All Telecommunications News, Blogs, and Podcasts

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

art — 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

Sprint surcharges while stock sinks - No monthly fee, San Diego Pioneer Plan adds charges

Sandy Young — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:15:48 -0700

I was over 100 days past due on my Sprint account! Well, that is what Laura told me on March 1. How can that be, I asked, shocked by her declaration. The reason I had called Sprint on this spring day was to ask why I hadn't received a bill in months.

Laura tells me that Sprint doesn't send invoices when no new charges have been added. WhatEVER happened to accountability, I demanded. And, if there are no new charges; what, in the wireless world, do I owe?

Laura quickly reversed the $1.55 but never sent me a copy of my bill so that I could see, for myself, what Sprint had charged me $1.55 for.

I'm a long-time Sprint client. The plan that started our relationship has been called many things by Sprint: The Pioneer Plan, The San Diego Plan, and now it seems that it is being called the Clear & Free 0 Plan.

My phone number has been changed twice by Sprint and now my account number has changed. Sprint tells me by letter dated February 5, 2008, that their

goal, with this new account number, is to provide me, a valued Sprint customer, "best-in-class products and services" which includes Sprint's new "easy-to-read" bill.

Okay, call me obstinate, or even obtuse: But, a bill never received is a bill IMPOSSIBLE to read.

Leslie, another Sprint customer service representative, told me that I should check with my local post office to find out why I haven't received my Sprint bill. We spoke on April 8. No bill again, and I'm told, by Leslie, that I now owe 96 cents.

I pushed Leslie to transfer me to Adam who then had me speak to Nicole. Nicole was a breath of fresh air. She sent me a copy, free of charge, of my latest "easy-to-read" bill showing me why I owe 96 cents. Sprint has tacked on surcharges. They are "rates we choose to collect from you to help defray costs imposed on us." That, I found on page 5 of my "easy-to-read" bill.

My plan, from 1997, has no monthly charges. That is why I jumped at it and have held on to it. I accepted the terms of the Pioneer Plan and I have kept my end of the contract, for all these years, along with thousands of other San Diegans. I wish I could say the same for Sprint.

Sprint's stock price had soared into triple digits just two years after the beginning of my contract with them. Now, interestingly enough, the stock is trading in the single digits near their 52-week low of $5.48. Should I find it odd that they are trying to alter the terms of the Pioneer Plan as their stock price continues to sink? Hmm.

If you've got a complaint, let us know here.

Watch the video: Sprint Customers Mischarged.

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

art — 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 — 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.

Skype Pro customers who paid $36 for one year of "unlimited" service charged additional $3 a month and limited to 3000 minutes

art — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:34:09 -0700

Skype Pro Customers who signed up for 12 months of unlimited service at $36 seem to be running into some hidden gotchas with Skype. Apparently, in January, Skype began charging customers who already paid $36 in advance an extra $3 per month in addition to the $36 charge without explanation. In addition, customers who purchased unlimited minutes now have a 3000 "fair use" limit to which they didn't agree. Lastly, there are reports that Skype Credit offered with purchases is not being offered as well. Share your story about problems with Skype below.

So here's a recap

1. Some customers who paid the $36 for 12 months in advance, appear to have errantly charged $3 / month despite having already paid $36 for the year.
2. A 3000 minute per month limit was implemented(perhaps in January) as to all customers despite customers purchasing an unlimited plan.
3. The skype credit that supposedly comes with SkypePro(now $12) appears to not have been honored.

If you have experienced similar issues or have a complaint about Skype you'd like to share, post it as a comment below.

Telemarketers for Cox Communications falsely claim digital cable service is required for the 2009 TV transition

mike-the-intern — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:11:19 -0800

If you have Cox Communications basic non-digital cable service, your television will continue to work after the analog-to- digital TV transition next February.

