UCAN

Fierce Wireless, one of the industry's leading electronic news monitoring sources, stated today in an article by Sue Marek, that Apple's IPhone didn't measure up to what it advertised and represented to consumers.  The main issues in the lawsuit included the fact that the connectivity speed for data, Internet & like functions were allegedly much slower than advertised and that there was erratic connection in general.  Read More.

Please post your experiences with the Apple IPhone 3G.

Recent news reports indicate that some retirees, disabled veterans and others, who do not normally file a tax return, may miss out on receiving their economic stimulus check if they do not file a tax return by October 15^th.

Persons who normally ARE NOT required to file a return -- because their income is too low or nontaxable -- MUST file a tax return this year to obtain their stimulus payment approved by Congress. The legislation provides a minimum payment of $300 for individuals ($600 for married couples). It also provides a payment of $300 for each qualifying child younger than 17. The married couple or individual must have qualifying income of at least $3000 to be eligible for the payment.

Various types of Social Security and veterans benefits may qualify you -- but not all.

 The IRS has Taxpayer Assistance Centers to help with filing for individuals whose income is $40,000 or less. More information about how to file and eligibility is available by going to this link http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=177937,00.html at IRS.gov or call 1-800-906-9887 for a taxpayer assistance site near you.  

UCAN wants to know:  Were you sold a bundled package where any of the 3 services couldn't be provided by AT&T, Verizon or any other carrier?  For example, UCAN received a Verizon complaint where the company was unable to provide phone service because the customer was in an AT&T service area.  Because the customer signed up based on the promise of a printed advertisement, it didn't occur to him to ask if service was possible.  In this case, the customer was told that the TV part of the package had to be installed first.  The customer was then not able to cancel the DirecTV service without an early termination penalty.

Another UCAN case example was where AT&T offered a bundled package and the customer was unable to get the DSL in her area. 

The reason we want to know if you have experienced any of the same types of problems with any portion of a bundled package is because we want to determine how widespread the problem is.  Please keep in mind that the problem strictly focuses on bundled plans where one or more of the services in the bundle cannot be provided.

If you have been following the Bob Kittle editorial controversy on our Web site, you know that Mr. Kittle has made numerous factually deficient statements about UCAN's efforts to fight the construction of the Sunrise Powerlink. Mr. Kittle has attacked UCAN as a "lucrative rip-off" in a recent editorial, while gushing with support for the Sunrise Transmission Project.

Now, a former colleague of Kittle's, Don Bauder, who edited the Union-Tribune's business section for nearly 30 years has exposed Kittle as a "pathetically fatuous" toady for San Diego's power "overlords."

If you are a Union-Tribune subscriber, a UCAN member, or if you are concerned about the negative financial and environmental effects of the Sunrise PowerLink, you must read this article published July 31 in the San Diego Reader.

Here are just a few of the highlights:

"The campaign to ballyhoo the proposed Sunrise Powerlink has one beneficial effect: it is shining light on how San Diego’s overlords try to use misinformation to manipulate public opinion ..."

"... One of the groups battling Sunrise is Utility Consumers’ Action Network (UCAN), a 30,000-member organization that has fought every SDG&E rate-increase attempt since 1984, with many great successes. On Monday, July 14, the Union-Tribune wrote an editorial titled “Lucrative rip-off: SDG&E bills include interest-group costs.” The editorial was inaccurate and pathetically fatuous. The second sentence read, “But what few San Diego Gas & Electric customers know is that their monthly bills are higher because UCAN’s small staff has collected nearly $2 million from SDG&E ratepayers for intervening before the California Public Utilities Commission in opposition to SDG&E projects from 1989 to 2006 ... Think about that nonsense." ...

... The U-T’s editorial did not mention, of course, that on January 26, 2002, another editorial that appeared in the U-T lauded Shames as a “consumers’ hero.” UCAN had challenged a deal cooked up in a back room by Sempra and former governor Gray Davis. UCAN won and saved the ratepayers $363 million, later reduced to $197 million. Said the editorial about UCAN, “Good work, guys.” If the U-T’s statement that UCAN has cost ratepayers $2 million over 17 years were accurate — and it is not accurate — even the U-T might understand that $197 million is a very good return on a $2 million investment. It’s even better on the actual investment: zero.

