I know there's a lot going on in the world that needs their attention but " I know you love me, sometimes I just wanna hear you say it" is how I feel these days.
  • rejoined, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I've been on Digg for a while, but this is the first consumerist story I ever Dugg up. Now this is one truly sensational piece of news. hope to God that bll doesn't die, or gets modified and formatted so bad from its original, that it gets back to square one for us.
  • yvovandoorn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I wrote both my senators. I doubt it will pass or that they'll ever get my message (my simple email can't go up against a $400 meal a lobbyist will offer the senator) but you may never know.
  • TheUnknownComic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Obviously, Bush will veto it. Then essentially every Republican will refuse to override and there won't be enough votes to get past the veto.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Your proof? Oh yeah...little bitches like you need no proof to whine.
    • cheddarlump, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, because Bush has used his veto SO MUCH... A whopping 3 times in the last 7 years.
  • gryphonauto, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0The current practices of cell-phone companies border on extortion, and are highly deceptive. Many people get roped into service contracts due to near-monopolistic control of various "services" . . . a.k.a. cable, cell-phone, internet, etc. In some cases I have been too due to a lack of alternatives.
    • wvernon1981, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1High startup costs limit entry into such markets. I'd expect those industries to be dominated by a few large companies just based on the scale of the operation.
    • cheddarlump, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What ever happened to caveat emptor? If you don't like the terms (and we all know how much they suck), don't get the service. Go without, and they'll change.
  • OddTSi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The "service maps down to the street level" part is completely unrealistic. The only way to accomplish something like that would be to send out workers with signal level meters up and down every street. Did the congressmen not realize how INSANELY expensive and time consuming that would be?

    The rest of the points listed in the article however sound good.
    • Kajarago, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0or...the companies could upload usage statistics programs and monitor our reception levels... hell, they can already track you down to street level, why not make good use of phone tracking?
    • skinrock, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Did the congressmen not realize how INSANELY expensive and time consuming that would be?"

      The point is, their so called "coverage maps" are *****. With as many customers that each carrier has, and how much they charge per month even for the cheapest plan, it shouldn't be too hard on their pockets to get a little bit more reliable data.
      • OddTSi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh, I absolutely agree that their coverage maps are crap. But street-level resolution is a bit much to ask for realistically even for such big companies. I think a reasonable thing to ask for would be neighborhood-level resolution.
    • TTURabble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0They can already do this, I've seen it.
      Go into a cell store and ask to see the street level coverage map.
  • WiseElben, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"The bill would give the FCC a homework assignment: a single-spaced report to Congress on the harmful and anti-competitive practice of locking handsets."

    Wait, what? A single-spaced report instead of a double-spaced report? It would make sense if it was "single-paged."
  • xtream, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I really don't understand why the US has this mobile phone structure. It should have been this way since it started. Much of Asia started with this idea from square one.
    • lavchan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+41. Much smaller population density.

      2. Much older existing infrastructure.

      3. Most of the initial cellular work was done in other countries; Asia was able to run with something 'from square one' because somebody else had already developed the technology for them. (By the way, Japan's super-high-tech fancy cellular network is based on CDMA, not GSM.)

      4. Lack of bull-***** government regulation.
    • lcarsdeveloper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Japan's using some super enhanced CDMA, it's a 3.5G network, which is why if you visit Japan you usually have to hire a phone when you get to the airport.
  • Rizin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Its only 3:30 am I expect a news article on Bush's arrest by 12pm

    (Times are EST)
  • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10Do you morons actually beleive that if cell companies were forced to get rid of the early terminatio nfees that you would BENEFIT?
    Guess what, you idiots...Take away the ETF and they are no longer going to pay for your brand new phone every year, or give you $200 off an expensive one.
    You sign a ***** contract. you know what you are getting into, in terms of early termination fees. You accept that in exchange for the subsidy on the phone. So HONOR THE ***** CONTRACT! Be a ***** responsible adult.
    • lcarsdeveloper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Depends on the situation. A contract is a contract, but if they aren't keeping their end of the bargain (lack of coverage, poor service, etc) then that should make the contract void, or at least they could negotiate with you to resolve it. It's not about getting rid of ETF, it's about reducing them based on how long the customer is with you and how much they spend. For example, if you're contracted onto a $50 plan but you spend $100 a month, in theory you should be able to exit your contract for free after only 12 months, because they were expecting to get $1200 from you over 2 years, but you gave it to them in half that time. The phone is paid off, they should let you go for free, or if you want you should be able to call them and say "I want to sign up for a new phone".
      • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Except no one is paying double their contract fee in reality. If they were, they would be pretty ***** stupid to not sign up for the next tier of service.
    • Kajarago, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I don't think the point of that is so much to take away the ETF's but more to realize the circumstances under which the contract is cancelled, I believe a specific example they gave was of a military member awaiting deployment, which I do not see as a bad idea at all
      • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That is not what this bill is about. Many providers voluntarily already do this for service members. This bill, as presented here, is trying to let whiny little bitches who want to switch to a new provider for no reason get out of their legal contract.
    • DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1First of all this isn't taking away early termination fees, it simply cuts it in half after the first year of a two year contract. Read the ***** article.

      Second, if early termination fees are banned, who cares? Companies will still have to provide cheap phone incentives because
      consumers now EXPECT it.

      Unless of course you're implying that there is no such thing as free market competition (I suspect that there isn't) and that all companies would adhere to a status quo of full phone costs. This is the same status quo that is resulting in 150 dollar termination fees staying at that rate for the last decade. Wouldn't the principles of free market fundamentalism result in that termination fee dropping every so often as companies realize they can benefit over their competition if they charge lower fees?

      Your free marketist ***** is a charade and you should know it if you don't. You assholes just play a shell game as a way of keeping out government regulation.
      • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wrong. Cell providers are not going to give away $200+ phones for nothing with an ETF. If they did, they would then raise hte monthly fee, so it would take fewer months to recoup the cost.

        Honestly...please tell me you are not so stupid as to think that the cell providers would take the loss instead of passing it onto consumers.
    • ingxia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree, this bill punishes cell phone companies. Almost all of them offer a fair alternative: pay-as-you-go service. It seems people would rather get lured by a cheap contract and get mad then pay fees upfront.
  • Jerky1312, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Let's not count our chickens before they hatch. The bill is being introduced, it hasn't passed. You know there is going to be a big lobby by telcos against this bill and usually money translates better than logic, when you are dealing with politicians. The story will be news worthy when the bill passes.
  • happytron, on 10/10/2007, -8/+0The democrats can't possibly think that they won in such a landslide so they could pass crap legislation like this. These are cheap political gains in exchange for complacency with the war.
  • iamr00t, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Ron Paul would NOT approve!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.