Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    RÝbert M.
    Guest
    Last September the Cellular Industry adopted a "Consumer Code" which in
    many respects (IMHO) has been observed in the breach. Coverage maps that
    show no more than whitewashing whole counties as "covered" and ignore
    known dead zones continue. Contracts designed to trick customers as
    much as to recover costs of subsidized phones continue. Billing problems
    continue unabated. SprintPCS for one, at first bragged how it agreed
    with the industry code.

    <http://144.226.116.29/PR/CDA/PR_CDA_...1,3681,1111782
    ,00.html>

    Quietly a link to that code has disappeared from its main web page.

    The state of California, taking note of all this took a positive step
    today and passed its own regulations

    <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...u=/ap/20040527
    /ap_on_bi_ge/wireless_regulation&sid=95573418>

    Maybe with the California Public Utilities Commission's passage today of
    their Telecommunications Bill of Rights, things will get better. Things
    can hardly get worse, the american public rates cellular carriers right
    down there with used car salesmen.



    See More: Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails




  2. #2
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails


    "RÝbert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Last September the Cellular Industry adopted a "Consumer Code" which in
    > many respects (IMHO) has been observed in the breach. Coverage maps that
    > show no more than whitewashing whole counties as "covered" and ignore
    > known dead zones continue. Contracts designed to trick customers as
    > much as to recover costs of subsidized phones continue. Billing problems
    > continue unabated. SprintPCS for one, at first bragged how it agreed
    > with the industry code.
    >
    > <http://144.226.116.29/PR/CDA/PR_CDA_...1,3681,1111782
    > ,00.html>
    >
    > Quietly a link to that code has disappeared from its main web page.
    >
    > The state of California, taking note of all this took a positive step
    > today and passed its own regulations
    >
    > <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...u=/ap/20040527
    > /ap_on_bi_ge/wireless_regulation&sid=95573418>
    >
    > Maybe with the California Public Utilities Commission's passage today of
    > their Telecommunications Bill of Rights, things will get better. Things
    > can hardly get worse, the american public rates cellular carriers right
    > down there with used car salesmen.


    First- the Code is still on the CTIA website, and its presentation has
    actually been enhanced.

    Second- the "biggest" past of the new legislation- a 30 'back out' period on
    a contract, is already in practice by all of the major carriers.

    Third- all of the information now 'required' was required before upon asking
    for it.

    Fourth- putting hundreds of lines of contract in a specifically sized font
    does not make it any less difficult to read, and does not make the language
    of the contract change. Read any carriers' TOS- with the exception of
    section titles, the rest of the contract is in one font size exclusively.
    Font size does not cure the consumers' laziness in reading it.

    Fifth- with Phil living in Texas, this has no effect on him, or any of the
    rest of us not residing in CA, excpet for the fact that will ultimately pay
    for it through our rate plans.

    Bottom line- this legislation did nothing for the consumer. Phil's biggest
    complaint about the CTIA Consumer Code is not even addressed- nothing about
    coverage maps. All this did was allow all cellular users (not just the
    ones in CA) to ultimately fund a new layer of state government in CA.
    Ultimately, it will probably be overturned, as the legislature has singled
    out a single industry (which they have no regulatory control over) to
    dictate the terms of doing business. Political grandstanding at its best.





  3. #3
    Nebby
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails

    > First- the Code is still on the CTIA website

    No one said it wasn't - Its no longer on the SprintPCS website

    > a 30 'back out' period on a contract, is already in > practice by all of the

    major carriers.


    Doesnt do any good if you're stuck with a phone cause Sprint allows only 14
    days

    > Living in Texas, this has no effect on him, or any
    > of the rest of us not residing in CA, excpet for the > fact that will

    ultimately pay for it through our
    > rate plans.


    OK - cellular carrier cant play fair because it will cost us more? NO ONE BUT
    YOU BELIEVES THAT.
    And if California forces carriers to play nice, either

    = Texas will soon pass similar rules
    = The FCC may get into the act
    = or the carriers may put teeth in their code.



  4. #4
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Phillip <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > = Texas will soon pass similar rules
    > = The FCC may get into the act
    > = or the carriers may put teeth in their code.


    California leads the nation in frivolous legislation. Do NOT think that
    Texas will pass it because California did.

    - --

    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

    iD8DBQFAtphP1p0e3NXsrtERAnraAKCv5JH9slfv4h2SeK8RsXbBfWBR4ACcCnz6
    3g7zJkAtGp3vcV+Ztv6kJ+o=
    =1hAo
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



  5. #5
    Nebby
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails

    > California leads the nation in frivolous legislation. > Do NOT think that
    Texas will pass it because
    > California did.


    I would suspect its more dependant upon the future behavior of the cellular
    industry, rather than your opinion of the California Legislature. If action is
    taken at the Federal level, it's moot what Texas does or doesn't do. By the way
    this is Administrative Regulations, not legislation that occured Thursday.

    And certainly when any industry is asked to behave itself, it complains about
    costs and frivolous regulation.