The switch from analog to digital cable is now less than a year away and UCAN has received some complaints that telemarketers have been trying to get Cox customers to upgrade from basic cable to digital cable as part of the transition. THIS IS NOT REQUIRED.

If you have basic cable connected to your TV, you will not need a converter box and you do not need to upgrade to digital cable. Digital cable and High-Definition are different services, and you do not need either service for your television to work after the transition.

For more information on the Digital Transition see UCAN Consumer Advocate Art Neill's blog: The day the TV died. Why your analog television won't work in two years. So, if you hear from any telemarketers, remember if you have basic cable you do not need to make any changes to continue to watch TV after the digital transition.

If you currently have an antenna, you may need a converter box, which are available at retail stores and you can receive a discount voucher for it from the Federal Government.

Customer greets cable repair guy with shot gun ...

Charles Langley — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:30:32 -0800

UCAN In the Media

Repairmen not shocked by report of gun threat

Waiting frustrates many customers

By Michael Stetz

UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

February 19, 2008 San Diego Union Tribune

No doubt, plenty of people have been there.

They have sat at home waiting for the cable guy, the telephone guy, the plumber, the gas and electric guy. They wait. And wait. And wait . . .

Gary Thomson, a 62-year-old Vista man, grew tired of waiting, according to authorities. The Dish Network technician coming to fix his TV set last month had gotten lost. He was late.

So Thomson greeted Edgar Ortiz not with an angry look but a shotgun, authorities said. He's accused of threatening to kill Ortiz if he didn't fix the TV.

Other repairmen, customers and consumer advocates interviewed last week were alarmed by the story, but not necessarily shocked.

“People are pressed for time, for money,” said Ed Homer, who manages Coastal Plumbing and who has been in the plumbing business for 40 years. Part of his job is to field calls, and he gets an earful if a customer has to wait. “They scream and holler.”

While service providers said they try to do their best, customers almost universally say they have had their patience tested at one time or another.

“They give you a four-hour window and they make it by five minutes,” said Maurie McKnight, who was at Ocean Beach's Dog Beach last week. “Of course it's frustrating. The frustration level is running sky-high. But you can't grab a shotgun.”

Thomson was arrested on suspicion of a number of crimes, including assault with a deadly weapon. He faces a maximum of seven years in prison if convicted.

He pleaded not guilty last week and is free on bail. His attorney, James Dicks, said his client didn't threaten the technician and was merely cleaning the shotgun in his garage when Ortiz arrived. It wasn't loaded. He didn't even have shells for it, Dicks said.

Oh, Thomson had been upset, Dicks said. Very upset. Someone was supposed to be at the house in the morning, but Ortiz didn't arrive until late afternoon. Thomson called a couple of times and yelled over the phone.

But when Ortiz showed up, Thomson was pleased, not distraught, his attorney said.

“He thought his TV was finally going to be fixed.”

If the Vista case was a matter of extreme customer dissatisfaction, it was not the first. In October, Mona Shaw, a 75-year-old Virginia woman, took a hammer to a Comcast office in Manassas, Va. The cable and Internet provider's serviceman didn't show up at her home when he was supposed to, and he did a sorry job when he did, Shaw said in interviews. Later still, the company blew her off when she tried to complain.

So she walked in with a hammer and smashed a keyboard, a monitor and a telephone. Her outburst landed her a three-month suspended sentence for disorderly conduct – and a bit of public praise.

A writer for The Washington Post called Shaw an “avenger of oppressed cable subscribers everywhere” and added this: “In the dark days of war, pestilence and Paris Hilton, a new hero has arisen.”

A number of factors cause the tension, said Michael Shames, executive director of San Diego-based Utility Consumers' Action Network.

A lack of competition among large service providers such as cable companies and utilities can lead to poorer service, he said. They don't have to fight as hard for business.

In addition, installations can be more complicated these days. High-definition and high-speed Internet connections are growing in demand, and it takes longer for the work to be done.

