Antitrust Pressure Mounts For Wireless Providers 300
Over the past few weeks, the cellphone industry has been criticized on a variety of subjects, from distracted driving to handset exclusivity deals to everything else that's shady within the industry. Verizon's CEO has now responded, addressing what he claims are "myths" about standard practices. Reader DJRumpy points out that the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights has been calling for an investigation into whether competition is being stifled through many of these practices, "including possible text messaging price fixing and questionable roaming arrangements." Apparently the new antitrust chief is hitting resistance from within the government over the aggressive inquiries into this and other major industries. However, a small victory was achieved the other day when the National Telecommunications and Information Administration "told incumbent carriers that they'll have to prove their cases just like everyone else if they want to challenge broadband grant proposals from smaller players." There is also legislation in the works that would require states to impose a ban on text messaging while driving or lose a significant portion of their federal highway funding.
Yeah, take THAT Verizon! (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
That'll teach you to charge me $40 for roaming last month when I never left the city, motherfuckers!
Unless you are on an ancient plan or left the country, Verizon doesn't charge roaming fees for using partner networks.....
Re:Yeah, take THAT Verizon! (Score:5, Informative)
There are cities on the US/Canadian border that you can pick up Canadian towers, and they will indeed charge you for roaming.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There are cities on the US/Canadian border that you can pick up Canadian towers, and they will indeed charge you for roaming.
And if you live in one of those cities it would seem to me to be your responsibility to pay attention to the roaming indicator on your phone. If you don't want to do that then you can lock your phone in "home only" mode (CDMA) or manually specify the carrier's network (GSM) to keep it from roaming.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, I know this well. I live 20km away from downtown Victoria, BC's CAPITAL city.. can practically SEE it. Yet, my old phone (Telus) would roam constantly. I had roaming turned off for 4 years, but eventually got sick of paying $70/month for service I could only use while I was at work, or in town.. about 9 hours/day during the week. Rediculous. When they called me to try and upgrade my plan, I explained this to them, and the fact that I know several people who have a similar situation, that their ro
Re:You've found step 3! (Score:2)
Step 1) Use "vendor lock-in" to prevent the use of competitor's phones
Step 2) Don't allow any "allowed" phone to have features such as requiring confirmation to switch to high-priced "roaming" towers
Step 3) Claim that it's the responsibility of consumers to do something which should be a basic feature of any phone
Step 4) Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Step 2) Don't allow any "allowed" phone to have features such as requiring confirmation to switch to high-priced "roaming" towers
Except that every single phone I've ever seen offered by Verizon does offer the ability to disable roaming. So try again.....
Re: (Score:2)
That can work the other way as well. There's been times I've been just inside Mexico in a border town and able to place calls using a U.S. tower on the other side of the border and not have to worry about roaming.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, most phones (I know that mine does) have a setting where you can disable from connecting to roaming networks. I turned mine off ages ago. Real pity; we're entitled to free digital roaming, but Sprint doesn't handle it properly and charges us anyways, and well, in case you haven't heard, dealing with their customer service is less desirable than banging your head into a metal-spiked wall.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm well aware of that, but most end users don't know about that (unless they're told by someone who does.) Also, you usually get free roaming.. inside the country. 'Leaving' the country is an entirely different roaming situation they neglect to inform you about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Irrelevent, since VZW likely had coverage in his home area.. otherwise why would he use them?
All I want to see... (Score:3, Insightful)
...is pro-rated fees for breaking a contract early. If I decide Sprint sucks and break my 2-year contract after 18 months, I should have to pay the full $200 fee. I should pay $50.
Contracts aren't what they used to be... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you should have to pay whatever the contract, which you signed voluntarily, in good health and sound mind, stipulates.
Re:Contracts aren't what they used to be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if monopoly power robs the consumer of bargaining power.
It's akin to letting a majority of wolves outvote sheep on what's for dinner.
Re:Contracts aren't what they used to be... (Score:5, Interesting)
We've got the same discussions going on here across the pond, but we're a bit further along. Several laws have already been passed ordering carriers to stop blocking VoIP and such; in Belgium, iPhones must be sold independently of carriers. I think we're starting to get the mix between government intervention and free market right. On another level, we told the telco's to standardise the power plugs they use; they were given an ultimatum after mass public annoyance at all the different chargers we have, and told to "choose or have it chosen for them". Now micro-USB will be becoming the standard. We're getting there!
