In the opinion section of the local newspaper is some guy complaining about the high prices of wireless phone service. He suggests that it needs to be regulated because the industry is confusing for consumers. It is confusing because the phone companies keep changing the rules, and consumers are paying on average $1400 a year for basic home service plus wireless. So he wants the government to step in and force the industry to make things less confusing.

First of all, a government regulation is necessary when a company charges outrageous amounts for vital services, such as electricity and water, or to keep people from getting hurt, as in regualtions for drug companies. We've had running water since the aquaducts of ancient times, and electricity for less than a few hundred years, and both of these can be considered necessities. Water is in fact such a necessity that citizens provide it for themselves. Wireless phone service is NOT a necessity. Hell, basic phone service isn't even a necessity. The government can go only so far in protecting its citizens, somewhere along the line the citizen has to take responsibility for himself. If the wireless phone services are too expensive, and a person needs to be aware of the cheapest way to go, they need to educate themselves!!

The more I think about this, the more pissed off I get. They show a picture of people on cell phones, and the caption quotes somebody from last year.

Chris Gardner / The Associated Press 2004

Free enterprise should keep prices down, but technology is moving so fast that consumers can't grasp it in time.

I got so frustrated at this stupid shit that I sent another letter to the newspaper. It won't get published though, because the opinion piece was written by the opinion page editor. Anyway, here is the 'article', which I'm probably not supposed to put here because of copyright laws, I'm sure..... Pay attention to the last line, if one makes it that far. "Or consumers could just wait until we become familiar with telecommunications technology, rates and service so we could make informed decisions on our own." What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Is the information going to find its way into our brains on its own!?!? This guy sounds like he wants the government to provide the toilet paper necessary for wiping his own ass, and then would complain when it isn't wiped for him.

Some people buy all the latest in telecommunications service because they can. Money is no object. These are the people who wear their socks just one time. For the rest of us, money matters, especially when we're spending $1,400 per household per year. That's the average outlay in homes with both land line and wireless service, according to research from the Yankee Group of Boston.

Sadly, those of us who wear our socks until they have holes in them are wasting a lot of our money on telecommunications.

The reason, the smart folks at Consumer Reports say, is that "we haven't mastered the cornucopia of choices." There's another reason: The industry doesn't want us to master anything because it thrives on the confusion. And there's yet a third reason: This is all just fine with the folks in government, who are busy regulating yesterday's technologies.

We can get phone service today from Qwest, Ma Bell's distant offspring and still regulated to a degree by the Arizona Corporation Commission - or we can get it from the cable company, a wireless carrier, a company that buys phone time wholesale and sells it, or even from our Internet service provider.

Arizona has little or no control over anyone but Qwest, and the Bush administration is seizing every opportunity to keep it that way - so its agencies, for their part, can do nothing at the federal level.

In fact, the feds are working against consumers. The FCC gathers data on consumer complaints but isn't quick to share it. Only through a Freedom of Information Act request, for example, did consumer advocates learn the merger of Cingular and AT&T turned two companies with the most consumer complaints into one megastinker.

The Bush argument for keeping government's hands off is that competition is so keen in this business, regulation is superfluous. Competition does keep prices down and quality up when free enterprise is working. But it isn't working as it should be, in part because technology is racing faster than consumers can grasp it and in part because businesses think competition is great for the other guy.

The answer is for the people who provide phone service to arrive at some baseline standards so we can compare apples to apples. But they're not.

Patrick J. Quinn, president of Qwest Arizona, said during a visit last week that getting the industry to act requires defining the industry, which is tough when the technology involved is so far-flung that different companies and equipment are regulated by different agencies.

Still, these companies manage to get together for conventions. They could get together for clarity, too. Instead each one manipulates price and service to look the cheapest in its ad campaigns. Some also sneak things onto your bill, known as slamming, under names that make it sound as if government did it - interstate services fees, regulator assessment fees, property tax service charges.

Then there's the trend in fast-growing Arizona for developers to sell phone companies exclusive rights to market in a subdivision or other advantages that may discourage competitors. Some homeowners associations even make payments to one company part of dues, so using another one costs double.

With the industry too short-sighted to put its best foot forward, government might want to consider helping. California has taken a step worth considering with the adoption last May of the Telecommunications Consumer Bill of Rights. It requires a 30-day trial period and disclosure of rates and terms.

Arizona is unlikely to go this far. State Corporation Commissioner Kristin K. Mayes lamented that just one small step, to curb slamming, gets nowhere in the Legislature.

She is pursuing a consumer score card that would establish baselines allowing people to comparison-shop, but it would apply only to public service companies regulated by the commission.

This doesn't include wireless companies in Arizona, so they can't be compelled to turn over the information needed. They could provide it on their own, though, perhaps in a partnership with the commission.

Or consumers could just wait until we become familiar with telecommunications technology, rates and service so we could make informed decisions on our own. By then, of course, it will all have changed.