For too long have we, the populous of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, been subjugated to convoluted terms and conditions put forth by faceless, bureaucratic cell phone providers. Today the Massachusetts legislature’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy will entertain the Wireless Telephone Consumer Protection Act, known colloquially as the “cell phone users bill of rights” on Beacon Hill, to help clarify regulations and data providers require of users like you and me.
As the most wired-in generation ever, millennials are often made the butt of fees and billings by international telecom cartels and need now, more than ever, a bold-faced explanation of what their providers have to offer and how they’ll be charged.
Sponsored by State Senator Karen E. Spilka (D-Ashland), the bill aims to interpret, and make more readily accessible, a wide range of items such as contract terms, service area maps, change in rates, as well as the format in which these are all presented, in layman’s terms for those who don’t understand industry jargon.
Ms. Spilka has heard laments from all angles on the matter, from her constituents down to her children, telling BostInno that we need to “make it more pro-consumer and less pro-wireless service.”
“This is a strong pro-consumer bill,” she said over the phone, “I’m hoping that it does help with consumer information and makes it simpler and easier to understand.”
The bill can be thought to be a safeguard for those poised to embark on their own respective cell phone plan but are ill-equipped in wading through all of the fine print and invisible charges thrown at consumers by telecom corporations. But it also extends throughout all age brackets.
The comprehensive legislation breaks down exactly what providers need to, for lack of a better term, provide for users and the manner in which they’re provided.
For example, a provider would have to explicitly note any “Information on charges, including calling-from area, monthly base charge, per-minute charges for minutes not included in the plan” as well as render maps “available that show the wireless telephone service area of such provider nationwide and the wireless telephone service area of such provider” in the Commonwealth.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the statue is the surveillance power of the Department of Telecommunications and Cable to “monitor the quality of wireless telephone service provided in Massachusetts by requiring semiannual reports by wireless telephone service providers” on peccadillos like dropped calls, blocked calls, coverage gaps, and “other matters the Department considers appropriate.”
Similar, though perhaps more overreaching, advances by the NSA caused nationwide outrage when it came to light the intelligence agency was tracking, though not listening, to civilian calls.
However, to provide some kind of transparency, the bill will establish some kind of “website at which members of the public can submit to the department their comments and views on the quality of such service.”
Opposition could also come in the form of big telecommunications. “Cell phone companies may be opposed to some terms,” Ms. Spilka told BostInno “They may say that more restrictions aren’t necessary. That’s what’s good about a hearing. People can come to testify in support but also in opposition.”
For those beginning their first, independent cell phone plans the law would require that a contract of no less and no more than one year be agreed upon by the user and the provider. Currently, providers offer a standard two-year contract for all plans and would continue to do so until the contract expires. After that two years would be the limit, as providers would then have the option to “renew the contract for a similar, shorter or longer period not to exceed twelve months.”
Gone could be the days of hidden and abrupt charges as a change in fees would require 30 days notice on the part of the provider. In similar respect, a user wishing to cancel their plan without being subject to fees would have to do so in the first 30 days, or “no penalty or other costs to the subscriber.”
But the idea, in the end, is to protect the consumer.
And should the provider fail to comply with any of the requisites, a penalty of $1,000 will be levied against them for each offense.
Though large telecom conglomerates could likely foot such a bill with ease, hopefully it’s the principle of the enactment that will capture their attention.
