AT&T will begin sending out anti-piracy warning notices to subscribers caught downloading copyrighted content from torrent sites starting Nov. 28.

The new anti-piracy measures are part of a joint agreement between the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and five major national ISPs to help curtail content theft.

TorrentFreak obtained internal AT&T training documents that outline how AT&T will deal with customers suspected of illicit downloading. After a series of warnings, AT&T intends to block access to websites suspected of copyright infringement until a customer successfully completes a course on online copyright law. Eventually, those caught repeatedly downloading pirated movies and music could face legal action after AT&T turns over the identities of suspect customers. Gone from early draft proposals are suggestions that ISPs will throttle or suspend service altogether for repeat violators.

Late reports indicate that other ISPs participating in the copyright enforcement action — Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon — will also launch their own programs on the same date.

Most at risk are customers who frequent peer-to-peer file sharing sites. Tracking BitTorrent traffic is a priority for the newly-launched Center for Copyright Information (CCI) — a joint venture run by the ISPs in coordination with the MPAA and RIAA.

While not all peer-to-peer file traffic consists of illicit swapping of copyrighted works, some high profile torrent sites are among the first choices for consumers looking for free movies or music. CCI believes its Copyright Alert System (CAS) is primarily an educational tool for consumers who may not realize they are stealing copyrighted content. With its “six warnings” policy, CCI wants consumers to take action to protect themselves, their Internet accounts, and home networks well before any legal action is taken.

The latest implementation of the Copyright Alert System has watered down some of its earlier provisions, which could have put a customer’s Internet account at risk of being speed throttled or canceled. For now, consumers will receive six warnings about any suspected copyright infringement:

• The first three strikes carry no consequences and are intended to serve as informational warnings that the downloading of copyrighted content may be taking place;
• The fourth and fifth strikes will trigger forced browser redirects to a copyright education page and an online course on copyright law that must be successfully completed before the customer can once again visit suspect websites;
• Strike six means AT&T (and presumably other ISPs) will turn over the IP addresses of repeat offenders and comply with any subsequent court orders requesting the identity of the customer for possible legal action. AT&T does not say it will terminate the customer’s account, but does remind customers to be mindful of its Acceptable Use Policy, which does allow them to terminate service for illegal acts.

Edward Stroz

Consumers caught allegedly downloading copyrighted content can protest their innocence, but a $35 refundable filing fee is required to begin the arbitration process. If a consumer proves the files downloaded were not illegally obtained or that their account was flagged in error, they can have the warning canceled and get their filing fee refunded. But there are no penalties for CCI, its copyright tracking arm run by MarkMonitor, or the ISP if the copyright tracking system gets it wrong.

Critics of the copyright enforcement scheme claim it delivers too many benefits for CCI and its industry backers and insufficient protection for consumers misidentified during copyright infringement dragnets.

For-profit copyright tracking companies have made false allegations in the past, forcing CCI to hire an “independent and impartial technical expert” to verify the accuracy and security of the tracking technology used. CCI hired the firm of Stroz Friedberg as their expert.

Critics charge Stroz Friedberg is actually a recording industry lobbying firm, who worked with the RIAA for five years, earning $637,000.

Eric Friedberg

“It’s a disappointing choice, particularly in light of CCI’s professed desire to build public confidence in CAS and the fairness of its processes,” University of Idaho Law Professor Annemarie Bridy told TorrentFreak. “It would have been refreshing to see an academic computer scientist or some other truly independent party appointed to fill that important role.”

Bridy calls CCI’s Copyright Alert System lacking in transparency and stacked in favor of copyright holders, not consumers.

Stroz Friedberg’s appointment has also raised eyebrows among others that suggest their past lobbying violates the spirit of a Memorandum of Understanding signed by all parties requiring “independent and impartial” oversight.

“CCI’s choice of a former RIAA lobbying firm makes it clear that the copyright owner parties to the Memorandum of Understanding were more interested in appointing someone they trust than in appointing someone the public can trust,” Bridy adds.

