Like the Capital One slogan - "What's in your wallet?"

I'd have to say the cell phone companies are in his.

I think the money falling out of his pockets at the hearing was in poor taste

Not perfect, but if all those are enacted... that will be a good day for consumers. A step in the right direction, per se.

Just wondering, does the FCC chief serve at "the pleasure of the president"... meaning, when Obama is POTUS in January '09, then we'll have an FCC head that isn't up the asses of the companies he/she is supposed to regulate?

"ETFs should be relative to the phone's cost; a $5 phone should have a lower fee than a $50"

Does this imply that if I purchase my own phone I am exempted from ETFs? Somehow I doubt this will be the case.

Nothing about locking cell phones, huh? That's as anti-consumer and monopolistic as ETFs.

Which we now know because of today's earlier Consumerist article, Martin doesn't have to deal with since he's a gov't employee. I'll bet if Martin faced a $175 loss out of his OWN pocket, he'd be singing a different tune.
Jeezus do empathy-free hypocrites bug me...

Although, it has to be said, these are good initial steps. Initial.

I'm also leery of how various terms are defined in practice: "reasonable", "fair cost", etc.

I'd be okay with EFT-laden, "free" phones, so long as they were one of several options, with easy-to-understand, prominent terms, with no term resets unless a new, discounted phone was purchased. Then it's a matter of preference (or buyer stupidity). But this?!

@savvy9999: FCC members are appointed for fixed, staggered terms. So, no.

I'm fine with ETF's because I don't want to pay for the whole cost of the phone. If you don't like ETF's, fine, just be prepared to fork over $200 for even the cheapest phones and more for the expensive ones. I like these new ideas, but anyone who thinks ETF's should be abolished is crazy. Even as common as they are, cellphones are still really expensive.

I would love to get rid of my cell phone. The $200 ETE is starting to look like a viable option.

@savvy9999: your screen name indicates you're savvy, but do you really think what you just said is true? when the next president comes in we'll get more of the same, it's just going to have different icing.

Contract Length - 1 Year Maximum
ETF - Not Pro-Rated
Phone - Eligible for low price purchase every year

If they decide to keep 2 year contracts
Contract Length - 2 Year
ETF - Pro-Rated
Phone - Should be eligible to repurchase at low price every 2 year.
Should not have to resign a contract at end of 2 year, only if they want a low price phone.

Gee, a department of goverment, the FCC, who's policy suggestions closely mirror those of the organization they are regulating, who'da thunk it?

Wow, what will happen next, the Department of Energy meeting behind closed doors with the oil industry?

Yeah, you're going to find lots of industries accept softball legislation over the balance of the year. Better to let new regulations be set now under Bush's corporate whoredom than to risk what might happen under a Dem press & congress.

@Trai_Dep: True, but I believe the next President can appoint someone to the next opening and then designate that person the Chairman.

I think these are reasonable terms with a couple of exceptions. ETFs should be directly tied to a cost output by the provider (i.e. no $ spent by provider for equipment, setup, etc. means no ETF), and that the fixed, reasonable time should be tied into the proration of ETFs such that at least 5% of the ETF is waived for each full month of service (i.e. contract lenght maxes out at 20 months).

The ETF is in a contract between a private party and an individual. Why the FCC is holding meetings on this is beyond me. We are already seeing ETF's be reduced in cost, and pro-rating is happening. Do you think this is because of the government? Or free market / competition?

I can't believe I am paying these peoples salaries to sit around and debate something they should have 0 control over.

If you don't like the companies ETF, go with another company. There are plenty with 0 ETF. The best way to regulation corporations is by not giving them your money.

@raisitup: what an uplifting comment.

I'm OK with an ETF if the phone was subsidized. I get they need their money back. But if I bring my own phone or I elect to pay full price so I don't have to pay ETF, I should have that right and no ETF should apply.

Nothing wrong with regurgitating the industry's proposal if it's fair. I'm with ffmariners. It's not like this modest improvement will end the war.

How about no EFT's because no contract and you actually pay what the phone is worth?

The problem is created by phone purchases subsidized by the carrier in order to generate long term commitments.

If we paid the going rate for the phone, had no contract, then potentially (in my make-believe world) cell phones might actually have to compete on service to maintain customers, rather than keeping them trapped by contract.

