Getting tough on cellular providers
Charley on the MTA writes it's past time the legislature did something about rapacious cellular companies ripping off consumers by locking them into overpriced, shoddy service:
... How cool would it be to actually have real, fluid competition in cell phone service? Unlock the contracts, and the companies will have more incentive to improve service. Someone else has a better/cheaper phone plan? Go with them! ...
Not so fast there, Peter Morin says. He argues service is just fine along major highways and such and that the real problem isn't cellular companies but obstreperous local boards in hoity-toity towns like Weston that refuse to let the companies put in enough cell towers because they're NIMBYs run amok:
... [T]he town of Wayland has been chastised by a federal court for its "fixed opposition" to wireless, been sued successfully a second time, and doesn't appear to have been chastened in the least. If you live in Sudbury and commute from Boston, either take the Pike to Natick or take Route 20 and listen to Howie Carr, because a phone call you will not make. ...
Ad:
Comments
Morins argument is
Morins argument is apples-to-oranges. The spotty coverage is an issue for the residents of those particular towns but for the rest of us it's just an annoyance. What is an issue for everyone is having the numbers and service we rely on being held hostage by rapacious phone companies. 98 was supposed to guarantee competition but the telcos argued then that cell phones were a viable competitive service. As a result we don't have competition for wireline service and the LNP we pay for every month isn't really portable if we're locked into a wireless contract, is it? Countless other problems with a deregulated wireless system (inaccurate billing, faulty e911, subscriber private information leaks, etc) means we don't really have competition at all. Complaining about towers in Weston is just a red herring.