Despite warnings from public safety officials the wireless landline alternative proposed by Verizon is unreliable and potentially a threat to the safety and well-being of customers, Verizon is moving full speed ahead to deploy Voice Link service in New York and New Jersey communities where existing Verizon landlines have deteriorated and FiOS fiber optics is a distant dream.

On July 12, the Communications Workers of America reported that Verizon’s repair call centers in New York City are now assigning employees to Voice Link-related jobs.

“In addition, CWA members report that technicians are receiving specialized Voice Link installation training and are being assigned to carry out installations in the Buffalo and Watertown areas,” said Chris Shelton, vice president of CWA District 1.

The union also confirmed no further expansion work was being done on Verizon’s FiOS fiber network outside of the areas already committed by the company. Verizon FiOS is only available in a few Buffalo suburbs and not available in Watertown at all.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA District 1 VP speaks about Verizon Voice Link 6-13-13.mp4[/flv]

CWA District 1 vice president Chris Shelton summed up Verizon’s aggressive deployment of Voice Link: “We can’t allow these dirty bastards to do this to their own customers, who they don’t give a s**t about….” (Warning: Strong Language) (3 minutes)

Sullivan County

More than 130 county executives, legislators, mayors, town supervisors, and councilors representing 68 New York State communities including Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Binghamton, Plattsburgh, Ithaca, Jamestown, Poughkeepsie, Rome, and Elmira called on the PSC to declare Voice Link an experimental service and not allow it to serve as the sole service offering on Fire Island or anywhere else:

The Commission stated that “[it] has been the Commission’s policy that utilities determine how to provision service via any combination of facilities – wires, fiber optics, electronics – so long as the tariffed service meets the Commission’s prescribed rules and customer expectations.”

Voice Link, as currently offered, does not meet Municipalities’ expectations. Instead, Voice Link would jeopardize municipalities’ ability to fulfill their responsibility to protect the safety of the citizens who reside and work in their communities. The broad and significant implications of Verizon’s proposed tariff warrant a full investigation. New technology should be deployed after solutions are found, not before.

Municipalities urge the Commission to develop a full factual record and to offer interested stakeholders the opportunity to participate fully in this important proceeding. Municipalities rely on the Commission to guide the evolution of the state’s telecommunications infrastructure in a manner that protects citizens’ safety and promotes economic development.

The legislators called Voice Link a threat to public safety and its installation hampered communities from protecting local residents.

In Sullivan County, where Verizon is attempting to introduce Voice Link as an option for seasonal residents, Undersheriff Eric Chaboty said using wireless service carries risks in an emergency.

Chaboty

At a press conference covered by the Mid-Hudson News Service, Chaboty made it clear homeowners should not feel pressured to sign up for Voice Link. Chaboty recounted a story of his neighbor’s house catching fire and the owner called 911 from a cell phone using the same wireless network Voice Link would use. The call was mistakenly routed to another county instead of Sullivan County 911, and by the time the call reached the correct emergency responders, the family’s home burned to the ground.

Stories like that may explain why Verizon has taken great pains to disclaim responsibility for a customer’s inability to reach 911 or be connected to the correct public safety operator.

Assemblywoman Aileen Gunther (D-Forestburgh) was incredulous Verizon would even attempt to introduce Voice Link in the rural Catskill Mountains, which is notorious for lousy cell reception.

“Too much of this county has no service at all and no hope on the horizon,” she told the audience. “Until the time comes when companies like Verizon are willing to make the investment to ensure reliable and thorough coverage, products like Voice Link are an insult and a danger to our community.”

Legislators across the state also suspect Voice Link will create an incentive for Verizon to neglect its already-deteriorating copper wire network, accelerating the need to deploy its preferred wireless solution. But the thought of achieving business priorities at the possible cost of public safety bothered the 134 legislators who signed a petition sent to the PSC.

“When outside plant is inadequately maintained, consumers’ safety is jeopardized because their dial tones may not function when they need to reach emergency services,” the petition explained.

Brookhaven town supervisor Edward P. Romaine held his own news conference at the Davis Park Ferry Terminal in Patchogue last week. He worried that Verizon was attempting to get its foot in the door with Voice Link, and will use any approval to quickly expand it as a “sole service option” elsewhere.