Service companies with 25 or more employees are required under state law to give consumers a four-hour window in which they will arrive. A consumer can file a lawsuit in small-claims court if the providers fail to show or don't call to warn they will miss the window. A customer can win $500.

Parker McConachie, a spokesman for Dish Network, said that Ortiz was running late but that the company always calls to let customers know if the four-hour window will be missed.

Technicians have been threatened, assaulted and even shot at, McConachie said, but such cases are rare.

“We're in customers' homes 365 days a year.”

Cox Communications reduced its time frame from the state-mandated four hours to two. It also offers customers a $20 service credit if a technician shows up late, said Ingo Hentschel, director of field operations and a former technician.

They make that window 97 percent of the time, Hentschel said, but employees are trained to defuse a potentially dangerous situation by offering something such as a free movie viewing.

Hentschel's not certain if the problem is increasing. People have always been stressed for time, he said.

Rick Schultheis, like many other consumers, can relate. He said he gets frustrated “all the time” by poor customer service. It has become a part of life. He said he wouldn't be surprised if someone got miffed enough to pull out a shotgun.

“I grew up in Detroit.”

Michael Stetz: (619) 293-1720; michael.stetz@%20uniontrib.com

How AT&T "Free Trial" of XM Radio, MobiTV, MySpace Mobile, etc... could cost you thousands and how to cancel or unsubscribe

mike-the-intern — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:21:04 -0800

UCAN News

These services could cost you thousands... please post your experiences with them below.

XM Radio, MobiTV, MobiRadio, MobiVJ, Pandora, MySpace Mobile, Fantasy Sports Edge, MLB Gameday with Audio, InStyle Magazine, Univision Movil, Hip Hop Official by GoTV, GoTV Alt Rock, Music ID, Mobilcast, Wayfinder Navigator 6.

All of these services and more are available through your AT&T (Cingular) phone. The problem is that these services use a lot of data and can cost a lot if you do not have an Unlimited Data Plan. But you can still sign up for these services using your phone with a Pay As You Go Data Plan and right now many of these services are claiming FREE TRIAL, with little mention from AT&T (Cingular) of the data charges you incur using these services, which can easily exceed THOUSANDS of dollars in a billing period. So use care with these service, occasionally check your Account Balance, and here is a tip, we could not find on AT&T's (Cingular's) website or when using these services:

HOW TO CANCEL: (Let us know if this does not work for you)

If Registered for Direct Bill
Log into your AT&T (Cingular) account.
Click on the purchase (e.g. AT&T (Cingular)

Java App (subscription): MobiTV)
Select Cancel Subscription

To Cancel by Phone
Contact AT&T Customer Care by calling 1-800-331-0500.

For Java powered AT&T Cell Phones:
1. Go to the main menu
2. Launch MEdia Net/Web
(this will take you to MEdia Net Home)
3. Scroll down and select My Account
4. Select Next
5. Select My Purchases
6. Select Purchase History
7. Select the purchase: or
Select Modify Subscription
8. Choose one:
Do not renew on mm/dd/yy or
Stop now and provide refund
9. Choose a Reason for unsubscribing

For Windows Mobile Phones:
1. Launch Internet Explorer
2. Select Favorites from the Menu
3. Select MEdia Net from the list of Favorites
4. Select My Account
5. Select My Purchases
6. Select Purchase History
7. Select the purchase
8. Select "Modify Subscription"
9. Choose one:
Do not renew on mm/dd/yy or
Stop now and provide refund
11. Choose a Reason for unsubscribing

You should see a Confirmation Page

For Palm Operating System Treo Phones:
1. Go the applications home of the Treo phone
2. Select the Web
3. Select the Blazer Tab
4. Select Bookmarks View
5. Select MEdia Net
6. Select My Account
7. Select My Purchases
8. Select Purchase History
9. Select the purchase
Select "Modify Subscription"
10. Choose one:
Do not renew on mm/dd/yy or
Stop now and provide refund
11. Choose a Reason for unsubscribing

You should see a Confirmation Page

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.

