Senators call for end to anonymous, prepaid cell phones

[Father Time]

Where is Boe with the response to show me where in the article that this has the WH backing? Oh Boe! Where art thou?

I said Democrat-Administration, not White House. There is clearly a partnership between the Democrats in Congress and the White House on many issues. It's highly unlikely that Schumer went rogue with this proposal.

That doesn't prove there's a partnership on this issue now does it?

 

[AVG-JOE]

You're right. And any cell phone can be used that way. So can a kid's walkie talkie for that matter. I'm not a fan of targeting a group that consists largely of people who need to budget or cannot afford a cell phone plan when the law isn't really addressing the problem they're talking about.

Isn't someone out there offering a free phone to po' folk?

What's the difference between Poor Folks and Po' Folks?

Give up?

Po' Folk so po' they can't afford the other 'o' or the 'r'.​

I'll tell you what, my elderly next door neighbor who uses a prepaid cell phone isn't poor, but she doesn't want to pay through the nose for an expensive phone and a monthly plan when she only carries it for emergencies and uses it once in a blue moon. I can't blame her.

My cousin has them for her teenagers so they learn to budget their minutes and if they run out she doesn't end up with a huge bill, it just stops working till she loads it again. Sounds like something I might do when my own little people get old enough.

And yes, a lot of poor (and uncreditworthy) folks have them because they either cannot afford or cannot qualify for long term contract plans. Or they're people who just don't want to be saddled with a contract.

Why are these people suspect, again? What's broke here that really needs to be fixed?

You're lucky you can... when my littlest tyke was sweet 16, her mother and I got her a cell phone and added her number to our pool of shared minutes that previously had rarely used more than 1/3 of those allotted. She was given VERY specific instructions. The first month with her on our plan the bill was for $100 over normal. Quality instruction from Daddy resulted in a bill for the very next month that was $300 over.

After enough time on hold to do my taxes while waiting, a desperate plea was made with Sprint and then to a few others to find ANY kind of plan that would run out of minutes and kill the phone to assist us in good parenting. They said, and I quote, "No."

I knew they would... say 'no' that is - look at the ******* check I was writing! I had been asking carriers for that option since the kid was 14 because I knew the day would come.

Suffice it to say that average Bear purchased her next phone for herself...

Curious side-note that I don't care to do the research to prove one way or another:

Was it consumer pressure and competition in the industry or consumer protection in the form of government regulation that brings you lucky parents of today the choices you have?

 

[goldcatt]

Isn't someone out there offering a free phone to po' folk?

What's the difference between Poor Folks and Po' Folks?

Give up?

Po' Folk so po' they can't afford the other 'o' or the 'r'.​

I'll tell you what, my elderly next door neighbor who uses a prepaid cell phone isn't poor, but she doesn't want to pay through the nose for an expensive phone and a monthly plan when she only carries it for emergencies and uses it once in a blue moon. I can't blame her.

My cousin has them for her teenagers so they learn to budget their minutes and if they run out she doesn't end up with a huge bill, it just stops working till she loads it again. Sounds like something I might do when my own little people get old enough.

And yes, a lot of poor (and uncreditworthy) folks have them because they either cannot afford or cannot qualify for long term contract plans. Or they're people who just don't want to be saddled with a contract.

Why are these people suspect, again? What's broke here that really needs to be fixed?

You're lucky you can... when my littlest tyke was sweet 16, her mother and I got her a cell phone and added her number to our previously rarely over 1/3 used pool of shared minutes. She was given VERY specific instructions. The first month with her on our plan the bill was for $100 over normal. Quality instruction from Daddy resulted in a bill for the very next month that was $300 over.

After enough time on hold to do my taxes while waiting, a desperate plea was made with Sprint and then to a few others to find ANY kind of plan that would run out of minutes and kill the phone to assist us in good parenting. They said, and I quote, "No." I knew they would... say 'no' that is - look at the ******* check I was writing! I had been asking carriers for that option since the kid was 14 because I knew the day would come.

Suffice it to say that average Bear purchased her next phone for herself...

Curious side-note that I don't care to do the research to prove one way or another:

Was it consumer pressure and competition in the industry or consumer protection in the form of government regulation that brings you lucky parents of today the choices you have?

I'd guess both. In this particular instance, it's pretty obvious somebody saw an untapped market and went for it. But prepaid cell phones are already on the same grid and subject to the same regulations as any other cell phone service, minus things like FCRA requirements since it's a one-shot purchase rather than a credit transaction.

