SmartPhones Data Plan Mandate Class Action Lawsuit? (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint)

[Boy_Pinoy]

In addition to your State AG, the FTC, DOJ, maybe the FCC would be a good place to start. FTC did a good job on the RAM price fixing case vs Samsung, Hynix & Infineon circa 2003-2004. These 3 co. is an example of an oligopoly in the RAM market.

For all we know, the FCC could be, or has already looked into this matter.

If the big 3 carriers has nothing to hide, they should welcome this inquiry.

[ivwshane]

As I understand it socialism refers, strictly speaking, to economic systems under which the state takes ownership of productive enterprises; or more loosely, to economic systems in which the state mandates that some portion of the control and executive leadership of corporate entities be allocated to employees of those entities, not merely reserved to those having equity positions.

Regulation of business practices is *not* socialism.

Think about it: there are innumerable ways in which business practices are regulated in modern western democratic polities -- child labor laws, minimum wage laws, mandated benefits, workplace safety laws, environmental laws, product safety laws, truth-in-advertising, truth-in-lending, anti-usury, non-discrimination, overtime, maximum hours worked, etc., etc., etc. Are these all examples of socialism?

Then, consider the wireless industry, which by its very nature could not exist without government control and licensing of wireless spectrum. By your lights, doesn't that mean that the entire industry is based on a socialist foundation?

What is your definition of socialism? I see people throwing this term about for every sort of business regulation they don't like with little understanding of what the word really means, as far as I can see.

Regulation is not socialism however when government starts dictating how and what a businesses charges for simply because customers don't wish to pay the market price for those goods and services you are walking on a slippery slope.


With over regulation there is a fine line between capitalism and socialism.

Carriers are not simply charging for data with no benefits to the consumer, they charge for data and require it and as a result, pda prices have come down, data prices have come down, and data speeds and coverage has improved. By requiring everyone with a pda to pay for data regardless of whether or not they use it helps spread the total cost of ownership for everyone, the consumer and the carrier.



Lastly, capitalism only works when the consumers exercises their rights, which is to buy or not to buy. If consumers stop paying for such things then the market will auto correct itself.

[fansntt]

I agree with you that AT&T needs to make money, but not by spreading the cost to everyone. Their are not a government entity such as public schools.

If they want to make money from data then they have to put out features and products that attract customers to voluntarily sign up for their services.

By mandating services for people that has no choice, such as people in small towns it is not a good business practice.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts tho.

[fansntt]

This is exactly why I think there may be grounds for a lawsuit. Why the hell should it matter what kind of device you're using? If you aren't using data on it, it places the exact same load on the network as a dumbphone when it makes calls, etc. How'd you like it if your landline phone company decided that DSL service is required if you connect a cordless phone to one of their phone jacks in your house? Oh yeah, they can't do that...here's why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone What we need is the equivalent of that FCC ruling for wireless devices. Carterfone doesn't actually prohibit the landline companies from establishing absurd requirements such as the one I suggested above (it just says that they have to let you connect your own devices to their network as long as those devices do not cause harm to the network) but any such absurd requirement would probably be quickly thrown out by the courts in the spirit of the Carterfone decision.

Ufff.. Straight to the point. However, the reason why I am asking for class action lawsuit is because I have no hope with the FCC. They are part of these scheme. I was told that the reason why we do not have T-Mobile here is because the FCC does not allow T-Mobile to install towers around here...

[neonnightryder]

That's the same thing Obama is doing with healthcare; forcing people or mandading us to have it. Well some people just don't want it. This goes with AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, forcing people to have feature that a lot of us don't want or need.

[ant1pathy]

That's the same thing Obama is doing with healthcare; forcing people or mandading us to have it. Well some people just don't want it. This goes with AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, forcing people to have feature that a lot of us don't want or need.

It's not even close to the same thing, and I'm not even in support of the Obama healthcare plan.

