New AT&T Residential Service Agreement --What does it mean?

ucansue — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:27:19 -0700

UCAN News

UCAN found a good CBS5.com story from the San Francisco area about the new AT&T long "legaleze"-type contracts recently sent to AT&T residential service customers. Read More.
What does it mean? It means that after January 1, 2009, AT&T
can raise your rates as high as it wants and whenever it chooses to do so.

There is a two-sided cover that comes with the AT&T written service agreement. Read it here. Finally, attached is the 16-page contract for your review. Read the full agreement here. UCAN encourages you to post your questions on our web site. We will do our best to answer each person in the state of California.

UCAN is reading the new AT&T contract to provide you with a breakdown of its contents well before the deadline of October 1, 2008. Watch for UCAN's breakdown of the "gotcha" areas--coming soon. UCAN also measured the length of the AT&T fold-out service agreement and it is close to 1 yard long. UCAN has found an Indemnification Clause, a possible statement meaning that AT&T is holding the customer responsible for all charges on the phone bill including unauthorized charges, and is wondering if AT&T is asking customers to sign that they agree to allow 3rd parties to monitor their services---Does that sound like giving permission to wiretap to you?

Again, watch for updates on this contract and UCAN's dissection of it.

UCAN Not Endorsing the Power Net Global (PNG) Option in 2008; PNG Has Changed

ucansue — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:56:30 -0700

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.

AT&T: Who won the war on Tariff Rule 12?

jonathan — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:27:57 -0700

Who won the war of Tariff Rule 12?
By Jonny Iosim

On April 24th, the California Public Utilities Commission, made a ruling on AT&T Tariff Rule 12 that will have a significant impact on AT&T marketing abilities. The ruling gave validity to Advice Letters 28800 and 28982 written in 2006 by AT&T. Advice letters in the context here are proposals by AT&T to the CPUC in order to change policies that are currently under the control of the commission. The decision this past April further called for the incorporation of basic rate provisions to be clearly established in customer phone calls as well as on the AT&T website. Eliminated from Tariff Rule 12 are summary and bridging requirements (these were mandatory guidelines for AT&T to incorporate in their phone calls as a way of simplifying the calls due to complaints of purposely misleading customers) for customer service phone calls and an obligation to seek permission before marketing. The age-old war between consumer and corporation has effectively ended on the issue of Tariff 12, but who is the winner?

The battle of the eliminated provisions

According to the April decision, advice letters 28800 and 28982 are now in effect. These letters eliminated certain provisions from Decision 01-09-058 (the 2001 decision in which UCAN won suit over AT&T and consequently mandated many marketing restrictions on AT&T that were incorporated in Tariff 12). These provisions were generally directed towards the conduct of customer service representatives and preventing them from aggressively pursing a sale. AT&T had a notorious history of heinously pursuing a sale on every phone call pursuant to an internal policy called "offer on every call". With the elimination of certain provisions in tariff 12, AT&T may very well return to this practice.

As of now, AT&T does need to clearly structure their customer service phone calls, identifying when the the service part has concluded and the marketing portion has begun. They no longer need to provide a summary of the phone call, and perhaps most importantly, they do not need to seek permission in order to market new services and products. AT&T claims that since the notorious 2001 loss in D. 01-09-058, they have incorporated many new policies to change their customer service images. HOMERUN for example has become the internal model to follow for customer service. HOMERUN consists of

"Have Enthusiasm to answer the call...",

"Obtain first Call Resolution...",

"Make use of your Sales Tools to provide the right the right offer to the customer...",

"Explain the AT&T Advantages...",

"Really make a Quality Offer...",

"Upbeat and Skillful Close...".

"Need to Follow the Contact Guide...".

Despite their new catchy acronym, it is still too early to say whether or not HOMERUN is a hit let alone a "home run" . What is evidently clear is that the elimination of these guidelines from Tariff Rule 12 will ease up restrictions on AT&T's aggressiveness in pursuing a sale on a customer service call. The commission defends their decision by stating that they will keep an eye out for reports and abuses of AT&T's newly found free reign and will not hesitate to reinstate restrictions if need be. The bottom line remains that AT&T has a history of abuse, and without sufficient evidence (and not acronyms) showing that they have changed their ways, removal of these restrictions seems premature and consumers remain at risk. This aspect of the April 24th decision is another homerun for AT&T, who will now be less restricted while making their own sales pitches.