It makes me wonder, though. I don't believe in free market anymore. There's just too many loopholes, lobbying being the biggest. And I think the U.S. government has a lot of corruption to stamp out before it can be as flexible as the EU has been hitherto.
Re:Contracts aren't what they used to be... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe in free market anymore. There's just too many loopholes, lobbying being the biggest.
If government is so involved in the economy that lobbying is worth the effort, then it's not a truly free market. In a real free market, the government simply wouldn't have the power.
In a TRULY free market, the government wouldn't have power to establish currency, protect ownership, extend licensure... all sorts of things that the economy depends on.
The "hypothetical free market" requires perfect information, perfect competition, and perfect mobility. As none of these are feasible to attain, government regulation is required to simulate them or compensate for their lack. For example, legal definitions of what "organic" produce is, and establishment of certifying bodies (which are private enterprises, but have some sort of charter or something from the government that establishes their certification as adequate for usage of the term "organic") help compensate for the lack of perfect information about farming practices. Without them, someone could say "Yeah, my produce is organic!" after spraying it with tons of pesticides, and you wouldn't really have any way of verifying that unless you traveled out to their farm yourself and watched them for a while... or brought your own lab kit to the market.
So, markets that work on the scale we expect them to will always require SOME amount of regulation, and insofar as there is such regulation, there will be disagreements about how that regulation should be put in place. Some methods would favor the producer or the consumer. Hence, there's a business interest in attempting to shape the regulatory process.
I'm all for making lobbying illegal... but that, some say, is over-regulating the market.
Re:Contracts aren't what they used to be... (Score:5, Informative)
cartels and monopolies behave the same way and have the same economic side effects so my point still stands.
Re:Contracts aren't what they used to be... (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the GP is suggesting that Sprint, Verizon, AT&T and Cingular all act as a cartel in the US to artificially control prices, keep out competition and constrain consumer choice.
Is that clear enough?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand, what you are talking about. Maybe, you need to put some more work into your postings, rather than argue in one-liners. Thanks.
This always amazes me. This is an article talking about potential antitrust problems with cell phone companies and you're chiming in with your opinions, but you don't know what trusts are in this context. Doesn't it seem prudent to learn at least the concept of what you're discussing before forming opinions on it and expressing those opinions?
Logic is flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. No one forces you to have a cell phone, no matter what possible reason you come up with.
So by your logic NOTHING is a cartel or monopoly.
The original Bell Co. which didn't allow any other telephone other than those they create really wasn't a problem. Why, because according to your logic no one was making you have a land line right?
Standard oil really wasn't either a monopoly right? No one was making the public own a car or own a car that used oil right?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's called an oligopoly when multiple companies all work together in a sort of monopoly on an industry. Another example is the oil industry.
You ought to visit Canada sometime. You think you've got it bad in the States with cell phone providers. It's a utopia compared to Canada.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree, there is no monopoly, there appears to be what one might call a Oligopoly. There are 4 National carriers. (Yes, there are a few smaller ones.) AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile. I count two others with over a million subscribers on ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_communications_service_providers [wikipedia.org]) which is currently not being acquired by one of those 4 (Either listed there, or known by myself).
Their plans are almost lockstep. Comparing some plans last year, the
Re:Contracts aren't what they used to be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Together, the major companies are a monopoly in that they don't allow competition. They're effectively one company, they all offer the same crappy service and weak sauce features for the SAME PRICE. They agree between each other how deep to stick it in our asses. Try paying less than 30$ a month for a cell phone service.
i'd LOVE to have a service that charges me based on my use. i make two or three calls a WEEK, all to my girlfriend and all about 1 minute long. "I'm ready", "OK, i'm on my way". i send a text message every two or three days. i'm not a twelve year old girl who has to yammer constantly. Now that i have an iPhone provided my my employer, my usage has changed little. It's not a matter of cost anymore, it's just how i use the tool. When i was paying, i had over 10,000 rollover minutes from a minimal plan. Fuck that. It was a huge waste of money. Here's where you're make another purely argumentative comment like "but you didn't have to have a cell phone".
The pay-as-you-go phones are set up so that you have to keep paying to keep your number. The amount you could spend on a busy week can quickly outstrip that of a monthly plan. It wouldn't kill them to offer a monthly plan for 10$ a month.
