Cellular Industry's lame "Consumer Code" fails

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

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_Press_Releases_Detail/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?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=1&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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-7E7C4D.18251327052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> 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_Press_Releases_Detail/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?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=1&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.

 

[Nebby]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

> 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

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

Phillip <Phillip@gte.net> 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-----

 

[Nebby]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

> 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/011104ftleg_side1_5a.html>


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

<http://www.ppmsd.org/legislative/abortionRestrictions.asp>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Nebby" <nebby00007@aol.compants> wrote in message
news:20040527203452.29553.00000028@mb-m05.aol.com...
> > 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Nebby" <nebby00007@aol.compants> wrote in message
news:20040528081259.20430.00000074@mb-m07.aol.com...
> > 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.

>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

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


--
Andrew D. Sisson
"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-7E7C4D.18251327052004@news06.east.earthlink.net...
> 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_Press_Releases_Detail/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?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=1&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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

In article <Pu3uc.269682$M3.176085@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Andy S" <adsisson@NOrochesterSPAM.rr.com> wrote:

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

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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

"Andy S" <adsisson@NOrochesterSPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
newsu3uc.269682$M3.176085@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> 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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

"Andy S" <adsisson@NOrochesterSPAM.rr.com> wrote in message newsu3uc.269682$M3.176085@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> 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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

In article <dQduc.3422$n65.1832@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
"John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Andy S" <adsisson@NOrochesterSPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
> newsu3uc.269682$M3.176085@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > 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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular (More info?)

"Røbert M." <rmarkoff@faq.city> wrote in message
news:rmarkoff-BB1DAC.04573930052004@news05.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <dQduc.3422$n65.1832@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
> "John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > "Andy S" <adsisson@NOrochesterSPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
> > newsu3uc.269682$M3.176085@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > > 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