The sponsor of a “bill of rights” for cell phone users in Arizona said he may have to strike two key provisions in his measure, one dealing with the length of contracts and the other with replacement phones.
“Members just won’t vote for it,” said Sen. Jim Waring, R-7.
Waring said the two provisions he may have to drop from S1010 are the one-year cap on contracts, and the requirement for a new phone — not a rebuilt unit — as a replacement under a warranty.
Meanwhile, a national association of cell phone companies said it is opposing another measure, also by Waring, that would allow soldiers set to be deployed to opt out of their cell phone contracts without a penalty.  
Waring said one question he has wondered is how much time he can spend on the cell phone measures and away from his other bills, some of which he said deal with life-and-death issues.
Yet he said Arizona residents have told him they would be pleased by the passage of S1010.
“(So) we will try. I think I can’t tell you the chances are good, though,” he said.
Waring said he also thought he would see “more interest in this issue from members, given the interest that the public has expressed.” The interest is a little scattered and unfocused, which has been the “whole nature” of the current Legislative session, and not just with regard to his bill, he said.
CTIA — the Wireless Association, the national association of cell phone companies, has come up with a position letter saying it opposes S1034, which would allow members of the military and their spouses to terminate a cell phone contract, without penalty, if they are issued orders for active duty, deployment or a change of duty station.
The group cited two reasons for its opposition: One is that major carriers already allow soldiers set to be deployed to opt out of or suspend cell phone contracts. The other is that the group prefers federal legislation over a state statute.
Federal legislation “minimizes the risk of confusion created by a patchwork of 50 differing state statutes,” the group said.
Last month, CTIA spokesperson Joe Farren said his group supports allowing soldiers set to be deployed for active duty to terminate their contracts without penalty.
“We have a board position on that. Certainly, we would support that,” Farren had said. But he noted that Waring’s bill extends this privilege to spouses, something his group has yet to consider. The CTIA position letter did not mention the issue of giving soldiers’ spouses the same option.
“Perhaps the fact that you can't get a straight answer out of these guys also explains why I'm having so much trouble dealing with them myself,” Waring wrote in an e-mail. “If they can't even figure out what their position is on issues, how are they supposed to provide customers decent service?”
On Feb. 11, Waring argued that other industries, such as the restaurant industry, are able to navigate through differing state laws and at times even differing city ordinances. His point: there’s no reason why the cell phone industry cannot.
“That argument is ridiculous,” he said.
In a phone interview on Feb. 11, Farren reiterated the points raised by his group in its position letter.
“You can’t take a restaurant, put it in your pocket, and drive over the state line,” Farren also said, underscoring the point that his industry is different than other industries. “We are a mobile industry. We are not talking about the rotary phone that is stuck to the wall in my mother’s kitchen.”
Farren said the first question is whether the industry is already doing it.
“When you see the industry is doing it, then I think the next reasonable question is, ‘Do we therefore need legislation or regulation? Our answer to that would be ‘no’.” ?