Unlike Britney Spears, Michael Shames WILL be appearing on the Dr. Phil show

Charles Langley — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:13:47 -0800

Britney Spears has declined to appear on the Dr. Phil show, but recently UCAN's Executive Director, Michael Shames, was drafted to help Dr. Phil explain to his viewers why consumers needn't resort to violence when dealing with large utilities.

The program airs on Thursday, January 31, and you can read the preview for "vigilante justice" here.

Dr. Phil's patient will be a 75-year-old granny named Mona Shaw. Shaw received national notoriety and an almost cult-following after she visited a Comcast office on August 13, and smashed up the company's equipment with a hammer.

Hopefully, Michael will have the opportunity to show Mrs. Shaw and other consumers how to properly complain to a large, uncaring utility with bad customer service. His organization, UCAN, specializes in resolving difficult utility complaints on behalf of its 33,000 members.

Hurry! SPRINT / NEXTEL customers continue to get Early Termination Fees waived.

vince — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:40:38 -0800

It's a great day when you can turn the tables on your cell phone carrier. Thousands of visits to my post on January 2, have resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in waived Early Termination Fees (ETFs). Don't be left out, you have less than a week to use the MATERIAL CHANGE clause in your contract to avoid the dreaded ETF. Your window to cancel expires January 31. When talking to Sprint or Nextel, remember to stick to fact that there was a MATERIAL CHANGE in the contract when Sprint added the Administrative Charge and the Regulatory Charge.

Most of all stay calm, but relentless, when you stick it to the man. Keep your comments coming.

Worth noting - You can download our Cell Phone Buyer's guide (only four pages) and we guarantee you'll never get ripped off on a mobile phone deal again!

Can the new web service, Validas, save you money on your cell phone bill?

Dr. Dog von Consumerstein — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:04:21 -0800

Yahoo! Tech recently reviewed a new web service called Validas that claims to help you reduce your monthly cell phone bill. I used it last weekend and tend to agree with the Yahoo article. I had a $200 bill and Validas didn’t come up with any savings for me. From my own experiment, I concluded that heavy users might be able to benefit from the service, but it's not clear that it benefits those with uncomplicated cell phone use. It was relatively easy to use, which is good (and I like the 5-upload package). But not all that easy for novices…..downloading the bills from the carriers could be off-putting to people not comfortable with computers. Finally, I’m nervous that the per-use charge may be a discouragement to many users. In the circles in which I travel, many are unaccustomed to paying ANYTHING for such services. So I expect many will be resistant to Validas' fees.

75-year-old granny brings hammer down on Comcast

Charles Langley — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:12:18 -0800

Mona Shaw did to her cable and phone company what many of us only fantasize about ... According to the Washington Post and ABC News, on August 13, Mona became so outraged with her cable company's customer service that she visited her local Comcast office and took out her frustrations by smashing the company's computer and phone equipment with a hammer.

Unfortunately, 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. Our staff attorney says we can probably help comcast victims in the rest of the state of California, too.

We 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. Our expert staff specializes in dealing with utilities, but we are also trained to offer dispute resolution advice and complaint referrals for hundreds of the most common consumer gripes.

That way you can leave your hammer at home and stay out of jail, too.

If only Mona Shaw had known about the Fraud Squad ...

Phone bill cramming: "phony" charges rampant

Charles Langley — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:06:28 -0800

UCAN In the Media

Cramming
your phone
bill

January 5, 2008 10:44 PM PST

By Bennett Hall
Mid-Valley Sunday,
Corvallis Gazzette-Times

Andy Cripe/Gazette-Times - Cramming victim Wayne Buck points out bogus charges on his phone bill Thursday morning at the Corvallis Gazette-Times.

