Courts Hand Different Rulings on Carriers Billing Litigation

Here's an update to the complaints that have been filed against a few mobile phone carriers. According to a RCRWireless.com article, various federal courts made different decisions on the billing litigation against Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility. The article also indicated that the number of antitrust class-action texting lawsuits filed against major US carriers have increased steadily. All of these factors indicate that the mobile phone industry will continue to face challenges from frustrated customers and plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Let's look at the various federal courts decisions on the billing litigation. Verizon Wireless scored well when a U.S. District judge ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts New Jersey law. This means that Verizon's motion on the enforceable arbitration clause was granted. However, the story doesn't end there.

Verizon Wireless did not scroe well with other courts including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. These courts ruled in favor of consumers by deciding that class-action complaints cannot be necessarily foreclosed by individual arbitration clauses.

AT&T also faced some rough waters in the decisions made on the litigations and suits that they are facing. For instance, a federal court in San Diego did not rule in favor of the top US mobile phone carrier. The case filed against AT&T and other carriers including T-Mobile for charging customers for unauthorized mobile content on their monthly bills was not dismissed. The judge in charge of this case has temporarily ordered that AT&T cannot settle the class action case in Georgia.

However, AT&T Mobility has not yet raised the flag of surrender even though, the judge ruled in favor of the consumers. The company is currently reviewing and considering their next course of action.

Well, it seems that the battle is till raging. Class action suits are still being filed against carriers despite the waivers on the wireless contracts they require from their customers. We just have to wait and see who gains the upper hand on this one. Weill it be the consumers or will the carriers win at the end of the day. Tune in to this blog to find out.

Senate Questions Wireless Carries on Rising Text Rates

Here's some interesting info for mobile phone subscribers who send a lot of text messages. According to this article, Sen. Herb Kohl, chair of the antitrust subcommittee sent a letter to the four major U.S. wireless network providers.

Sen. Kohl's letter was delivered to the offices of AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless. The chair of the antitrust subcommittee wanted the letter to convey his concerns about the doubling of the rates for sending text messages even though the cost involved with sending them remained constant.

Here's the statement released by Sen. Herb Kohl the chair of the antitrust subcommittee:

"What is particularly alarming about this industrywide rate increase is that it does not appear to be justified by rising costs in delivering text messages. Also of concern is that it appears that each of companies has changed the price for text messaging at nearly the same time, with identical price increases. This conduct is hardly consistent with the vigorous price competition we hope to see in a competitive marketplace."

The current charge for sending text messages is 20 cents which represents double the messaging rates imposed by carriers three years ago. AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless serve roughly 90 percent of cell phone users in the US and charge them the same text messaging rate.

The letter sent by Senator Kohl contains a formal request to the network operators asking them to explain the reasons behind the text price increases. Sen. Kohl is also asking AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless to justify the 20 cents rates compared to the rates of sending / receiving emails and other services.

As of the making of this wireless contract post, the recipients of Sen. Kohl's letter has not yet responded. Well, this is certainly an interesting development. I for one, do not comprehend why the rate for text messages has doubled when the cost of sending them remained the same. It would be interesting to see how AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless respond to this letter. That is, if they will offer any response.

Standardized Billing System Might Solve Third-party Services Struggles

Here's an interesting wireless contract scoop. According to this article, Mobile phone carriers are trying to find ways to gain more control their third-party content partners. Third-party content is a part of most mobile phone contracts. Let's delve into this story.

Apparently, carriers like Sprint have been finding ways of dealing with their partners. Sprint for example have have warned their partners that they will forfeit their profits and lose their short codes if they continue to violate Mobile Marketing Association guidelines. Some Mobile Marketing Association guidelines violations involve failure to report billing errors and high refund rates. This move Sprint has encourage other mobile phone service providers to make similar warning to their third-party partners.

But why are the carriers trying to control third-party providers? Well, the main reasons seems to be the increasing complaints in the form of lawsuits from consumers and advocacy groups. All the major carriers and content-subscription service providers have been targeted by consumer advocacy groups.

Mobile phone carriers are also concerned about the reaction of customers to the incompetence and deception of some third-party providers produce. These unsatisfactory performance may cause the carriers to lose customers. Complaints about poor third-party also increases expensive calls to customer-service centers of mobile phone carriers.

There have been some suggestions that a standardized mobile payment platform will be a solution to the problems associated with third-party providers. A standardized mobile payment platform may also ease some the m-commerce space problems. However, a system in the US would would require an enormous effort from carriers and service providers. It may take some time before such a system can be implemented in the US.

let's take a look at some wireless contract policies that deal with third-party services. Here's a statement from Alltel's wireless contract:

The Services will be provided either by us or by our third party vendors or contractors. We reserve the right to change or modify the source of any Services provided to you without notice.

