Consumer Code for Wireless Service

http://www.wow-com.com/pdf/The_Code.pdf

There is the link to the newly published code that wireless carriers
agree to abide by. Whats wrong with it:

1. Too vague: i.e. they will provide toll free numbers
+ Says nothing about average hold time
+ Says nothing about ability to escalate

2. Too slow
+ Allows 30 days to respond to complaints forwarded by Federal or state
agencies

3. Not enough info
+ Only disclosure of rate plans for "New consumers" is required.

4. No teeth
+ Says zero, nada, zilch about how to enforce it.


None of this is specifically Sprint's fault, this is an industry wide
"Code".

---

› See More: Consumer Code for Wireless Service

"Sprintposter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.wow-com.com/pdf/The_Code.pdf
>
> There is the link to the newly published code that wireless carriers
> agree to abide by. Whats wrong with it:
>
> 1. Too vague: i.e. they will provide toll free numbers
> + Says nothing about average hold time

Not arguing here, just asking but is that really important? What happens
when a carrier puts a new promotion that a lot of folks, new and current
customers want and swamp the telephone lines? SPCS's hold time goes up a bit
from Thanksgiving through Christmas, with their annual holiday promotions?
Should they or any carrier be penalized for that? How about the pending
11-24 date for WLNP, when an a number of people will be calling to change
carriers? Should those carriers be penalized for the extra calls cancelling
or adding service ? During holidays or when a disaster happens?

> + Says nothing about ability to escalate
>
> 2. Too slow
> + Allows 30 days to respond to complaints forwarded by Federal or
state
> agencies

What do you think would be a fair amount of time for the carriers to
investigate the problem, obtaining & reading past notes, obtaining and
listening to past recorded calls, etc. to file a response to the respective
government agency(ies)?

>
> 3. Not enough info
> + Only disclosure of rate plans for "New consumers" is required.

I don't read it that way, under section 3, it says:

When a customer initiates service with a wireless carrier or agrees to a
change in service whereby the
customer is bound to a contract extension, the carrier will provide or
confirm the material terms and
conditions of service with the subscriber.

Note the phrase "or agrees to a change in service ..."

>
> 4. No teeth
> + Says zero, nada, zilch about how to enforce it.

What would you like it to say?

>
> None of this is specifically Sprint's fault, this is an industry wide
> "Code".

Agreed. This was composed by the cellular industry. I read it as some sort
of promise to the consumer. If the consumer finds that this code isn't
working for them, they can always protest to their state PUC or FCC.

Bob

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Sprintposter) wrote:

> http://www.wow-com.com/pdf/The_Code.pdf
>
> There is the link to the newly published code that wireless carriers
> agree to abide by. Whats wrong with it:
>
> 1. Too vague: i.e. they will provide toll free numbers
> + Says nothing about average hold time
> + Says nothing about ability to escalate
>
> 2. Too slow
> + Allows 30 days to respond to complaints forwarded by Federal or state
> agencies
>
> 3. Not enough info
> + Only disclosure of rate plans for "New consumers" is required.
>
> 4. No teeth
> + Says zero, nada, zilch about how to enforce it.
>
>
> None of this is specifically Sprint's fault, this is an industry wide
> "Code".


Makes me sick, all the carriers acting so high and mighty with this lame
code.

Luckily the State of California will ignore this worthless code, and enforce
some meaningful consumer protection.

> Luckily the State of California will ignore this
> worthless code, and enforce
> some meaningful consumer protection.

Read all about it at:

http://www.consumersunion.org/wireless/action.html

Here is what Consumer's Union says would be a fair code for all providers:
http://www.consumersunion.org/wireless/model-rules.html

Informed Choice: Rates, terms and conditions of service, and coverage areas
should be disclosed in a standardized way that permits consumers to make
comparisons of competing offers. Standardized coverage maps should be subject
to audit.

Real Choice: Require a minimum 30-day risk free trial period for new service.

Marketing and Advertising: Require marketing and advertising to fully and
accurately disclose rates, terms and conditions of service in clear language
and readable type.

