Open House & Mixer, September 4, Thursday, 5 pm

geoffrey — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:28:57 -0700

UCAN News

The Utility Consumers’ Action Network (UCAN)
Privacy Rights Clearing House (PRC)
New Media Rights
Fuel Tracker
Telenforcers

and the

San Diego Enviro Leader Network (SDELN)

are inviting you to a monthly mixer at their open house!

Thursday, September 4
5:00 – 7:00 pm or so

Light hors d’oeuvres, soda, beer & wine

Organization background:
Founded in 1983 by concerned

San Diego citizens, the Utility Consumers' Action Network, UCAN, was formed to protect consumers from utility and corporate abuse. Since that time, UCAN's not-for-profit legal team has saved

San Diego consumers billions of dollars in unfair utility rate hikes.

Today, UCAN brings legal actions, advocates policy initiatives, educates, and guards against corporate abuses in the energy, landline and wireless phone, internet, and gasoline industries, among many other areas. UCAN.org is the most visited consumer organization website of its kind on the Internet.

UCAN has been a fixture in protecting the rights of all

California consumers, repeatedly challenging the largest corporate interests and pursuing the most significant corporate abuses. UCAN aggressively intervenes on behalf of its members with utility and other disputes with companies. If you want to be a part of UCAN, JOIN or RENEW your membership now! You can also read more about our membership benefits.

In addition to its core advocacy work, UCAN also sponsors four affiliate organizations and projects, as listed above. Click on each logo to learn more. Common among them is the goal of safeguarding the rights of consumers in a complicated and corporate-dominated economy.

LOCATION:

Utility Consumers' Action Network
3100 5th Ave, Suite B
San Diego, CA 92103
(upstairs above the ‘Caliph Lounge’, at the corner of 5^5hand Redwood)

Map and aerial photo: http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=32.737933~-117.159786&style=h&lvl=18&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=6262255&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

On-street parking. Look for free (no meter) spaces on Redwood and Park Blvd. Meters run until 6 pm.

RSVP’s requested... you know how it is throwing a party! We need to know how much food and drink to prepare. Please call or email Laura Impastato at 619.696.6966 or laurai [at] ucan [dot] org

Join the SDELN network: Click on this SDELN-subscribe [at] yahoogroups [dot] com to subscribe to monthly calendar announcements and mixer invitations. You’ll be glad you did! Or, visit www.sdeln.org to get all the details.

Since 2001,

SDELN mixers have been a great way to mix and mingle with fellow enviros, as we get to know and learn from each other. Standard
SDELN mixer informal ‘rules’ apply:

Sharing            with No Lobbying
   Supporting         with No Brow-Beating
   Laughter           with No Shame
   Business Cards     but No Leafleting
   Cooperation        but No Petitions
   Fun                with No Compromise!
   Stand up and mix   no Sitting Down!

We hope to see you there!

Geoffrey

Apple slammed with lawsuit over iPhone 3G Article

ucansue — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:08:15 -0700

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.

Battle of cable, telecom titans may not benefit consumers

Laura Impastato — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:08:31 -0700

UCAN In the Media

From the Los Angeles Times

David Lazarus:

Consumer Confidential

It's boiling down to cable vs. telecom

AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Qwest Communications International Inc. -- the three biggest U.S. phone companies -- announced last week that they're working together for the first time to help customers stay connected when they move to a new city.

The companies' new website, Movearoo.com, describes itself as "a one-stop shop for America's moving needs," offering everything from bundled telecom services to change-of-address forms.

What the site doesn't include is any information about what local cable providers may offer for people seeking cheaper communications alternatives.

Meanwhile, six leading cable companies have banded together for something called Project Canoe, which is intended to create a nationwide system for targeting ads to specific viewers.

Project Canoe could give the cable industry a leg up on telecom companies by making their networks more attractive to marketers.

Both Movearoo.com and Project Canoe represent an evolution in how telecom and cable companies operate, an escalating of competition from the company level to that of entire industries.

"It's a duopoly," said Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego. "It's two titans battling for the hearts, minds and wallets of consumers."

According to Frank Kellam, Verizon's business development manager, the three big phone companies have been quietly planning for the last year and half to create a "solution to ease the stress of moving."

He said the detente among AT&T, Verizon and Qwest reflects a changing business environment in which cable and, to a lesser extent, online Voice over Internet Protocol service providers like Skype are encroaching on phone companies' traditional territory.