Network World columnist Steven Vaughan-Nichols worries this is just the beginning of another copyright enforcement overreach:

The name of their game is to monitor your network traffic, with the help of your friendly ISP. Their justification for this is the usual made-up “facts” that content theft leads to “more than 373,000 jobs, $16 billion in lost wages, and $2.6 billion in lost taxes.” Yeah, I’m also sure someone downloading copyrighted porn leads to cats and dogs living together.

One reason I can’t buy into all this is that, as TorrentFreak points out, the Center’s expert who vouches that this all works is none other than Stroz Friedberg, a former RIAA lobbyist. Oh yeah, he doesn’t have bias for paranoid copyright protection companies.

What this means for you is that if your ISP is AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, or Verizon, they’ll be watching your use of BitTorrent and letting CCI decide if you deserve some warnings, an end to your Internet service, or a full-out lawsuit.

[…] The RIAA, the MPAA, and other copyright “protectors” have never done anything for content creators. They’re all about protecting the businesses stuck with old, broken, pre-digital business models. Even that wouldn’t be so bad, except historically they’ve always vastly over-reacted.

We all know the stories of some poor slob who’s been slammed with tens of thousands of damages for downloading a song. What you may not know is that all the powers that be have to do is to claim something is copyrighted, whether it is or not, and multiple websites can be closed in minutes or your entire digital library can be destroyed.

Does that sound like paranoid fantasy? I wish.

[…] Oh yeah, I feel really sure that the CCI and friends are going to do a good job. Welcome to the new copyright world, same as the old, where you’re always considered guilty rather than that quaint idea of being considered innocent before proven otherwise.

CCI admits sophisticated pirates will probably never get caught by its Copyright Alert System, because most of them are moving to secured Virtual Private Network (VPN) technology that effectively masks their identities. TorrentFreak notes sales for VPN’s are skyrocketing, many headquartered far away from the reach of the United States in exotic, subpoena-proof locations like Cyprus, the Seychelles, Romania, and Ukraine.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/RT Thom Hartmann Copyright Alert System 3-20-12.flv[/flv]

RT’s Thom Hartmann presided over a debate about online copyright theft control measures proposed earlier this year by the entertainment industry and Internet Service Providers. Appearing with Hartmann are David Seltzer, Attorney & Mark Bledsoe. (March 20, 2012) (12 minutes)

McSlarrow

The former head of a cable industry lobbying group could become the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission if Mitt Romney is elected president.

Multichannel News reports a source close to the Romney transition team tells the trade publication the former head of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association — Kyle McSlarrow — could be a possible candidate for the FCC chairmanship if Gov. Romney wants to look beyond current Republican commissioners Robert McDowell and Ajit Pai.

McSlarrow is an informal adviser for the Romney campaign on energy and telecommunications issues. Currently, McSlarrow serves as president of Comcast’s Washington, D.C. office, which lobbies lawmakers on behalf of America’s largest cable operator.

McSlarrow is a longtime Republican and served as a former deputy secretary at the Department of Energy and was the national chairman for the Quayle 2000 campaign.

A source close to McSlarrow said the rumors about the FCC chairmanship were “untrue.”

Despite a pledge to run this year’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., without a penny of corporate money, a new filing with the Federal Election Commission reveals Democrats raised millions from AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and several big banks and energy companies.

Convention officials originally promised the convention would be self-sustained without corporate money, but that promise was long gone with last week’s quiet report to the FEC. Millions arrived courtesy of a convention civic committee that openly welcomed corporate cash.

The Los Angeles Times reports New American City, which paid for hospitality and administrative costs, raised $19 million — nearly all from corporations.