And here's the statement form AT&T's contract:

Third-party content or service providers may impose additional charges. Policies regarding intellectual property, privacy and other policies or terms of use may differ among AT&T's content or service providers and you are bound by such policies or terms when you visit their respective sites or use their services. It is your responsibility to read the rules or service agreements of each content provider or service provider. Any information you involuntarily or voluntarily provide third parties is governed by their policies or terms. The accuracy, appropriateness, content, completeness, timeliness, usefulness, security, safety, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, transmission or correct sequencing of any application, information or downloaded data is not guaranteed or warranted by AT&T or any content providers or other third party. Delays or omissions may occur.

Tune in to this blog to know more about wireless contracts and related topics.

FCC Undecided on Changing Mobile Phone Roaming Rules

Here's some interesting wireless contract scoop for those who make a lot of roaming calls. According to a Reuters article, the Federal Communications Commission or FCC has not yet made a decision on chaining certain cellular roaming issues that have caused some problems for some mobile phone carriers.

This delay on changing the mobile phone roaming rules was seen as significant since smaller carriers have been expecting a decidion on this issue. Let's look at the heart of this conflict since roaming is one of the many aspects of mobile phone contracts.

The problem lies on whether carriers should be allowed to roam in areas where they own airwaves, but have not built networks, are affecting smaller carriers. Smaller carriers own spectrum in certain markets but lack the means to build the wireless networks and so they have to rely on o roam on the existing networks of larger rivals. The FCC has decided to look at this issue after the commission reaffirmed the rights of smaller carriers to roam on the networks of bigger wireless companies about a year ago.

Minor wireless network providers wanted to gain access to areas where they had acquired spectrum. unfortunately, they lack the means to build networks top exploit those areas. Neverthe less, thses small carriers wanted to preserve their right to roam in those areas.

Earlier, the FCC made a proposal that allowed smaller carriers who owned unused spectrum could continue roaming for four years before they lost roaming rights. The FCC wanted to give smaller carriers time to build out their own networks or to give the spectrum back to the government and continue roaming.

However, the FCC's five commissioners were unable to agree on the proposal so it was withdrawn. Some commissioners were concerned that they need more time to study the issue while some wanted to grant a longer phase-in period to smaller carriers.

The FCC did not indicate a specific time frame for making a decision in this issue. Well, this looks like an issue that won't go away soon. This issue affects regional customers who might lose their ability to make roaming calls if the FCC did not grant smaller carriers to roam on major net works.

Tune in to this blog for more news and updates regarding issues related to mobile phone contracts.

Sprint's ETF Lawsuit Loss Could Shake the Industry!

It been a few weeks since I've made a post here. The wireless contract scene has been quite so There wasn't anything to write about. But that's not the case right now. I've just found out that Sprint lost a lawsuit on its ETF wireless contract policy. Let's explore the details of this story.

Apparently, Sprint's early termination fees has violated a state law according to a California state judge when he ruled against the company. The members of the class who sued Sprint for it's ETF were awarded a total of $73 million in reparation for the fees.

The judge's tentative ruling says that Sprint will have to pay $18.3 million to customers who sued over the fees. Sprint should also credit $54.8 million to those who were charged but did not pay the fee. Well, Sprint seems to be in a bind now but the company does have two weeks to contest the ruling.

Not on to the bigger picture. The judge is also considering other lawsuits against telecommunications companies over mobile phone contract policies covering early termination fees. And recently, Verizon Wireless agreed to pay $21 million to settle an identical lawsuit. Overall, things are not looking well for mobile phone carriers.

FCC representatives refused to release any comment on this pivotal court decision however they did indicate that it will not affect the agency's plans on ETF. Currently, the FCC is dealing with lobbying over how best to handle the ETF policies in the wireless contracts of carriers.

The FCC has been asked by various Telecommunications companies to regulate the fees. They want the agency to protect them from class action lawsuits in state courts. The FCC has released information on a plan in which the cancellation fees would be reduced over the life of the contract.

Customers and consumer groups have continually assailed the ETF policies in the mobile phone contracts of cell phone carriers. Perhaps this important decision will fuel the efforts to regulate this troubl;e some fee. Tune in to this blog for more wireless contracts info, news and updates.