"We are adjusting our strategy to keep our customers away from the cable and VoIP companies," Kellam said.

Joe Izbrand, an AT&T spokesman, echoed this sentiment. He said the telecom companies want to ensure that no matter where people move, "they have choices other than cable companies."

It doesn't take much imagination to foresee even greater cooperation among telecom companies as they try to fend off these rivals.

And as the phone companies become more intertwined as business partners, they'll have less incentive to challenge one another in the few areas where they really do compete, such as wireless service.

In the cable arena, Project Canoe isn't as overt a gesture of defiance toward competitors as Movearoo.com, but in some ways it's an even more sophisticated stab at circling the wagons of one industry.

As it grows harder for marketers to cut through the clutter of the information and entertainment landscape, the Holy Grail for advertisers is to be able to pitch products at the people most likely to buy them.

In other words, movie studios want to reach households with teens. Pet food companies want to reach households with cats or dogs.

That's already possible with some cable systems, but no uniform technological standard exists to give marketers nationwide reach. Project Canoe is intended to remedy that.

The participating companies are Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications, Comcast, Cablevision Systems, Charter Communications and Bright House Networks. Trade publications say each has chipped in to create a $150-million pool to develop the technology.

"Project Canoe will help the participating cable companies deliver more value to our advertising partners with increased measurability, targetability and interactivity," said Landel Hobbs, chief operating officer of Time Warner Cable. "It also allows cable networks to enhance their advertising offering."

He added: "All of that can be accomplished without compromising the privacy of our customers, which is of tantamount importance to us. In fact, in many ways, targeted advertising, done right, can be beneficial to consumers."

That remains to be seen, as does the impact on cable viewers' privacy.

By definition, targeting a TV ad at a specific household requires knowing what that household watches. Cable companies know this already, of course, but they've never before attempted to profit from that information on such a grand scale.

"How is this different from what Google does?" asked Alex Dudley, a Time Warner spokesman.

Indeed, Google monitors people's Internet searches and targets online ads accordingly.

But most people go online with an expectation that little or no privacy exists in cyberspace. Many people probably feel otherwise about what they choose to watch in their living rooms or bedrooms.

Meanwhile, what sort of targeted ads might crop up after an evening spent watching the Playboy Channel? This could make for some awkward conversations between husbands and wives.

Shames at the Utility Consumers' Action Network said these moves by the telecom and cable industries may be good for the respective businesses, but they almost surely won't be good for consumers.

"All they're doing is creating obstacles to each other's industry from gaining an advantage," he said. "That's not competition."

Well, it is. But not the kind that benefits customers.

Consumer Confidential runs Wednesdays and Sundays. Send your tips or feedback to david.lazarus [at] latimes [dot] com.

DNA testing industry wrestles with California law

The state has ordered 13 gene testing companies to 'cease and desist' while leaving other such firms alone. What does this mean to consumers? More: Is genetic testing worth the cost?

Italy: Exploring sun-splashed Venice's city squares

A summer sojourn reveals a serene yet steamy city. Sip a refreshing aperitivo and enjoy the wonders of it all. Photos | Roman Postcards

Save over 50% off the newsstand price. Click here to subscribe to The Times.

Email
|
Print
|
Text
|
RSS

Your Vote

July 13 2008

Telecom and cable companies are fond of saying how much competition exists in their respective industries. Dissatisfied customers can always take their business elsewhere, the companies insist.

In fact, few telecom and cable companies actually compete head to head. And now, these businesses are forming unprecedented partnerships as the two industries vie for nationwide dominance over voice, video and Internet services.

Warrantless wiretap votes equal dollars from Telecom PAC

Sandy Young — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:19:33 -0700

Telecom political action groups gave twice as much money to Democrats who switched from opposing to supporting legal amnesty to Telecoms that aided the government's warrantless wiretapping program.

Last week Wired reported that Maplight.org had analyzed campaign donations and found that 94 of 220 Democrats who had previously voted against Telecom amnesty had switched their vote to support a bill that expands the government's ability to conduct wiretaps inside American Telecom facilities.

Media General News Service reported that AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and others sought immunity from prosecution for cooperation with the government's anti-terrorism wiretapping program. Click here to read the entire article.

The center for independent media, The Washington Independent, weighed in with their article, "FISA vote tied to telecom donation." Much is summed up with a quote from Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman with Common Cause: "We certainly know that contributions go a long way to gaining access and influence," she said. "The appearance is that money buys votes." Click here to read the entire aritcle.

