AT&T supervisors ordered operators to aid Nigerian fraudsters making free calls that cost millions in credit card fraud and the life savings of some victims, while AT&T collected more than $16 million in reimbursements paid by telephone ratepayers across the country.

Last week, AT&T admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to pay a $3.5 million settlement to the operator the company fired after complaining about widespread fraudulent use of a service intended to help the hearing and speech impaired.

The story is now the subject of a movie script, reports The New Castle News. It begins in 2003, when AT&T was required by the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide operators willing to relay conversations from hearing or speech impaired individuals typing on a computer or device and the people they called.

AT&T employed at least 150 operators at a western Pennsylvania call center in a former shopping mall just to assist with international relay calls. One of them was Constance Lyttle.

AT&T’s international relay service offered those overseas the opportunity to make a free, untraceable relay phone call to any number in the United States. AT&T billed the FCC-administered fund $1.30 a minute for calls placed through the relay operator.

The service quickly became popular… with Nigerian scammers who used it to make free calls to American businesses. In fact, according to a lawsuit filed in 2010, around 95 percent of all calls placed through AT&T’s international relay service came from con artists peddling various scams and ordering merchandise with stolen credit cards from unsuspecting businesses.

The Nigerians used hard-to-track public Internet terminals to initiate calls through AT&T’s relay center. An AT&T operator would read the words typed by the con artist over the phone to the person called and type back any responses.

Lyttle testified the usual target for the scam was a unknowing small business willing to accept credit card orders from Nigeria or an individual willing to advance their life savings in return for promised larger payout unlocked by their deposit. It was all made possible with the help of AT&T, which earned several dollars for every successfully completed call.

Lyttle said the operators in the call center immediately understood what was going on and complained repeatedly about the abuse of the system. In response, AT&T “made workers sign agreements that they would put through the scam and fraudulent calls, and they actually used those words,” said Lyttle’s attorney, who also happens to be her sister. “The workers at the call center were afraid they would lose their jobs. AT&T paid very well and good-paying jobs are hard to come by in western Pennsylvania.”

Nigerians exploited the AT&T Relay service call center located at this former mall in New Castle, Penn.

The lawsuit against AT&T alleged the phone company had full knowledge of what was going on but didn’t want to lose a lucrative contract that resulted in at least $16 million in reimbursements.

“They were getting $1.30 per minute for these calls,” said Lyttle’s attorney. “Think about the volume of calls that were being made.”

Lyttle’s attorney said Constance would sabotage some calls to stop the fraud, falsely claiming the party at the other end had hung up. Her 2010 lawsuit alleged her effort to protect the public from Nigerian scam artists was the reason she was fired in 2010 after 13 years with AT&T.

Her lawsuit soon attracted the interest of the U.S. Department of Justice. In March 2012, the federal agency joined the case. Lyttle was designated a “whistleblower” and her involvement in the federal lawsuit was initially kept secret. Earlier this year AT&T agreed to reimburse the Federal Communications Commission more than $18 million for abandoning their responsibility to block the overseas scammers not qualified to use the relay service. AT&T also admitted a percentage of callers did use the service for illicit purposes.

Lyttle herself received a settlement proposal of $3.5 million in her whistleblower case. AT&T also offered her old job back but she turned them down, saying she preferred her current part-time job over returning to AT&T.

It’s just as well. The New Castle, Penn. call center at the epicenter of more than $20 million in reimbursements and settlements was ordered closed by an unnamed AT&T executive in November.

“I was told 125 employees would lose their jobs in the next 12 to 15 months,” said New Castle Mayor Anthony Mastrangelo. “I don’t know if the local people will lose their jobs or have the option to be transferred.”

AT&T shareholders concerned the company is risking its reputation and future profits by excessively cooperating with the National Security Agency have been told to mind their own business by company executives.

AT&T roundly rejected a resolution demanding greater transparency offered by New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who administers the $160.7 billion NYS Common Retirement Fund, which has investments in AT&T.