The July 14 editorial was written by Bob Kittle, the U-T’s editorial page editor. Kittle got information for his piece from SDG&E, says Shames, quoting a phone conversation he had with Kittle.

In an email, I asked Kittle about that. He shot back, “In fact, I received no information from SDG&E.” He explained that the information provided to him was given by Sempra, SDG&E’s parent. Hmmm. This isn’t even hairsplitting. It’s rank deception. ..."

We couldn't have said it better. Again, we urge you to read Don Bauder's Spinrise.

Related articles:

Bob Kittle's hit piece targeting UCAN as a "lucrative rip-off."

Bob Kittle's opinion, lauding UCAN as a "Consumers' Hero" (Mr. Kittle denies running this opinion).

UCAN's rebuttal to Robert A. Kittle's attack. (Mr. Kittle has refused to publish this document).

Bob Kittle's refusal to print UCAN's rebuttal.

Law Professor Robert Fellmeth's letter to the Union, asserting that Kittle's editorial was flawed by "material omissions."

Factual misstatements made by Bob Kittle on KPBS Radio's Editor's Roundtable.

Recently I had to "choose" a broadband Internet provider. After having my "choices" narrowed down for me by a serious lack of competition ( I hear U-Verse is on its way some day), I went with my first, last, and only choice, Time Warner. Despite feeling trapped, the Time Warner customer service rep wooed me with promises of a new broadband paradigm, Roadrunner "turbo." For some reason this "15 Mbps down, 2 Mbps" up Internet was cheaper than the default 8 Mbps/ 1 Mbps option of yesteryear, so I pounced on the deal like a caged tiger given extra scraps of meat at dinner.

All seemed fair. I signed away my first born and promised to tattoo the Time Warner logo on my body, and Time Warner promised to possibly show up in a 4 hour window. After installation, the problems began. I noticed slower loading times than I had previously with Roadrunner.

So I ran a series of speed tests at speakeasy.net. The results showed all servers on Speakeasy returning almost exactly 1500 Kbps, that's 1.5Mbps, Time Warner's basic rate. Not 15 Mbps, 1.5 Mbps. I called Time Warner to chat about the issues with my service, and to see when the "turbo" would take effect.

This is where things get interesting. Apparently, had I never called, I would have simply been provided the basic bandwidth, while paying the "turbo" price. The technical department said that what can happen is that the turbo signal does not "attach" to a particular line that the cable modem is on. The explanation was vague, but the lesson is clear, check the bandwidth you're getting from your broadband Internet provider by using a tool like speakeasy.net, and don't take it for granted that the install was done properly.

This seems to be especially true these days with Time Warner's Roadrunner "turbo" Internet.

Share your story on your broadband Internet provider with everyone below!

Power Net Global (PNG) has changed. UCAN is no longer including the option of using Power Net Global (PNG).  In 2002, UCAN did a consumer guide and a newsletter showing PNG as a great option for long distance phone service because not only did UCAN members get installation fees waived, but there were NO monthly fees for customers using this service.  The company now charges minimum monthly usage fees and added a .99 cent monthly fee.  To top things off, PNG recently started rounding up each call to the nearest minute instead of the six-second increcements it use to use.  The bottom line is that there are better deals out there for consumers! 

So, now PNG has instituted the following charges to consumers using its service:  1) .99 cent monthly fee; 2) Minimum Monthly Usage Fee; and 3) Each call rounded up to the nearest minute even though the web site of the company still advertises billing in 6-second increments. 

Another problem with PNG is that customers who sign up, get bills & pay them electronically, had no notice of the rounding up to the nearest minute change that allegedly changed from 6-second billing increments prior to April 2008.

Whenever you are choosing phone service, go to on-line comparisons that present the facts as they are and follow up your comparison by calling a potential phone company with the comparisons in front of you to make sure you have all the facts about every statement made.  When you call a company, repeat what you have been told after asking the CS rep for his/her ID #.  It also wouldn't hurt to ask the rep if what you were promised could be sent to you in a confirmation email or fax. 