Scorecard AT&T: 1 - Consumer: 0

The battle of the mandated inclusions

The April 24th decision requires that new customers be provided with the basic flat rate for the AT&T service before "bundles" and "deals" are to be suggested. Additionally pursuant to TURN's (The Utility Reform Network) and the DRA' (Disability Rights Advocates) requests, AT&T is now also required to put these basic rates on their website under Tariff Rule 12. It would seem on the surface that this is win-win for the consumer, but is it really?

For starters, the requirement to provide the basic flat rate first, before any bundles, is arguably already incorporated in California Law. While not explicitly stated in 2896, the decision that the commission issued in April stated the following:

"AT&T's marketing script disclosures regarding its stand-alone basic services and its flat and measured basic services rates do not demonstrate that it provides consumers with sufficient information on which to make informed choices as required by Pub. Util. Code §2896.

California Public Utility Code 2896 already requires utility companies to give sufficient information to make informed choices as well as reasonable statewide standards in terms of customer service. In the days of "offer on every call", AT&T would purposely make their phone calls more confusing to consumers who often bought bundles they did not need and sometimes could not afford. When AT&T was failing to give basic rates or purposely drive up sales by advising consumers to purchase unnecessary services, we were not receiving sufficient information and ATT was violating 2896. Consumers should already be protected from such abuse from utility companies. In the 2001 Rule 12 decision, AT&T was penalized $25.55 million for their marketing abuses. So what does this inclusion of the basic rate provision in Tariff 12 do? It pretty requires AT&T to put portions of California law in Tariff 12....so in essence...not a whole lot.

The next inclusion that the April 24th decision called for AT&T to make their basic rates available online in the tariff section. AT&T does indeed provide the basic rate on their webpage. Hooray! By the way, have any of you tried to find the tariff section? How many customers will really be benefited by the inclusion of a basic rate in Rule 12 on the AT&T regulatory page? Simply put, the people who needed to be protected by AT&T's marketing abuse are not the same ones who are going to be looking up tariffs online. Additionally, the regulatory page is not easily navigable and finding the basic rate or even the tariff page may take more than an Internet Explorer. Also, let us also not forget about 2896. Technically, this provision is hardly necessary since AT&T should be following the law(2896) and providing sufficient information to begin with. This provision, while possibly helpful at times of research, does very little in consumer protection or in curtailing AT&T's notorious marketing abuse history. It seems as though this provision was added to appease TURN and DRA. TURN and the DRA did propose other modification to rule 12, but the commission denied these requests. These requests included a 30-day grace period to cancel without penalty, affirming the rights of the commission to actually monitor customer service representatives, requiring AT&T to provide the total estimated bill amount to customers wishing to purchasing services, and a few other provisions that actually had a purpose for us, consumers, and was not a rehash of the law. While it is better that these provisions be in Tariff 12 than not, their effects are speculative and their necessity is minimal. This is not a score for AT&T, but sadly not for we, the consumer, either.

AT&T: 1 - Consumer: 0

The commissions April 24th decision is one that will allow AT&T to return to most of the marketing practices prior to 2001. The main exception is that AT&T is still required to resolve problems that initiated a consumer phone call before they can market new products. However, this aspect was never in dispute through the recent Tariff 12 legal battles. In fact, just the thought that AT&T could eliminate that provision would bring some serious speculation as to whether or not California is taking one huge step backwards in protecting consumers from big utility companies and their egregious marketing practices. Perhaps this is the next step for AT&T? Maybe they can write a new advice letter? The last advice letter seemed to work out for their benefit even though they didn't follow the correct procedure in attempting to change Tariff 12. An advice letter inconsistent with legal procedure coupled with new internal policy acronyms won the commission over once. Whose to say it wont happen again? May I suggest SCORE?

Sale,

Coerce,

On every call,

Retry to sell, and

End call with a sale.

And with that the final scorecard of the AT&T is the only winner here

FINAL SCORECARD

AT&T 1- CONSUMER 0

On the more optimistic side, perhaps AT&T has actually altered their internal policies and is genuinely concerned with providing outstanding customer service and does not wish to confuse customers into spending more money on services they don't need. Time will tell, rather than AT&T or the commission. It should be noted that this decision puts AT&T's conduct in their own hands rather than the commissions. This on face seems fair and logical, but there was a reason why it was taken from them once and without noticeable changes and improvements, the premature April 24th decisions runs the risk of taking Californians backwards rather than forward. The legislature should expand Public Utility Code §2896 to consolidate these types of marketing problems that AT&T and other utility companies use as part of their marketing strategy.

