Recent Articles:

If You Can’t Afford Verizon Wireless, Why Not Work for Them Instead?

Phillip Dampier June 18, 2010 Consumer News, Editorial & Site News, Verizon Comments Off on If You Can’t Afford Verizon Wireless, Why Not Work for Them Instead?

Tired of paying that high Verizon Wireless bill?  Verizon’s handsome profits can translate into some great benefits, if you’re an employee.

For western New Yorkers, here’s your chance.

Verizon Wireless is hiring 200 call center employees in Rochester this year to bolster its existing 1,200 employee customer service department.

“As our customer base grows and the devices and services they use become more sophisticated, providing an outstanding customer experience becomes even more important,” said Russ Preite, president of Verizon Wireless’ Upstate New York Region. “We’ve been fortunate to continue to find top-quality, highly skilled talent in the Rochester area. Today’s announcement further endorses our commitment to Rochester and to maintaining superior customer service for our customers.”

Verizon can afford to pay employees some nice benefits:

  • competitive salaries
  • health, dental and vision coverage that begin on the first day of employment
  • a 401(k) program with a 6 percent company match of the employee’s contribution
  • annual bonus program
  • profit sharing
  • merit increases
  • tuition assistance
  • adoption assistance
  • an on-site health and wellness facility, and more.

You can apply online.  If you land a job there, why not take a portion of your paycheck and send Stop the Cap! a contribution.  We’ll put their money to good use.

Huntsville Alabama Gun-Toting Homeowner Claims to Mistake AT&T Lineman for Possum

Phillip Dampier June 18, 2010 AT&T, Consumer News, Video Comments Off on Huntsville Alabama Gun-Toting Homeowner Claims to Mistake AT&T Lineman for Possum

A Huntsville AT&T sub-contractor trying to install new telephone cable is safe after a resident started shooting in his direction, forcing Marcus Kyle to make a mad dash down a nearby highway to safety.

Questioned by police, the homeowner claimed he thought he was firing his shotgun at a possum.  WHNT-TV spoke with police officials and witnesses who are not convinced by the man’s story, suggesting the homeowner may have felt the AT&T worker was trespassing on his property.  Several witnesses claim the man took direct aim at the AT&T lineman before beginning to fire.

As shots rang out, the worker hightailed it out of range, thankfully unharmed. Those who want to learn more about gun laws in New York may consider consulting a firearms attorney.

The Lauderdale County Sheriff’s Office offered to charge the homeowner with misdemeanor reckless endangerment, but Kyle refused to press charges.

Kyle and his fellow workers added they were working within a recognized utility easement and did not stray onto anyone’s property, and weren’t sure why the resident started shooting.

Utility company employees usually have the right of reasonable access to their respective easements to perform work on the company’s infrastructure.  Many workers may inform residents of their presence as a courtesy, but it is not required.  It is never responsible to confront such workers with weapons.  If a homeowner has concerns about the legitimacy of the work being done, they should contact local police and let them handle it.

[flv width=”512″ height=”308″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHNT Huntsville Man Shot at While Installing Phone Lines 6-16-10.flv[/flv]

WHNT-TV in Huntsville ran this story about a local homeowner who let his shotgun do the talking, firing at a telephone company subcontractor he claims he mistook for a possum.  (2 minutes)

Maine Denies Time Warner Cable Phone Service in Rural Areas Unless They Wire Everyone Who Wants It

Phillip Dampier June 17, 2010 Competition, Public Policy & Gov't, Video Comments Off on Maine Denies Time Warner Cable Phone Service in Rural Areas Unless They Wire Everyone Who Wants It

Unitel is one of five Maine telephone companies facing competition from Time Warner Cable's "digital phone" service

The Maine Public Utilities Commission has denied a request by Time Warner Cable to launch “digital phone” competition in rural Maine unless and until the cable operator agrees to completely wire every home that wants service in the affected communities.  The decision may carry national implications because it signals utility commissions have the power to stop unfair competition from companies that don’t agree to provide their service on a universal basis.

Five rural phone companies faced the prospect of trying to compete with Time Warner Cable’s “digital phone” service under requirements they provide universal service to every customer in their service area while the cable operator could cherry-pick where to provide service.

Unitel, Lincolnville Networks, Tidewater Telecom, Oxford Telephone Company and Oxford West Telephone Company told the PUC Time Warner Cable’s competitive threat was not fair because the cable company only provided service in choice neighborhoods, typically those with multiple residences adjacent to one another.  Only wiring significant population areas reduces costs for the cable operator while the rural landline providers are required to extend service to every resident in their communities, regardless of where they live.

A review by the PUC found Time Warner Cable’s request would create an undue economic burden on the rural telephone companies, reducing their value and increasing the risk of their long term survival, which would discourage investment and increase risk to creditors.

