WASHINGTON-The Progress & Freedom Foundation, a pro-market think tank, released a study last week that it claims shows the proposed California Telecommunication Users Bill of Rights will cost consumers and only benefit lawyers.
“Plaintiff and class-action lawyers-not consumers-would be the ultimate beneficiaries of new wireless phone regulations being pushed by government regulators in California,” said the foundation in a statement accompanying the study by Paul Rubin, the Samuel Candler Dobbs professor of economics and law at Emory University and a PFF Senior Fellow.
The Progress & Freedom Foundation is against the proposed bill of rights, and wireless regulation was expected to be a hot topic at its annual conference in Aspen Colo., which was set to begin Aug. 17.
The latest iteration of the bill of rights, released last month, is better than previous versions, said Rubin. “The most recent set of proposals are substantially improved over the previous proposals. Nonetheless, the proposals are fundamentally misguided and most should not be adopted,” he said.
In the study, Rubin argues that requiring uniformity would unnecessarily add cost. But Rubin told RCR Wireless News that he was unaware of an effort being spearheaded by the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association that is expected to bring some consistency and uniformity to the wireless industry.
Nevertheless, Rubin said a trade association code is still better than the bill of rights being proposed in California. “If it is passed by a trade association, it would be easier to modify,” he said, noting that the process in California has been going on for years. “The fact that it has taken so long is instructive of the process.”
CTIA expects to unveil its consumer code of conduct Sept. 9. “The wireless industry will unveil its voluntary consumer code, designed to help ensure that wireless carriers remain the best informed, most knowledgeable telecommunication consumers,” CTIA said.
The California Telecommunications Users Bill of Rights details consumer rights that all communications service providers must respect, as well as a set of consumer protection rules all carriers must follow to protect those rights. The consumer protection safeguards detailed in the document include issues such as carrier disclosure, marketing practices, service initiation and changes, billing, late-payment penalties, contract changes, privacy and 911 service.
Parties may file comments pointing out factual, legal or technical errors in the draft decision by Aug. 24.
Replies to those comments must be filed by Sept. 4.
The California Public Utilities Commission rejected a request from the wireless industry that asked for more time to comment on the proposals. California PUC commissioner Carl Wood said last month he is hopeful he would be able to get unanimous agreement for his proposal when it comes up on the PUC agenda Sept. 18. However, Wood indicated that one or more PUC members might ask for the item to be put off or may suggest alternatives.
