Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

B418 - Phone Contract Fair Notification Bill

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    B418 - Phone Contract Fair Notification Bill, TSR GovernmentBE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

    1. Phone Contract Fair Notification

    (i) Any company which provides phone contracts must contact any customer who comes within 80% and again at 100% of any section of their phone contract.
    (ii) The contact must be fair and reasonable, by means of a letter, phone call, text, e-mail or any other suitable method by which the customer will be suitably informed.
    (iii) A section of a phone contract is defined as any separate service provided within the contract, such as minutes, texts, internet or any other separate service included within the contract.

    2. Enforcement and Punishment

    (i) The enforcement of this Act should be the sole responsibility of Ofcom, the communications watchdog.
    (ii) Violation of this Act shall be punishable by a fine proportional to the number of customers affected and to what degree, and will be decided by Ofcom.

    3. Commencement, short title and extent
    (1) This Act may be cited as Phone Contract Fair Notification Bill 2012
    (2) This bill shall extend to the United Kingdom; and
    (3) Shall come into force a month after following Royal Assent.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No, as this will just drive up the cost of contracts. It should be made as an option/ and or people should be able to cap their contract. Government should not intervene.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    No, as this will just drive up the cost of contracts. It should be made as an option/ and or people should be able to cap their contract. Government should not intervene.
    ^ This
    • 37 followers
    Offline

    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    It should be made as an option/ and or people should be able to cap their contract.
    :ditto:
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    No, as this will just drive up the cost of contracts. It should be made as an option/ and or people should be able to cap their contract. Government should not intervene.
    Agree! In fact, you can get capped contracts, I know Tesco mobile do them.
    • 40 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    People can already see how many minutes they have used either online or through a number they ring.

    I fear that this is the nanny state getting restless, i do not really think this is needed.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No due to the reasons given in previous posts above.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No, should not be forced. maybe a voluntary option as previously said.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Agreement with those arguing No.
    • 35 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Can someone explain this a bit more clearly?
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Can someone explain this a bit more clearly?
    Whenever you reach 80% of any minutes/texts/data/anything else of your contract the company must let you know.

    Seems ridiculous to make it a legal requirement.
    • 40 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Self-responsibility, one of Thatcher's core principles and one i agree with.

    Given that you can now monitor your usage online or check by dialing it does seem as if it is not needed. For those who do not check, it is their fault.

    To send a message to millions of customers will push up costs as they will have to hire a couple of people.

    Unlike the Salary Cap Bill i do think that this was made with the best of intentions however in this instance it is the nanny state going a tad too far.
    • 30 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Self-responsibility, one of Thatcher's core principles and one i agree with.
    This. An inifinite number of times over.

    I'm sick to death of having to pay more for things because of a nanny state getting involved where it doesn't need to. Times are hard enough. If people are so stupid as to get themselves in a bad situation - let them. The vast majority of us can take care of ourselves thanks.
    • 24 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    People should be able to cap their contract.
    People already can do that with all networks, you just have to ask.

    Labour this is what you come up with? this is as pointless and useless as the Salary Cap bill
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Or, and I'm just throwing this out here, you could check your tariff yourself on your phone/their website?
    • 35 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    Whenever you reach 80% of any minutes/texts/data/anything else of your contract the company must let you know.

    Seems ridiculous to make it a legal requirement.
    Oh I see, thanks for explaining that.
    I agree that it doesn't jump out as something that should be legislated about. I mean to me it doesn't seem like something that has to be legislated about or that should be.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Stop molesting businesses.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    To all those arguing about cost, it wouldn't be hard to just make it an automated text message would it? They already do it for certain services.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maccees)
    To all those arguing about cost, it wouldn't be hard to just make it an automated text message would it? They already do it for certain services.
    Freedom is rarely attacked in one felled swoop. It almost always comes in small increments - a little regulation here, a little incremental change there. It's not until you look down at the list of 500 small regulations you have to abide by that you see why small companies struggle to start. Ok, there aren't a great deal of "small companies" in the mobile sphere (though there are some - giffgaff only has between 20-30 employees) but the attitude that "Well, it won't cost much!" is a dangerous one to slavishly follow.

    I think we should stop trying to dictate the means by which companies operate, and allow competition to unfold. If people want a service that allows them to cap their use, or sends them alerts, a demand will be created (or hybrid products, such as giff gaffs! Holy advert alert, batman) and the market will provide. If that's not the case, the government has no place forcing them to do so.

    Stop molesting businesses.
    • 40 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mevidek)
    No due to the reasons given in previous posts above.
    Mr PM, yet another bill that prominent and active MP's of your own party do not support.

    Tell me, do you let anything become a party bill in Labour? We have PMB's for a reason.
Updated: March 13, 2012
New on TSR

Exclusive Nick Clegg interview

Your questions answered by the deputy prime minister

Article updates
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.