I'm not anti-regulation, I just don't want to see a really good, sensible option priced out of reach for people who want or need it. And I'm skeptical about the necessity of the information being collected and the security of the information once it's gathered.

I wonder exactly how many more people get their identity stolen by hackers in any given month than are victims of a crime involving a prepaid cell phone?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'll tell you what, my elderly next door neighbor who uses a prepaid cell phone isn't poor, but she doesn't want to pay through the nose for an expensive phone and a monthly plan when she only carries it for emergencies and uses it once in a blue moon. I can't blame her.

My cousin has them for her teenagers so they learn to budget their minutes and if they run out she doesn't end up with a huge bill, it just stops working till she loads it again. Sounds like something I might do when my own little people get old enough.

And yes, a lot of poor (and uncreditworthy) folks have them because they either cannot afford or cannot qualify for long term contract plans. Or they're people who just don't want to be saddled with a contract.

Why are these people suspect, again? What's broke here that really needs to be fixed?

You're lucky you can... when my littlest tyke was sweet 16, her mother and I got her a cell phone and added her number to our previously rarely over 1/3 used pool of shared minutes. She was given VERY specific instructions. The first month with her on our plan the bill was for $100 over normal. Quality instruction from Daddy resulted in a bill for the very next month that was $300 over.

After enough time on hold to do my taxes while waiting, a desperate plea was made with Sprint and then to a few others to find ANY kind of plan that would run out of minutes and kill the phone to assist us in good parenting. They said, and I quote, "No." I knew they would... say 'no' that is - look at the ******* check I was writing! I had been asking carriers for that option since the kid was 14 because I knew the day would come.

Suffice it to say that average Bear purchased her next phone for herself...

Curious side-note that I don't care to do the research to prove one way or another:

Was it consumer pressure and competition in the industry or consumer protection in the form of government regulation that brings you lucky parents of today the choices you have?

I'd guess both. In this particular instance, it's pretty obvious somebody saw an untapped market and went for it. But prepaid cell phones are already on the same grid and subject to the same regulations as any other cell phone service, minus things like FCRA requirements since it's a one-shot purchase rather than a credit transaction.

I'm not anti-regulation, I just don't want to see a really good, sensible option priced out of reach for people who want or need it. And I'm skeptical about the necessity of the information being collected and the security of the information once it's gathered.

I wonder exactly how many more people get their identity stolen by hackers in any given month than are victims of a crime involving a prepaid cell phone?

Here's what I don't get about identity theft: If someone gets a bunch of credit in your name and you don't have to pay it back, would that not make the finance company ask a few more pertinent questions before lending money?

Another thing I don't get - why is the first question I get when I put my card into an ATM "Would you like English or Spanish?"

Shouldn't the damn thing know by the second visit?​

 

[goldcatt]

You're lucky you can... when my littlest tyke was sweet 16, her mother and I got her a cell phone and added her number to our previously rarely over 1/3 used pool of shared minutes. She was given VERY specific instructions. The first month with her on our plan the bill was for $100 over normal. Quality instruction from Daddy resulted in a bill for the very next month that was $300 over.

After enough time on hold to do my taxes while waiting, a desperate plea was made with Sprint and then to a few others to find ANY kind of plan that would run out of minutes and kill the phone to assist us in good parenting. They said, and I quote, "No." I knew they would... say 'no' that is - look at the ******* check I was writing! I had been asking carriers for that option since the kid was 14 because I knew the day would come.

Suffice it to say that average Bear purchased her next phone for herself...

Curious side-note that I don't care to do the research to prove one way or another:

Was it consumer pressure and competition in the industry or consumer protection in the form of government regulation that brings you lucky parents of today the choices you have?

I'd guess both. In this particular instance, it's pretty obvious somebody saw an untapped market and went for it. But prepaid cell phones are already on the same grid and subject to the same regulations as any other cell phone service, minus things like FCRA requirements since it's a one-shot purchase rather than a credit transaction.

I'm not anti-regulation, I just don't want to see a really good, sensible option priced out of reach for people who want or need it. And I'm skeptical about the necessity of the information being collected and the security of the information once it's gathered.

I wonder exactly how many more people get their identity stolen by hackers in any given month than are victims of a crime involving a prepaid cell phone?

Here's what I don't get about identity theft: If someone gets a bunch of credit in your name and you don't have to pay it back, would that not make the finance company ask a few more pertinent questions before lending money?

Another thing I don't get - why is the first question I get when I put my card into an ATM "Would you like English or Spanish?"