@Bladefist: The ETF is in a contract between a private party and an individual. Why the FCC is holding meetings on this is beyond me.

The wireless spectrum is a public good. By being allowed to use a piece of it, they agree to be regulated by the FCC. You're not going to convince me that it'd be better to let anyone broadcast on a particular frequency.

@Michael Belisle: That's a good point. But I think both of our points can co-exist. If Bobs Cell phone service has a $2,000 ETF, why can't we let the consumers shut him down? It's pretty simple. I think most Americans ask about the ETF, and I just don't see any point to regulating it. Just me.

@raisitup: Yup. Because there's NO difference between 98-year-old McCain and Obama. Just like there was NO difference between GW Bush and that other guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize. While working a side-job.

Yeesh. People like you really do deserve the stunted lives you lead.

@esd2020: Really? I didn't know that. Thanks!

@Trai_Dep: I think he is 71. Barrack Milhouse Obama is going to fix everything. Even ETF's.

@Michael Belisle: Thank you. You beat me to it. :)

@Bladefist: I think it would be fair if the companies offered a platter of options, from full-freight purchase of unlocked phones thru the EFT-laden ones (but resetting only if another phone was purchased, and amortized fairly). With the details described simply and accurately.
Then let the market decide, with consumers making the best decision for them.

Win/Win.
But I think that we're a far distance from that happy medium. For now.

@Trai_Dep: Well, like you, I am also a victim of ETF's. And I hate them. Like you. But, I learned a valuable lesson, and I learned to either go a route with no ETF's, or be absolutely sure I'll finish out the contract.

I see the snowball effect here. There are millions of private contracts out there. I can make a contract with you to build my deck, and if you don't finish it, I'm not going to pay you. How long until the government is regulating that also?

This is why I come to consumerist. Tell me who has the best deals, tell me who is god awful, and I'll go to the good one, eventually the God awful one will be hurting. *Cough* Sprint.

The government is filled with worthless douchebags who do nothing but try to control our lives and feel they are gods. I hope they all get AIDS and die of a horribly excrusiating death! Just my opinion though :)

All the concerns about the ETF's and nobody notices the 800 gorilla in the room.

You sign up for service. As part of the deal you get a discount on the phone at time of purchase. Say you did a 2yr deal. What actually happened is you acquired a $200 for $70 and the balance is buried in your rates for the term of the contract. At month 25 has anyone ever seen their RATE go down?

The point is at month 25 you the customer are still paying the same rates as if the wireless company was still recapture costs on the phone. So from there on the differential is pure gravy to them. Until you of course go and cut a deal on a new discounted phone.

Want to end all this junk? Convince the FCC they need to enjoin the Carterphone decision on Wireless carriers. That is you can buy your phone where ever you want. Will you pay full price up front? Yes, but only for a short while. When the costs of the phone are unveiled from the contract price the MFR's will start dropping the prices. Your rate per call should also drop as the carriers are not doing the telephone dance and must compete on service and rates.

@Bladefist: Though I'm probably less hesitant to use the hammer of regulation than you, I do agree that regulation should be the last resort. Unfortunately, capitalism has a weakness where everyone can be successful by being equally bad, especially if you're a multi-billion dollar company rather than Bob's Cell Phone Service. They're a bit harder to shut down.

Still, I can get behind this. Customers get a fairer deal (read: less of a rip off) and businesses only need to follow one set of rules rather than 50. Everybody (sort of) wins.

Meanwhile, I'll stick to my pay-as-you-go phone and wait for the FCC members to be replaced by people who are if nothing else better at hiding the fact that they're in big-businesses pockets.

@teh: @teh:

I totally agree... if we have our own cellphone dont want theirs', there is no "phone cost" that they are recouping..so no ETF?

@Bladefist:

The problem is that there will never BE a Bob's cell phone company. The large telcos buy up competitors or use shill companies to win auctions. In the absence of a real free market, regulation is the only way to keep things fair for the consumer. One-by-one, decent small providers are being picked-off.

I'm not upset about ETFs if the phone is subsidized. I *am* upset that any time I want cell service, pretty much the only way to get service is under a contract. *That* needs to be changed. Likewise, why is it that Verizon won't let me add services to my 4 year old plan without moving to a new plan that, surprise!, requires a minimum of a 1 year contract? That's for phones that are at least two years old.

