A Winston-Salem man with a judgment from a North Carolina court in hand shocked AT&T store employees on Summit Square Boulevard Tuesday when he walked in with a Forsyth County Sheriff’s deputy to serve AT&T a court order that allowed the Sheriff’s Office to seize the store’s assets and sell them to satisfy his $2,000 judgment.

George Kontos says AT&T has been stonewalling his family for more than three months after winning a lawsuit against AT&T for Internet Overcharging.  The company had been stalling Kontos with paperwork requests, but a visit by a sheriff’s deputy prepared to begin selling off the store’s property to pay Kontos managed to finally get AT&T to act.

“AT&T is making arrangements to pay the sum owed to the Kontos family and will deliver the payment to the appropriate entity,” an AT&T spokesperson said in a statement.

Kontos had little trouble arguing his case in small claims court.

(Courtesy: WFMY News)

“When I went into AT&T to look at the plan, I wanted to make sure I had a comparable data plan with what I had been using and the rep pulled up the account and obviously even as an AT&T employee it must have been outstanding for him because his first reaction was, ‘wow you’re paying too much,'” Kontos told WFMY News.

With an AT&T employee on his side, Kontos thought AT&T would do the right thing and credit his account for 24 months of overcharging.  AT&T agreed to partial credits for the last five months.  Kontos said he would see the company in court.

In July, a county small claims court judge quickly found for Kontos and handed him a judgment and Kontos has been waiting by his mailbox for AT&T’s check ever since.

Kontos calls the matter a real David vs. Goliath story, and openly wonders how many other customers in the Triad are being overcharged by AT&T.

“Demand that they review your account for the last two years minimum,” he told the station. “Find out what you’ve been paying. Find out what other rate plans exist. Find out what you could have been paying and if you’ve got money that’s owed to you, get it back.”

If AT&T won’t provide an owed refund willingly, and you live in North Carolina, you can use this form — the same one used by the Kontos family — to sue AT&T yourself.

[flv width=”640″ height=”447″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFMY Greensboro Customer George Kontos Took ATT Mobility To Court And Won 10-7-11.flv[/flv]

WFMY in Greensboro shares the story of the Kontos family, who discovered they were overcharged for a data plan for more than two years.  When the company refused to issue an appropriate credit, Kontos took the company to court and won.  (2 minutes)

Crumpton

NAACP national board member and former Missouri Public Service Commission member Harold Crumpton believes that combining AT&T and T-Mobile will create 100,000 new jobs, despite the fact both companies have promoted “cost savings” from eliminating redundant services and winning “increased efficiencies.”

That’s code language for layoffs, and it has been that way with every telecommunications merger in the last decade.  But Crumpton prefers to deny reality in a guest opinion piece published today in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Most mergers result in — and pay for themselves with — job losses and higher prices. Not this one.

If, to use the government antitrust lingo, there is a “relevant product market” for this merger, it would be “jobs” because jobs are the No. 1 product of the broadband factory. The AT&T and T-Mobile merger is structured as an engine of job creation — yielding 100,000 new jobs by delivering on President Obama’s call for a national high-speed broadband network. That’s far more jobs than would be lost because of AT&T and T-Mobile overlaps.

Ironically, AT&T announced the repatriation of 5,000 call center jobs and pledged not to terminate call center employees because of the merger. Two hours later, without warning to AT&T, the Justice Department filed its suit. Suffice to say that President Obama, our greatest champion of job creation, was not well-served that morning.

How will AT&T produce all these new jobs? By creating the first national next-generation high-speed (4G) mobile network. The merger is what will make the network possible, and it will do that by aggregating and redeploying spectrum T-Mobile can’t use for 4G. In this way, the network would reach 55 million more Americans than 4G currently reaches.

AT&T couldn’t have argued the case better.  Oh wait.  They have, in the company’s advocacy package mailed to the NAACP and dozens of other groups who receive the company’s financial support.  Those talking points inevitably end up in the guest editorials penned by Crumpton and others.

While the bloom is clearly off the rose of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, thanks in part to consumer groups and the U.S. Department of Justice who filed a lawsuit to stop it, AT&T is still flailing about trying to find some way to get the deal done, if only to avoid the outrageous break-up fee self-imposed by the telecommunications giant if the deal falls apart.  AT&T’s promise to bring an end to the obnoxious practice of offshoring their customer support call centers — if the merger gets approved — has been compared with blackmail by some customers who have spent an hour or more negotiating with heavily accented customer support agents that companies like Discover Card routinely mock.