Contracts: Require legible contracts with plain language disclosures; prohibit
mandatory binding arbitration of disputes.

Billing and Rates: Design statements to ensure accurate and understandable
bills that clearly label fees and charges. When a consumer files a complaint
about a bill, the consumer is not required to pay the disputed charge and
service cannot be terminated until the complaint is resolved.

Service Quality: Require billing practices that encourage network quality. For
example, calls should not be charged until a connection is made, not at the
push of the 'send' button. Right now consumers pay for excessive connection
times and dropped calls caused by over loaded networks. Prohibit charges for
calls of less than one minute.

Report on Bad Behavior: The FCC should regularly and conspicuously post
customer complaint data and enforcement actions by company on the FCC website.

"DSL GURU" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here is what Consumer's Union says would be a fair code for all providers:
> http://www.consumersunion.org/wireless/model-rules.html
>
> Informed Choice: Rates, terms and conditions of service, and coverage
areas
> should be disclosed in a standardized way that permits consumers to make
> comparisons of competing offers. Standardized coverage maps should be
subject
> to audit.
>
> Real Choice: Require a minimum 30-day risk free trial period for new
service.
>
> Marketing and Advertising: Require marketing and advertising to fully and
> accurately disclose rates, terms and conditions of service in clear
language
> and readable type.
>
> Contracts: Require legible contracts with plain language disclosures;
prohibit
> mandatory binding arbitration of disputes.
>
> Billing and Rates: Design statements to ensure accurate and understandable
> bills that clearly label fees and charges. When a consumer files a
complaint
> about a bill, the consumer is not required to pay the disputed charge and
> service cannot be terminated until the complaint is resolved.
>
> Service Quality: Require billing practices that encourage network quality.
For
> example, calls should not be charged until a connection is made, not at
the
> push of the 'send' button. Right now consumers pay for excessive
connection
> times and dropped calls caused by over loaded networks. Prohibit charges
for
> calls of less than one minute.
>
> Report on Bad Behavior: The FCC should regularly and conspicuously post
> customer complaint data and enforcement actions by company on the FCC
website.

Yeah, I can't tell you how many times I called voicemail to get missed calls
where my phone didn't ring, only to have my call to voicemail dropped, then
get charges 2 minutes for the call to voicemail where I couldn't even get
the messages. With modern technology, they should be able to tell when a
call is connected, dropped, etc.

They should also be required to waive the $150 when they cannot provide
service in a large area where they advertise coverage. I mean, dead spots
are ok, but sometimes, they're excessive.

Justin <[email protected]> wrote:

> They should also be required to waive the $150 when they cannot provide
> service in a large area where they advertise coverage.

Or if the coverage changed for the worse in a primary area of use for
the subscriber during a contract period. If a carrier re-tunes their
towers, why should the subscriber be forced to pay an ETF if they cannot
make/receive calls in their area of use?

Joel

"Joel Horner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1g137gi.re173zsvbr6rN%[email protected]...
> Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > They should also be required to waive the $150 when they cannot provide
> > service in a large area where they advertise coverage.
>
> Or if the coverage changed for the worse in a primary area of use for
> the subscriber during a contract period. If a carrier re-tunes their
> towers, why should the subscriber be forced to pay an ETF if they cannot
> make/receive calls in their area of use?
>
> Joel

I couldn't agree more. And that's actually what happened in my situation.

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

>
> "Joel Horner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1g137gi.re173zsvbr6rN%[email protected]...
> > Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > They should also be required to waive the $150 when they cannot provide
> > > service in a large area where they advertise coverage.
> >
> > Or if the coverage changed for the worse in a primary area of use for
> > the subscriber during a contract period. If a carrier re-tunes their
> > towers, why should the subscriber be forced to pay an ETF if they cannot
> > make/receive calls in their area of use?
> >
> > Joel
>
> I couldn't agree more. And that's actually what happened in my situation.