When Wayne Buck opened his October phone bill, he found a little surprise tucked away in the fine print on Page 9: a $49.95 charge for an Internet marketing service he says he never ordered.

“I almost missed it. At the bottom of the bill it said there’s a charge on the back side that isn’t the phone company,” he said. “And I thought, those dirty rats — somebody stuck a charge on there without any authorization or anything.”

Buck believes he was the victim of cramming.

Cramming occurs when a company places unauthorized, misleading or deceptive charges on your phone bill, and it happens all the time — the Federal Communications Commission fields thousands of complaints about the practice every year. Oregon utility regulators tallied more than 400 such gripes in 2007.

The problem has been around for about a decade. It was spawned by a combination of factors, including the breakup of the AT&T telephone monopoly into regional Baby Bells, the deregulation of local and long-distance phone service and the proliferation of wireless carriers, Internet service providers and other technology-driven telecom businesses.

As consumers got used to seeing charges from a separate long-distance provider on their local phone bills, a new class of entrepreneur emerged: the billing aggregator.

For a fee, these middlemen handle the billing for ISPs, local phone service resellers, ringtone purveyors and a host of other companies by piggybacking their charges onto a consumer’s telephone bill. The phone company charges the aggregator a fee to bundle those charges with its monthly bills.

“Third-party billing is quite common,” said Bob Gravely of Qwest Communications, Buck’s phone company and Oregon’s largest telecom carrier. “Most of the time it’s not a problem at all. It’s a convenience for most people to get one bill instead of six.”

But those bills, as you’ve probably noticed, just keep getting longer and more complicated. With pages of line items detailing various taxes, service charges, option packages and access fees, they can be extremely confusing.

And that, say consumer advocates, has opened the doors for abuse.

Read between the lines

“The bills are very difficult to understand,” said Sue Macomber of the Utility Consumers Action Network, a San Diego-based advocacy group. “I have attorneys calling me that can’t understand the bills when they’re trying to help people.”

Many of the latest cramming scams target smart phones and other wireless devices with Internet connections, said John Breyault of Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.

Users are invited to download “free” games or ringtones, only to discover they’ve unwittingly signed up for a subscription that gets tacked onto their phone bill. At anywhere from $2 to $5 a month, such relatively small charges can go unnoticed for a long time amid the welter of fees.

“On the one hand, you can say you should’ve read the fine print,” Breyault said of this new class of online commerce.

“But these companies that are doing this don’t make it easy to read the fine print. I don’t want to say that their business plan is to deceive, but they do make money on these things.”

Buyer beware

Oregon utility regulators say the best defense against cramming is to read your monthly phone bill closely and call the originating company about any charges you don’t understand. Usually they’re legitimate, but not always.

“It’s a brave new world,” said Bob Valdez, a spokesman for the Oregon Public Utility Commission. The combination of phone deregulation and the information technology revolution has given consumers a seemingly endless array of choices, any of which can wind up on a phone bill.

“That’s the bill you (should) look more closely at than anything else you get, because they just cram things in there,” said Jan Margosian, consumer information coordinator for the state Department of Justice.

While cramming can be the result of an honest mistake, Margosian said, it can also be an intentional attempt to defraud by shady operators who hope consumers won’t notice an unauthorized charge, will decide it’s too small to worry about or won’t be able to figure out how to get it taken off their bill.

“It’s illegal, both federally and state, but they do it anyway,” Margosian said.

Cramming complaints are down at both agencies from a few years ago, when they regularly led the annual hit parade of most frequent consumer beefs. That may be in part because consumers are more savvy about checking their bills and demanding satisfaction from service providers, but Valdez also thinks some of the worst offenders have been weeded out.

“There were some bad players out there that took advantage of the competition,” Valdez said. “The majority of players are straight up.”

Sticking up for consumers

The PUC fields most consumer cramming complaints in Oregon and can usually resolve the situation. When it can’t, or if it detects a pattern of abuse, it refers the problem to the Department of Justice.