Shouldn't the damn thing know by the second visit?​

My bank got a new ATM that remembers my preferences when it reads my card. No more asking if I want Spanish. Sweet!

You'd be amazed at some of the stupid stuff finance companies do. I've gotten unsolicited live checks in the mail that constitute a loan if you cash them. And you can open credit cards over the phone. It's insane.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'd guess both. In this particular instance, it's pretty obvious somebody saw an untapped market and went for it. But prepaid cell phones are already on the same grid and subject to the same regulations as any other cell phone service, minus things like FCRA requirements since it's a one-shot purchase rather than a credit transaction.

I'm not anti-regulation, I just don't want to see a really good, sensible option priced out of reach for people who want or need it. And I'm skeptical about the necessity of the information being collected and the security of the information once it's gathered.

I wonder exactly how many more people get their identity stolen by hackers in any given month than are victims of a crime involving a prepaid cell phone?

Here's what I don't get about identity theft: If someone gets a bunch of credit in your name and you don't have to pay it back, would that not make the finance company ask a few more pertinent questions before lending money?

Another thing I don't get - why is the first question I get when I put my card into an ATM "Would you like English or Spanish?"

Shouldn't the damn thing know by the second visit?​

My bank got a new ATM that remembers my preferences when it reads my card. No more asking if I want Spanish. Sweet!

You'd be amazed at some of the stupid stuff finance companies do. I've gotten unsolicited live checks in the mail that constitute a loan if you cash them. And you can open credit cards over the phone. It's insane.

That news is almost as good as the news that cell phones can now be purchased with teenage girls in mind. I wonder how long until the technology shows up at my credit union?

 

[goldcatt]

Here's what I don't get about identity theft: If someone gets a bunch of credit in your name and you don't have to pay it back, would that not make the finance company ask a few more pertinent questions before lending money?

Another thing I don't get - why is the first question I get when I put my card into an ATM "Would you like English or Spanish?"

Shouldn't the damn thing know by the second visit?​

My bank got a new ATM that remembers my preferences when it reads my card. No more asking if I want Spanish. Sweet!

You'd be amazed at some of the stupid stuff finance companies do. I've gotten unsolicited live checks in the mail that constitute a loan if you cash them. And you can open credit cards over the phone. It's insane.

That news is almost as good as the news that cell phones can now be purchased with teenage girls in mind. I wonder how long until the technology shows up at my credit union?

Now that you know they exist it's always fun to be a squeaky wheel.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and John Cornyn (R-TX) joined forces and announced a new bill that would require an ID at the point of sale. Phone companies would need to keep this information on file in order to help police thwart "terrorists, drug lords and gang members," along with the occasional hedge fund manager.

Senators call for end to anonymous, prepaid cell phones

They really do use any excuse to chip away at our civil rights, don't they.

I disagree with the proposed legislation. It is not a civil right violation though. There is no constitutional right to a cell phone. There is no First Amendment violation here that I can see, if that is what you were alluding to.

 

[del]

You're right. And any cell phone can be used that way. So can a kid's walkie talkie for that matter. I'm not a fan of targeting a group that consists largely of people who need to budget or cannot afford a cell phone plan when the law isn't really addressing the problem they're talking about.

Isn't someone out there offering a free phone to po' folk?

What's the difference between Poor Folks and Po' Folks?

Give up?

Po' Folk so po' they can't afford the other 'o' or the 'r'.​

I'll tell you what, my elderly next door neighbor who uses a prepaid cell phone isn't poor, but she doesn't want to pay through the nose for an expensive phone and a monthly plan when she only carries it for emergencies and uses it once in a blue moon. I can't blame her.

My cousin has them for her teenagers so they learn to budget their minutes and if they run out she doesn't end up with a huge bill, it just stops working till she loads it again. Sounds like something I might do when my own little people get old enough.

And yes, a lot of poor (and uncreditworthy) folks have them because they either cannot afford or cannot qualify for long term contract plans. Or they're people who just don't want to be saddled with a contract.

Why are these people suspect, again? What's broke here that really needs to be fixed?

<You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to goldcatt again.>

 

[manifold]

when i was a kid, they had this thing called presumption of innocence.

where'd that go, anyway?

Only applies when you're accused I guess. Before they have anything on you the presumption is that you're up to no good.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and John Cornyn (R-TX) joined forces and announced a new bill that would require an ID at the point of sale. Phone companies would need to keep this information on file in order to help police thwart "terrorists, drug lords and gang members," along with the occasional hedge fund manager.