Wireless Contract Updates: ETF Settlements and Wireless Wiretap Immunity

Here are a couple of news update that are related to wireless contracts. Let's begin with Verizon agreeing to pay some ETF settlements.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Verizon Wireless has settled with subscribers who have filed class-action lawsuits over early-termination fees in wireless contracts. The mobile phone carrier is willing to pay $21 million to settle these wireless contract disputes. Some experts say that this move will to put renewed focus on a federal effort to restrict early termination fees.

Well, this is certainly good for Verizon wireless subscribers especially those who are disputing ETF's. It will be interesting to see the effect of this move. Perhaps the other carriers will also decide to settle the class action suits that they are facing. Maybe the FCC will implement guidelines to take control of these fees.

Let's move on to the news about telecommunication getting immunity from warrantless wiretaps.
http://www.rcrwirelessnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080710/FREE/732008705/1078

The US President Bush will soon sign the new electronic surveillance legislation that can free companies from dozens of privacy lawsuits. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was revised and the changes were passed by the Senate yesterday and the House last month. These revisions effectively grants AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp. retroactive immunity to in connection with their participation in the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretap program.

Here's a statement from the American president regarding the wireless wiretap immunity granted to the carriers.

“This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they’re saying, and what they're planning. It will ensure that those companies whose assistance is necessary to protect the country will, themselves, be protected from lawsuits for past or future cooperation with the government. It will uphold our most solemn obligation as officials of the federal government to protect the American people.”

Well, I think this is great news for both subscribers and and the carriers. The mobile phone carriers will be able to protect the privacy over their customers and won't have to worry about privacy lawsuits. Privacy is part of the wireless contract between the two parties. No customer would want to trust any carrier who will not be able to provide security and privacy so they can be protected from losing customers.

This deal is also great for customers because they won't have to worry about the threat of wire tapping. They know that their private conversations and messages will be safe from the prying eyes of the government.

Tune in to this blog for more wireless contract updates.

Lawmakers Argue Over Roaming

Here's some more wireless contracts news. Apparently, lawmakers have been debating about over roaming. Some experts say that the controversy over this wireless contract policy may grow into a major fault line in the mobile-phone industry. Let me discuss roaming before we proceed to the meat of this news.

The term "Roaming" is used in wireless telecommunications to describe the extending of connectivity service in a location that is different from the home location where the service was registered. Now every carrier has it's own wireless contract policies on roaming and the charges that come with it.

Here's a statement from the wireless contract of on roaming:

Roaming charges for wireless data or voice service may be charged with some plans when outside AT&T's wireless network. Display on your device will not indicate whether you will incur roaming charges. Services originated or received while outside your plan's included coverage area are subject to roaming charges. Use of Services when roaming is dependent upon roaming carrier's support of applicable network technology and functionality. Check with roaming carriers individually for support and coverage details. Billing for domestic and international roaming usage may be delayed up to three billing cycles due to reporting between carriers. If your usage of the Services on other carriers' wireless networks ("offnet usage") during any two consecutive months exceeds your offnet usage allowance, AT&T may at its option terminate your wireless service or access to data Services, deny your continued use of other carriers' coverage, or change your plan to one imposing usage charges for offnet usage. Your offnet usage allowance is equal to the lesser of 6 megabytes or 20% of the kilobytes included with your plan and for messaging plans the lesser of 3000 messages or 50% of the messages included with your plan. AT&T will provide notice that it intends to take any of the above actions and you may terminate your agreement.

Now that we have discussed the concept of roaming, it's time to get back to the news. The trend to consolidate roaming policies and fees among mobile phone carriers is making an already rough-and-tumble roaming dispute even more volatile. Small carriers have remained dissatisfied with last year’s FCC ruling that declared automatic roaming a common-carrier obligation for cellular operators.

Unfortunately, the FCC ruling has fan the flames over an in-market exemption, the applicability of the mandate to push-to-talk service and the possibility of extending the new rule to high speed wireless Internet services.

To make matters worse the FCC has yet to rule regulatory challenges to its roaming order. Some lawmakers have made inquiries ion to the FCC's plans to proceed on challenges to the automatic roaming ruling.

The legislators are also concerned that the in-market exception will affect districts with large concentrations of low-income and minority citizens. This market is largely served by small and regional wireless providers.

Leap Wireless International Inc., SouthernLINC Wireless, U.S. Cellular Corp., MetroPCS Communications Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp., T-Mobile USA Inc. and several rural telecom associations are questioning the FCC roaming rule.

Well, I hope that the legislators and the FCC can figure out the best solution to this roaming controversy. Tune in to this blog for more wireless contract info and news.