Since federal courts ruled that corporations are people, shouldn’t that mean those corporations also deserve the same privacy rights you and I enjoy?

AT&T intends to find out at the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of FCC v. AT&T Inc., an effort to win privacy rights for itself and keep potentially embarrassing documents out of the hands of third parties.

At least one court — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes the very-business-friendly state of Delaware, agreed with AT&T.  It ruled that since a corporation is also defined as a  “person,” it deserved enhanced protections available to ordinary citizens.

In AT&T’s world, that includes adjectives — all things personal, as in “personal privacy.”

The implications of such an interpretation are stunning, and judicial activism on this scale would deliver a golden platter of new rights to corporate interests that would wipe away oversight and more than a century of accepted business law.

AT&T could use its new powers to deny requests for documents and other materials, on the principle it would violate its privacy and potentially “embarrass” the company.  AT&T as an entity could get the right to remain silent and enjoy double jeopardy protections from repeated investigations.

It would be like watching a Law & Order episode with a corporate logo propped up at the defense table.

Overreach much, AT&T?

Many members of the U.S. Supreme Court apparently thought so during last week’s arguments, judging from the astonished reactions to AT&T lawyer Geoffrey Klineberg’s reasoning.

“Anything that would embarrass the corporation is – is a privacy interest?” Justice Antonin Scalia asked. “You talk about personal characteristics. That doesn’t mean the characteristics of General Motors. You talk about personal qualities. It doesn’t mean the qualities of General Motors. [The ‘personal privacy’ of a corporation] is a very strange phrase to me.”

Chief Justice John Roberts was also skeptical of AT&T “adjective”-shopping, noting several examples of adjectives with different meanings from their root nouns: “craft and crafty; squirrel and squirrely; pastor and pastoral.”

AT&T is no stranger to the federal court system, pouring millions of dollars into a range of legal actions that suggest the company takes its “Rethink Possible” slogan to literal extremes in some business-friendly legal venues.  [Stop the Cap! covered an earlier California case where AT&T argued consumers do not have the right to file class action lawsuits against the company.]

At Issue: Earlier AT&T Wrongdoing

In 2004, SBC Communications (which now owns AT&T) overcharged the government to provide technology services to several Connecticut schools, under the government’s E-Rate program (funded by telephone ratepayers).  After earlier abuses in the program were exposed and the federal government was threatening to expand investigations, SBC turned themselves in and handed over documents demanded by the Federal Communications Commission.  In return for its cooperation, AT&T got to admit no wrongdoing, but did pay a half-million dollar fine.

That didn’t sit well with CompTel, a Washington-based phone company trade association.  In 2005, Mary Albert, the group’s assistant general counsel e-mailed a request for copies of the documents collected by the FCC in the case.

“I made the request because I was very surprised to see the FCC enter into a consent decree in a case like this,” Albert said. “There has been a serious problem with E-Rate fraud over the years. I don’t mean to accuse AT&T of fraud, but there were clearly [enough] problems with its billing [to the program] that it reimbursed the government.”

Klineberg

Under federal law, documents collected by the government have to be made public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), so long as those documents do not violate national security or expose certain personal, private information (typically home addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, etc.)  Companies also have long-standing, existing exemptions protecting confidential trade secrets and other proprietary business information.

Albert expected to receive documents with “blacked-out” information protecting AT&T’s trade secrets, but instead she ended up with nothing.

AT&T argues the release of -any- of the documents would embarrass the company and violate its personal privacy.  It demanded, and got the FCC to withhold release of the documents and the dispute has been working its way through the court system.

The FCC argues corporations can’t sue over invasion of privacy.  Why?  Because they are an entity, not a person.

How does someone violate the privacy of a corporate entity that doesn’t live, breathe, or even blush?

Legal observers say the case isn’t really about protecting AT&T from potential embarrassment — it’s about curtailing the government’s right to request and receive documents from companies as part of its oversight process and to investigate potential wrongdoing.

On cue, Lawrence J. Spiwak, president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies (which receives substantial funding from AT&T), argues AT&T’s arguments have merit because if corporations are not protected under FOIA’s law-enforcement exemption, they will be less forthcoming to the government.

In other words, if you don’t give AT&T what it wants, it will bury, shred or hide important documents when regulators come looking.

"If you have to ask how much, you can't afford it."

Knology, which bought out Sunflower Broadband last year, has elected to carry forward the old owner’s Internet Overcharging schemes, charging broadband customers penalty rates for exceeding their usage allowances.

The company’s explanation for their overpriced bandwidth comes with a tall tale about their competitors they simply made up out of thin air:

Data transfer allotments allow Knology to offer higher speed service with lower prices. Unlimited, open usage plans offered by other providers typically employ network controls to slow down the high usage customers.

That’s news to us, and to their nearest competitor AT&T.  They deny speed throttling any of their U-verse or DSL customers.

While the company’s download speeds are impressive — up to 50Mbps — their upload speeds are not, topping out at a paltry 1Mbps.

Knology's pricing is nearly identical to its predecessor Sunflower Broadband, except for the $5 rate hike for its most popular Silver plan.

