And it's always the way, isn't it? A new technology comes along and falls all over you, lying at your feet, begging you to try their fledgling product. In this case, cell phones. What do we need a cell phone for? We have a phone at home, and at the office. I have a pager. I like to listen to the radio in the car, not talk on the phone...
And besides, cell phones are expensive, you recall saying.
Ah, but think back to the hype, and the promises. The cell phone companies would do anything to get you into a cell phone: free phones, discounted service, waived fees. Anything to grow their business.Cut to today. Practically everyone has a cell phone now, either for emergency communication, or everyday connectivity. Teens are on them, texting every ten seconds, it seems. Thanks to our generosity and goodwill, we have not only embraced the technology and made the cell phone companies a ton of money; we have come to sorely depend on these little communication devices.
In other words, we're not going to give them up. Really. We like them, we depend on them. You really have us enslaved to your technology, cell phone companies. You don't have to be unfair to us too.
Ah, but isn't that what corporate America is all about? Now that we've got them, let's slam them with hidden fees and unfair charges. They're too busy talking on their cell phones to notice, or haven't the time or inclination to fight an unjust charge.
One can imagine they think we're all just a bunch of suckers.
But here's a message to cell phone companies everywhere: consumers DO care, and DO notice, and ARE fighting back. They take their complaints and stories to their congressmen, and when that doesn't work they go to the media.
The congressional reference is to the cellular freedom bill introduced in early September of last year by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and jay Rockefeller (D-WV). Their hope is to put an end to the unfairness, and the alleged gouging.
Among the Bill's features would be a requirement that cellular providers would be barred from charging fees that go beyond those mandated by local, state and federal governments. Early termination fees would be pro-rated, which suggests any user looking to get out of his or her contract at, say, the halfway point, would pay half the termination fee. Cell service providers would be required to notify their customers IN WRITING of any changes to their contract, and customers would have the legal right to opt out within thirty days for ANY REASON.
The tragedy here is that the proposed Bill, since its introduction last year, has yet to leave Committee and may never receive a vote.
The good news is, some carriers are getting with the program anyway. AT&T announced last October that it would begin pro-rating termination fees. Beginning May 25th, any new customer to AT&T agreeing to a one, or two-year contract will have five bucks deducted from the termination fee each month for the length of the contract. It has been reported that T-Mobile, and Spring Nextel will announce a similar change in 2008. Verizon Wireless started pro-rating termination fees in late 2006.
All this may sound like good news, and while it is encouraging, there are still many, many problems, and the stories of poor service and unfair practice are legion. At AT&T, the switch to pro-rated termination fees after May 25th is NOT grand fathered for existing customers with one, or two-year contracts. These consumers will still have the pay full freight.
And stories abound of consumers not being allowed to opt out of their contracts, even for poor service and dropped calls. Klobuchar and Rockefeller's Bill, should it ever get beyond the committee stage, will require companies to detail service areas, and will require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to track service outages and dropped calls, and to keep this information in a public data base.
Until that happens, however, the system remains patently unfair and unjust, with the cellular juggernaut having its way with anything, and anyone who gets into its path, regardless of circumstances.
Take the case of the Stewart family from Framingham, near Boston Tracey Stewart's 66-year-old father passed away four days before Christmas after a brief illness. Following the shock and heartbreak compounded by the Yuletide, Tracey's husband called Sprint to cancel his father-in-law from the family's cell phone family plan.
READ MORE LEGAL NEWS
The response? Sorry, but the contract is still active and in force. The man had come in sometime prior and upgraded his contract. You'll have to pay the termination fee, or give the phone to someone else. According to a report from WCVB TV 5 in Boston, the Stewart family was extended a bit of an olive branch—a reduction of Tracey's late father's monthly fee to $10 from $20, for the duration of the contract, which expires in September of 2008. But no, the Stewarts did not have anyone else to give the phone to, and in actual fact Sprint's position offended them.It was reported that Sprint's normal policy is to request a death certificate, suggesting that simple contact by a grieving family is not enough. A spokesperson from Sprint, when contacted by the media, indicated that Sprint's policy is to cancel the account within five business days, and waive any early termination fee.
"We want to work with the customer in this time of sadness," the spokesperson said.
It appears, however, that the courtesy was allegedly only offered after the family went to the media. Others go straight to their lawyer. And who can blame them?