Other countries have more competition so they strive to offer better services, more services and better prices. Japan's cell phone system puts ours to shame. They pay less and "get more". We can attribute some of that to Japanese technophilia, but most of it comes from competition. As much as the US obsesses about competition and free market, we don't do it. Powerful companies buy politicians to make laws so that no one else can play.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I supposed its still my fault: I chose to return to my home town rather than move to a larger cellular market for improved service.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Some of them have something a little special lik
Re: (Score:2)
If you go online and check out each of the four major carriors, all their plans are pretty much exactly the same. They all charge relatively the exact same prices for everything.
I'm sorry but I just can't take you seriously. Off the top of my head, here are some differences between the providers:
AT&T: Has rollover and mobile to mobile as standard feature, no "myfavs" unlimited calling
Verizon: No rollover, mobile to mobile is standard feature, "myfavs" unlimited calling on some plans
T-Mobile: No rollover, no standard mobile to mobile, "myfavs" plans are available, plans are generally cheaper and/or have more minutes than the other three carriers
Sprint: No rollover, mobile t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then please explain to me how can I stop paying for incoming texts that my idiot friends with unlimited texting plans keep sending me. It's not like I have a choice receiving them. And speaking of SMS, how come the non bundle cost is $0.20 for ALL carriers? Surely one would realize that reducing the price would mean more customers and we all know that the cost of carrying them is practically 0. Oh, and funny how the price went up to $0.20 with ALL carriers AT THE SAME TIME...
And speaking of voice plans, how
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless plans are designed so that part of the monthly plan goes toward the purchase of the phone, so by paying full price for a phone and plan you are not coming out ahead.
Then sign the contract if that's the way you think. Personally I would rather have my freedom of action than the best possible deal on a phone. To each their own, that's why we have freedom of choice in this country. You want to take that choice away and use the power of Government to intervene in a perfectly functional market because you don't happen to like the way that market is working.
You get to switch carriers whenever you want? Great! Except you'll have to buy a new phone, which will cost more than the contract penalty would have.
I guess you've never heard of an unlocked GSM phone, have you?
Re:Contracts aren't what they used to be... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you should have to pay whatever the contract, which you signed voluntarily, in good health and sound mind, stipulates.
This is America! If you have a greivence against a company, you have rights, you know. Your rights are protected by federal, state, and local laws.
1. You have the right to binding arbitration by some bought-off company in Northern Virginia.
2. You have the right to... well, that last one's it, really.
I don't mean to be too flippant, but laws are definitely there to protect the consumer, and that trumps contracts. This is similar to how California finds most non-compete agreements invalid: a hungry person will definitely agree to one during an economic downturn, but it would unfairly prevent them from getting another job later. In this case, all cellphone companies have similar stupid rules, like binding arbitration.
The law is your tool to protect you from that. Don't give up your rights too easily.
WRT to free markets and contracts: I'll believe that *these* contracts fall under free market provisions of binding legal exchange of promises between two equal parties when *they* acknowledge the changes that I had written into the contract before sending it in, or even what the base contract was. Oh look, they've update the terms again. How quaint.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AT&T's early termination fee is prorated [att.com].
Re:Contracts aren't what they used to be... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you should have to pay whatever the contract, which you signed voluntarily...
That argument is a codependent enabler for corporate abuses. If all the cell providers are using basically the same language in their contracts, consumers have no effective choice. Try to find a brokerage account that doesn't make you waive your rights to seek redress in the courts. They don't exist, because they're all using the binding arbitration clauses in their contracts. Consumers have no effective choice.
And, always in the background, some pompous, know-it-all dick saying, "If you don't like it, don't sign the contract." If that was the case, you wouldn't have a cell phone, telephone, car, bank account, investment account, 401(K) or internet connection. When companies collude on contract language, they are functioning as a cartel not free market players. When you don't have a choice, it's not a free market.
Stop sticking up for abusive behavior, makes you look like a tool.
Re: (Score:2)
And, always in the background, some pompous, know-it-all dick saying, "If you don't like it, don't sign the contract." If that was the case, you wouldn't have a cell phone, telephone, car, bank account, investment account, 401(K) or internet connection. When companies collude on contract language, they are functioning as a cartel not free market players. When you don't have a choice, it's not a free market.
