Home » Newsletter Winter 2006

2006 Victories and Battles

Posted December 26th, 2006 by brandon

Newsletter Article

Victories in 2006 and Battles Ahead for 2007

BIG WIN #1: Shames vs. City Water Dept.

Ratepayers get $40 million refund!If you live in the city of San Diego, you know that your water bill is too high. UCAN’s Executive Director filed a lawsuit alleging that the City had imposed tens of millions of dollars in overcharges upon residential sewer customers. The case has sparked two investigations by the City Attorney and the federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The result: $40 Million in refunds to be given to sewer customers over the next four years. For more info, go to www.sewerrefund.com

BIG WIN #2: UCAN vs. Cingular

Early termination fees terminated! Back in 2002, Cingular Wireless engaged in some very questionable (and illegal) sales tactics locking customers into expensive wireless contracts and providing lousy service. UCAN prevailed at the PUC but Cingular appealed, and appealed, and appealed. UCAN fought all the way to the California Supreme Court … which ultimately sided with consumers and ordered Cingular to return upwards of $40 million to customers who had been charged Early Termination Fees. Refunds should be coming in 2007 – and will be monitored by UCAN.

Big Win #3: UCAN vs. AT&T

UCAN buries bogus underground fees! The City of San Diego is at it, once again, but this time with help from AT&T. The City wanted AT&T to underground its phone lines. AT&T agreed on the condition that it could pass a flat 99¢ monthly fee onto all of its customers in the City. UCAN protested the arrangement at the CPUC. A CPUC judge agreed and has issued a decision that changes the way in which AT&T recoups its costs and puts a cap on the $200 million+ price tag.

BIG WIN #4: UCAN vs. Sprint Wireless
Sprint gets slammed for sending spam! We were shocked to learn that Sprint Wireless had sent text message ads to its customers ... and then charged them for those advertisements! We filed a complaint against Sprint. The company said it was a mistake and apologized. More importantly, it said that it would never again charge customers for ads sent to cell phones. The CPUC agreed and made it an official order.

BIG WIN #5: UCAN vs.Cingular

Cingular levies “mischarges”… again! Oh, come on! That was our reaction when UCAN members told us that Cingular refused to fix mischarges to its bills. Cingular told them to take up unauthorized charges with third-party companies. We disagreed. It was Cingular’s problem to fix. UCAN filed a complaint and Cingular agreed to stop forcing customers to deal directly with questionable third-party companies. The CPUC agreed. Now it is the law.

BIG WIN #6: UCAN vs. Cingular (again!)

U.S. callers billed for dialing Mexico This time, Cingular was charging U.S.-based customers for international calls that were made from the U.S. near the Mexican border. Again! Surely you can’t be serious! Cingular was, so UCAN’s attorneys sued and “persuaded” Cingular to stop this practice and refund the overcharges to the victims.

BIG WIN #7: UCAN vs. MCI

Bogus fees, taxes challenged Well, the good news is that it wasn’t Cingular again. UCAN found that MCI is DOA when it comes to refunding money to local customers who were charged bogus long distance fees, taxes and surcharges on local phone bills. MCI even taxed its customers on the bogus taxes! UCAN filed a formal regulatory complaint against MCI in late 2006 and expects a resolution of the case in 2007.

BIG BATTLE #1: UCAN vs. SDG&E

Sunsetting the Sunrise Powerlink It costs more than a billion dollars, defaces a state park and turns the entire county into an energy slave to the same people who were responsible for the rolling blackouts of 2001. And to top the whole thing off, it is completely unnecessary. UCAN has identified less expensive alternatives that can be developed without ruining one of America's great desert preserves.
hanks to UCAN’s work in 2006, SDG&E was forced to re-submit its plan and, due to a November 2006 ruling, UCAN’s alternatives will be assessed before SDG&E’s application will be considered by the Commission. With more than a billion dollars at stake, SDG&E is expected to continue to push for the big-ticket boondoggle. But UCAN is gearing up for the 2007 hearings in which it will formally unmask the excesses of this ill-conceived building scheme.

BIG BATTLE #2: UCAN vs. SDG&E

$1,000,000,000 for “advanced meters” A billion dollars to install new meters in every San Diego home? Too much bucks for so little bang, says UCAN’s experts. UCAN sponsored a “Smart Grid” study conducted by the University of San Diego that suggests that San Diego can do better than SDG&E’s self-serving meter “initiative”. The CPUC staff agreed. Both opposed SDG&E’s application for a rate hike to pay for these new meters. A CPUC decision is expected in early 2007.

BIG BATTLE #3: UCAN vs. AT&T

UCAN exposes AT&T lawbreaking Imagine our surprise when we discovered that a state law requiring free access to 911 was being systematically violated by California’s largest phone company. And imagine AT&T’s surprise when UCAN lined up its experts to show how AT&T should pay up to $69.5 million for not providing this essential service to disconnected customers. Hearings were held in 2006 – a decision is expected in early 2007.

Filed Under
Communications: Wireless - Undergrounding - Landline -

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <p> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <!--break-->
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options



Like what you see? Go ahead and show your support! UCAN is a truly independent non-profit watchdog organization, dependent on grassroots donations like yours!

Utility Consumers' Action Network

(619) 696-6966 or file a complaint about a company online.

Terms & Conditions

UCAN.org is made available by the Utility Consumers' Action Network to assist you in becoming what you always knew you could be, a consumer ROCK STAR! We take no corporate money, and are beholden only to you, the consumer. As such, the site is here for educational, advocacy, and empowerment purposes, as well to to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. Just remember this site is NOT here to provide specific legal advice. By using this web site you of course understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Web Site publisher, UCAN. The Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

That said, get to digging on the site, inform yourself, speak your mind, and earn Watchdog Bones! This is YOUR site, and we mean it. So comment on any of the content, discuss the latest issues in the forums, file a complaint on a company with the fraud squad, and generally cut loose.

See our Terms of Use, Privacy, and Copyright complaint policies as well as our Content Reuse Policy, Some Rights Reserved.