UCAN community member ktmitchell writes the following: "In our modern global economy, the old cliché “time is money” has become an understatement. For the small business owners, when goods are lost, money is lost. Wages that could have been earned using those goods disappear as well. Consumers rely on shipping companies to complete business transactions by moving goods as quickly as the deals were made. Just as customers are confident that their shipments will arrive on time, they believe their packages will arrive undamaged.

When it comes to FedEx Ground Shipping, that confidence could be misplaced faith. I learned that the hard way when I shipped my turntables from my apartment in New York City to my mother’s home in California in the spring of 2007. Although I packed the turntables in a padlocked professional, padded case, the package arrived opened and damaged with expensive equipment missing.

After running into brick walls when dealing with FedEx, I decided to do some digging to see if other people were having similar problems. What I uncovered was shocking.

In most instances FedEx refused to compensate these customers, or give them a refund of their shipping cost. This was true even if customers paid the full price of insurance before shipping their item. If settlements were offered, it only covered a fraction of the monetary damage. Again, people stated Fed Ex cited their user policy as the reason to refuse most claims. Small claims courts uphold FedEx’s refusal of liability.

FedEx delivery drivers are independent contractors, not full employees. This means the majority of have no insurance, no sick days, no overtime pay, no vacations and no motivation to handle packages carefully, or even deliver them to the right address. Independent contractor status makes employees difficult to track if packages “go missing.” On the Consumer Affairs site, Jack of Texas claims "the prevalence of damaged packages is due to FedEx using conveyer belts to load packages directly onto trucks". Imagine your well padded but delicate Christmas gift sliding down that belt into an unpadded truck— and some professor's 50 pound shipment of books tumbling behind it. Jack goes on to say that "the package handlers are only part time workers who perform “8-hour job in a 4-5 hour span,” receive no benefits, and don’t care if they throw packages".

Even more frightening, the US postal service has agreed to pay 6.3 billion to have access to FedEx’s air network. The Association for Postal Commerce claims since this deal was finalized in 2001, the time it takes to deliver Priority Mail has increased from 2.15 to 2.69 days.

Ultimately, sweet deals for politicians leave a sour taste in their constituents’ mouths. When Federal law bows to corporate contracts, the government has ceased to work for its citizens. Vendors on sites like EBay and Amazon stand to lose a substantial portion of their business if they cannot rely on Fed Ex to protect their packages during shipping. Not only can self-employed people lose money if they lose their items, they lose time chasing down compensation and wages from soured business deals. Now that FedEx has part of it’s operations under the jurisdiction of the Postal Service, it is up to the Postmaster and Inspector General to oversee this corporation’s day-to-day operations in order to insure quality service."

National Dealers Warranty FINAL NOTICE letters are sent to unsuspecting consumers with their Customer ID #s to make people believe they already have a 5-year, 100,000 mile extended warranty on their cars.  Victims are led to believe that they are getting an employee discount price if they renew within 48 hours.  The letter goes on to state there's no credit check required and 0.0% financing is guaranteed for any warranty activated immediately.  The letter also states that claims are paid directly to the repair shops and therefore customers won't have to worry about reimbursements.  Whoever is behind this company, has purchased leads with full names and addresses. The San Diego letter copy UCAN received is signed by a John Walters--someone no one will ever find.  UCAN found a lot of Internet site complaints about this company's deceptive practices and found that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) had nothing kind to report about the company. Another name for the company is United Warranty Wholesalers. 

 For example, http://stlouis.bbb.org/WWWRoot/Report.aspx?site=142&bbb=0734&firm=310030296 depicts the BBB's view of the company's reputation.  In addition, this BBB report states: "on March 6, 2008, the Missouri Attorney General filed suit in St. Charles County Circuit Court against National Dealer Warranties for sending consumers postcards and letters informing them that they had limited time to purchase renewed, extended warranties for their vehicles. The Attorney General claimed the company neglected to inform consumers that it was not affiliated with the dealer or manufacturer of the vehicle, or that it was offering to sell motor vehicle extended service contracts instead of warranties. The suit is pending."

Write back to us at www.ucan.org and let us know if you've been victimized by this scam.