Switch providers? I called AT&T and told them I had 4 GSM phones I wanted to activate under a family plan and guess what, the CSR told me that I needed to be under contract.

There is no purpose for the contracts other than to lock-in customers and provide no recourse when the company is unable or unwilling to provide contracted services. This needs to change.

@Bladefist: But I think both of our points can co-exist. If Bobs Cell phone service has a $2,000 ETF, why can't we let the consumers shut him down?

That's a fair point, but the regulation limits the market to an oligopoly. Virgin Mobile may have no ETF, but they're just a Mobile Virtual Network Operator. They buy minutes wholesale from companies like Bob's Cell Phone Service. Some of your money ends up in his pocket no matter what you do.

Although I'm sure it could be done, it'd take a whole lot of wishful thinking to shut down AT&T. I suspect the threat of regulation was part of what led to AT&T's change of heart.

Barrack Milhouse Obama is going to fix everything.

Since you brought it up, don't you mean Barack Hussein Obama? The only time rational people complain about using his middle name is when someone like Ann Coulter (where's she been lately?) adds an extra flourish on the "Hussein" to arouse paranoia, like saying "B. Hussein Obama":

It also makes no sense to use his full name, except if you're trying to play on some people's prejudices. Nobody talks about Ronald Wilson Reagan or William Jefferson Clinton any more than necessary.

@Bladefist: But they're not unfettered markets, bro.
It'd be like if the US Gov't said that two other companies and me were the only builders in the country that could build patios. Then the three of us offered you a take-it-or-leave-it contract that drastically curtailed your options.
They chose to enter a highly-regulated market (due to the business model being based on the use of an incredibly scarce public resource). They can't whimper about "interference" now. You see that, right?

Buying direct from the manufacturer? What is this nonsense? Why...in my day we just paid for EVERY minute we used and we were happy to have phone service. Silly monthly allowances and unlimited minutes!

But seriously...choice would be good.

Overall, I don't think this law is perfect but it gets us a step closer. Yeah, we could try to get it perfect but it probably wouldn't pass and then we would be right where we started.

I'm up for celebrating the partial victory. I agree with Bladefist partially. I agree that the government should not have to do this. However, if companies fail to provide a reasonable service to it's customers, the government then has no choice but to regulate it.

Sure, I wish a company would be more people-minded instead of profit-minded. But times being what they are, we'll have to live with it.

@Michael Belisle: Hillary Rodum Clinton? George W Bush? I think middle names are fair. Actually, though, i didn't say that to make you think of Hussein, I said that, because he reminds me of Milhouse off Simpsons.

@Michael Belisle: Also, my Hero, Mark Levin calls him that. But I think he does for a different reason.

@Bladefist: You mean Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.

@Michael Belisle: Never heard that. She has 4 names?

@Michael Belisle: OH, and Ann Coulter. Man, come on, she is Ann Coulter.

Couple things about her:
1) The media is way too hard on her. They make fun of her looks, they paraphrase her to make her look stupid. If you actually read her blog, she isn't nearly as bad as you would think

2) I'm not really a fan of hers anyway. She goes overboard.

That "relative to the phone's cost" thing sounds kind of counter to their interests. Is that supposed to be relative to what it costs the phone company, or what it costs the consumer?

@Bladefist: Rodham is her maiden name.

I thought you were using Milhouse because because some conservatives are whining that they're "not allowed to use his middle name". Some conservatives have been coming up with humorous alternatives.

Your hero is Mark Levin? He sounds like an angry old man.

@Michael Belisle: Well, there is definitely a lot to be angry about. He is going to be pissed tonight, talking about the Supreme Court ruling today. Which he absolutely should be.

@Bladefist: Maybe Ann Coulter has fallen into disfavor now that Michelle Malkin has out Coultered her. Coulter is totally sane and reasonable compared to Malkin. I keep wondering who decides it a good idea to put her on the air.

@Michael Belisle: Both Parties have embarrassing people. If democrats don't know who theres are, I'll help, Keith Olberman And hmmm, Barrack Obama

@Bladefist: Oooh, I hadn't seen that ruling yet. Good thing the administration tried to avoid that inevitable fate by storing them on Cuban soil... oh wait. We can pick up the discussion on detainee treatment some other time, maybe in the moving-truck disaster thread.

@Michael Belisle: Ya we are fantastic at hi-jacking threads.