A TV news crew from Salt Lake City that sent undercover reporters into an AT&T store, successfully reactivating a smartphone reported lost or stolen, returned Tuesday with cameras running looking for answers.

KTVX News found AT&T stores maintain activation policies that are exceptionally friendly to smartphone thieves, who can reactivate lost or stolen phones with no questions asked.

Stop the Cap! shared video from the station earlier this week showing AT&T employees making life difficult for victims of cell phone theft, but enthusiastically willing to collect money from new customers who received or purchased the stolen property.

A California class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T over how it handles stolen cell phones.

According to the suit AT&T is, “forcing legitimate customers…to buy new cell phones, and buy new cell phone plans, while the criminals who stole the phone are able to simply walk into AT&T store and re-activate the devices using different, cheap, readily available SIM cards.”

KTVX originally sought to check whether AT&T had the same thief-friendly policies in place in Utah.  It turned out the answer was yes — AT&T will turn back on any phone as long as you “put money on it.”

Text from a California class action lawsuit against AT&T

“All you would have to do is pay for the plan,” said an unnamed AT&T store employee. “We’ll set up your account with your ID, and then put the new SIM card in there and put money on it.”

A day after the undercover operation, the TV station confronted the manager at the AT&T store just outside Valley Fair Mall, in West Valley City. He refused to answer questions.

“You can’t tell us anything about whether you know employees are doing that here?” asked reporter Brian Carlson.

“I’m not going to give you any comment on that,” he said.

The store manager referred questions to a regional AT&T representative, but the station could only reach his voicemail.

AT&T’s reactivation policies are not shared by Verizon Wireless, which claims it will not reactivate a phone reported lost or stolen on its network for any reason, except if the request comes from the original phone owner.  AT&T’s policies, according to the lawsuit, help fuel cell phone theft by making it easy for thieves to sell stolen equipment to buyers confident they can reactivate and use the equipment immediately after purchase.

AT&T says they’re working on a new plan with the Federal Communications Commission and other cell phone providers to create a centralized database of stolen phones that would keep them from being activated by any wireless carrier.  That plan could be in place by the end of this year.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTVX Salt Lake City ABC 4 confronts ATT store 5-1-12.mp4[/flv]

ABC4 reporters return, with cameras running, to the same AT&T store that a day earlier helpfully reactivated a phone that could have been lost or stolen, no questions asked.  (2 minutes)

Verizon Wireless’ answer for rural America’s broadband troubles goes live across the country today, offering the broadband deprived the opportunity of getting wireless service at almost twice the price of conventional DSL, with a 10GB monthly usage allowance.

HomeFusion Broadband uses Verizon’s LTE network to deliver service to homes and businesses within range of Verizon’s 4G network.  For rural America, the speeds Verizon is capable of delivering offer a significant improvement over rural DSL.  Verizon promises 5-12Mbps down and 2-5Mbps up, depending on how many users are sharing the cell tower and how strong a signal one receives.

“HomeFusion Broadband is another example of Verizon Wireless’ commitment to providing our customers with the most innovative products and services,” said Tami Erwin, vice president and chief marketing officer, Verizon Wireless. “With HomeFusion Broadband, customers across the United States, in towns large and small, will have the chance to link devices to the Internet and take advantage of the speed, coverage and connectivity offered by our 4G LTE network.”

Whether they can afford it may be another matter.

Verizon Wireless charges a one-time equipment fee of $199.99, which includes professional installation of the required cylindrical outdoor antenna and router that allows customers to share the wireless connection with other devices inside the home.

Monthly service fees start at $60 a month and include 10GB of monthly usage. If you need more data, you will pay a significant amount to get it — up to $120 a month for 30GB of usage.  As a tease, customers get 50 percent more data allowance for the first two full billing cycles of service.  If you become accustomed to using that extra allowance, it could be very costly once the first two months are up.  Overlimit fees run $10/GB.

Verizon claims two-thirds of the country is now covered by their 4G LTE network, including the regions Verizon sold off to companies like FairPoint and Frontier Communications.  Those independent phone companies will soon have Verizon as a broadband competitor in states like West Virginia, Vermont, Ohio, and Maine. If customers value speed over everything else, Verizon could be a formidable competitor over traditional rural DSL, which often operates at speeds of 1-3Mbps, as long as customers steer clear of allowance-eating online video.

Verizon has positioned HomeFusion as a rural broadband solution, and earlier pricing and policy changes make it clear Verizon is downplaying its traditional DSL service.  In April, Verizon announced it would no longer sell standalone DSL service to customers without voice phone lines, or to those who live in areas also wired for the company’s fiber optic network FiOS.

New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is convinced Verizon Communications is abandoning quality landline service for millions of New Yorkers while diverting money and resources to its more profitable cell service Verizon Wireless.

Last week, Schneiderman blasted the state’s largest landline provider for mounting complaints about poor service that now impact 92 percent of its customers, calling deregulation a failure for consumers and businesses in New York.