Cox Bill Increases July 2008

ucansue — Tue, 27 May 2008 17:13:27 -0700

The Cox May bill includes an insert that gives notice to customers about July 2008 rate increases. The notice says, "new rates for pay-per-use calling features effective 7/1/08: $.99 increase to $1.99 for Call Return, Three-Way and Busy Line Redial and doesn't affect monthly subscription customers. Also effective 7/1/08, pay-per-use increase for Directory Assistance with Call Completion--$.99 increases to $1.50.

The bill insert in the May statement included "Caller ID Blocking" ---free to choose 2 options "First Time" (Caller ID Line Blocking or Caller ID Per Call Blocking). If customers change their minds, it will cost them: "However, there will be a service charge for each subsequent change". NO PRICES ARE INCLUDED FOR SECOND CHANGES.

UCAN releases reply comments on phone billing fraud (cramming) reporting requirements in California

art neill — Thu, 01 May 2008 10:15:36 -0700

UCAN News

UCAN's reply comments support a strong reporting requirement for telecommunications abuses, something the Cellular Telephone Industry Association(CTIA), AT&T, Verizon and other carriers don't want. These proceedings will decide if the companies will have to comply with basic consumer protection standards, or will be allowed to police themselves.

Companies prefer a requirement where they decide if a third party for whom they bill is a "bad actor," and then report that to the California Public Utilities Commission. The problem is, the companies proposals entirely ignore their own, in-house billing fraud abuses. In its reply comments UCAN debunks the carriers hollow proposals, and offers a balanced, efficient alternative for consumers.

From the reply comments:

"The comments to the Commission's ACR were largely to be expected. Wireless and wireline carriers generally minimize the prevalence of cramming complaints, and point to the market as the solution to any existing problems with cramming. They present an alternative proposal to report on carrier action against "bad actors," rather than specific customer complaints. Consumer advocates have highlighted the importance of thorough cramming reporting requirements to the Commission's regulatory and enforcement responsibilities. Fortunately we do not have to make policy in a vacuum and guess at the results. The developments in telecommunications in this decade, particularly in the wireless industry, coupled with deregulation efforts, have led to a tremendous variety and amount of cramming. The cramming problem is real, yet there is severe lack of systematic data collection to understand the complete impact that cramming has on the consumer, and the primary culprits and causes of cramming.

Read UCAN's entire reply comments here

UCAN releases comments on phone billing fraud (cramming) in California

art neill — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:30:16 -0700

UCAN News

UCAN has released comments regarding proposed "cramming" reporting requirements in Calfornia. Cramming is the placing of unauthorized charges on consumers' telephone bills. UCAN supports a thorough reporting requirement, particularly due to abuses (see UCAN's AT&T International Roaming and Sprint Federal Class Action) in the wireless industry.

A summary of the comments:

"Cramming remains a persistent problem consumers face across the telecommunications industry. UCAN receives complaints regularly from consumers claiming that charges on their phone bill are not authorized, deceptive, or misleading. Not surprisingly, where there have been no reporting requirements and the least oversight, in the wireless industry, there is the most acute problem. The types of charges crammed range from third party services such as ringtone, text message, and multimedia charges on wireless phones, to international roaming fees, to many other variations of taxes, fees, and surcharges. The universe of charges that may be crammed on a consumer's bill is only increasing due to technological advances.

Cramming is a child of these technological advances and deregulation. The Commission's request for comments regarding cramming reporting requirements cited the Consumer Protection Initiative proceedings for the proposition that the "key to protecting consumers against unscrupulous practices by carriers is enforcement." UCAN agrees that enforcement is what is needed most in response to persistent cramming complaints. Enforcement, however, is where the largest void exists.

A thorough reporting requirement could be a significant step towards filling the current enforcement void. On the contrary, a weak reporting requirement will simply allow carriers the opportunity for manipulation, minimizing the efficacy of the information the Commission receives and any enforcement and oversight efforts reliant on that information.

The Commission states that the purpose of enacting the cramming rules "was to clarify current law and to emphasize that it is the billing telephone company's responsibility to resolve cramming complaints." As the Commission says, it is the telephone company's responsibility to resolve cramming complaints and to police their bills. That said, it is then the Commission's responsibility to ensure both resolution of cramming complaints and policing are actually occurring. UCAN's experience suggests an urgent need for oversight and enforcement of both areas. This cannot occur without a thorough reporting requirement.