AT&T promises customers a solution to the "Peggy Problem" if their merger with T-Mobile gets approved.

It clearly wasn’t enough to move critics of the deal to reconsider — AT&T could voluntarily hire American workers who speak the language of their customers for the benefit of those customers with or without a merger with the fourth largest wireless carrier in the country.

Crumpton argues President Obama was not well served by the Justice Department.  Consumer groups argue T-Mobile and AT&T’s customers will not be well-served if this merger ever happens.

As Stop the Cap! has repeatedly argued, both AT&T and T-Mobile will construct 4G mobile broadband networks in all of the places where the economics to deploy those networks makes sense.  No more, no less, no matter if AT&T and T-Mobile are two companies or one.

Crumpton might as well have argued the merger would deliver 4G service to Sprint customers as well.  It’s the same disconnected logic.

Crumpton thinks AT&T’s high-priced, heavily-capped 4G network will somehow solve the pervasive problem of the digital divide — the millions of poor Americans who can’t afford AT&T’s prices.  Incredibly, Crumpton’s answer is to allow one of the most price-aggressive, innovative carriers in the country favored by many budget-conscious consumers to be snapped up by the lowest rated, if not most-hated wireless company in the country.

It just doesn’t make sense.  But it does make dollars… for the NAACP, which receives boatloads of corporate money from AT&T.  It’s no surprise the pretzel-twisted logic that drives merger advocates like Mr. Crumpton comes fact-free.  The money makes up for all that.

“The NAACP stands ready to work with the public and private sectors to ensure that every American has an equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from this awesome ‘broadband revolution,'” Crumpton writes.

We can only hope that is true.  The NAACP can get started by admitting publicly it receives substantial support from AT&T and it will either agree to remain neutral in corporate advocacy issues to avoid conflicts of interest, or return AT&T’s money.  After all, it sounds like they need it to build the digital divide-erasing 4G network Crumpton is purportedly so concerned about.

AT&T believes it can make a killing getting consumers to hook up as many wireless devices as possible, preferably to AT&T’s network.

That’s the view of Glenn Lurie, who serves as AT&T’s hunter for new revenue opportunities.  Lurie believes that every device that can developed to work on a wireless network can obtain that connectivity through his company, for a price.

Lurie and other wireless industry executives have gathered to discuss where the wireless industry is headed, and the answer seems to be data, data, and even more data.

Everyday consumer products, from washers/dryers to pill bottles to pet collars are all possible candidates to get the wireless treatment.  Want to know when your dryer is done?  Why not have it send a text message.  Is it time to take your medication?  Let the bill bottle page you.  Your dog roaming the neighborhood?  Have a built-in GPS unit alert you to exactly where Fido is headed.

Lurie

“Everything that has a current running through it will be connected,” Lurie tells CNET. “They need to be smarter.”

Not every idea is all that futuristic.  Some high end refrigerators support Internet connections and even include a built in small screen television.  So-called smart-home products that work with home security systems, smart electrical meters and even smartphone apps already exist.  Dishwashers can be programmed to run at off-peak energy rates.  Lights can be turned on or off remotely, and so on.

But AT&T sees even more possibilities.  In-car wireless could deliver Wi-Fi and streamed media directly to car radios and televisions over AT&T’s wireless network.  Even parcel delivery could be smarter with tracked shipping and anticipated delivery times.

Lurie believes that AT&T can earn the most keeping things simple, which means getting devices connected easily without a lot of hassle or multiple bills.

AT&T always believed business applications would be the core driver in wireless data growth, but that assumption has now proven incorrect.  Consumers are driving wireless data growth with apps, multimedia, and a need to feel constantly connected.

Courtesy: Gottabemobile

Just two days after the less-than-overwhelming unveiling of the incrementally-upgraded Apple iPhone 4S, the “must-have-it” crowd has begun melting down the customer service lines of AT&T looking for special discounted upgrade pricing, even though many are months away from the end of their contracts.

AT&T customers are being invited to dial *639# from their phones for an upgrade text message in response.  Others are visiting AT&T’s Phone Upgrade website.  Many are not happy to find AT&T isn’t automatically throwing out the rules for two-year contract upgrade pricing, and are being offered phones that include an early upgrade penalty and a new two year contract.:

1. $250 early upgrade penalty fee;
2. $199 for the iPhone 4S (8GB model) on a new two-year contract (other models available);
3. $18 upgrade activation fee;
4. Shipping, handling, and taxes extra.