In the worst cases, DOJ will file suit to get a company to halt fraudulent or deceptive practices. Typically, those cases are resolved by an assurance of voluntary compliance, in which the company agrees to change objectionable business practices, make restitution to customers and do a better job of disclosing costs and other terms of service.

The company may also agree to pay a fine of up to $25,000 per violation. That money goes to fund enforcement activities by the department’s consumer protection division, which is chronically underfunded, said DOJ spokeswoman Stephanie Soden.

“We wish we could take every violator to court,” Soden said. “But we can’t, so we prioritize.”

In Oregon’s biggest cramming enforcement action to date, Qwest agreed in 2002 to pay $575,000 to settle claims that it put unauthorized charges on consumers’ bills and misrepresented wireless and DSL services.

“Qwest’s unethical practices railroaded new customers into paying increased fees for services they did not need,” Attorney General Hardy Myers said in a statement announcing the settlement. “Their practices were particularly predatory against the elderly and non-English-speaking ‘new connect’ customers.”

And yet this settlement, like all such assurances of voluntary compliance, carried no criminal penalties and contained no admission by the company that it violated any laws.

More work to be done

Some consumer advocates argue that those kinds of enforcement practices simply allow cramming to continue, with some companies viewing fines as just another cost of doing business.

“Cramming has been around for a decade now,” noted Breyault. “It’s a problem we continue to see.”

Raising the fines could help, he said, but big companies worry more about their public image than about legal costs.

“Attorney-generals’ offices do more good when they make a big deal out of it publicly,” he said.

Macomber agrees. She thinks mandatory reporting laws could help focus public attention on the problem.

“Every company should have to report every violation,” she said. “Constant exposure and constant pressure is the only way things change.”

Indeed, many telecommunications providers have started taking steps to police the practice themselves.

Qwest, for instance, requires aggregators to give notice of any new companies they want to bill for so the phone company can check them out, Gravely said. Companies that trigger complaints can be banned from billing through Qwest.

Customers who dispute third-party charges can have Qwest take them off their phone bills, no questions asked.

“At that point it becomes (a matter) between the customer and the provider,” Gravely said.

That’s the stage Wayne Buck’s in now.

ZWW, the California Internet company that put the $49.95 charge on his phone bill, agreed to cancel future service but insists he’ll have to pay the first month’s fee. Buck insists he never ordered the service, never used it and won’t pay. He’s filed a complaint with the state Department of Justice.

It’s not the money he’s worried about, Buck said. It’s the principle of the thing.

“I guess I’m not the only one (who’s been victimized by cramming),” he said. “But it’s time for them to stop.”

Bennett Hall can be reached at 758-9529 or bennett.hall [at] lee [dot] net.

Cancel your Sprint / Nextel contract without an Early Termination Fee

vince — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:23:38 -0800

UCAN News

UPDATE Avoid the 20 minute hold and the Customer Dis-service Rep. entirely. Call 888 567-5528 and talk directly to the Cancellation Dept. For anyone who was denied, don't give up. Call 888 567-5528.

For original NEXTEL subscribers, the direct number to ACCOUNT SERVICES
is 866-235-1185 and these ARE the people that you need to speak with. Check back for further updates.

For all you frustrated Sprint/Nextel customers, The new $0.75 Administrative Charge and the $0.20 Regulatory Charge can be your ticket to cancelling your contract without paying a $200.00 a phone Early Termination Fee. Make sure you state that you are cancelling because of these material changes.

For you lucky procrastinators, you actually have 30 days from when the
charge first appears on your bill. So if your BILLING date is Jan 23,
you have until Feb. 22 to assert your right to cancel. Keep the
comments coming.

Also check out our guide: How to Cancel Your Cell Phone Contract to learn more, and even get a sample script here!