    P.S. Others think Michigan does a good job in frivolous legislation:

    <http://www.lsj.com/news/capitol/0111..._side1_5a.html>


    In Minnesota, Planned Parenthood thinks legislative restrictions on abortions
    are frivolous.

    <http://www.ppmsd.org/legislative/abo...strictions.asp>



  6. #6
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails


    "Nebby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > > First- the Code is still on the CTIA website

    >
    > No one said it wasn't - Its no longer on the SprintPCS website
    >
    > > a 30 'back out' period on a contract, is already in > practice by all

    of the
    > major carriers.
    >
    >
    > Doesnt do any good if you're stuck with a phone cause Sprint allows only

    14
    > days


    And if you are too lazy or too stupid to determine after the first two or
    three days that your carrier won't meet your needs, you deserve to be stuck
    with them.

    >
    > > Living in Texas, this has no effect on him, or any
    > > of the rest of us not residing in CA, excpet for the > fact that will

    > ultimately pay for it through our
    > > rate plans.

    >
    > OK - cellular carrier cant play fair because it will cost us more? NO ONE

    BUT
    > YOU BELIEVES THAT.
    > And if California forces carriers to play nice, either
    >
    > = Texas will soon pass similar rules
    > = The FCC may get into the act
    > = or the carriers may put teeth in their code.


    You selectively answered the post. There is nothing new (ie- nothing that
    isn't already practiced) in the regulations. In fact, this is far less
    reaching than the CTIA Code. All the state did was add a layer of
    bureacracy to the mix.





  7. #7
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails


    "Nebby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > > California leads the nation in frivolous legislation. > Do NOT think

    that
    > Texas will pass it because
    > > California did.

    >
    > I would suspect its more dependant upon the future behavior of the

    cellular
    > industry, rather than your opinion of the California Legislature. If

    action is
    > taken at the Federal level, it's moot what Texas does or doesn't do. By

    the way
    > this is Administrative Regulations, not legislation that occured Thursday.
    >
    > And certainly when any industry is asked to behave itself, it complains

    about
    > costs and frivolous regulation.


    But they do behave themselves- it is the responsibility of the customer to
    read the terms and conditions before signing up. If they did, 75% of the
    supposed issues would never occur. Its too bad that you are looking to the
    government to make up for the lack of consumer intelligence.

    >






  8. #8
    Andy S
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails

    tinyurl.com is your friend. use it for long addresses.


    --
    Andrew D. Sisson
    "RÝbert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Last September the Cellular Industry adopted a "Consumer Code" which in
    > many respects (IMHO) has been observed in the breach. Coverage maps that
    > show no more than whitewashing whole counties as "covered" and ignore
    > known dead zones continue. Contracts designed to trick customers as
    > much as to recover costs of subsidized phones continue. Billing problems
    > continue unabated. SprintPCS for one, at first bragged how it agreed
    > with the industry code.
    >
    > <http://144.226.116.29/PR/CDA/PR_CDA_...1,3681,1111782
    > ,00.html>
    >
    > Quietly a link to that code has disappeared from its main web page.
    >
    > The state of California, taking note of all this took a positive step
    > today and passed its own regulations
    >
    > <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...u=/ap/20040527
    > /ap_on_bi_ge/wireless_regulation&sid=95573418>
    >
    > Maybe with the California Public Utilities Commission's passage today of
    > their Telecommunications Bill of Rights, things will get better. Things
    > can hardly get worse, the american public rates cellular carriers right
    > down there with used car salesmen.






  9. #9
    RÝbert M.
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Andy S" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > tinyurl.com is your friend. use it for long addresses.


    Not prudent anymore. You dont know where you are going to end up.



  10. #10
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails


    "Andy S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > tinyurl.com is your friend. use it for long addresses.


    He's been told that at least 10 times by yours truly and others in this
    newsgroup. Absolutely amazing how he doesn't listen to this sound advice ...

    Bob





  11. #11
    John Richards
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails

    "Andy S" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > tinyurl.com is your friend. use it for long addresses.


    Either that, or learn how to set the parameters of one's news poster
    so it doesn't break long URLs.

    --

    John Richards




  12. #12
    RÝbert M.
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Andy S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > tinyurl.com is your friend. use it for long addresses.

    >
    > Either that, or learn how to set the parameters of one's news poster
    > so it doesn't break long URLs.


    Use a news reader that doesn't break long URLs. Outlook Express will
    break anything long, no matter how its posted.



  13. #13
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails


    "RÝbert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Andy S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > > > tinyurl.com is your friend. use it for long addresses.

    > >
    > > Either that, or learn how to set the parameters of one's news poster
    > > so it doesn't break long URLs.

    >
    > Use a news reader that doesn't break long URLs. Outlook Express will
    > break anything long, no matter how its posted.


    No, it won't break long URLs, unless the person who posted the URL didn't
    know what to do. I've clicked on links in OE that were four lines long and
    they worked. It's you Phillipe and that MT Newswatcher program you use ...

    Bob





  • Similar Threads