Actually I bought my car with financing from a local credit union that has it's own contracts that don't contain any of the usual (binding arbitration being the big one) anti-consumer clauses. There are choices out there for most of the services that you mentioned -- you just have to look for them.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the same contract which every other mobile carrier has, thus leaving you with a choice of "have a mobile phone or not?" Thats coersive, and only works because mobile carries dicate which phones you can use. If we had to buy phones seperately from service, we'd have better phones at lower prices, and there'd be no need for a contract. But that's not what the phone companies want, because thye want to force you to sign up for at least a year, in some cases two, and use the early termination fee as
Re: (Score:2)
Careful. I bet you've signed at least one contract that has a section that lets the company change the terms at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
In which case the fee will be increased so that most people still pay $200.
Did they hold a gun to your head when you signed the thing with the obvious non-pro-rated fee? If not why "should" you have to pay less than what you agreed to?
Re:All I want to see... (Score:4, Informative)
Did you have a snowball's chance in hell of negotiating? Did competitors give them any incentive to be reasonable?
No and no.
Re: (Score:2)
My cell phone plan has no termination charge, so signing up for one that does is clearly a choice made by the signer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I only have a PAYG cell phone that I carry in my bike bag to use if I get stranded out in the middle of nowhere. Haven't used it yet.
Re:All I want to see... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how it is where you live, but around here pay phones have all but disappeared. If you get stuck somewhere at night (car problems, etc.) and you don't have a cell phone, you're screwed unless someone is nice enough to stop and help. Which, usually, they aren't. That being said, having a prepaid phone is certainly a great option for those cases.
Umm, I don't buy that you are "screwed" if your car breaks down with no cell phone. Inconvenienced might be a better word. I've had to walk a few miles when my car has broken down out in the sticks before. It was annoying but I wasn't "screwed". Anyway, as you said, prepaid is good option here.
Re:All I want to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
You just want to use the Government to force a change to a private business model because you don't happen to like it.
No my wants are much more self centered than that. What I want is to just not have to pay anything but get all the things I want. I'll not be happy until I can pick a cell phone off a tree, as many as I like, that makes calls and SMS and MMS and email and web surfing, all with fully FOSS software that I'll never see the source of but I still want FOSS.
I want it to have a big screen and a fast processor and a long battery life. I do not want any corporate logos on it. I do not want to receive a bill. No contracts. No government tracking of my calls or anything else. No private tracking either.
I do not want to have to look at an ad. I want to be able to run any software I like easily. I want it to have access for me to torrent any file I want at no cost (to me). It should be able to open every file format there is no matter how obscure or pointless. It should not encumber anyone in any way.
Rainforests cannot be cut down for this phone, nor can any whales be killed. Sweatshops shall not have any involvement. There should be a crank on the side I can crank if I run out of battery power. There should also be a solar panel. The manufacturing/growing methods for this phone shall be carbon neutral. Nanotubes should be in some way involved.
It should have a good UI that includes CLI. Multi-touch. Gestures. Handwriting recognition. Stylus capable. If my fingers are slicked over with french fry grease there shall be no ill effects on the screen, either in functionality or appearance.
The phone will be GPS capable with a compass and full access to maps served up by someone else without and ads or logos on them. I should be able to record TV shows on it. The camera will be a collaboration between Hasselblad and Phase One and do 1080p video in a fully FOSS file format unencumbered by patents. The firmware shall all be FOSS. There shall never be any software errors or crashes. Same goes for the hardware.
When such a device is delivered I will be only partially happy, as by that time I will have devised new conditions that will ensure I can feel technologically superior to my peers, who think that their tree grown eco-friendly superphones are the pinnacle of phone development. I, in my wisdom, will find fault, room for improvement, despite that fact that I am entirely incapable of advancing the state of cellular phone, the cellular phone industry, its services, or any other aspect of the human condition.
Re:All I want to see... (Score:4, Informative)
This is nonsense. The contract fees are specifically designed to keep you from jumping ship. They don't want you moving to a competitor. They want to be able to abuse you as a consumer and they use the fee as a fear tactic. Jump ship and they still get a ton of money out of you.
It's anti-competitive, pure and simple.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, that is technically not correct, although it does happen in the real world. The whole purpose of the ETF (which varies these days on provider, I know ATT is pro rating based on how long you have been on contract) is to recoup the cost of the subsidized device you bought from them, in exchange for a 2 year contract.
Like I said though, what something was meant for, and what it is actually being used for, are two totally different things.