UCAN sues Sprint Nextel for illegally billing customers taxes, fees, and text message charges on data broadband services plans

UCAN — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:03:34 -0800

UCAN News

UCAN has filed a federal class action complaint against Sprint Nextel (aka Sprint Solutions) for illegally billing customers taxes, fees, and text message charges on data services plans.

You can read the complaint in its entirety here, or check out some of the media coverage below.

BroadbandReports.com

RCRWirelessNews.com

NBCSanDiego.com

Smart cell phone shopping tips

Charles Langley — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:10:40 -0800

UCAN In the Media

It's not the phone you buy, it's the plan that comes with it that costs you, says UCAN's Staff Attorney, Art Neill. This brief video by Consumer Bob of NBC underscores this vital point, BUT how do you avoid getting a bad deal on a contract? One way is to get our FREE Mobile Phone Plan Checker.

See the video, then use Mobile Phone Plan Checker.

911 Coming to VoIP

ucansue — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:57:35 -0800

The access to 911 has been a debate for quite some time. Landline and cell phone carriers have been required to provide 911 access to all phones. This mandate includes cell phones that only need to be charged to alllow consumers to complete calls to 911. Even cell phones that are not hooked up to make any phone calls, must have the E-911 capability so police can easily determine locations of people in need. Consumers are respnosible for keeping the cell phone charged. Landline customers who have had their service disconnected, must also be able to call 911. Now, it is hoped that VoIP customers will be afforded the same benefit. Click on the link below to learn more.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/139661/congress_working_to_improve_voip_911_service.html

PODCAST: Part 3 - Proposed legislation regarding mandatory arbitration agreements

UCAN — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:32:35 -0700

PODCAST: This is Part 3 of a three part series of podcasts in which UCAN attorney Art Neill discusses arbitration with expert Linda Fritz, an adjunct professor at California Western School of Law for over 15 years who has arbitrated over 600 cases and mediated over 1000.

Look out for UCAN's guide to arbitration coming in the near future.

Ms. Fritz has a website at http://conflictresolution.com

This podcast was produced by the New Media Rights Studio, a project of UCAN.

PODCAST: Part 2 - Cell phone contracts, mandatory arbitration agreements, and how they affect consumers

UCAN — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:32:34 -0700

PODCAST: This is Part 2 of a three part series of podcasts in which UCAN attorney Art Neill discusses arbitration with expert Linda Fritz, an adjunct professor at California Western School of Law for over 15 years who has arbitrated over 600 cases and mediated over 1000.

Look out for UCAN's guide to arbitration coming in the near future.

Ms. Fritz has a website at http://conflictresolution.com

This podcast was produced by the New Media Rights Studio, a project of UCAN.

PODCAST: Part 1 - The basics of Alternative Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, mediation and how they affect consumers

UCAN — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 11:48:10 -0700

PODCAST: This is Part 1 of a three part series of podcasts in which UCAN attorney Art Neill discusses arbitration with expert Linda Fritz, an adjunct professor at California Western School of Law for over 15 years who has arbitrated over 600 cases and mediated over 1000.

Look out for UCAN's guide to arbitration coming in the near future.

Ms. Fritz has a website at http://conflictresolution.com

This podcast was produced by the New Media Rights Studio, a project of UCAN.

Cell Phone Dead Spot Solutions

ucansue — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:11:53 -0700

Cell phone dead spots are a major pain. Now PCWorld has listed three (3) new ways to solve your cell phone dead spots. http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138835/article.html?tk=nl_spxhow (10/25/07). This article will help consumers who are ready to get rid of their landlines and replace them with cell phone service. Up until now, consumers have been frustrated and fearful of relying solely on cell phone service even though it could be cheaper in the long-run.

