Texting While Driving

We all know that texting and driving is dangerous, but what about going beyond just sending short text messages, and actually composing and sending emails while driving? I’m voting for “stupid” as the proper adjective to use.

Lane Roster, a Huntington Beach, California repo man who has taken driving and emailing to an extreme. Mr. Roster decided that he absolutely had to send emails while driving, so he mounted his iPhone on the dash of his car and loaded the Email n’ Walk app, a program that uses a camera view of what’s directly ahead of you as the backdrop to a standard email screen.

Email ‘n Walk, as the name implies, is designed to be used while walking. Roster, in a phone interview, stated that “If I can’t email and drive or send an occasional text I would get absolutely nothing done.” He also admitted to getting into two minor accidents while emailing and driving.

I’m going to end this post with two quick reminders: Don’t text (or e-mail) and drive, and try to stay out of Huntington Beach, California if you value your life

Advertisements

Train Crash

A red signal was missed and a disaster ensued. There is a search for answers in the recent train crash in Los Angeles and there are suspicions of text messaging being a factor.

“Federal investigators plan to subpoena the cell phone records of the engineer who is said to have been exchanging text messages in the minutes before his commuter train ran through a red signal and smashed into a freight train Friday, killing 25 people.”

Other tragedies have been linked to text-messaging. Any alleged text messages would have a time stamp which could be correlated to the train location. With a hundred and thirty five people injured, this is the worst American train disaster in fifteen years.

Text Message Fight Obscures the Real Costs

Here is a story that I found in the Ottawa Citizen:

Of all the recent controversies involving Canada’s wireless carriers — and there have been many — the fight over the 15% charge for the receipt of text messages must surely rank as the most puzzling. The issue, which generated an enormous amount of attention from politicians, company executives and consumers, effectively came to a conclusion on Friday after industry Minister Jim Prentice acknowledged that he was not prepared to intervene. Scratch below the surface and it is difficult to understand what all the fuss was about. Text messaging has admittedly become an enormously popular form of communication and the new charges feel like an ill-advised cash grab by Bell and Telus.

To be fair, however, the charges are also a relatively minor consumer issue given that the overwhelming majority of wireless subscribers are not affected by it. Prentice had endured weeks of criticism from consumer groups across the country over his copyright reform bill and may have been looking for a way to re-make himself as a friend of Canadian consumers by briefly vowing to fight over the issue. With the sabre rattling over text-messaging charges now concluded, the issue should serve as a wake-up call on several festering problems with telecommunications in Canada.

First, the new charges again raise the concerns associated with long-term contracts that grant carriers the right to unilaterally change key provisions and leave consumers with little recourse (the contractual issue is currently the subject of a class-action lawsuit). Sign the three-year demanded by many carriers and you are stuck facing huge penalties for early termination. Other countries have recognized this problem and mandated limits on the term of cellphone contracts.

Second, Prentice highlighted the inherent unfairness of charging consumers for receipt of text-message spam. Dig deeper, however, and the real problem lies with the inaction on spam more generally. Canadians already pay for spam with expensive wireless data rates that do not distinguish between legitimate e-mail and spam.

Canada remains one of the only developed countries to have not introduced anti-spam legislation, an issue that falls squarely within Prentice’s mandate.

Third, the new charge is part of a broader problem within the Canadian marketplace where in the face of limited competition, consumers pay more, but get less.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission has been mandated to move toward a market-oriented approach for telecommunications, ensuring that there will be no broad ranging regulation of the wireless marketplace any time soon.

In the absence of robust competition, many consumers have been left to wonder whether some form of regulation is needed. The same questions were recently raised in Europe, with the European Commission becoming much more actively involved within the marketplace.

As the government dithers on real action, the costs to consumers and business are enormous. The average cellphone subscriber spends more each month on their phone ($60 per month is the average revenue per unit, according to the BCE 2007 annual report) than a family spends each month on hydro for a four-bedroom house. Businesses face high costs for data services, forcing some developers to abandon the Canadian market.

The whole text-messaging issue hasn’t really affected me. I don’t particularly find texting a good way to communicate. It is much easier to dial a number and talk to someone than it is to try and tap those extremely small keys on the QWERTY keyboard. Has the raise in phone bills affected you? Leave a comment or e-mail me at robertdalesio@gmail.com