For the benefit of having the latest iPhone, AT&T customers will pay at least $467.  That $250 early upgrade fee appears to be different from the company’s standard early termination fee: $325 minus $10 for each full month of your two year contract that you complete.

Several customers are unhappy to hear that, so they are calling up AT&T and demanding the same discounts a new iPhone customer would get.  AT&T has a history of bending over backwards for their iPhone customers, because they often spend more than other customers on higher-priced service plans.  In many cases, customers got their current generation iPhone months before contract renewal time, scoring significant savings and avoiding penalties other phone owners face when attempting early upgrades.  Many customers expect they’ll get the same treatment again, but AT&T is showing signs it has few reasons to agree to every request.

Surveying several message boards, it appears AT&T is granting early upgrades only to their best, biggest-spending customers.  Everyone else gets to wait.  For those who managed to acquire the iPhone 4 on the day it was released, discounted upgrades without the $250 penalty will become available the day after Thanksgiving.

The primary backers of the ABC Plan

Today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski is scheduled to deliver a major announcement on reforming the Universal Service Fund (USF) — a federal program designed to subsidize the costs of delivering telecommunications services to rural America.

The reform, long overdue, would transition a significant percentage of USF fees every telephone customer pays towards broadband deployment — a noble endeavor.  For years, Americans have paid more than $5 billion annually to phone companies large and small to maintain rural landline service.  Small co-op phone companies depend on the income to deliver affordable service in places like rural Iowa, Kansas, and Alaska.  But large companies like AT&T and Verizon also collect a significant share (around $800 million annually) to reduce their costs of service in the rural communities they serve.

That’s particularly ironic for AT&T, which time and time again has sought the right to abandon universal rural landline service altogether.

Genachowski’s idea would divert USF funding towards broadband construction projects.  The argument goes that even low speed DSL requires a well-maintained landline network, so phone companies that want to deploy rural broadband will have to spend the money on necessary upgrades to provide just enough service to earn their USF subsidies.  The lower the speed, the lower the cost to upgrade networks and provide the service.  Some may choose wireless technology instead.  Since the telephone companies have fought long and hard to define “broadband” as anything approaching 3-4Mbps, that will likely be the kind of speed rural Americans will receive.

At first glance, USF reform seems like a good idea, but as with everything at the FCC these days, the devil is always in the details.

Dampier: Another day, another self-serving plan from the phone companies that will cost you more.

While headline skimmers are likely to walk away with the idea that the FCC is doing something good for rural broadband, in fact, the Commission may simply end up rubber stamping an industry-written and supported plan that will substantially raise phone bills and divert your money into projects and services the industry was planning to sell you anyway.

Stop the Cap! wrote about the ABC Plan a few weeks ago when we discovered almost all of the support for the phone-company-written proposal comes from the phone companies who back it, as well as various third party organizations that receive substantial financial support from those companies.  It’s a dollar-a-holler astroturf movement in the making, and if the ABC Plan is enacted, you will pay for it.

[Read Universal Service Reform Proposal from Big Telcos Would Rocket Phone Bills Higher and Astroturf and Industry-Backed, Dollar-a-Holler Friends Support Telco’s USF Reform Plan.]

Here is what you probably won’t hear at today’s event.

At the core of the ABC Plan is a proposal to slash the per-minute rates rural phone companies can charge big city phone companies like AT&T and Verizon to connect calls to rural areas.  You win a gold star if you correctly guessed this proposal originated with AT&T and Verizon, who together will save literally billions in call connection costs under their plan.

With a proposal like this, you would assume most rural phone companies are howling in protest.  It turns out some are, especially some of the smallest, family-run and co-op based providers.  But a bunch of phone companies that consider rural America their target area — Frontier, CenturyLink, FairPoint and Windstream, are all on board with AT&T and Verizon.  Why?

Because these phone companies have a way to cover that lost revenue — by jacking up your phone bill’s USF surcharge to as much as $11 a month per line to make up the difference.  In the first year of implementation, your rates could increase up to $4.50 per line (and that fee also extends to cell phones).  Critics have been widely publicizing the increased phone bills guaranteed under the ABC Plan.  In response, advocates for the industry are rushing out the results of a new study released yesterday from the Phoenix Center Chief Economist Dr. George S. Ford that claims the exact opposite.  Dr. Ford claims each customer could pay approximately $14 less per year in access charges if the industry’s ABC Plan is fully implemented.