“Our concern isn’t only for Fire Island,” Romaine said. “Our concern is while they’re impacting a few communities in Fire Island, this . . . will spread to all of Fire Island and possibly to the main island.”

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBS This Morning No more landlines Verizon wont fix storm damaged wires 7-19-13.flv[/flv]

CBS’ This Morning covered Verizon’s plans to drop landline service in Mantoloking, N.J., on an off shore barrier island. Residents really don’t want Voice Link as the replacement, but at least they have an alternative. Unlike on Fire Island, Mantoloking is served by a cable company – Comcast. (3 minutes)

Following Verizon’s lead, AT&T has announced a new privacy policy that includes fine print allowing the company to track your website visits, location, viewing habits, mobile app usage, and numbers called and received. AT&T says it will aggregate the information collected and peddle it to businesses who want to learn everything they can about potential customers, store visitors, and viewers.

AT&T will likely earn millions from the enhanced surveillance of its customers, but none of those earnings will bring you a lower bill.

“The scope of the information collected is significant when one considers AT&T will be matching it with credit reports, mailing lists, and already-available demographic information,” says online privacy expert Thom Sonderland. “Although AT&T says they will not sell personally identifiable information to third parties, the company will have much more detailed information about their customers at their disposal for any internal use they want.”

AT&T included examples of collected information:

• The names and web addresses of all websites visited;
• the length of time spent on each website;
• the addresses of all web links customers choose to click, which ads appear on-screen and which are accessed;
• a complete list of search terms entered into search engines;
• how customers use their AT&T wireless or home phone, including numbers dialed and received;
• which mobile apps are installed, used, and for how long;
• all stores, homes and businesses visited while carrying your mobile phone and for how long;
• what television shows/channels U-verse customers watch and for how long;
• which U-verse apps are being used.

AT&T customers have been largely hostile to the sweeping privacy policy changes.

“AT&T should not be making money on my data – they make plenty of money from my wireless plan and the devices sold to me – and […] the wireless coverage in my area is awful,” writes Kippian Yost. “Why not concentrate on better coverage for the prices we are paying to AT&T?”

“Selling my private information to marketers doesn’t enhance my experience, it only erodes it but pads your top line,” writes Bruno S. “My contract is up soon, I will choose to do business with a company that respects my privacy, not one that views my private actions as a commercial asset.”

“I want to know how to opt out of my U-verse and business phone line,” said Robert Celano. “I have already done so for my AT&T Wireless account. I want to opt out of everything connected to AT&T.”

Stop the Cap!’s Guide to Opting Out of AT&T’s New Privacy Policy

1. You can opt out of those targeted ads by logging into your AT&T account online and clicking “Advertising Choices” found at the bottom of the screen in fine print. From here, you can opt out of all targeted online advertising. Important: You must visit this link from each device or web browser you use to completely opt out. The choices you make apply only to the device used when accessing the website.
2. While logged in, you can also opt out of most of the rest of AT&T’s customer tracking program from their Privacy Choices for External Marketing & Analytics Reports website. Important: If you are an AT&T landline customer, you can also use this site to opt out of AT&T tracking your landline service.

If you don’t want to receive AT&T marketing messages, follow these three steps to opt out:

• E-Mail: Every marketing e-mail AT&T sends contains instructions and a link that will allow you to stop additional marketing e-mails for that product or service type. You also can unsubscribe from AT&T marketing e-mails here.
• Text Messages: Opt-out of AT&T marketing text message contacts by replying “stop” to any message.
• Consumer Telemarketing: Ask to be removed from AT&T’s consumer telemarketing lists by contacting them at one of the numbers listed here, or by sending an e-mail to [email protected]. You also can ask the AT&T representative to remove you from their telemarketing lists when you receive a marketing or promotional call.

A Michigan man last week opened his front door only to find AT&T’s efforts to install U-verse for a neighbor tore up his front yard and he isn’t even a customer.

Broadband Reports‘ AT&T forum member “riekl” in Macomb discovered AT&T’s service “upgrade” for the neighbors left him with a front yard “downgrade” consisting of a long strip of dead grass, a potentially undermined driveway, and no idea who will pay to repair the damage.

“The only utility easement is a 20 foot strip in my back yard,” he wrote.

AT&T decided running cables well inside the Macomb man’s front yard and beneath his driveway was fine. So was leaving without bothering to repair the damage.