UCAN is encouraged by the potential to adopt a reporting requirement that moves us towards a consumer protection system that prevents excesses in cramming and provides consistent monitoring, and away from a system that reacts only when the problems have become so pervasive that they cannot be ignored. UCAN recommends that any claims by carriers that certain reporting or record keeping options are unduly burdensome be heavily scrutinized and require a substantial level of proof."

Read UCAN's entire comments here

UCAN wins refunds, customer service improvements, and billing system changes in settlement with MCI (Verizon)

art neill — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:37:42 -0700

UCAN News

Recent approval of a settlement in case 06-10-023, UCAN's cramming case against MCI, brings refunds to 1,890 customers as well as customer service and billing system improvements.

From the decision:

"Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN) and MCI Communication Services, Inc. (MCI) (collectively, the Parties) have jointly moved for the adoption of an uncontested Settlement Agreement in this complaint proceeding involving a computer billing error on the part of MCI that affected 1,890 California customers from June 2006 to October 2006, and some associated issues. Under the settlement agreement, MCI agreed to implement procedures designed to prevent similar errors from occurring again. MCI has fully compensated all the affected customers for any billing errors they experienced."

See the settlement in its entirety.

California's Telco Deregulation Fiasco: Finding Alternative Phone Service in a Competitive Wasteland

michael — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:13:13 -0800

THE BAD NEWS

Your telephone rates have increased by between 70-276%.....in just the past year. From a few years ago, we are looking at 1000% price increases. Remarkably, many consumers aren't even aware of these price shocks. And when they find out, they feel helpless to do anything about them.

For the second time in a decade, California regulators have used the state's consumers as lab rats. The first experiment - electric deregulation - was a flaming debacle. The second experiment - telephone deregulation - is turning out to be an expensive bust. And the bust is hitting at exactly the wrong time for the state's consumers.

The results have been sobering. Just last month, AT&T raised prices for several stand-alone features: Anonymous call rejection now costs $5 from $1.90; caller ID rose to $9.99 from $6.17. Some local toll calls - calls that aren't considered long-distance but don't qualify as local - jumped by more than 200%. In 2007, California's AT&T consumers were assaulted by the following phone rate hikes:

Select Custom Calling services by over 50%
Local Directory Assistance by 346%
Fees for returned check by 276%
Local Toll rates by over 70% for some categories
Fees for having an unlisted number by 614%
Fees for late payments by adding a $5.50 NRC to past due balances

When the state Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) made the ill-advised, ideologically-fueled decision in 2005 to abandon oversight of the telecommunications industry, the CPUC vowed to be vigilant to "ensure that the market continues to serve consumers well." Just the opposite has happened. This Commission has thrown the state's consumers to rapacious wolves and it's already proving to be a blood bath. The telecom companies have already set their sights on those consumers who have the least amount of choice or ability to assert their rights. The greed of these companies appears to have no bounds.

Consumer advocates say the elderly and low-income families are hardest hit by the creep in fees. It is the less-savvy consumers who don't have the wherewithal or time to shop for phone services who are footing the bill for this regulatory misstep. What's worse is that AT&T is reaping record profits on the backs of these ripped-off consumers; AT&T announced that it had doubled its profits in the first quarter of 2007 over last year, earning an amazing $2.85 billion.

Why has the CPUC given AT&T carte blanche to raise rates not mandated by the government---rates that go in the company's pockets? Because the CPUC claims there is so much competition that people are free to change carriers. But with the spate of recent phone company mergers that followed the deregulation order, customer choices have disappeared. San Diegans who want local land-line phone service are limited to AT&T and/or a local cable company. That's it. A competitive market for local phone service is but a pipedream in the pipes that the regulators are apparently smoking.

THE GOOD NEWS

OK, I lied. There's no really good news. Until the regulators do their job of protecting California consumers rather than coddling the big phone companies, there aren't a lot of good alternatives out there. However, there are ways in which the motivated consumer can counterattack the decline of phone alternatives. Some of the options are as follows:

Hang up the phone on AT&T: In other words, cancel your "plain old telephone service" (POTS) and use some of the high-tech alternatives. I gave up my AT&T local service in 2005 and went with two alternatives: wireless and Internet. My cell phone serves as a pretty decent substitute for POTS except when I'm in my house, where coverage is spotty. But since I have high-speed Internet access, I use an Internet-based phone provider. Vonage, Packet 8 and other VoIP providers are fine alternatives. Skype's prices can't be beat and the quality is better than cell phones - although not by too much. Between the two, I don't miss AT&T's POTS at all.