[100South]

IMO!!! Aren't there more important things going on in life to worry about?

[fansntt]

Point taken, and as I mentioned, I personally do not agree with forced data plans on non-subsidized handsets. My thought process leads me to the fact that at the end of the day, nobody is forcing me to do business with AT&T. If I don't agree with how they handle usage on the network that they own, then I can call cricket or page plus and they would welcome my unlocked handset. Sometimes people only have AT&T as a local cell provider, but who's fault is that?

I'd rather vote with my dollar. Isn't this how it should work anyways? It just seems silly to want to do business with a company so badly that you take them to court so that their pricing model fits your needs, heh.

True.. vote with your money, but if no one says anything about bad business practices your money either will not last long or you will will live like Amish.

[fansntt]

That is a choice you made. Cell phone service, while nice to have is not a necessity. Plain and simple. It is not a basic right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you don't have a cell phone you won't die.

Just because someone chooses to live cell-only doesn't make it a utility, requirement or anything else. It's a choice you made. You could just as easily ring up the ILEC or CLEC and get home phone service.

The only reason we have regulations on utility companies is because there can only "naturally" be one company. Imagine how nasty things would be with 5 electric providers, 5 cable companies, 5 telcos all stringing their wires over the place. Imagine 5 natural gas companies, 5 water co's, etc.....

And even with "competition", prices never really go down. It just makes you feel good.

No matter if there are 5 utilities companies or 10 companies, there is a limited market share and is up to the market to decide which one stays alive.

However, using policies such as the one put in place by the three major carriers it is unfair competition. Cell phone companies are not like water, gas or power. They are Wireless companies that require towers and a center of operations.

It may not be a constitutional right, however, America is the pillar of the free market and I can't believe that in Wireless communications we are having our Butt kick by Australia, Europe, Hong Kong and Even China... Those countries people can switch phones whenever they want with no strings attached. The only price to pay is full price for the phone.. and that is something worth to pay.

[fansntt]

That's working off the logic that you have to have the hottest new phone out there. There are other choices in carriers with various decrees of coverage and phone offerings.

Depends where you live.

[fansntt]

It blows my mind when people stick up for the carriers on this. It is absolutely ridiculous to think it's ok to base service requirements on phone type. What if the cable company charged more for customers using bigger TVs? Or required that you purchase an extra HD package because they found out you had a HDTV? What if your broadband provider tried to charge differently based on what kind of laptop you're using? It makes me sick that there are so many people out there that just bend over and take these injustices with a smile on their face, then stick up for the one delivering the injustice.

And there is a HUGE difference between wireless service and hamburgers. Wireless service is much closer to a utility. More and more people are dropping the landlines and going with cellphones only. There's only a few providers and a huge barrier to starting up a new wireless co. Wireless service is a lot more important than a hamburger. What if the water company said "We see you have a 2 acre lot. That's a lot of lawn to water. We're going to require that you purchase our special lawn watering bundle that comes with 25000 gallons of water. What's that? You zero-scape and don't need the water? Tough; you have to buy it whether you use it or not. Should've thought of that before buying such a large lot. Or insert a similar electric company analogy here.

It is absolutely none of their business what device I use with my service! I buy service and should be able to use it however I want on whatever device I want. We wouldn't put up with this type of behavior from our broadband providers; there's no reason wireless should be different.

It's really sad that so many people these days don't stick up for their rights and tell these big companies to butt out of their business; to just provide the service they're paid for with none of this funny business. There's no reason for them to be more than dumb pipes. But we're never going to get there with so many people of the bend-over-and-take-it-while-smiling mindset

Plus, for hamburgers, I do not have to pay $15 every month.

I agree 100%. Unfortunately because most people don't think about it and just throw money to these companies even if they do not use the services. Although it does not impress me, it is amazing that regulatory agencies give a crap to these practices.

