WASHINGTON-Cricket Communications Inc. has created a storm of controversy over a request for special relief from requirements of California’s bill of rights for telecom consumers.
Cricket, which serves the California markets of Modesto/Merced and Visalia, asked the California Public Utilities Commission to waive certain guidelines governing customer service and the provision of written contracts at point-of-sale for in-person transactions.
Cricket, claiming it meets the needs of historically underserved lower-income and minority market segments, said the rules at issue would hit the carrier especially hard.
“Cricket’s wireless service is unique as compared to that offered by most other wireless carriers,” the company told the CPUC. “Cricket offers affordable, customer-friendly wireless service plans that provide unlimited local calling for a flat rate [starting at $29.99 a month]. Cricket’s plans operate on a month-to-month basis, requiring no long-term commitment by the subscriber. Because they are ill suited for Cricket’s straightforward, low-cost offering, literal application of the provisions at issue would make it difficult for Cricket to continue to offer value-conscious California consumers this unique wireless alternative.”
Verizon Wireless and Nextel Communications Inc., which recently called a truce regarding certain litigation, made a joint filing supporting Cricket’s waiver request so long as other mobile-phone operators get the same relief. Otherwise, the two national wireless carriers said they oppose preferential treatment for Cricket.
Two groups-the Utility Reform Network and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates-told the CPUC they are opposed to a permanent waiver or alternative compliance mechanisms requested by Cricket.
In May, the California PUC approved a slew of new state regulations for wireless and wireless telecom carriers. The rules go into effect during the next 14 months. Most mobile-phone carriers already have sought extensions of time to comply with the new guidelines California regulators voted for in May after receiving numerous complaints from cellular customers during recent years.
All five national wireless carriers have appealed the CPUC’s bill of rights decision in California federal court.
The CPUC is scheduled to respond to the suits next week.