AT&T recommended the resolution be excluded from the ballot for AT&T’s annual shareholder meeting this spring, noting shareholders have no business getting involved in the “ordinary business operations” of AT&T, which are under the purview of company executives.

In his shareholder resolution, DiNapoli said there was a real issue of customer trust at stake for AT&T. Customers upset with AT&T could switch providers, hurting revenue.

But with Verizon also providing access to customer records, wireless customers may have few alternatives. AT&T also passes along information about non-customers whose calls happen to cross into AT&T’s extensive network.

In November, the New York Times found AT&T is well-compensated for monitoring and disgorging customer records to federal officials, earning at least $10 million annually. AT&T also has important business before the Obama Administration regarding the future of the landline telephone network, its multi-billion dollar wireless service, and its campaign for greater deregulation.

The news does not inspire confidence in Stop the Cap! reader Earl, who shared the story with us.

“With AT&T it’s always about the bottom line, even at the price of privacy.”

HissyFitWatch

A senior executive at Frontier Communications stormed out of a public meeting in Charleston Wednesday after being questioned about Frontier’s DSL broadband speeds that critics claim are below state standards.

Dana Waldo, senior vice president and general manager of Frontier’s West Virginia operations, got up and left the meeting after Citynet CEO Jim Martin began questioning Waldo about Frontier meeting the minimum broadband speed requirements mandated by the state legislature. It was not the first time the two have sparred.

Martin has been a frequent critic of the way the state has spent broadband stimulus funding. Much of it, Martin alleges, paid for the construction of a Frontier-owned and controlled statewide fiber network that will benefit the company more than the state and its residents.

Frontier and the State of West Virginia received more than $126 million of taxpayer money to subsidize the fiber network and the expansion of broadband service into rural areas of the state. Frontier agreed to offer a minimum of 4/1Mbps service to each home connected through the subsidy program.

Martin alleges Frontier has failed to offer consistent access to at least 1Mbps upstream speed, a charge Waldo vehemently denied.

“That is not correct, Jim,” Waldo said. “I wasn’t going to bring this up, but I am absolutely beside myself. I feel so sorry for you, that you are so desperate to make you and Citynet relevant and, apparently, keep it afloat. You make all these characterizations about us and everybody else.”

Waldo also accused Martin of making “misleading and defaming” comments about “my company and myself.”

Waldo

“My God,” Waldo added, “every allegation you make and everything you said, [federal officials] dispute, and you still bring up these allegations. I’m tired talking to you about this stuff. I’m tired of the misrepresentations you make. Jim, it’s over. I’m done talking to you. I’m done wasting my time responding to your mischaracterizations. I’m not going to sit here and waste my time and hear more of his nonsense. I’ll excuse myself.”

Martin said nothing in response as Waldo picked up his papers and left the Broadband Deployment Council meeting room.

Martin later told The Charleston Gazette he was just asking a question and repeated his assertion Frontier’s rural DSL service does not offer rural West Virginians at least 1Mbps upload speeds across the state. Martin added Waldo’s defense relied on news articles and documents now three years out of date.

“Both an independent consultant hired by the Governor’s Office, and the legislative auditor have confirmed what I said was true,” Martin said.

Stop the Cap! reader Steve L. has heard enough of AT&T’s promises that deregulation would bring more competition and better deals to Californians.

The Carlsbad resident is staring at the fruits of AT&T’s labor — winning deregulation of phone rates in 2006: a  basic phone bill that has increased from $5.70 a month before deregulation to $21.25 effective Jan. 2, 2014. That represents a 272 percent increase for basic measured (pay-per-minute) local telephone service. As if that was not enough, AT&T is also raising the per-minute rate for semi-local calls for the second time in two years. Earlier this year, AT&T slashed customers’ calling allowances by 25 percent, reducing the 225 minutes a month of toll-free calling down to 168 minutes in January.

