Wireless carrier deception and outright violations of FCC
rules and regulation should not come as a surprise. No wonder consumers hold AT&T, Comcast, Verizon,
and TMobile in low esteem. They accrue billions in profits thanks to lax antitrust
enforcement, FCC reticence to sanction carrier deceptions, and an apparent
inability to require wireless carriers to comply with longstanding rules,
including truth in billing, the right of consumers to activate used wireless handsets,
and market assessments that ignore inconvenient truths about the lack of effective
competition.
My blood
boils at the numerous instances that U.S. wireless carriers do not offer
globally competitive rates both wireless service and handsets in the world. See
https://www.billshark.com/blogs/u-s-mobile-plans-expensive; https://voicenation.com/resources/general-resources/where-around-the-world-are-people-paying-the-most-for-their-cell-phone-bill/;
https://themarkup.org/2020/09/03/cost-speed-of-mobile-data-by-country.
Apparently,
senior FCC officials do not travel abroad.
If they had, they would see something ubiquitous outside the U.S.:
See: https://londoncheapo.com/technology/uk-sim-card-options-london/
Contrary to
cherry picked data provided by both the FCC and wireless industry trade, associations,
wireless rates in the U.S. are not particularly cheap, compared to most other
developed countries, and these already high rates are rising, well in excess of
general inflation measures. Compare https://www.ctia.org/the-wireless-industry/infographics-library;
with https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/average-phone-plan-price.
Part of the
problem lies in the persuasiveness of endless advertising by the carriers
touting the bundling of wireless service with so-called “free” handsets. Few consumers do their homework to detect the
bait and switch. See https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cheaper-mobile-plans-aim-dislodge-141119809.html.
Not Free, Top of the Line Handsets
With
impunity, Verizon currently has a video ad with a Christmas caroler touting the
carrier’s generous offer to give subscribers an incredible deal on Apple iPhone
15 handsets. In the Christmas spirit of
giving, the caroler reports that the handset is available “on us.”
Should we
infer that “on us” means free? Bear in
mind that the FCC, not the Federal Trade Commission, has consumer protection
jurisdiction for so-called Title II regulated common carriers, including
ventures offering pre-paid and post-paid wireless service. Apparently, the FCC has no problem with the
use of “on us” marketing.
In reality,
the fine print in the deal provides wireless carriers and resellers ample
opportunity to limit the subsidization of handsets. The phone is not free. Consumers must subscribe to “unlimited” plans
costing $75 or more. The subscribers locks
into a multi-year service agreement.
Ineffectual or Nonexistent Merger Review
The
FCC and Department of Justice failed to convince a reviewing court that TMobile’s
acquisition of Sprint would reduce competition and raise prices. The judge bought hook line and sinker the
counter intuitive premise that three gigantic wireless carriers, controlling
most of the market, better serve consumers than two gigantic carriers battling
two smaller, renegade carriers. Contrary
to the Judge’s conclusion and the sponsored researcher’s studies presented at
trial, TMobile has relaxed its maverick, competitive muscles making it possible
for all three gigantic carriers to raise rates, well above the general
inflation level. https://www.lightreading.com/5g/t-mobile-s-premium-pricing-passes-at-t-verizon;
https://ktla.com/news/money-smart/t-mobile-planning-to-move-customers-on-older-phone-plans-to-newer-ones/; https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/tech/verizon-plan-price-increase/index.html.
Subsequently,
the FCC did not seem to have any problem with Verizon’s billion dollar acquisition
of prepaid, wireless service heavyweight Tracfone; https://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-completes-tracfone-wireless-inc-acquisition and TMobile’s $1.35 billion acquisition appears similarly
benign. https://www.t-mobile.com/news/business/t-mobile-to-acquire-mint-and-ultra-mobile.
Why would a
facilities-based carrier pay over $ 1 billion to acquire a reseller of the
carrier’s network? To promote
competition? You bet!
Barriers to the Use of Second-Hand Devices
In 1956,
the FCC started to establish the right of consumers to connect devices to
telecommunications networks, limited only by confirmation that such attachment
will not cause technical harm. This Carterfone
policy should allow consumers to acquire wireless handsets on the secondary
market and have carriers and resellers permit such use. It’s not happening in far too many instances.
On several occasions,
I have tried unsuccessfully to activate a used handset that a carrier has “locked.” Carriers can legitimately lock handsets, but
only during a time when a subscriber has not fully paid for the device. Some carriers, including Verizon, state that
they voluntarily unlock handsets after installment payments have paid for the
device.
Most
carriers and resellers conveniently fail to unlock handsets, resorting to
clearly bogus assertions that they cannot determine whether the handset has
been fully paid. Both Mint, soon to be
owned by TMobile, and Xfinity Mobile prohibit unlocking with an often
impossible to satisfy precondition.
This
weekend I acquired a 3-4 year old Samsung Galaxy Note 9, primarily to see if I
can use the 128 Gigabyte capacity to store and play music files. Glutton for punishment, as I sometimes
appear, I also wanted to see if my dear friends at Comcast would unlock the
handset.
Of course, Comcast
imposed a ridiculous condition: the company would only provide an unlock code the
current subscriber provided it can determine that the handset is fully paid. In my case, I acquired the handset at an
estate sale for the deceased former owner of the phone. He’s dead and I have a worthless handset,
currently operating as a paperweight and eventually contributing to the glut of
electronic waste.
The Comcast
agent only would recite scripts in broken English. I got nowhere explaining that surely Xfinity
Mobile could use the IMEI serial number for the phone to research whether the
handset was stolen or unpaid. Common
sense would suggest that a 3-4 year old phone, worth no more than $75, surely
could pass the paid for threshold.
Not in
Comcast world. I either could activate
the handset on Xfinity Mobile, or acquire a different handset. So much for my Carterfone right to interconnect
a not network harming device.
No wonder
why people take the path of least resistance and bundle handsets with service,
particularly in light of the enticements: free Netflix, Hulu, Disney, etc. and
better yet, handsets “on the carrier.”
Such a
deal.