An AT&T ‘Right of Way’ manager was eventually dispatched to the property and quickly conceded AT&T buried its lines well outside of the utility easement. The company is now making arrangements to repair the resident’s lawn.

“He also apologized as their techs are told to always notify the homeowner when crossing property,” said the irked resident.

But the story may not be over. AT&T’s cable is now a permanent feature beneath the non-customer’s front yard, which could create some issues if AT&T assumes it now has an ‘effective’ easement and will be free to repair or replace the cable in the same area at their discretion.

AT&T has a long history of using contractors that do not always favor the correct solution over an expedient one.

But at least they buried the cable this time.

Last fall, a Texas resident arrived home to find AT&T had installed a new line for one of their customers by stringing it across the top of the neighbor’s back lawn, where it remained untouched and unburied for an extended period.

Rogers Communications customers frustrated with customer service or billing problems are advised the first representative they speak with regarding the issue does not necessarily have the final word on the matter. Eastern Canada’s biggest cable operator reminds customers 91 percent of all complaints are resolved to the customer’s satisfaction by the time they appeal to Rogers’ Ombudsman.

“We’re the only telecommunications provider in North America to have an Ombudsman to provide an independent review of unresolved customer concerns,” noted Rogers’ blog.

Rogers recommends the following four-step process to resolve complaints:

• Step 1: Contact Rogers’ Customer Care Center – available by live chat, phone, regular mail, or through social media: on Twitter – @RogersHelps, @RogersVousAide or you can find Rogers on Facebook;
• Step 2: Request to speak with a manager at the Customer Care Center;
• Step 3: Contact the Office of the President;
• Step 4: Write to the Office of the Ombudsman, either by mail, fax or email.

Walker

Kim Walker, Rogers’ Ombudsman reported that 84 percent of customer complaints reported to her office were either entirely or partly Rogers’ fault. The Ombudsman’s office only found entirely in favor of Rogers or its prepaid unit Fido 16 percent of the time.

Over half of the complaints escalated to the Ombudsman’s office related to wireless service. Billing and service changes constituted the majority of those complaints.

If Rogers’ Ombudsman is still unable to offer customer satisfaction, customers have one more place to appeal: the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services.

Customers can file complaints with the Commissioner on the CCTS website or by calling toll-free 1-888-221-1687.

For the third time, legal action from the four largest commercial television networks to shut online streaming service Aereo has been denied.

In a 10-2 decision, with one recusal, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals denied an attempt to re-hear the case by the full appellate court.

Following disposition of this appeal on April 1, 2013, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed petitions for rehearing in banc. An active judge of the Court requested a poll on whether to rehear the cases in banc. A poll having been conducted and there being no majority favoring in banc review, rehearing in banc is hereby denied.

Circuit Judge Denny Chin strongly dissented from the majority’s decision, joined by Circuit Judge Richard C. Wesley. Chin firmly took the side of the broadcasters, fearing if Aereo was permitted to continue operating, it could quickly mean the end of free over-the-air television. He believes the service exists only because of a precarious loophole:

“The majority’s decision elevates form over substance. It holds that a commercial enterprise that sells subscriptions to paying strangers for a broadcast television retransmission service is not performing those works publicly. It reaches that conclusion by accepting Aereo’s argument that its system of thousands of tiny antennas and unique copies somehow renders these transmissions “private.” In my view, however, the system is a sham, as it was designed solely to avoid the reach of the Copyright Act and to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the law….”

Just about every over-the-air network and major station in the New York City area is opposed to Aereo. Among those filing suit against its continued operation:

• Networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, Univision, and Telemundo
• Stations: WNET, WPIX, WNJU

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg IACs Diller Says Aereo Is Not a Threat to Anyone 7-10-13.flv[/flv]

Barry Diller, the force behind Aereo, tells Bloomberg News he expected to get sued when he provided viewers with an alternate way to watch television. Diller says networks and stations are simply uncomfortable with change and that Aereo poses no threat to them. (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Aereo Not a Blip on Broadcasters Radar 6-27-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg Industries director of North American research Paul Sweeney looks at Aereo’s impact on television broadcasters and how it could eventually threaten their revenue streams. He speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “In The Loop.” (2 minutes)