US Carriers Respond to Rising Text Messaging Rates Concerns

Here's an update to the concerns over the rising rates of Text Massaging that are being charged by Wireless carriers.

A few weeks ago, I made a post about Sen. Herb Kohl, chair of the antitrust subcommittee sending a letter to the four major U.S. wireless network providers. The letter conveyed the senator's and consumer's concerns about the doubling of the rates for sending text messages even though the cost involved with sending them remained constant. The letter was sent ot the offices of AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless.

Now, these carriers have expressed their response to Sen. Kohl's letter on the doubling of the rates for sending text messages. According to an RCRWireless article, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless have denied that anything illegal was involved in the doubling of the rates for sending text messages.

According to the carriers, they have offered competitive bulk texting plans that have actually made the costs of sending text messages more affordable for mobile phone to consumers. They also would like to express that thay have suffered an increase in antitrust class-action lawsuits due to the congressional questions about the rising text messaging charges.

T-Mobile's representative defended his company by declaring that charges for text messages charged by the carrier has even dropped by half. He also expressed that the concerns over the rising cost of text messaging are exaggerated and untrue. Sprint and AT&T have also released public responses to Sen. Kohl's letter. Interestingly, Verizon Wireless requested that its response remain confidential.

The wireless carriers want to make an effective response to the inquiry because a number of class-action lawsuits have been filed against them citing Sen. Kohl's letter as the foundation for the complaints. They want to clear up this problem as soon as possible since text messaging is a major part of their revenues.

Well, I expected the major US carriers to respond effectively to this inquiry. Text messaging has steadily grown in popularityover the years so they have to take it seriously. Of course, the antitrust class-action lawsuits that have been filed against them also needs to be taken seriously. Tune in to this blog for more updates on this wireless contract issue and other related news.

Roaming in Rural Areas may be Enforced by Legislation

Here's an interesting update for mobile phone users residing in rural areas. A US Representative has introduced legislation that aims to require telecom recipients of rural universal-service funds to provide automatic roaming to wireless service carriers. But before we discuss this bill let us us first discuss mobile phone roaming.

Now I have discussed roaming in my previous blog posts but it wouldn't hurt to give another little introduction to this wireless contract term. Roaming as used in wireless telecommunications refers to the extending of connectivity service in a location that is different from the home location where the service was registered.

Roaming is significant because it allows users to communicate beyond their wireless networks. It is an important service to those who live in rural areas are because the reach of wireless networks is usually limited. Roaming is also significant to customers because it's an important part of their monthly mobile phone service bills. If you "roam" a lot when you use your mobile phone, then you might be looking at a huge bill. Now let's proceed to the legislation that might force roaming in rural areas.

The bill is officially named the Universal Roaming Act of 2008 and was introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman of California. This legislation aims to attach the automatic roaming obligation to any affiliate of a telecom carrier that receives high-cost USF subsidies. Some experts feel that this bill will affect the current debates on on roaming rights by some auction winners that cannot yet access their spectrum. However, the current economic crisis will keep congress busy so further action on the bill is expected to be done next year.

This legislation has been met with some opposition from large carriers because they feel that they not be forced to provide access to licensees that own spectrum but have yet to established networks. If they provide roaming access to these licenses, then a delay in build out of wireless systems is a good possibility.

However, the Universal Roaming Act of 2008 also have its share of supporters. The Rural Cellular Association feels that the legislation introduced by Waxman is far-reaching and beneficial to smaller wireless carriers. The Rural Cellular Association would also want to abolish the cap on USF subsidies given to wireless carriers desiring to build systems in rural areas.

Well, I guess we have to wait until the economic crisis has subsided to gauge whether this bill will pass. This legislation has significant impacts on the current roaming scene so it will be interesting to see further action on it.

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.