Now I am not going to get into the fact that they abuse the ETF, for
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Many cell phone companies (Sprint included) price phones in such a way that the only way one can afford to get service with them is to sign their 2-year contract, which subsidizes the phone. Then, if you are unhappy with the service, you're stuck doling out a large sum of money just to switch to another carrier that might be even worse.
I understand that the company must recoup the money they spent on subsidizing the phone to you, but having to pay the full termination fee whenever you've already fulfilled
Re: (Score:2)
If you were to live within your means you would not have this problem.
you DO NOT NEED a iPhone. a $39.95 baseline nokia phone is enough for anyone... yes you can buy a cellphone for that price unlocked and on the regular market.
If you cant afford to go and buy that $599.00 phone with cash, then YOU CANT AFFORD IT.
Re: (Score:2)
While you are correct, you do not need an iphone, you also will not really find any cheap phones for $40, even the go phones are $60, but then again, that is a $20 difference, not a 400 difference.
That being said, the cheapest Nokia handset is the 3110, and its $99 unlocked. If you want any features outside of normal SMS and phone calls, then that number goes up drastically.
Unlocked phones are expensive, even the cheap ones are still expensive.
The purpose of the iphone though (since you used it as an examp
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16875205141 [newegg.com]
under $35.00 Unlocked.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Last time I was contract free, without a subsidized phone, the airtime ended up costing about twice as much as it would have if I'd had a contract and taken their phone.
They price EVERYTHING so that you're pretty much forced to take the contract.
Re:All I want to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, yes, you did. You could have declined the service.
The word, "negotiate", clearly doesn't not mean what you think it means. Your statement only affirms negotiation is part part of the process.
You just want to use the Government to force a change to a private business model because you don't happen to like it.
Cartels do not exist for the public good. Government exists to protect the public from abusive monopolies and cartels. Furthermore, they are doing so by leveraging a resource lent to them for the sole purpose of furthering public interest. This absolutely falls within the realm of regulation.
And, what you are calling a "private business model" is actually a government granted Monopoly using scarce resources provided them for the sole purpose of societal benefit. Sure they are allowed to make a profit. In this case, they are making a profit while abusing their monopoly/cartel position to deny rights required under equitable contract law.
Re:All I want to see... Sprint DOES prorate ETF (Score:2)
Sprint DOES prorate the ETF for all contracts signed after November 2008. However, there is still a minimum of $50, so your ETF after 18 months would be $87.50
See http://nextelonline.nextel.com/en/services/termination_fee/early_termination_fee.shtml [nextel.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Carriers change fees all the time. For example T-Mobile just increased their minute overage fee (July 27th), freeing all T-Mobile customers from early termination fees because they changed the term of the contract. After 30 days the "loophole" closes and you're back to paying those fees. But about 4 times a year something like that happens and you can terminate with 0 fees. But I really like T-Mobile and my awesome cheap plan so I'm stickign with them (for now).
Ban on text messaging while driving? (Score:5, Funny)
WTF? I regularly post to slashdot while I'm driving to
Text Messaging is Marked up 7314% (Score:5, Insightful)
The Consumerist reported that Verizon text messaging is marked up by 7314% when compared to the relative cost of other data transfer services. Prices for text messages have also risen from .10 to .15 to .20 in recent years, even as the costs of data throughput have decreased.
( http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2009/06/text-messaging-rates-overpriced-att-aprint-verizon-t-mobile.html [consumerreports.org] )
The reason for this is simple: Greed and collusion.
Consumer Reports has this to say on the subject:
"As CU has noted, less than four years ago rates to send a text message were 10 cents per text at the nation's four big wireless carriers: AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless. Each company then raised rates to 15 cents, then to 20 cents.
To CU, these text-message rates, along with exclusivity deals for certain cell phones, exemplify the need for âoemore oversightâ into the wireless marketplace, to âoedetermine if government intervention is necessary.â
Re: (Score:2)
VZ is like a supermarket and other businesses that sell lossleaders and make it up on other products. in this case a lot of phones are lossleaders because they sell you a phone for less than retail price and make up the difference on the monthly charges. texting is just there for people that want it to help pay for all the phones. once 4G networks come along texting will be free and they will charge for something else.
the cash price of a monthly cell phone contract hasn't changed much in the last 10 years w
Subsidized phones are the devil (Score:2)
in this case a lot of phones are lossleaders because they sell you a phone for less than retail price and make up the difference on the monthly charges.
