He Didn’t Get the Right Signal --and Filed Suit
One of the most popular books in high-tech circles these days is simply titled “Being Digital.” But a case in Small Claims Court in Orange County earlier this month demonstrated just how tough it is to know when one is truly “being digital.”
Lonnie Adams, a Newport Beach financial consultant, bought a pair of cellular phones two years ago for him and his wife. The two depend on their phones for their jobs, often ringing up monthly bills of $500 or more.
When a salesman from L.A. Cellular encouraged them to buy a “digital” phone because it would deliver clearer reception and fewer breakups, they decided it was worth the extra expense. The digital phones cost about $400 apiece, more than twice what analog phones would have cost.
Trouble is, a digital phone doesn’t do much good unless the cellular service is using a digital signal, which L.A. Cellular didn’t introduce in Orange County until earlier this year. Adams said he found that out two years too late.
Digital refers to the way sound, pictures and information are sent. Traditionally, cell phone services have used an analog signal, which means the sound is transmitted as a radio wave. In a digital signal, the sound is converted to a string of 1’s and 0’s that are converted back into sound waves inside the phone. Digital signals filter much of the extraneous hiss and noise that often muddy analog signals.
Adams, 40, said he learned of the situation accidentally when he contacted L.A. Cellular with a separate problem earlier this year. He acknowledges that he couldn’t tell that he wasn’t getting digital service, but says he is upset because he was misled. “If they knew they didn’t offer digital service in Orange County, why were they selling cellular phones?” Adams said.
Steve Crosby, a spokesman for L.A. Cellular, said the company did not intentionally mislead consumers. He added that the company was using a digital signal in much of its Southern California network in 1994, although he acknowledged that Orange County was an exception at that time.
Adams said he switched companies several months ago, and took L.A. Cellular to Small Claims Court when the company refused to let him out of a $613 charge remaining on his contract for the digital phone. In a Nov. 8 ruling, a judge refused to officially take a position in the case, but erased Adams’ bill.
Adams said he was happy with the outcome but is now leery of new technologies. “I’m very suspect now of any new service,” Adams said. “In this day and age, unless you’re a techno-genius, you’re subject to what salespeople tell you.”