“Verizon customers deserve the high-quality service they’ve been promised,” Schneiderman told The Associated Press.

The attorney general reports that the number of customers enduring service outages for more than 24 hours has increased, while landline infrastructure — particularly wiring — is allowed to deteriorate.

Schneiderman suspects Verizon is shortchanging landline service as an increasing number of wired phone customers disconnect service, often in favor of Verizon’s more lucrative cell phone service.  The state Public Service Commission (PSC) fined Verizon $400,000 in March for similar concerns, pointing to the company’s intentional workforce reductions lengthening repair windows and creating repair backlogs in some regions.

Schneiderman’s office filed comments with the PSC requesting changes to Verizon’s Service Quality Improvement Plan, which was originally launched in 2010:

At best, New York’s telephone service market is a duopoly, and contrary to theoretical expectations of market controls, the presence of a single competitor has not in fact prevented Verizon from allowing customer service to continue to degrade. Rather than meet its obligations to provide wireline telephone customers with minimally adequate telephone service, Verizon is continuing to drastically reduce its workforce with the result that the company cannot meet its customers’ repair needs in a timely manner.

Verizon’s management has demonstrated that it is unwilling to compete to retain its wireline customer base, and instead is entirely focused on expanding its wireless business affiliate. It is incumbent on the Commission to take appropriate regulatory action to ensure that customers receive reliable telephone service with adequate repair performance. Therefore, the Commission should modify Verizon’s service plan to ensure customers receive adequate service quality in the future.

Verizon defended its service in New York pointing out the company has invested $1.5 billion in the state for infrastructure, including its FiOS fiber to the home network.  Verizon spokesman John Bonomo questioned Schneiderman’s claim that 92 percent of Verizon New York customers had poor service, noting 98 percent of its landline customers don’t have service problems.

Schneiderman’s highlighting of a $400,000 service fine imposed by the PSC did not account for unprecedented damage from both Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee late last summer, Bonomo added.

But the state’s attorney general notes Verizon’s service problems in New York have been ongoing well before last summer.

Service complaints, charted here from 2008-2011, show a major spike last summer and fall and remain higher than normal.

Schneiderman

“Since at least 2008, Verizon has frequently failed to meet these PSC telephone service standards essential to safe and reliable telephone service,” Schneiderman says. “Even as the number of telephone lines needing to be maintained has dwindled to half those of a decade ago (as customers choose to rely instead on wireless and/or cable telephony), Verizon’s continues to fail to meet the PSC’s service standard.”

Customers on the upper west side of New York City don’t need to be reminded of Verizon’s service failures.  Hundreds of Verizon landline customers in New York’s largest city were left without basic phone service for more than a week, only made worse by the fact Verizon told many of them they’d be without service for at least one additional week while the company worked on repairs.

Phone and Internet service went dead in multiple buildings along Central Park West April 10, but customers wanted to kill when they learned the phone company wanted more than two weeks to get service restored.

“I was like, excuse me, are you serious? Two weeks?” Iram Rivera, a concierge at 262 Central Park West, told DNAinfo.  His building was hard hit by the service outage — 80 percent of the building’s 80 apartments were affected.

“I just don’t get the feeling that there’s much of an appreciation on Verizon’s part that this is a hardship for people,” said Ken Coughlin, who lives on West 87th Street and Central Park West. “There’s no communication, there’s no updates, it’s infuriating.”

The outage only affected traditional landline service and DSL broadband over copper phone wiring. The more modern fiber-optic FiOS network that provides TV, Internet and voice service wasn’t affected, Bonomo said.

Schneiderman notes landline outages have an especially hard impact on small businesses:

In the current recession, the fragile economic condition of many small businesses puts them at risk of financial disaster if they suddenly lose telephone service, and their provider is unable to restore service promptly. Each day that these businesses are without service they lose significant revenues that many simply cannot survive without.

Small businesses depend on functional telephone service to meet the needs of their customers in numerous ways. When customers are unable to reach a business by telephone, they may assume the business is closed and purchase the goods or services they want elsewhere. Restaurants are prevented from giving reservations to prospective customers who call. Many types of businesses depend on working telephone lines for processing credit card charges, and may lose substantial sales by limiting transactions to cash or checks. Professional offices can be prevented from providing medical, legal or accounting services to their clients without working telephone service.

In Schneiderman’s view, the deregulation policies now in place in New York have failed consumers, leaving them with a duopoly of phone providers with insufficient oversight.

For competition to benefit customers with improved service, lower prices, and more innovation, there has to first be a willingness to compete, which is significantly absent from Verizon-New York’s policies and practices.

Rather than robust competition, New York’s telephone market is at best a duopoly, with as many indicators of cooperation between the two providers as robust contest for customers. Furthermore, the actual behavior of consumers in the real world is markedly different from the PSC’s theoretical assumptions about the telephone market.