Reishus

PUC Chair Sharon Reishus: “Our decision…is taking place in a changing landscape for telephone regulation at the federal level with pending congressional and FCC actions, in the marketplace and in wireless technology. Our decision came down to an analysis of the current financial ability of the rural companies to withstand market competition if the exemption were lifted.”

“Customers in these rural areas must be assured a telephone service provider of last resort and access to lifeline services. Although the commission has a long history of recognizing the value of competition in the telecommunications market, in this instance, where Time Warner is not proposing to expand the availability of its service throughout the entire service territory of the rural companies, selective competition would undercut the ability of the rural companies to fulfill their ‘provider of last resort’ obligations.”

For years large telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon have argued that cable’s entry into the telephone business was unfair because cable companies never were required to serve every potential customer.  But instead of maintaining demands that cable match their universal service obligations, large phone companies have instead tried to free themselves from having to provide service to every possible customer.  AT&T, for example, has heavily lobbied for repeal of universal service requirements that mandate they provide telephone service to residents who live in the most rural service areas.

The Maine PUC has adopted a different standard — demanding that would-be cable competitors get busy wiring their entire communities for cable if they want permission to compete with area phone companies.  If they are not willing to do so, they cannot provide phone service to anyone in those communities.

Time Warner Cable had been seeking permission to provide phone service in rural Maine since 2008.

[flv width=”560″ height=”340″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Oxford Networks.mp4[/flv]

A promotional video from Oxford Networks (d/b/a Oxford/Oxford West Telephone Company) explaining the company’s history and their investment in fiber optics.  (3 minutes)

Some Tennessee AT&T Customers Still Facing Outrageous Bills for “Unlimited” Long Distance That Isn’t

Phillip Dampier June 17, 2010 AT&T, Consumer News, Editorial & Site News Comments Off on Some Tennessee AT&T Customers Still Facing Outrageous Bills for “Unlimited” Long Distance That Isn’t

Belinda Horton, Clarksville, Tenn. speaks with AT&T customer service

Back in April, Stop the Cap! covered the story of Clarksville, Tenn., resident Belinda Horton, who found herself besieged by endless billing errors from AT&T.

She was not alone.  More than 15,000 customers in Tennessee alone have been suffering with an AT&T “unlimited” long distance calling plan that has billed every long distance call at non-plan rates.  At one point, Horton found herself staring at a bill for $1,350.

As of late April, more than three thousand dollars in erroneous charges had appeared on her phone bill over several months, when she was only supposed to have paid a flat rate amount of $25 a month for unlimited long distance.

Horton did secure credits from AT&T, but only after repeatedly calling their customer service department after every inaccurate bill arrived.

For her and other Tennessee customers in the same boat, appeals to the Tennessee Regulatory Authority were supposed to fix the problem.  AT&T’s legal counsel, Guy Hicks, apologized on behalf of the company and promised to make things right.

That lip service was apparently good enough for the TRA, which as we wrote at the time was just a bit premature:

It was disappointing to see the TRA praising AT&T at the end of Monday’s meeting.  This is an ongoing nightmare for some customers, and TRA officials seemed all too ready to applaud the company for its promises to fix the problem while Tennessee residents continue to be overbilled.  The time for praise comes after the company resolves the issue and every customer has been credited for every error.  AT&T has promised it would resolve these billing problems for nearly a month, with complaints still arriving even as the Authority met.

Long time readers can guess what happened next.

Belinda dropped a note to Stop the Cap! informing us she had enough with AT&T and decided to switch to Charter Communications.  But in one last indignity, her final bill from AT&T was loaded with inaccurate charges running over $100.

Now that Horton is a former AT&T customer, the company has been even less responsive than ever.  The TRA is reportedly involving itself in the matter once again, although it’s clear AT&T doesn’t exactly feel threatened by the Authority.

Had AT&T done the right thing, they would have not only credited back the inaccurately billed long distance calls, they also would credit back the $25 a month Belinda paid for a long distance plan she had to fight every step of the way to actually receive.  It’s the least the company could do for a customer who was forced to flee AT&T because they couldn’t resolve their own billing problems.

Belinda writes she has better things to do than spend endless hours fighting with the phone company.  She has been devoting as much free time as possible caring for an ailing friend.  Many people would have simply paid AT&T’s final bill just to be rid of them, but it was Belinda’s friend who encouraged her to stay in the fight and not pay AT&T one penny more than they deserve.

Stop the Cap! is attempting to get Horton in touch with the executive office customer service department at AT&T to get this resolved once and for all.

FCC Votes to Move Forward with “Third Way” Reclassification – Seeks Your Comments

Phillip Dampier June 17, 2010 Net Neutrality, Public Policy & Gov't 1 Comment

As expected, the Federal Communications Commission today voted 3-2 along party lines to move forward with a Notice of Inquiry on Chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposed “third way” of “light touch” regulation to restore the agency’s authority over broadband matters.