Knology claims they expand usage allowances based not on network capacity, but by the percentage of customers they gouge with overlimit fees:

Data transfer allotments: Each level of internet above includes the amount of data transfer indicated measured in Gigabytes (GB). The data transfer allotments are increased regularly, based on usage patterns, to ensure the number of customers who go over their allotments remains under 10%. Additional GB of data transferred beyond the allotment is billed at $1.00 per GB if not purchased at a discount before the end of the billing period. The percentage of Knology customers charged for extra data transfer beyond their allotment was 6.1% in April 2009.

Paul Bunyon, Knology's new director of marketing

Bemusingly, customers with time machines who can travel into the future and determine they will exceed their allowance for the month can pre-purchase an increase in their usage allowance at a discount.

No time machine?  Then you either pay the standard overlimit rate, watch your usage like a hawk, or potentially over-buy excess usage that expires at the end of the month.

Customers tell Stop the Cap! the company’s single, unlimited use package is “the same piece of garbage it always was,” writes Larry who lives in Lawrence.  He had high hopes Knology would do the right thing and abandon Sunflower’s overcharging schemes.

“Apparently not, and after a month with their unlimited service, I have scheduled my U-verse installation with AT&T,” Larry writes. “Even on Knology’s limited packages, they don’t provide the speeds they promise.”

Larry also says the higher speed tiers Knology offers deliver diminishing returns.

“If their uplink is congested, or the web sites you visit are busy, it won’t matter if you have 10Mbps or 50Mbps — the speed is effectively the same,” he says. “Besides, upload speed is more important these days and 1Mbps is just plain lousy in 2011.”

“Bye, bye SunKnology.”

Sunflower's Old Broadband Plans & Pricing (February 2010)

Last year, Stop the Cap! told you the story of Mark Williams, the Lee, Massachusetts resident that was quoted an installation fee of $12,000 from Time Warner Cable.

The town intervened, claiming the cable company was violating its franchise agreement by not providing standard cable installation for any customer who also received electric and phone service.  Time Warner agreed to reduce the fee to $4,000 — still unacceptable to Williams.  Months later, and after a threat of sanctions from the Board of Selectmen, Williams got his cable-TV, broadband, and phone service installed for $35 — the same rate other Berkshire customers pay.

Williams did have to spend around $1,500 to bury an underground cable that runs some 600 feet from the nearest utility pole to his home.  Williams wasn’t interested in overhead wiring and didn’t mind paying the additional fee to have the cable buried where he wanted it.

Lee, Massachusetts is located in broadband sparse western Massachusetts

Cable companies routinely deny cable television services to customers who live in sparsely populated areas, where the company is not expected to earn back its wiring investment within a short period of time.  In such cases, either the customer (and other interested neighbors) split the wiring costs or they go without service.  But Lee’s franchise agreement insisted the cable company wire any customers in its franchise area who also have access to other utilities, which includes nearly everyone.

Other communities trying to get their outlying residents cable service could find providers amenable if they insist on similar clauses during franchise renewal negotiations.

Williams tells The Berkshire Eagle he is grateful for the support of his town government, especially patent attorney Malcolm Chisholm of the Lee Cable Advisory Committee for taking on Time Warner on his behalf.

“He’s a real terrier and sinks his teeth into something until it’s done right,” Williams told the newspaper.

Kent Carper says magicJack has been stiffing Kanawha County for 911 fees the Florida-based phone company has refused to collect from its customers in West Virginia.

Carper, who serves as president of the County Commission, is taking his case to the West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) with the hope they’ll order the West Palm Beach-based YMax Communications, which owns the service, to start paying up.

“There’s nothing ‘magic’ about magicJack,” Carper told the Charleston Gazette. “It erodes the ability of the 911 center to pay for the services it’s being mandated to provide. MagicJack is not paying a penny, and their position is they don’t have to.”

Kanawha County currently collects a surcharge of $3.34 a month from landline and “digital phone” customers, $3 a month from those with cell phones.  If the county wins its dispute, the costs for 911 service will far outweigh the $19.95 a year magicJack charges for its own service.

Even Carper admits, “They’re practically giving away telephone service.”

It’s a high stakes battle for magicJack, because if it loses, other counties will surely follow with demands for 911 surcharges of their own.  magicJack officials argue they cannot collect the fees Kanawha County wants because of the way the product is marketed — typically through annual subscriptions.

magicJack’s lawyers also argue the company is not selling a true “voice-over-IP” (VoIP) service, comparable to Vonage, cable’s “digital phone” products, or other similar services.

The Federal Communications Commission partly defines VoIP as a single service for making and receiving phone calls over the public telephone network.  That’s a distinction that allows most Skype customers to avoid getting hit with fees and surcharges — Skype has a business firewall between their incoming and outgoing services. SkypeOut, which allows callers to connect with non-Skype customers, is a subscription service and does not support 911 calls.  SkypeIn service requires most users to dial from their computer, not a traditional phone line, unless a customer optionally rents a phone number from Skype.