When a Verizon customer experiences a prolonged service outage or installation delay, the option to switch carriers to a cable provider is of no immediate use. Finally, even if consumers wanted to compare Verizon’s service performance with cable provider alternatives, the lack of available information prevents consumers from making educated choices.

In New York, most customers are served by Verizon Communications, Time Warner Cable, or Cablevision.  Time Warner Cable and Verizon recently agreed to cross-market the other’s products and services as part of a wireless spectrum transfer.

Back in the days of dial-up Internet access, consumers could choose from a dozen or more independent providers selling service from prices ranging from free (for a limited number of hours per month) to $20-25 a month for unlimited dial-in access.  As long as an ISP maintained a local access number, they could set up shop and sell service at competitive prices in virtually any community in the country.

For awhile it seemed that this competition would continue as the days of broadband DSL arrived.  Phone companies like Qwest opened their network to third party competitors who could lease access to company facilities and lines and market their own DSL service.  In states like Minnesota, Qwest customers could choose from several providers, including Qwest itself, and receive service at competitive pricing.  But in 2005, the Federal Communications Commission announced phone companies no longer had to share their phone network with other providers.

It was the beginning of the end for independent service providers in that state and others.  The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that out of 47 independent ISPs that existed in the Twin Cities area alone in 2005, only about a dozen remain today — and many of those can count customers in the hundreds.  In fact, business has dwindled so badly, many providers no longer actively market DSL services to consumers.

The 2005 FCC policy allows phone companies to cut off the independents as network upgrades are completed. What service can be sold by independents in Minnesota is speed restricted as well — only up to 7Mbps. Even at those increasingly uncompetitive speeds, CenturyLink makes sure customers are notified they can no longer buy DSL service from independent companies once their upgrades are finished.

Today, the march forward for incrementally faster DSL broadband speeds at CenturyLink (which acquired Qwest), continues to force more and more competitors out of the broadband business.  Many of the remaining customers are located in rural or suburban exchanges only now seeing network upgrades.  But some companies are not waiting for the last of their customers to depart.  Implex.net saw the writing on the wall and decided to exit the business, telling the newspaper they could not compete with CenturyLink, much less Comcast.

“It was a dying business because we could only sell old technology,” said Stuart DeVaan, CEO of Implex.net in Minneapolis.

US Internet of Minnetonka also realized selling DSL was not going to be a growth business under current FCC rules.

“If you are a traditional Internet service provider from the mid-’90s that relies on someone else’s network, you’re at a serious disadvantage,” said Travis Carter, technology vice president at US Internet.

CenturyLink denies the FCC policy limits competition, pointing to cable operators, Wi-Fi, and wireless mobile broadband as all viable alternative choices for consumers.

But Bill Kalseim, who lives in rural Stillwater, having received notification he is about to be cut off from his ISP — ipHouse — thinks otherwise.

“I had a choice of DSL providers before, and now I don’t.” Kalseim told the newspaper.

AT&T is facing a class action lawsuit from customers who allege the wireless giant is profiting handsomely from the stolen smartphone trade.

The suit, filed in California, claims AT&T makes customers purchase new cell phones to replace stolen ones, while allowing the thieves to sell phones to buyers who can walk into any AT&T store and reactivate them with a new SIM card, helpfully supplied by AT&T.

In effect, the lawsuit argues, AT&T is earning new revenue from victims forced to purchase a new phone as well as from the buyers of stolen phones who reactivate as new paying AT&T customers.

A Salt Lake City television station couldn’t believe AT&T was looking the other way when dealing with the pervasive problem of cell phone theft, so they sent reporters undercover with a deactivated iPhone that was reported stolen, and found AT&T employees ready and willing to reactivate the dead phone.

“All you would have to do is pay for the plan, said the unnamed AT&T agent. “We’ll set up your account with your ID and then put the new SIM card in there and put money on it.”

Those victimized by smartphone theft found AT&T agents less helpful, as KTVX reports:

At a second store I tell an agent “I think my phone has been stolen.” Unlike the claims in the lawsuit, this agent at a second store tells me he can suspend the service, but there’s no way to shut the phone down.

The agent said, “If they tried to activate it, we don’t have a way to flag serial numbers on the phone unfortunately.”

So the thief has an activated phone and the victim is left buying a new one for several hundred bucks.

AT&T claims the suit is without merit.  The company also claims it is working with other cell phone providers and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), to establish a new database of stolen cell phones.  When a smartphone is reported stolen, the forthcoming policy would guarantee the phone could not be reactivated with any participating carrier.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTVX Salt Lake City Class action lawsuit claims ATT helps cell phones thieves for profit 4-30-12.mp4[/flv]

KTVX reporters go undercover and visit a few Salt Lake City AT&T stores to learn if the phone company is aiding and abetting smartphone thieves.  (2 minutes)