Digging deeper into the FEC filings, Stop the Cap! reveals where some of the Democrat’s money came from and where some of it went:

• AT&T spent $175,475 on “delegate bags” decked out with AT&T’s logo and $123,087 on “catering for suites.” That was in addition to a straight $1 million cash contribution;
• Time Warner Cable handed over $600,000 . The cable company was also the premier sponsor of the host committee’s media welcome party;
• CenturyLink handed over $10,500 to the DNC via New American City;
• Google Foundation contributed $100,000;
• National Cable Satellite Corporation (parent company of cable-industry financed C-SPAN): $2,500
• Turner Broadcasting System (now owned by Time Warner (Entertainment)): $25,000
• Verizon Wireless handed over $50,000

While accepting the contributions violates the Democrats’ commitment not to accept corporate money, election observers concerned with the pervasive influence of corporate cash are not giving Republicans a free pass. With no restrictions on fundraising, the GOP raised nearly $56 million from AT&T and other telecommunications entities, big oil and gas companies, hedge fund managers, big banks, and wealthy individuals.

A very frustrated employee of Frontier Communications working in one of their Ohio offices sent Stop the Cap! a detailed report on some of Frontier’s problems with customer service, unfair fees, and other horror stories. In this second part, a look at Frontier’s fees, service commitments, and the caliber of customer service. (Stop the Cap’s comments appear in italics.)

Installation fees can be a significant component of a customer’s first bill — a rude surprise for anyone choosing a promotional offer and experiencing bill shock when that first bill arrives. That triggers complaint calls to customer service, where a Frontier representative will ultimately decide whether you will get the free installation you were promised.

How much will your first bill be? The broken promises of “free installation.”

If you order today, your installation will be free… or not.

Let me share a little secret. I believe most representatives will always quote free installation to get the sale. Most believe the payoff for the company in the long run is better than the temporary hit we take on installation expenses. It also makes our commission checks a little fatter the following month. Unfortunately, in the rush to make the sale, I believe the majority of reps fail to note what they promised on the customer’s new account, which means they get charged some expensive install fees. Many quickly call in,  accusing us of reneging on our offer.

We handle these as if we were playing some version of Russian Roulette, straight out of Deer Hunter. One out of every six customers will not get their installation fees waived simply because we refuse. Sometimes it becomes a game of using your gut and flipping a coin. Other times it is the amount of the refund.

It is much easier on us if the fees we reverse are under $100, because we have the authority to issue an immediate credit. If the fees are over $100, things get complicated because the request must be approved by a regional office manager who relies entirely on the notes left by the customer service representative. If the request is denied, it is our job to call you back with the bad news. But the good news is the odds are still in your favor if you persist asking for the fees to be reversed.

I hate to say it, but it all comes down to the mood of the rep you get on the line and how much he or she is willing to fill out those forms for you. It sucks, but there is no full-proof system to prevent this and it frustrates me to no end.

Stayed home all day waiting for a Frontier technician who never showed up? They marked your problem solved anyway. 

Waiting for the service technician that claims he rang your doorbell and nobody answered.

This is truly the one that bugs me the most. I deal with at least 15 calls a day (this number has increased since July) where either the technician does not call a customer to notify them they can’t make it, or simply does not show at all and writes off the service order as “completed.”

The latter irritates customers and our call center to no end. Customers are infuriated when we tell them the technician knocked on your door, nobody answered, so they left you a note. Of course, the customer insists nobody ever actually showed up and they don’t have any note. We tend to believe the customers when they tell us they do not have working service, if only because they are calling us on their cell phones.

Customer service representatives can be audited and disciplined by Frontier for not clearly including a phone number where the customer can be reached, all for the benefit of Frontier technicians. Despite this, we find our techs rarely contact the customer to keep them informed about the progress of their service call.

Our worst problems are currently in Michigan and Indiana where the majority of our missed commitments stem from. No call, no show — a technician can do this to a customer and still have his job the next day. I would get a pink-slip marked “customer mistreat” and shown the door if I pulled this trick. But many technicians just don’t care and do not have to take the angry calls from customers wondering where the hell the technician is. We see it in tech notes left on the account that say things like ‘didn’t make it to the job on time – leaving to go home.’  They never bothered to ask the customer to reschedule or call them to let them know they won’t be coming.

I understand that their job is just as stressful as ours, but they need to pull their weight as well and stop marking incomplete orders as “finished” or avoiding the customer on a missed commitment. It infuriates customers and makes the company look bad.