Customers living in large, spread out cities in California are accustomed to Zone Usage Measurement (ZUM) charges for calls placed to numbers more than 12 miles from the local telephone exchange. But they may get bill shock after noticing how much the per-minute rates have increased:

• ZUM 1/2 (12-15 miles): Calls have doubled in price over the last 36 months. Prior to 2013, calls cost three cents per minute. AT&T raised prices to four cents in January and will raise them again to six cents per minute on Jan. 1;
• ZUM 3 (15-16 miles): Calling prices have increased from five cents a minute in 2012 to six cents a minute in 2013 and will be seven cents per minute in 2014.

“After surcharges, fees, and taxes, my bill will be nearly $30 per month for measured rate service, representing a near doubling of cost in just a 22-month period,” Steve writes. “I have no other choice than AT&T for a true powered landline, but I am rejecting this latest increase and plan to test and move to a VoIP system.”

The constant parade of rate increases from the state’s largest local telephone company began shortly after the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) unanimously approved sweeping deregulation of telephone rates in August 2006. Then Republican Commissioner Rachelle Chong was the driving force behind the effort, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.

Chong embraced AT&T’s attitude about telecommunications deregulation, promising consumers would not face abusive rate hikes or bad service. Under the old system, AT&T telephone rates were capped in California. AT&T had to approach the CPUC and justify any proposed increases. Without solid evidence, the company’s rate increase requests were rejected. Under deregulation, AT&T was permitted to set rates at-will.

“By the end of the 2010, these rate caps will no longer be necessary,” Chong promised as the new rules were being phased in. “The market will be so competitive it will discipline prices.”

Not quite.

AT&T’s rates have shot up as much as 222 percent for the average Californian’s measured rate phone service. Some customers, including our reader, found rates nearly three times higher than they were before deregulation. In the last few years, AT&T has increased prices on landline service and calling features even more dramatically across the state:

• AT&T Flat-Rate landline service jumped 115 percent since 2006, from $10.69 to $23 a month;
• Call Waiting, a popular phone feature, is up nearly 180 percent;
• Anonymous Call Rejection fees have almost quadrupled;
• Lifeline Service for California’s most disadvantaged is up 28 percent.

“My belief is that AT&T is essentially harvesting,” Dane Jasper, chief executive of Sonic.net, a competing broadband Internet service in Santa Rosa that tosses in domestic phone service for free, told the newspaper. “They jack up the rate by a pretty egregious amount … because if people leave, well, where are they going? AT&T mobile phone service in at least half the cases. So they’re happy to have them leave or happy to have them stay.”

AT&T defends the increases by suggesting rates were artificially restrained by rate regulators under the old system, and the new higher prices reflect economic reality and the deregulated marketplace. But AT&T’s rate increases have blown past other service providers in the state. Verizon’s flat rate service only increased 18 percent since deregulation. Independent providers SureWest and Frontier Communications have only raised prices by about six percent.

With these kinds of rate increases, customers like Steve are making hard choices about whether to keep or ditch their landline service. Ironically, AT&T’s argument to decommission traditional landline service is based on the premise customers are abandoning landline service. AT&T advocates moving customers to its deregulated U-verse platform in urban areas and switch rural customers to wireless-only service.

Chong paid a personal price for her erroneous predictions of consumer savings. In December 2009, the Democratically controlled State Senate refused to hold hearings on Chong’s reappointment to the CPUC, ending her term. AT&T and Verizon strongly backed Chong and lobbied hard for her confirmation. AT&T even turned out its notorious “dollar-a-holler” sock puppet brigade of non-profit groups that showered the legislature with letters supporting her reappointment, without bothering to disclose AT&T had made substantial direct or indirect contributions to the groups in the past.

Murray Bass, head of a small nonprofit in Northern California, initially wrote lawmakers saying Chong was a strong voice for low-income seniors. But in an interview, he admitted he’d endorsed her at the suggestion of executives at AT&T, which had given his group money.