The inventor of magicJack, Dan Borislow, said in legal filings with the PSC that customers are only buying a license for the device and the accompanying software — making and receiving calls are handled by two different services that customers get for free as part of the annual license:

The magicJack is a portable device that can be used by a customer anywhere in the world by plugging the device into a computer USB port, provided the computer has a broadband connection.

Upon purchasing a magicJack device, a customer receives a one year license, with the option to renew for an additional year or years, of software commonly known as a “softphone”. The software allows the magicJack device to operate.

The softphone operating software license gives the customer the option to subscribe to magicIn, which is a service offered by YMax. MagicIn permits a customer to obtain a phone number and to receive phone calls via his or her magicJack device.

The softphone license also permits a customer to subscriber to a service offered by magicJack known as magicOut. Subscription to the magicOut service allows a customer to make outgoing calls to the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands through his or her magicJack device.

A magicJack purchaser who subscribes to magicOut or magicIn is not charged for either subscription, and the purchaser is also not billed for incoming or outgoing calls made or received through the magicJack device.

Kenawha County is West Virginia's most populous, home to Charleston, the state capital.

Billy Jack Gregg, the PSC’s former consumer advocate who was hired as a consultant by the Kanawha County Commission, thinks that’s nonsense. Gregg suspects magicJack is trying to avoid being designated as a VoIP provider because of mandated fees and surcharges that could come along for the ride.  Gregg testified few, if any magicJack customers are aware of “magicIn” or “magicOut,” and they don’t have the option of choosing one or the other anyway.

Gregg left Wal-Mart employees scratching their heads when he proved his point trying to only purchase the magicOut outgoing call service.  They had no idea what he was talking about.

Presumably, neither does the PSC which has rejected repeated attempts from magicJack and YMax to dismiss the case using those arguments.  Hearings are scheduled for March 1-2.

Carper says he has nothing personal against magicJack — he just wants the company to realize its refusal to collect and pay 911 fees affects the county emergency operations center’s ability to serve the public.

“Simply put, the failure of any provider to collect and remit fees impacts public safety and the ability of Metro 911 to serve the citizens of Kanawha County,” he said. “It erodes our ability to afford these emergency services.”

Some outside observers have zeroed in on a related matter — the very steep $3+ monthly 911 fees demanded by the county, West Virginia’s most populous and home to the state capital, Charleston.

Most 911 surcharges in the United States range between $0.35-0.50, with some larger cities across the country charging one dollar.  Some state laws prohibit fees in excess of $2 per month.

In earlier filings, magicJack’s lawyers appeared amenable to negotiating smaller payments, but not the $3+ county officials are demanding.

[flv width=”576″ height=”344″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Boston Globe MagicJack Review.flv[/flv]

The Boston Globe’s video review of magicJack was more charitable than the accompanying write-up, which called its marketing “gaudy,” “sleazy,” and “crude.”  Author Hiawatha Bray also didn’t think that highly about the quality of the service he received, saying the product doesn’t inspire confidence and is not suitable as a home phone replacement.  Still, for long distance calls, a second line, or for travelers, magicJack can save you money.  (2 minutes)

Verizon's iPhone Herd Mentality: Pay, pay more, and pay again.

We’re still trying to wrap our heads around this “deal” spotted in the Verizon iPhone FAQ by Gadgetell (underlining ours):

I just purchased a new smartphone during the holiday season, but if I knew that iPhone 4 was going to be available soon I would have waited. What are my options now?

Current Verizon customers who purchased and activated new smartphones, feature phones or certified pre-owned phones between 11/26/2010, and 01/10/2011, are eligible to receive up to a $200 Visa debit card when they purchase an iPhone 4 at full retail price by 02/28/2011 and return their existing phone. Note: This offer is only available on consumer accounts with five lines or less, who are purchasing iPhone 4 through Verizon Wireless retail stores, telesales, or through verizonwireless.com.

So, if you have recently bought a new Android or Blackberry phone during the holiday season, you can turn it in and essentially get your money back.  But Verizon isn’t giving you $200 — it is paying only as much as you spent on the phone to be returned, up to $200.

Verizon says that earns you the right to go and get in line to pay full retail price for a new iPhone in February.  No discounts or subsidies for you!  The 16GB iPhone runs $649.99 and the 32GB iPhone costs $749.99.

We’re basking in the savings.  Gosh, thanks Verizon!

Not only are customers giving up Verizon’s “new handset subsidy” — often worth hundreds of dollars, they also lose their New Every Two discount and other savings from promotions like Verizon’s Smartphones Talk Free $9.99 monthly discount for 24 months.

For those who simply must have the iPhone, Verizon will make you pay dearly for not waiting.

Having owned the iPod Touch (essentially the iPhone without the phone) and Motorola’s Droid X, I can testify the price penalty Verizon wants you to pay for the iPhone isn’t worth the asking price.  Move on, there is nothing to see here.  This is even more true considering the next generation of the iPhone will likely be introduced in just four months.  What will you do then, and how much do you think Verizon will extract from you all over again to get that phone?

There is no doubt Apple’s iPhone is a fine phone, but there are cheaper ways to get one, ranging from opening a new line on your Verizon account and passing your old phone down to a family member, to finding one on eBay, subsidized in part by selling your existing phone.