Forcing renters to pay for a monopoly cable deal is wrong

Charles Langley — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:01:29 -0700

UCAN In the Media

FCC may end exclusive cable contracts
for apartment-complex owners

Ryan Kim, Staff Writer, San Francisco Chronicle

Editor's Note: On October 31, the FCC ruled to end the practice of allowing landlords to force apartment dwellers to buy from only one cable company. See AP Story.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Apartment dwellers could get more television programming choices - at
potentially lower prices - under a proposal to be considered Wednesday by the
Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC, which regulates radio, television, wire, satellite and cable
communications, is poised to end exclusive contracts between cable companies and
the owners of apartment complexes, a move that would pave the way for increased
competition in the changing landscape of television services.

As it is now, cable companies often approach large-property owners with
offers of multi-year contracts that can include discounts, bonus programming or
help in upgrading the property's wiring. In exchange, the property's residents
are forbidden from subscribing to a rival company's services.

Those who support the change say it would empower consumers, but the cable
industry maintains that the FCC is overstepping its authority, and that the
proposal is unfair to cable companies that have worked hard to establish
exclusive deals. Industry officials - who contemplate legal action should the
commission approve the proposal - said the existing contracts also provide
significant benefits to residents of large complexes.

"There is already often intense competition to serve (multi-unit dwellings),
and consumers are the beneficiaries," said Sena Fitzmaurice, a spokeswoman for
Comcast. "Building owners can negotiate for benefits like dedicated service
representatives, special channels and substantial price discounts."

The issue hasn't been as pronounced in areas like San Francisco where one
cable television provider, Comcast, is the only option for most residents. Janan
New, director of the San Francisco Apartment Association, which represents
property owners, said exclusive contracts have not been that prevalent locally
in part because there are few alternatives to Comcast.

But the video landscape is changing, with AT&T and Verizon rolling out
their own television programming services. In doing so, the telecom companies
have found a significant number of exclusive contracts in place that have
prevented them from serving large complexes.

Verizon recently found that 42 percent of complexes it surveyed in Tampa,
Fla., are locked into exclusive contracts. AT&T also found that 22,000 units
in selected areas of Florida were tied into long-term contracts. The telecoms
believe the cable companies are stepping up pressure on property owners to sign
exclusive deals in anticipation of their push into various markets.

"If the FCC moves to end exclusive deals, we believe this will be a positive
step by encouraging more choice and competition in the video services
marketplace," said AT&T spokesman Gordon Diamond. "We believe these
exclusive arrangements have been a barrier to competition, and that's why we
have supported a change in the rules."

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin also supports changing the rule, saying in a
statement that the move could help check the rise of cable prices, which
increased 93 percent from 1995 to 2005 and have appeared immune to competition
from satellite video providers.

With this proposal, "the commission seeks to further cable competition and
help ensure that lower cable prices are available to as many Americans as
possible as quickly as possible," wrote Martin.

For some property owners, however, the end of exclusive contracts means their
ability to bargain for better deals will be stripped away.

"You're just going to hand the power of the marketplace to the cable
provider, and prices won't go down; the residents will not see lower prices,"
said Jim Arbury, senior vice president with the National Multi-Housing
Council.

The California Apartment Association is more resigned to the changes.
Spokeswoman Debra Carlton said California property owners went through a similar
situation in 1998, when the California Public Utilities Commission passed rules
prohibiting exclusive contracts for telephone service. She said the biggest
issue is ensuring that added competition doesn't result in faulty wiring and
installation problems for property owners and tenants.

"The issue that remains for us is the wiring and the access to the interiors
of the property," Carlton said.

Michael Shames, director of Utility Consumers' Action Network, said the rule
change is overdue. Still, he questioned how significant it would be for
subscribers. He said the cable companies can still make it hard for new
competitors to wire big complexes and may withhold some programming content from
them.

The rule change is "only a half-way measure that constitutes the FCC's
acknowledgement of its failed pro-competition policies of the past six years,
more than anything else," Shames said.

Online resources

Get tips on choosing a video provider from HearUsNow.org, a service of the
Consumers Union:

links.sfgate.com/ZBJL.