A Democratic majority approved Genachowski’s proposal after debate among Commission members.  Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps, long critical of the Bush Administration’s efforts to deregulate broadband, was among the most forceful in calling for some oversight over the industry.  Copps contended that the Bush Administration bent over backwards for large telecommunications companies in unprecedented ways, even stripping away basic consumer protection policies relating to privacy and billing.  The result, he contends, has been a disaster for broadband consumers.

“We need to reclaim our authority,” said Copps. “I, for one, am worried about relying only on the good will of a few powerful companies to achieve this country’s broadband hopes and dreams.”

Copps dismissed rhetoric from industry groups in opposition to the proposal, claiming broadband oversight was not a government takeover or regulation of the Internet.

“We are not talking, even remotely, about regulating the Internet,” Copps said. “We are talking about meaningful oversight of the infrastructure and services that allow Americans to get to the Internet.”

Genachowski’s proposal would correct flawed policy enabled by former Bush Administration FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who supported the classification of broadband as an “information service.”  Powell claimed that classification would include ancillary authority to back FCC enforcement.

That authority would be put to the test.

In 2007, Comcast secretly imposed speed restrictions on customers using peer-to-peer software.  Using the authority Powell claimed the agency had, the FCC ordered the broadband provider to cease and desist its speed throttling. Although Comcast discontinued the practice, replacing it with a 250 GB monthly data cap, the company also sued in federal court a year later, claiming the FCC’s broadband authority was flawed.

Earlier this year, the court agreed, ruling the FCC could not extend ancillary authority under its “information service” classification of broadband.  In that one decision, the FCC lost most, if not all of its oversight powers over broadband matters.

By reclassifying broadband as a “telecommunications service,” the Commission believes it can win back its oversight powers.  The Supreme Court, in an earlier case, upheld similar authority in another matter.

But telecommunications companies have claimed the proposed reclassification would subject broadband providers to 1930’s era regulations established for telephone landline companies.  They objected strongly to today’s vote.

Tom Tauke

Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communications said, “Reclassifying high-speed broadband Internet service as a telecom service is a terrible idea.  The negative consequences for online users and the Internet ecosystem would be severe and have ramifications for decades.  It is difficult to understand why the FCC continues to consider this option.”

Tauke, along with several other phone and cable companies have asked the Commission to turn the matter over to Congress.  Tauke referenced the industry-backed effort that secured nearly 300 signatures from members of Congress opposing reclassification.

But industry critics contend turning the matter over to a polarized Congress would represent a delay at best.  At worst, it could open the door to even more industry-backed, campaign contribution-fueled deregulation.

“There is a real urgency to this because right now there are no rules of the road to protect consumers from even the most egregious discriminatory behavior by telephone and cable companies,” said Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition, which includes Internet heavyweights like Google and Amazon.com.

Aparna Sridhar, Free Press’ policy counsel said, “The FCC’s Third Way proposal presents a measured response to a problem created by a Comcast lawsuit: Without restoring its authority over broadband, the Commission won’t be able to bring broadband to rural and low-income Americans or promote policies that encourage innovation, creativity, free speech and job creation online. These are goals that we can all agree on, and we support the Commission’s effort to achieve them by first establishing a sound legal foundation for its policies.”

Republican commissioners largely adopted the broadband industry position that any additional regulation would harm investment and hurt consumers.

“I recognize that industry alone will not solve every challenge and no commercial market is perfect, but I fear that a more proactive broadband regulatory approach would adversely affect consumers, competition, and investment,” said Republican Commissioner Meredith Baker, who voted against the proposal.

At least one Republican congressman went all out for the industry in a letter to Genachowski that accused him of engaging in a “blind power grab.”

“Despite overwhelming opposition within a Congress that possesses the actual authority that the FCC covets, the Commission now inexplicably appears poised on Thursday to take another misguided leap towards its investment-suffocating attempt to regulate broadband providers as common carriers,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) wrote.

Upton counts AT&T among his top-five contributors, giving the congressman and his leadership PAC $20,000.  Upton also accepted $15,000 from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, $10,250 from Verizon, $10,000 from Comcast, and $7,500 from Deutsche Telekom, owner of T-Mobile.

Despite all the rhetoric, at least one carrier was forced to live under most of the rules Genachowski proposes for all of America’s broadband providers, with little difficulty.  AT&T agreed to maintain a Net Neutral policy from 2006-2009 as part of its merger agreements with SBC and BellSouth.  While doing so, the company increased investments in deploying its IPTV service U-verse, which included better broadband service for U-verse customers.

Stop the Cap! will provide detailed instructions on how to submit comments to the FCC as part of today’s Notice of Inquiry soon and will hopefully have video of today’s event up shortly.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!