This is long, long, overdue:
(…) Michael W. Morrissey, the Senate chairman of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, is putting forth legislation to impose new regulations on cellular phone companies to make them more responsive to consumers.
The bill, drafted by Morrissey, would force the companies to issue semiannual public reports detailing their signal strength, their dead zones, and gaps in coverage, along with the number of dropped calls.
In addition, the legislation would allow customers with poor service to terminate their contract with their cellphone company without having to pay hefty penalties. Consumers would pay only a pro-rated share of the early termination fee, based on how long they have had their service; currently, customers who wish to get out of a service contract are usually required to pay the full termination fee.
I’m less interested in the spotty service than the coercive long-term contracts. As Howard Dean said rather un-poetically, “We need to re-regulate” — but in this case, it’s re-regulation on behalf of actual unfettered market competition, not the rigged game that the telcos would have you play. Chipping away at the Corporate Nanny State would be a tremendous accomplishment for the legislature and new Governor. How cool would it be to actually have real, fluid competition in cell phone service? Unlock the contracts, and the companies will have more incentive to improve service. Someone else has a better/cheaper phone plan? Go with them!
Keep your eye on this:
A spokeswoman for Senate President Robert E. Travaglini said it was too early to comment.
Uh huh.
“The overwhelming amount of public support for some significant change in the cellphone industry was tremendous,” Cummings said. “But at the same time I have to say that each and every company showed up at our hearing and there was so much pressure by the industry it did not come of committee.”
Uh huh.
Who runs this state, anyway? If these guys continue to get away with it, why don’t we just call ourselves the Commonwealth of Verizochusetts and be done with it?
BTW, the State House switchboard is 617-722-2000, if you’d like your Senator to hear about this. Or just leave it to the telcos and Senators to hash it out amongst themselves; I’m sure they’ll come up with something good.
(Next challenge: More cable TV and internet competition/A la carte cable.)
UPDATE: … and just why is this legislation overdue? Sharpchick has an idea.
already…Last night an order was put by Council to the City Manager to come back with a report of where the “dead zones” are in the City. We are also in the middle of our Cable renewal contract and our advisory committee was not very happy with how our ONLY provider, Charter is doing business. we are advocating for choice byt don’t hink it’s gonna happen, good thing is that this new contract won’t be for 10 years like the last one…….
<
p>
I agree with H.D. – Re-regulate before one guy owns everything in America…God help us if it’s Donald Trump……
That I’m not as concerned by dead spots b/c I live in a big metropolitan area, so I don’t usually have to be. There’s privilege for you.
I got my original 2 year Sprint contract in August 2003, so I was expecting to go month-to-month after August 2005. In the summer of 2005, my landline had problems, and since I was working for Jesse Gordon’s campaign as field & volunteer coordinator, I started maxing out my cell phone minutes, so I called Sprint to ask about other plans. They did indeed have a plan that was much better suited for me, and I asked the salesperson repeatedly whether this would affect my contract period or delay when I go month-to-month. With several assurances that it would not, I switched plans. I found out a few months later that I was placed on a new 2-year contract, the salesperson was wrong, and there’s no recourse, sorry.
<
p>
Now I have a perverse motive for not switching to a new Sprint plan, ever, even when my usage pattern changes and they have another plan that’s better suited for it.
Like the Globe story noted, a version of this bill was introduced last year (it’s still available to read, SB 1790).
<
p>
But notice something that the story does not connect, however, when it says:
<
p>
<
p>
Guess who the Senate Chair of the Telecommunications Committe at the time was and still is? Senator Michael Morrissey.
<
p>
This watered down bill (see Section 120 of original bill: “(a) No contract for wireless telephone service shall be for a term longer than twelve months”) is already capitulating to Verizon. That’s fine if that’s the way it has to be, but let’s not try and pretend that this is the “high road” bill that just came into the scene.
As the lead on the Senate side of the complete version of the Cell Phone Users Bill of Rights (along with State Rep Steve Walsh of Lynn on the house side), it was painful to see the enormous influence of Big Telecom on the fate of this little bill. While I was unaware Sen. Morrissey was filing this new bill, I can only view it as a partial step in the right…er, left direction.
<
p>
Jarrett Barrios
And don’t forget – Marshmallow Fluff is TRANS-FAT FREE!