Senators call for end to anonymous, prepaid cell phones

They really do use any excuse to chip away at our civil rights, don't they.

I disagree with the proposed legislation. It is not a civil right violation though. There is no constitutional right to a cell phone. There is no First Amendment violation here that I can see, if that is what you were alluding to.

The right to privacy is one of those things that SCOTUS wrung out of the Constitution I agree with, which is why I see this as a violation fo everyone's civil rights.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Senators call for end to anonymous, prepaid cell phones

They really do use any excuse to chip away at our civil rights, don't they.

I disagree with the proposed legislation. It is not a civil right violation though. There is no constitutional right to a cell phone. There is no First Amendment violation here that I can see, if that is what you were alluding to.

The right to privacy is one of those things that SCOTUS wrung out of the Constitution I agree with, which is why I see this as a violation fo everyone's civil rights.

So, you disagree with what you perceive to be a contrived law that infringes on your constitutional rights, because you agree with made up interpretation of a made up right, that another branch of the government created. That is a logical fallacy argument. No good.

If you want to create an argument that is predicated on the supposition that the federal government is usurping power it doesn't rightfully have to begin with, I can understand and depending on how you frame your retort, possibly agree with you.

 

[oreo]

Isn't someone out there offering a free phone to po' folk?

What's the difference between Poor Folks and Po' Folks?

Give up?

Po' Folk so po' they can't afford the other 'o' or the 'r'.​

I'll tell you what, my elderly next door neighbor who uses a prepaid cell phone isn't poor, but she doesn't want to pay through the nose for an expensive phone and a monthly plan when she only carries it for emergencies and uses it once in a blue moon. I can't blame her.

My cousin has them for her teenagers so they learn to budget their minutes and if they run out she doesn't end up with a huge bill, it just stops working till she loads it again. Sounds like something I might do when my own little people get old enough.

And yes, a lot of poor (and uncreditworthy) folks have them because they either cannot afford or cannot qualify for long term contract plans. Or they're people who just don't want to be saddled with a contract.

Why are these people suspect, again? What's broke here that really needs to be fixed?

You're lucky you can... when my littlest tyke was sweet 16, her mother and I got her a cell phone and added her number to our pool of shared minutes that previously had rarely used more than 1/3 of those allotted. She was given VERY specific instructions. The first month with her on our plan the bill was for $100 over normal. Quality instruction from Daddy resulted in a bill for the very next month that was $300 over.

After enough time on hold to do my taxes while waiting, a desperate plea was made with Sprint and then to a few others to find ANY kind of plan that would run out of minutes and kill the phone to assist us in good parenting. They said, and I quote, "No."

I knew they would... say 'no' that is - look at the ******* check I was writing! I had been asking carriers for that option since the kid was 14 because I knew the day would come.

Suffice it to say that average Bear purchased her next phone for herself...

Curious side-note that I don't care to do the research to prove one way or another:

Was it consumer pressure and competition in the industry or consumer protection in the form of government regulation that brings you lucky parents of today the choices you have?

And that's exactly why pre-paid cell phones work. I have had the same problems--this charge--that charge. Many people have opted for pre-paid cell phones--just so that they know when they're out of time they can opt to buy another pre-paid card--and not get this enormous bill from their service provider at the end of the month.

But back to the topic--having to show I.D. to purchase a pre-paid cell phone will not stop criminals/terrorists. They will use fake I.D's, steal them, etc. etc. And I believe it is an invasion of privacy. It's not the federal govenment's business to know who has a pre-paid cell phone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, you disagree with what you perceive to be a contrived law that infringes on your constitutional rights, because you agree with made up interpretation of a made up right, that another branch of the government created. That is a logical fallacy argument. No good.

If you want to create an argument that is predicated on the supposition that the federal government is usurping power it doesn't rightfully have to begin with, I can understand and depending on how you frame your retort, possibly agree with you.

It is not a made up right, SCOTUS found that our other rights implied it. Just because I acknowledge that it is not specifically spelled out does not make it false, it just shows I am willing to acknowledge that my position towards SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution is something I generally disagree with, while pointing to them doing it somewhere else that I do, does not make my argument a logical fallacy. It just makes me intellectually honest.

I also happen to think that this would be a power grab by the government. I would even claim that it makes anything else they have contemplated in the past pale to insignificance, if it were not that they were already trying to require me to buy something I neither want, or need.

You asked me why I thought this law was unconstitutional, and I answered. You certainly have a right to disagree with my opinion, but I am confused why I have to refrain my argument against it as a power grab.