SHUT UP AND DRIVE! Why new laws should not apply to young people.

Charles Langley — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:53:52 -0700

Hey - Maybe it is time to lower the "talking-while driving" age!

Using a cell phone without hands-free equipment while driving is now unlawful. Yet according to the LA Times talking to a fellow passenger while driving is as bad or worse than driving drunk.

What is it that makes a phone so dangerous? Why isn't listening to the radio or talking to a passenger equally deadly?

Is it possible that driving and phoning skills are a function of age?

If you are over the age of 35, you probably learned to relate to the phone differently than younger generations. Young people are far more familiar with multi-tasking, but for the middle-aged, we grew up relating to a phone that had a cord attached to the wall.

When middle-aged people talk on the phone, we tend to mentally revert to the "phone attached to the wall" mode. We get engaged in the conversation and start driving like old people ... really old people.

Just imagine for a moment, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Chelsea Clinton in a NASCAR style road race where each of them had to drive and answer tricky policy questions on a cell phone. Who do you think would win? I'm betting that Obama and McCain would come in dead last, with an emphasis on dead.

This is one area where young adults (not teenagers) have superior skills, because they have grown up learning how to multi-task. Perhaps younger people who have learned this skill should be exempted from laws that limit driving while talking. We don't allow people over the age of 40 to enlist in the military because of their advanced age, so why should they be allowed to use a phone while driving?

Just a thought.

With age comes wisdom, but youth could well come with the ability to talk on the phone while driving safely.

California law prohibiting handheld cell phone usage while driving takes effect July 1st

ashkan — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:07:52 -0700

On July 1st, 2008 California Vehicle Codes 23123 and 23124 take effect, prohibiting the use of handheld cellular phones while driving. There is no grace period and officers will be able to issue citations starting July 1st. The law, spawned by safety concerns about cell phone usage while driving, severely restricts handheld cellular phone usage.

Drivers 18 and older can use cell phones only with a hands-free device, such as Blue Tooth, while talking, but both ears cannot be covered. In addition, dialing while driving is discouraged, although it is not prohibited, so long as a hands-free device is used while speaking. Using a handheld telephone’s speaker function is also allowed while driving.

A first violation is punishable by a $20 fine and subsequent violations are $50. However, if a driver is cited for other violations, a first offense is $76 and a second offense is $190, according to the Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule.

Citations for cell phone violations while driving are reportable and WILL appear on your driving record. However, a citation for using a cell phone while driving will NOT result in a violation point.

Although text messaging is not specifically prohibited, an officer may pull drivers over for unsafe driving. Some argue that text messaging is, in fact, more dangerous than using a cell phone while driving, and criticize the law for omitting any specific reference to text messaging.

For minors, the law is even more stringent, completely banning any use of cell phones, pagers, laptops or any other electronics, including hands-free devices, to communicate while driving. According to the California Highway Patrol, this is because statistics show teen drivers are “more likely than older drivers to be involved in crashes because they lack driving experience and tend to take greater risks.”

Officers can pull over drivers under the age of 18 for driving while using a handheld cell phone. An officer may not, however, pull over a minor for using a hands-free device because this is a secondary, rather than a primary violation.

In any event, a handheld cellular phone can be used during an emergency to call the police, fire department or other emergency services. In addition, the law does not apply to passengers.

Suggestions

Before running out to purchase a hands-free device, check to see if your cell phone originally came with one.
If not, most electronic stores sell hands-free devices, with the simplest around $5, to the more expensive BlueTooth option.
Remember, most cell phones include a loudspeaker option, which you can use to communicate, hands-free, while driving.
There may also be bargains online, such as here and here. You may even want to search eBay.
It may also be wise to simply consider not using your cell phone while driving!

Hands off the cell phone or pay the fine

ucansue — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:22:49 -0700

Hands off the cell phone or pay the fine is expressed in a San Diego Union Tribune article written by staff writer Pauline Repard. She presents the difference in rules for teens and adults and points out how ironic it is that legally adult drivers are not barred from sending text messages even though they are barred from talking on the phone while driving. Californians can kiss $97 per offense good-bye if they get caught not following the rules. It does seem odd that one can drive while eating a double-decker cheeseburger, drinking a milkshake, putting on make-up, shaving, disciplining kids in the back seat, and letting the dog sit in your lap. As long as you're obeying the rest of the rules of the road, you aren't stopped. It seems odd that this single aspect was chosen to enforce when the rationale was supposed to be paying total attention to the road.