“There’s an essential conflict of interest when a regulated — or supposedly regulated — entity is intervening on behalf of a regulator that’s friendly to them,” said Mark Toney, executive director of the Utility Reform Network, a group that opposed Chong.

SUPPORTERS OF COMMISSIONER CHONG WITH TIES TO AT&T

 Notes

• 1.  CUDC – The California Utilities Diversity Council is a collaboration between the CPUC , the utility companies and other industry participants  to promote diversity in the utility industry.  AT&T is a gold sponsor of CUDC’s annual convention.
•  2.  CETF – CETF is a private non-profit corporation created by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and funded entirely by AT&T and Verizon.  Commissioner Chong is Chair of the CETF Board of Expert Advisors and its Accessibility Committee.  CPUC President Michael Peevey is Chairman of the CETF Board of Directors. The CETF board is appointed by the CPUC, AT&T and Verizon.

Sources:

• AT&T Foundation IRS form 990
• The Utility Reform Network

Verizon “redacted” hundreds of pages of information about its controversial Voice Link project, including its User’s Guide.

Verizon today lost its appeal to keep company documents about its controversial Voice Link wireless landline replacement away from company critics that allege the company is intentionally undercutting its landline network and redirecting investment towards its more profitable wireless service.

In a 20-page decision published this afternoon, Kathleen Burgess blamed Verizon for hurting its own case with excessive secrecy.

“But for Verizon’s failure to submit documents with fewer redactions, as directed by the Records Access Officer (RAO), it might have satisfied its burden of proof,” that the company would suffer harm if it released proprietary information that could be accessed by competing providers, ruled Burgess.

Burgess took a dim view of Verizon’s attempt to claim blanket confidentiality for its Voice Link project, even including a redaction of Voice Link’s User’s Manual — the same one given to customers subscribing to the service. Burgess noted in response to a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request from consumer groups, Verizon responded with “13 documents – 330 pages – with blanket redactions except for the page headings and page numbers.”

Verizon needed to meet its burden of proof by “presenting specific, persuasive evidence that disclosure will likely cause it, or another affected enterprise, to suffer a competitive injury.”

“Verizon apparently believes that it is possible to meet the burden of protecting information under FOIL by providing a cogent and persuasive explanation of how a competitor could use the information and why it is likely to lead to harm,” Burgess observed (emphasis ours). “As an initial matter, [Verizon] has not parsed out each of the 13 documents and demonstrated how each, if disclosed, would competitively injure it. Instead, Verizon is attempting to obtain a blanket exemption for all 13 documents by summarily stating that disclosure would enable competitors to obtain, for free, information on processes that the company developed at considerable expense and effort. Verizon has, however, failed to demonstrate, in adequate detail, how the complete disclosure of all 13 documents would result in substantial competitive injury.”

Verizon hurt its own case by “co-mingling” detailed cost information that might otherwise win confidentiality with the Public Service Commission with less proprietary marketing information and even publicly available documents and then redacted all of them, according to Burgess.

As a result, Verizon lost its case:

The Commission recognizes that limiting competitor access to proprietary material is an important policy. Exemptions are to be narrowly construed, however. The entity resisting disclosure bears the burden of proof and, therefore, must demonstrate a particularized and specific justification for denying access to the subject documents. Absent such a showing of competitive injury covering each document that comprises the response, the speculative concerns articulated by Verizon are not enough to sustain the company’s burden of proving that the information should remain protected as trade secret materials.

[…] Under FOIL case law, the burden is on Verizon to demonstrate a particularized and specific justification, supported by evidence, for denying access to the documents at issue and, inasmuch as Verizon has failed to meet its burden, I uphold the RAO’s November 4, 2013 Determination.

Absent a court order or later ruling, full versions of the blacked-out documents may become public two weeks from today.