You just cited what I believe is the worst aspect of the American cell phone industry as a benefit. I understand a lot of consumers don't want to drop $150-400 on a cell phone at the beginning of their service so it's wise for the cell phone companies to offer plans which dramatically subsidize the price of the phone by spreading it across a 2 year contract. However, if I bring my own phone I can't get a better rate. I still have to pay the "subsidize the phone" rate price even if I already have paid for
Re: (Score:2)
that's because you are a small niche and not worth the effort to create a new marketing and rate plan that may have to go through a lengthy approval process by multiple agencies at federal and state levels. The vast majority of people buy new phones every 2 years from the carrier.
Re: (Score:2)
what a weird argument you're making here. are you suggesting that federal and state agencies prevent the phone companies from changing their plans and pricing? if they do, it can't be that much of a hassle, because Verizon does it all the time!
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of people buy new phones every 2 years from the carrier.
Hardly surprising when they are paying for them (or a substantial portion of them) whether they want them or not.
I remember it used to be like this in the uk, then one of the providers (I think it was 02) started offering a sim only tarrif that gave you more service for your money than the regular tarrifs and soon enough loads of others followed suit.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's because the pricing schemes thought up by the phone companies all include the price of paying back the subsidy on a cell phone in their 'normal' rates. If they cut out the 2 year contracts, the true price of the service itself could be used. Instead, we are all subsidizing new phones whether we have one or not.
Re: (Score:2)
seriously. and add to your example that at some point over the term of your contract, you wind up paying off the subsidy (probably long before your contract ends). but your rate never goes down. even at the end of the contract, when surely the phone company has recouped the subsidy, you never get a discount.
the phone companies are playing a shell game, and we're all suckers.
if the price of a iPhone is too daunting for your customers, do what other retail stores do, pay by installments!
there's no reason yo
Re: (Score:2)
My text messaging is free, as is my voicemail and internet. And I don't have to pay minutes, it's a flat $50 per month. It's going to cost over a hundred bucks to replace my stolen phone, though.
Re:Text Messaging is Marked up 7314% (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is a ploy to get people into lucrative monthly plans where you will almost never send the amount of text messages you need to cost them any money. As an example I sometimes send 150 text messages a month luckily I have a $5 plan that allows 250. However the next three months I might send 5 text messages and Verizon wins as I used no where near that amount.
Saying that I would love to see the companies not be allowed to run one plan that subsidizes the phones even after you ran through the two year contract. I feel I have to get a new phone every two years or I'm ripping myself off as I'm still paying for a phone that I have not received due to the contracts being overpriced.
Re: (Score:2)
We have to get the telecommunication providers to be just infrastructure providers connecting us, like for the Internet, being neutral of the content.
Or someone should create a 3G network (or something similar) that just allows painless twitter, blogging, im, email and maybe skype/voip.
I mean, obviously we need text-messaging, email and IM more than anything else?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple and AT&T tried this with the original iPhone and it failed. The original iPhone plan was cheaper than the current one but you had to pay $600 for a new phone. When they went to the normal model where AT&T sold it below cost and made up for it over 2 years sales went through the roof.
Banning texting at the federal level (Score:3, Interesting)
On the one hand, texting while driving is about as dangerous as drinking and driving. It takes eyes and concentration off the road and puts everyone else at risk. It is an activity that ought to be illegal.
But first of all, do we want the federal government having that kind of control over the states? The actions taken by the federal government ought to be carefully weighed with the impact it will have on all states. National defense, public educational standards, immigration and border controls, healthcare. These are the things that Washington ought to be concerned about. Not some 16 year old field hockey player driving her mom's Durango with her boyfriend's hands between her knees and her eyes on her iPhone.
Secondly, what are we actually defining as texting? Technology changes so rapidly that a measure like this can only be relevant for a short time.
Leave the texting laws to the states. Don't let the federal government bully the states into making the laws.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
National defense, and immigration and border controls. These are the things that Washington ought to be concerned about.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply use low tax rates to draw workers from other, better-educated states, and get the benefits of an educated workforce for free.
One would assume that those better-educated workers would want the same educational benefits to be available to their children......
Re: (Score:2)
This is nothing new. The Fed collects the money from the states and then uses it as a stick in order to push their will back onto the states. Sure, it was the states money to begin with, but the only way to get it back is to comply with whatever the Fed wants the state to do.