Genachowski

Who is right?  State regulators suggest rate increases, not decreases, will result.  The “Phoenix Center,” unsurprisingly, has not disclosed who paid for the study, but there is a long record of a close working relationship between that research group and both AT&T and Verizon.

But it gets even worse.

This shell game allows your local phone company to raise rates and blame it on the government, despite the fact those companies will directly benefit from that revenue in many cases.  It’s a real win-win for AT&T and Verizon, who watch their costs plummet while also sticking you with a higher phone bill.

The USF program was designed to provide for the neediest rural phone companies, but under the new industry-written rules being considered by the FCC, just about everyone can get a piece, as long as “everyone” is defined as “the phone company.”  There is a reason this plan does not win the hearts and minds of the cable industry, independent Wireless ISPs, municipalities, or other competing upstarts.  As written, the USF reform plan guarantees virtually all of the financial support stays in the Bell family.  Under the arcane rules of participation, only telephone companies are a natural fit to receive USF money.

Genachowski will likely suggest this plan will provide for rural broadband in areas where it is unavailable today.  He just won’t say what kind of broadband rural America will get.  He can’t, because the industry wrote their own rules in their plan to keep accountability and oversight as far away as possible.

For example, let’s assume you are a frustrated customer of Frontier Communications in West Virginia who lives three blocks away from the nearest neighbor who pays $50 a month for 3Mbps DSL broadband.  You can’t buy the service at any price because Frontier doesn’t offer it.  You have called them a dozen times and they keep promising it’s on the way, but they cannot say when.  You may have even seen them running new cable in the neighborhood.

Frontier has made it clear they intend to wire a significantly greater percentage of the Mountain State than Verizon ever did when it ran things.  Let’s take them at their word for this example.

The telephone companies have helpfully written their own rules for the FCC to adopt.

Frontier’s decision to provide broadband service in West Virginia does not come out of the goodness of their heart.  At a time when landline customers are increasingly disconnecting service, Frontier’s long-term business plan is to keep customers connected by selling packages of phone, broadband, and satellite TV in rural markets.  Investment in DSL broadband deployment has been underway with or without the assistance of the Universal Service Fund because it makes financial sense.  Our customer in West Virginia might disconnect his landline and use a cell phone instead, costing Frontier any potential broadband, TV and telephone service revenue.

Under the ABC Plan, Frontier can be subsidized by ratepayers nationwide to deliver the service they were planning to provide anyway.  And what kind of service?  The same 3Mbps DSL the neighbors have.

If your county government, a cable operator, or wireless competitor decided they could deliver 10-20Mbps broadband for the same $50 a month, could they receive the USF subsidy to build a better network instead?  Under the phone company plan, the answer would be almost certainly no.

Simon Fitch, the consumer advocate of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, which advises the FCC on universal service matters, says the ABC Plan is a consumer disaster.

“Although a stated goal of the FCC’s reform effort is to refocus universal-service funding to support broadband, the industry’s ABC plan requires no real commitment to make broadband available to unserved and underserved communities,” Fitch writes. “Companies would receive funds to provide broadband with upload and download speeds that are already obsolete. States would be given no real enforcement power.”

Fitch is certain companies like AT&T and Verizon will receive enormous ratepayer-financed subsidies they don’t actually need to provide service.

Back to AT&T.

In several states, AT&T is seeking the right to terminate its universal service obligation altogether, which would allow the same company fiercely backing the ABC Plan to entirely walk away from its landline network.  Why?  Because AT&T sees its future profits in wireless.  Under the ABC Plan, AT&T could build rural cell towers with your money to provide “replacement service” over a wireless network with or without great coverage, and with a 2GB usage cap.

At the press conference, Genachowski could still declare victory because rural America would, in fact, get broadband.  Somehow, the parts about who is actually paying for it, the fact it comes with no speed, coverage, or quality guarantees, and starts with a 2GB usage cap on the wireless side will all be left out.

Fortunately, not everyone is as enamored with the ABC Plan as the groups cashing checks written by AT&T.

In addition to state regulators, Consumers Union, the AARP, Free Press, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates are all opposed to the plan, which delivers all of the benefits to giant phone companies while sticking you with the bill.

There is a better way.  State regulators and consumer groups have their own plans which accomplish the same noble goal of delivering subsidies to broadband providers of all kinds without increasing your telephone bill.  It’s up to the FCC to demonstrate it’s not simply a rubber stamp for the schemes being pushed by AT&T and Verizon.