Audit your phone bill: The odds are pretty high that you are being saddled with phone services from AT&T that you don't use, don't need and didn't even know about. "Phone Protect", "Wire Pro" and "Call Screen" are largely useless services each of which will add $5 or more each month. These three useless services could add $165 a year to a customers' phone bill. Similarly, the non-published numbers used to be worth a few cents per month. But with the do-not-call lists and unpaid searches on the Internet, just let the company publish your listing rather than forking out an additional $1.53 per month. AT&T's "Message Center" costs $108 a year! For half that price, you can buy a decent phone answering machine. Bottom line: If you really need and use all of the extra phone services, think about one of the bundled plans. But think long and hard because so many of the extra services peddled by AT&T are underutilized and, certainly, overpriced.

No Broadband?: Ugh. That reduces your options quite a bit. Cell phones (prepaid, perhaps). If you use local phone service a lot, perhaps a bundled plan offered by a competing local phone company, such as TalkAmerica or ZTel. Go to ABTolls for the latest information.

But I Just Want POTS: None of the above alternatives serves the casual user who makes 10-20 short calls a week, a handful of long-distance calls, and doesn't need a bundled plan. For those users, AT&T's basic measured rate service ($5.70 per month) or flat rate service ($10.95) with NO additional features combined with a prepaid long-distance calling card (good deals at Costco and Sam's Club) are probably the best alternative that the casual phone user can get in this very uncompetitive, user-unfriendly deregulated telephone world.

Oh, and one other thing you can do. Next time you bump into one of your state elected representatives. Give them a piece of your mind....and your phone bill. And tell them to fix the problem, pronto. Or they might just get cut off too!

Michael Shames and Dr. Phil - together on January 31st

Charles Langley — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:10:54 -0800

UCAN In the Media

Editor's note: to see a slideshow, summarizing Michael's first effort at televised psychotherapy, click here.

UCAN's Executive Director, Michael Shames, was recently drafted to appear on the Dr. Phil show to help Dr. Phil explain to Mona Shaw why beating the heck out of Comcast's switching equipment and computers with a hammer is not an effective way to resolve a complaint with a large utility.

Mrs. Shaw is a 75-year-old grandmother whose patience was stretched to the breaking point after she switched her landline phone service to a bundled service with Comcast. Shaw achieved near hero status after she was arrested for personally venting her anger on Comcast's office equipment.

Mona is not alone - there is even a Website by the name of "ComcastMustDie," but if you live in San Diego, there is a solution: You can invoke the protection of the UCAN Fraud Squad.

UCAN started the Fraud Squad in 1998, with a special utility dispute hotline for San Diego residents. If you are a UCAN member, you don't need to resort to violence. Just file your complaint and let us do the dirty work. We are also trained to offer dispute resolution advice and complaint referrals for hundreds of the most common consumer gripes.

So the next time you feel like smashing up an SDG&E meter, destroying and AT&T phone line, or perhaps using miltary hardware on your cable company, remember, there is a better way: Join UCAN and let us do it for you.

AT&T and Verizon raise phone rates while claiming the need for less regulatory oversight due to increased competition

Dr. Dog von Consumerstein — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:53:28 -0800

It's funny how phone companies that lobby regulators for "pricing flexibility" only seem to move their prices in one direction: up. "Flexibility" implies the ability to flex in multiple directions, and while I recognize it's just another fancy lobby-speak term, it's time to call it what it really is: "price increasing flexibility." It's certainly flexible, because the respective company may decide to raise a particular rate 3% or 300%, but make no mistake, there will be no downward flexing.

As if it were a surprise, the phone giants are raising rates again, some by as much as 300%. This USA Today story points to a growing source of criticism. While the largest telecom companies continue to lobby for decreased regulatory oversight on the basis of increased competition, their phone service rates are rising. In California, phone companies have been largely deregulated since late 2006, but as this chart from TURN shows, major service providers such as AT&T and Verizon have increased rates over and over again. Basic economics tells you that in a competitive marketplace prices should fall...so what can you do? Ditch your landline phone. Internet phones can provide a wider variety of services at a fraction of the cost of traditional landline phones. Using your cell phone as your primary phone can also be cheaper than maintaining a landline phone.