IMHO, the likely upcoming of legalization in CA will be very fun to watch. Federal agents can (and most likely will) keep arresting those
Re: (Score:2)
Federal agents can (and most likely will) keep arresting those who are using pot, while it's completely legal in the stat
Actually they'll probably arrest those who are engaged in the business of selling pot, not those who are merely using it. Your point is still valid though.
Hopefully more and more states will start giving the finger to the Fed and do what's in their best interest and not some random law passed from on high in DC.
A few of them are trying to. It's not just pot [time.com] either....
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, what are we actually defining as texting? Technology changes so rapidly that a measure like this can only be relevant for a short time.
Exactly, if there is any banning/law making to do, it should be towards the use of the (type of) device entirely while the vehicle is in motion. Do you get a larger fine if you are talking, than texting?
Officer: Do you know how many characters you sent?
Re:Banning texting at the federal level (Score:5, Interesting)
Texting while driving is already illegal in all 50 states.
It's called reckless driving [wikipedia.org].
This new requirement is just posturing. It's a waste of time, effort, and money. It also contributes to the growing problem of federal law being vast and un-knowable by any single individual.
Go congress!
Re:Banning texting at the federal level (Score:4, Informative)
On the one hand, texting while driving is about as dangerous as drinking and driving. It takes eyes and concentration off the road and puts everyone else at risk. It is an activity that ought to be illegal.
Actually, it's worse. Car and Driver did a test comparing the two [caranddriver.com], and they found that text messaging while driving is worse than driving while intoxicated.
The reason? My guess is that when you're driving buzzed, at least you're (hopefully) giving the road your undivided attention.
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand, texting while driving is about as dangerous as drinking and driving. It takes eyes and concentration off the road and puts everyone else at risk. It is an activity that ought to be illegal.
Really? I guarantee I can point to about 500 text messages that I sent while traveling at 70-100mph and all were very safe.
They all were sent by my PC that was sending GPS coordinates and telemetry during a rally race. Under the laws proposed, I'll be arrested for texting while driving.
No Text messaging while driving! (Score:4, Funny)
Laws against text messaging while driving (Score:2)
One of the advantages of the U.S. system is that various states can try different approaches to address problems, each with their own idea of the best way to fix the problem. Then other states can adopt the approach that best solves the problem with the fewest negative u
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
These types of laws are a bad idea and should be opposed. People constantly want to use the power of the federal government to stick their noses into issues that are none of their business. If people in the neighboring state want to allow text messaging while driving, that is their right (I think it is a bad idea, but I don't live there, so I don't get a say
Re: (Score:2)
My issue with texting while driving is that not for the concern of the individual who is texting but of the innocent bystandard who faces the consequences of said texters actions. Unlike wearing a seatbelt while driving, you're not endangering the your life as much as that of another. Freedom should never be granted at the expense of anothers.
That is the problem with all forms of reckless driving, they put uninvolved bystanders at risk. Why should text messaging be separated out as a special case of reckless driving?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where do you live that it's 'rarely criticized'?
This even just came out recently: Doctor who was on presidential commission that pushed to raise drinking age to 21 regrets change, believes it did more harm than good. [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure there should be laws against text messaging while driving, but I agree it shouldn't be at the federal level, and that text messaging isn't the only thing you shouldn't do while driving. But text messaging is something that's done a lot more often than applyijng makeup while driving, and worse it's done more often by young, inexperienced drivers than people who have been behind the wheel for ten years.
You could get pulled over for careless driving or worse if you're reading a book while driving. An
technology gap? (Score:2)
What if people who feel the need to text while driving are provided with a "heads-up" keyboard display on their windshields like fighter pilots have? Entering text could be a simulation of "shooting" the desired virtual key via buttons on the steering wheel.
Not practical at the moment, I'll admit, but it would be easier than prying the devices out of folks' hands. Think of all the fun that could be had by blasting away at the idiot in front of you. Stress reliever?
Disclaimer: I do not own a cell phone and b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd much rather just have a car that could drive itself. That's not practical at the moment, either. I expected to see that before the year 2000, and apparently so did Isaac Asimov in his short story "Sally", which took place 11 years from now.
Stopping text messaging while driving (Score:2)
I'm afraid that the only way to prevent people from texting while driving is for the companies to shutdown that feature, permanently.