For people who are paying for data and not using it, can you imagine what can you do with $15USD+tax+surcharges a month?... Save it for 6 months and you would have $107.

[fansntt]

You are PARTIALLY correct in this statement.

Yes, you may be able to afford a smartphone at full MSRP and there are many retailers and dealers you can buy them from.

Yes, you may be able to use your property however you want.

However, once you begin breaking laws, or infringing on other party's/entity's rights, or USING A COMPANY'S NETWORK/INFRASTRUCTURE BUT NOT ABIDING BY THEIR TERMS & CONDITIONS AND/OR POLICIES... that's where the problem is.

The fact is that you have agreed to certain contractual terms & conditions and usage policies (which are required at the beginning of your service). But now you are trying to FORCE Sprint to change those policies for your benefit. Personally, IMHO, if you agreed to follow certain rules and policies, and are using/renting time/leasing space/leasing bandwidth/etc from a service provider that has and maintains their own network and infrastructure, then you are expected to abide by those rules and policies they have in place. If you do not, then you risk being terminated. You may have a "right" to buy whatever smartphone you want... but you do NOT have a "right" to force other companies/parties/entities to accept your terms & conditions, rules, or policies for your own service (because you are NOT the service provider... you are just a customer). You DO have a "right" to choose to go to a different carrier or service provider however... like AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Cricket, MetroPCS, US Cellular, Virgin, Boost, Straight Talk, Page Plus, Common Cents, etc.

If Sprint is not being as "flexible" with data and smartphones as you like, then I suggest you go over to AT&T or T-Mobile (who are GSM carriers) and buy unbranded full-priced smartphones to use on their networks (and hope that they won't catch you, otherwise they WILL add the appropriate data package to your plan).

You are right about the legality. HOWEVER, I AM NOT USING THAT NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE FEATURE THAT THEY WANT TO CHARGE ME. I have data block in my phone and I am not using their network. I am using for phone calls and that is what I am paying for.

"The fact is that you have agreed to certain contractual terms & conditions and usage policies" When I signed up, I never agreed to their data plan policy, they just shove down my throat. I can't go to another GSM network because thanks to their lobbies, they do not allow T-mobile to install a tower here.

That is why believe I have basis for a lawsuit because these three carriers are fixing prices by all agreeing to implement arbitrary prices for services not requested.

[fansntt]

Yes please sue! I can't wait till smart phones go back to costing $300-$400 again with a contract!
I can't wait until they bring back $35 data plans and slow network speeds!


Good luck with that!

/s

Socialism for the win!

Prices of the phones are decided by supply and demand. So if the networks rise the prices then people will buy unlocked phones which will bring down the prices of unsubsidized phones. It is ridiculous to expect to pay $200 bucks for a smart phone. Plus, you are not actually paying $199 for a subsidized smart phone, go ahead and add all the unneeded expenses and 2 years contract to it.

[fansntt]

The problem here is that people want to eat there cake and still have the cake after. If you think AT&T's post paid shenanigans is too much, screw em, use your phone as a go-phone. Use any number of GSM wireless providers, some of which use AT&T's network anyways. Take your phone to t-mobile, I did when I wanted to use a 2G iPhone but did not want to deal with AT&T. I didn't start a class action lawsuit, I took my dollar elsewhere.

I have time warner where I live and my city was going to be one of the test cities for metered broadband. What do you think I did? I called up the other providers in my town and priced them out just in case. I didn't call a lawyer. Why would I continue to give them money when I didn't agree with their business practices?

That is for places where there are choices.

[fansntt]

Haha. Just wait until they charge us $800 for a subsidized iPhone or Haha even better yet, let them win and NOT require a smartphone data plan, but REMOVE WIFI entirely so they have to use AT&T or [Insert Carrier's Name Here]'s Data services and charge a nominal fee ($35-$45) a month.

Prices are determined by supply and demand. No one is going to remove WiFi because there is competition between phone manufacture. They may replace it for new technologies.