The Race to the Bottom: Lower wages = inferior customer service

Over the past few years, Frontier has been consolidating its call centers — moving to locations where average wages and benefits are notoriously low and politicians push a “pro-business” agenda that hands out favors in the form of tax credits and incentives to companies willing to relocate.  For Frontier, this spells doom for employees that were paid enough to earn a living in places like Coeur d’Alene, Idaho ($15-21/hr) in favor of cheap labor staffing new call centers in states like South Carolina ($11-12/hr with a five year wage freeze). That is bitter news for former Frontier employees in Idaho who saved the company an estimated $84 million successfully converting an inherited Verizon computer system to the one Frontier uses in other states. Employees were thanked with termination notices and a cheap, plastic travel mug with the company’s logo. Paying a good wage or cutting paychecks to the least amount possible may make all the difference between a good customer service experience or an embarrassment for the company.

I am going to name a call center that every other Frontier call center loathes: DeLand, Florida.

This is one of our main sources of broken promises, bad orders and misinformation. In DeLand, you are considered a lifer if you’ve worked there for more than two years. They pay near-minimum wage to fresh-out-of-high-school students to sit on the phones, most of them quitting before their six month probationary period ends. Working for Frontier customer service is a summer job to the kids down there. They could care less if they write an order for someone in an area we don’t even service, provide customers inaccurate pricing, or just cold-transfer the customer back into the call queue if they are too ignorant to help the customer out.

Thankfully, not everyone in DeLand is doing a bad job. Some of our DeLand supervisors and representatives are earnest about delivering good customer service. But too often that is the exception, not the rule. DeLand is notorious for “cherrypicking” customers. That is a term Frontier call center workers know all too well. It means picking incoming calls that are most likely to generate commission-rich sales for the employee while throwing other callers back on hold for someone else to deal with.

The drive to make the sale is so intense, representatives sometimes start writing the order before they even verify the customer is actually in a Frontier service area. We use a simple verification system called CERT to check whether a potential customer is served by us or another phone company. But the orders for customers actually served by AT&T, Windstream, Verizon or CenturyLink still show up, and the customer has to be told later. We have heard about 60 percent of the orders placed in DeLand do not actually go through, either because of this problem or customers calling back changing their mind after they discover they were mislead about something.

Management does not seem to mind the aggressive sales tactics, because it brings the opportunity for new revenue, but customers left waiting or given bad information might.

Tomorrow: Frontier’s broadband service speeds, fees and some new facts about Frontier FiOS you shouldn’t miss.

AT&T says this deal was no problem, but ponders whether Sprint-Clearwire is.

AT&T, the company that tried and failed to buy Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile USA, is sounding the alarm, urging regulators to carefully review any deal between Sprint, Softbank, and Clearwire.

“Softbank’s acquisition of Sprint and the control it gains over Clearwire will give one of Japan’s largest wireless companies control of significantly more U.S. wireless spectrum than any other company,” Brad Burns, an AT&T vice president said in a statement released late Wednesday. “We expect that fact and others will be fully explored in the regulatory review process. This is one more example of a very dynamic and competitive U.S. wireless marketplace, which is an important fact for U.S. regulators to recognize.”

AT&T claims its primary concern is the growing foreign control of America’s wireless carriers. That did not seem to bother AT&T from doing business with Germany-based Deutsche Telekom. Verizon Wireless has not been the recipient of any AT&T complaints either, and it is jointly owned by Verizon Communications and London-based Vodafone Group Plc.

Sprint bankrolled an opposition campaign against AT&T’s 2011 attempt to buy T-Mobile in a $39 billion dollar deal that failed after regulators objected to its impact on marketplace competition.

AT&T’s concerns about spectrum control may be an attempt to lobby the FCC for more leniency in approving future spectrum acquisitions. But industry analysts note that while a combined Sprint-Clearwire network may control more spectrum than others, much of it occupies less-favorable, very high frequencies that have trouble delivering robust service indoors. AT&T maintains a considerable amount of prime spectrum most sought by carriers, some of it yet to be used.