Oh well, I guess I'm not privy to the logic of the state or federal government. But, I'm going to follow the law and not give another $97 to the state or to the local municipality.

And you?

Cell phone users 'crammed' with unauthorized fees

Laura Impastato — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:19:16 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Unauthorized Mobile Content: Consumers are Fighting Back

San Diego, CA: It's called 'cramming' and it's got nothing to do with studying for an exam. Cramming is the latest catch phrase for unauthorized mobile content that shows up on your cell phone bill that you didn't authorize. You didn't order it, didn't ask for it, and didn't subscribe to it—at least knowingly. And yet you continue to get billed by a third party for something you hardly even know exists, let alone use.

Thankfully, people are fighting back. The proof is in the number of class action lawsuits that have been filed by mobile phone users fed up with unauthorized third-party billing, and last week a major announcement by AT&T Mobility that it would settle a group of class action suits, and issue refunds to consumers who are out-of-pocket for services they never used and didn’t want.

It's easy enough to do. According to the Utilities Consumers Action Network (UCAN), a not-for-profit advocacy group based in San Diego, a consumer can subscribe to everything from ring tones, to horoscopes to a joke-of-the-day and never know it. Perhaps you have filled out a form, or entered a contest that required the inclusion of your cell phone number.

This often happens with our kids, a popular target for these third-party hucksters. A constantly growing sector in cell phone usage, adolescents live on their cell phones and enter everything unless they are counseled not to.

Suddenly they, or you find that as a new subscriber for monthly ring tones, horoscopes, games or joke services you are suddenly paying a larger cell phone bill every month. This is because while you may have unwittingly subscribed to one of these third-party entities, it is your service provider who collects the money from you on their behalf.

Art Neill is an attorney with UCAN who has sued several cell phone providers with regard to incorrect billing, and unauthorized fees. He backs up the statement that signing up for such third-party services is so subtle, most have no idea they've done so. Now you're being billed for a $9.99 per month ring tone service you didn't ask for—and just try to get it cancelled.

Easier said than done, he says.

"People have to search and search to find out what the message code is to turn off a service. You should be able to call (to cancel), but I don't think it's as easy as that," Neill says. "What we find is, it often depends on who you get on the phone, how effective you are and how persistent you are, how persuasive you are."

Most third-party service providers hope that you won't notice an extra ten dollars on your cell bill. They're hoping that you won't be able to remember what is was for, but may assume that 'it must be necessary to my service if it is there,' and do nothing about it. Inaction could also be the result of sheer busy-ness, something that befalls most of us. You look at your phone bill and declare, "This doesn't look quite right." However you are far too busy to deal with it right now, and if you make a mental note to check into it later, justification of your cell phone bill may never happen at all.

If, and when you DO get around to looking into what appears to be an unauthorized billing for a service you do not use and did not want, they certainly don't make it any easier for you to cancel. That's the whole idea. Make it so difficult to cut the expense loose that you might just be inclined to say the hell with it.

However, those who have picked up the gauntlet and challenged the repugnant practice have helped to achieve the kinds of paybacks announced earlier this month when AT&T Mobility agreed to refund current, or former customers for unauthorized charges covering a period January 1st 2004 through May 30th of this year. Provided they have not received a refund from a third party, affected consumers can claim up to three of their monthly bills during the claims period.

Meantime cramming will continue, and Sue Macomber of UCAN advocates that consumers watch their cell phone bills like a hawk, and dispute any charge that you did not knowingly authorize. Even an amount as little as $3 should be disputed. Macomber says third party content providers should be contacted, and asked in no uncertain terms that the charges—and the unwanted service—be removed.

She says it's also best to send a letter by registered mail to your cell phone service provider, detailing the charges and the unwanted services. A written letter, for which you should arrange for proof of receipt, is a good way to officially log your complaint with your cell phone service provider.

And don't stop there. Give them a deadline, she says. Ask when you can expect to hear their reply, or to see the charges (and the service) removed. Be polite, but persistent. Take no prisoners, and don't take no for an answer.