Even most SprintPCS employees who post here agree, but Sprint's Terms of
Service same something different, unreasonable and it needs to be
addressed by a proper Consumer Code, like that the State of California
is considering

Sprint's Lawyers wrote this - which most juries would ignore:


" We do not guarantee service availability or that there will be no
interruptions or delays in Services (e.g., dropped calls, blocked calls,
etc.)."


There is the common law principle of "Implied warantee of Fitness for
Particular Purpose" that over rules here. I.E. You buy a phone for cell
service and Sprint knows your home address, it should be usable there.

"P Reality" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
<snipped>

> Even most SprintPCS employees who post here agree, but Sprint's Terms of
> Service same something different, unreasonable and it needs to be
> addressed by a proper Consumer Code, like that the State of California
> is considering
>
> Sprint's Lawyers wrote this - which most juries would ignore:
>
>
> " We do not guarantee service availability or that there will be no
> interruptions or delays in Services (e.g., dropped calls, blocked calls,
> etc.)."
>
>
> There is the common law principle of "Implied warantee of Fitness for
> Particular Purpose" that over rules here. I.E. You buy a phone for cell
> service and Sprint knows your home address, it should be usable there.

Every wireless provider has verbiage, saying that their phones may not work
everywhere. If you don't believe so, go read the TOS from anyone of them ...

Bob

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "P Reality" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> <snipped>
>
> > Even most SprintPCS employees who post here agree, but Sprint's Terms of
> > Service same something different, unreasonable and it needs to be
> > addressed by a proper Consumer Code, like that the State of California
> > is considering
> >
> > Sprint's Lawyers wrote this - which most juries would ignore:
> >
> >
> > " We do not guarantee service availability or that there will be no
> > interruptions or delays in Services (e.g., dropped calls, blocked calls,
> > etc.)."
> >
> >
> > There is the common law principle of "Implied warantee of Fitness for
> > Particular Purpose" that over rules here. I.E. You buy a phone for cell
> > service and Sprint knows your home address, it should be usable there.
>
> Every wireless provider has verbiage, saying that their phones may not
work
> everywhere. If you don't believe so, go read the TOS from anyone of them
....
>
> Bob


Who cares? If they're guilty of false advertising, they are guilty of false
advertising. If they can't provide the service where advertised, they
should let people out of the contract. I mean, honestly, this debate will
hinge on what is an acceptable sized dead spot. If it's one house, or a
spot the size of a football field, that may be ok. If its the size of a
small European country, then it's more than a dead spot. Given the customer
usually has 14 days at a minimum, that should be enough time to determing
whether or not a phone will work in your area. It took me less than an hour
to determine that Verizon was not a good choice in my area, and I returned
the phones, no harm done. The problem comes when they don't maintain their
networks and service degrades two, three, or five months down the road.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:50:35 GMT, P Reality <[email protected]>
said:

>" We do not guarantee service availability or that there will be no
>interruptions or delays in Services (e.g., dropped calls, blocked calls,
>etc.)."

I arrgee with you but this is policy applies to every wireless
services carrier, internet provider, pager company, and satellite TV
company. Even with your cable company, phone company, electric
company too although they do have certain "requirements" (not a set
guarantee) by your locality as they are normally operated as regulated
monopolies.

>
>
>There is the common law principle of "Implied warantee of Fitness for
>Particular Purpose" that over rules here. I.E. You buy a phone for cell
>service and Sprint knows your home address, it should be usable there.

I agree with that too but how would they go about actually testing
this. I'd assume the further away you got from a tower the less
acurate or random the surveys would be. How could you account for
that along with seasonal changes in a manner that would make sense and
be useful to a typical consumer trying to make make an educated
decsicion?
I had this exact issue with Cingular about 5 years ago. Took it home
and could not contact the network during late afternoon and early
evening (peak times). I called CS from my home phone and she claimed
that I needed to contact my local government because the problem in
that area "was the lack of towers because no one wants one in their
backyard". I asked her if that was her opinion or my area was
speicifically documented somewhere because the salesman 3 miles away
at the Cingular store never mentioned it. It eventually did get
better though.