But, as it is a large cash-cow for them, they will not do that as a preventative measure. Quite a few people will die in accidents where someone was texting and studies will have to be done to show what we already know - if you want to talk or text someone, pull over to the side of the road FIRST. Don't drive distracted; the life you save may be someone you know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I meant that the cellular phone company would have to shutdown texting as a service for everyone, everywhere, forever not just for the texter when driving. People will find a way around any technological gadget to block texting or phoning while driving. I am advocating that people driving cars should pull over to the side of the road before making/answering a phone call or text message. Not paying attention to the road conditions, other cars, etc. is a sure way to cause an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prove it was the driver.
I hand my phone to my wife a lot for her to answer. If some numb-nut side swiped me when she was on the phone, Insurance looks at the phone records, sees a call on mine and nullifies the insurance?
No thanks.
34 states (Score:2)
"There is also legislation in the works that would require states to impose a ban on text messaging while driving or lose a significant portion of their federal highway funding."
This is the same crap the Fedgov pulled when their attempts to force a minimum drinking age on states got shot down in court. It's time 34 states got together for a constitutional convention and crammed an Amendment down the Feds' throats to put an end to stuff like this. It can be narrow in scope to just cover the highway funds, bu
Do You Hear That? (Score:2)
Well do you? That's the Fat Lady tuning up to sing the funeral dirge for the telecoms death grip on the wireless industry.
Let the blade of the guillotine fall and fall again! Make them feel the icy bite of the steel on their flesh, realizing the cold hard fact: Don't piss off the paying public, you may wind up in the ditch.
Why doesn't monthly cost go down with no phone... (Score:5, Interesting)
I use Verizon atm, and I noticed that if you open an account, and get a subsidized phone by signing a 2 year agreement you get whatever the rate is. Why, after two years, when theoretically you have paid for the subsidized phone, doesn't your monthly bill go down. Now if you upgrade the phone after 2 years with a 2year renewal, I can see keeping the price the same. But otherwise, they should be required to tell you how much of what you are paying each month is going to paying for the phone, and drop that cost when the phone is paid for.
Also, if you bring your own phone, you don't get a reduced rate, you just don't have to sign up for 2 years.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because that would be a disincentive for you to coming in and pick up and new phone and another two year slavery term.
Re:Why doesn't monthly cost go down with no phone. (Score:3, Interesting)
Count yourself lucky. In Canada if you bring your own phone and don't sign a contract you pay more.
Oh, and cancelling the contract isn't $200, it's $400. Plus another $100 for your data plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Sprint and T-Mobile are screwed because they cater to bottom feeders and now they're complaining.
How is T-Mobile "screwed"? If you live somewhere where they have good coverage (most urban areas and quite a few suburban ones) they are a great option. Much more affordable than Verizon or AT&T and much better customer service.
Re: (Score:2)
exactly, my mom has a cheapo phone that only makes phone calls
we're starting a market cycle where people want nice smart phones like the iphone, pre, or one of the others. Sprint and T-Mobile have mostly cheapo phones. if you want the iphone you go to AT&T. If you want a BB Tour you go to Verizon, but i think Sprint has a few as well. People are even willing to pay extra for these phones. Apple is selling iphones as fast as it can make them and it's well past the cult of steve core customers.
Sprint got
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of the three of the 'big four', I have shitty experience with AT&T and Verizon. They have "the best network/fewest dropped calls" only in their ads. Don't get me started on their pathetic customer service, their lock-ins, they charges. T-mobile is godsend compared to those two.
Now talking about your 'great phones' argument - in my opinion, that is the crux of the problem. In fact, AT&T and Verizon are out-muscling other small time providers jus
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
few years ago all phones were about the same in features and people shopped based on price and coverage. Sprint decided to bottom feed the market with it's pay cash in the store machines to cater to illegals and people who don't have bank accounts or internet access.
Is there any evidence that suggests Sprint was trying to cater to illegal residents (of the US, I assume)? First of all, note that there is a huge population of legal non-resident aliens who work in the US. Second, the areas of my city heavily populated by foriegn nationals are littered with Cricket [mycricket.com] stores; THEY are the ones who seem to be aggressively pursuing this market. Third, the core of Sprint's subscriber base for many years has been businesses. This comment seems like an inflamatory remark intended
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Where is Sprint complaining? They still get exclusives, and the people complaining are consumer advocates an