It's a jungle out there…

SOURCE: lawyersandsettlements.com

Limiting the unlimited; forced slowdown of bandwidth hogs creates uncertainty

Sandy Young — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:36:55 -0700

An interesting article in Sunday's New York Times sheds light on a recent strategy that Internet service providers have been putting into motion.

The article isn't news to UCAN. We've been receiving calls from people that have paid for unlimited data service from their providers but have noticed that the definition of unlimited seems to be evolving.

Let us know by leaving your comments below if you have been caught up in the "platform agnostics," or in plain english, the slow down of internet connection speed, or other caps that your service provider is unfolding.

Click here to read the entire New York Times article.

Dispute puzzling charges on your cell phone bill

Sandy Young — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:08:47 -0700

UCAN In the Media

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, by Phuong Cat Le, reporter - June 9, 2008 - EVER NOTICE a mysterious charge on your cell phone bill for ringtones, premium text messaging or other mobile content you didn't authorize?

Last week, AT&T Mobility announced it would settle a group of class-action lawsuits and refund consumers who were billed for unauthorized third-party mobile content, such as text messaging, daily horoscopes and wallpapers.

Like many cellular companies, AT&T doesn't provide the content but bills its customers on behalf of third-party vendors.

Consumers nationwide have been fighting back against such "cramming" and have filed multiple lawsuits against the nation's major cell phone carriers and third-party mobile vendors over charges placed on their phone bills that they didn't sign up for.

Q: What should I do if I get charged for content I didn't authorize?

A: Review your phone bill carefully each month. Dispute any charge that you did not authorize, even small ones for $3 or $10. Contact the third-party vendor or your cell phone company and ask them to remove the charges.

Sue Macomber, with the Utilities Consumers Action Network, a nonprofit group in San Diego, advises consumers write a letter to the cell phone company so the complaint is officially logged. Send your letter by certified mail and request a return receipt, Macomber said, and include in your letter a deadline for when you expect a written reply or for the charges to be dropped.

Background: "It's so easy to sign up for these services," said Art Neill, an attorney with UCAN, which has sued several cell phone companies over incorrect billing and other fees. Often the services are targeted to kids, many of whom don't realize they've subscribed to a monthly ringtone service that costs $9.99 or more a month. And it can be difficult to cancel or remove the charges.

"People have to search and search to find out what the message code is to turn off a service. You should be able to call (to cancel), but I don't think it's as easy as that," Neill said. "What we find is it often depends on who you get on the phone, how effective you are and how persistent you are, how persuasive you are."

Under last week's settlement, which received preliminary court approval, AT&T has agreed to refund current or former customers for unauthorized charges from Jan. 1, 2004, to May 30, 2008, provided they haven't already received a refund. Customers who were billed wrongly for subscription services can claim up to three of their monthly bills during that same period. The company did not admit wrongdoing in the case.

To claim a refund, go online to thirdpartycontentrefund.com.

"This is a great result for consumers," said Jay Edelson, lead attorney for plaintiffs in the case. His Chicago-based firm also has sued Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel Corp. and T-Mobile USA over similar third-party charges.

Edelson has heard from thousands who were charged for third-party services they didn't sign up for and couldn't easily cancel or get a refund on.

Some content providers or their affiliates may sign up people for services without their consent, Edelson said. Sometimes, consumers unknowingly subscribe to such services when they fill out a form or enter a contest that asks for a cell phone number; they don't realize they have subscribed for the monthly ringtone, horoscope or joke service until the fee appears on their cell phone bill.

"It's really like the Wild West out there," he said. "There aren't safeguards in place."

AT&T now requires customers who sign up for third-party services to confirm their enrollment by replying to a text message. It also requires the content providers to send monthly reminders with instructions on how to unsubscribe from such services.

AT&T also reached a settlement agreement with the Florida attorney general earlier this year in which it agreed to require third-party vendors to "clearly and conspicuously disclose the true cost of ringtones and other content in all online advertising to potential customers."

CONSUMER TIPS

# Carefully review your telephone bill every month. Are there charges you didn't place or services you didn't authorize?

# Carefully read all forms and promotional materials -- including the fine print -- before signing up for telephone or other services to be billed on your phone bill.

# Call your cell phone company and ask whether it will block text messages or other content to your phone.

# If you experience cramming in Washington state, file a complaint with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission at 800-562-6150 or online at goto.seattlepi.com/r1472. You also can file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission at 888-225-5322 or online at goto.seattlepi.com/r1473.

This report includes information from The Associated Press.