Thanks to a divided 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, customers trying to seek relief from unilateral fees and surcharges suddenly showing up on their Verizon cell phone bills will have to pursue individual arbitration claims with the cell phone company instead of joining forces in a class arbitration claim.

That Supreme Court case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, is turning out to benefit Verizon Wireless as much as AT&T, because the Supreme Court found merit in contracts obligating customers to seek individual arbitration to settle differences while forbidding customers from pursuing organized legal action.

Now the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has reversed an earlier ruling, reinstating a 2008 decision by U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson that delivered victory to Verizon Wireless.

At issue was Verizon’s decision in October 2005 to unilaterally impose an “administrative fee” of $0.40 and/or $0.70, as part of the monthly charges for each Verizon cell phone line.  Customers upset with the new fees felt they violated the principle that, as part of their two year contracts, Verizon would deliver a fixed-price service.  The cell phone company has since implemented a variety of fees and surcharges on customers that are pocketed by Verizon, regardless of the contract price.

All Verizon Wireless customers are obligated by contract to challenge any terms and conditions they disagree with through an arbitrator of Verizon’s choosing, at a place also chosen by the company.  That means Verizon could place an arbitrator on retention in a city potentially thousands of miles away, and demand the customer make their case there, to an arbitrator whose livelihood ultimately depends on retainer fees paid by the company.  Few consumers would make such a journey to protest a fee that amounts to less than $10 a year per line.

Lawyers Keith Litman and Robert Wachtel, representing Verizon customers, decided to try a different approach — a class action arbitration.  The two attorneys would represent potentially millions of impacted customers themselves, making any travel cost concerns incidental, and providing a seasoned challenge before arbitrators, who would also hear counter-arguments from Verizon’s own legal team.

Verizon’s attorneys argued such class action arbitration was specifically forbidden in the company’s contract with customers.  Normally, a judge might decide at that point a customer agreeing to those terms and conditions was effectively up the creek.  But a series of legal challenges in circuit courts opened the door to invalidating those terms.

Litman and Wachtel argued that because the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Del. (2006), has held that an arbitration provision in a consumer contract that precludes class arbitration of low-value claims is unconscionable under New Jersey law, similarly, the arbitration provision in Verizon’s contract is also unenforceable.

Unfortunately for the two attorneys representing consumers, the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court effectively overrode that case, leaving Verizon on top with Judge Wolfson’s 2008 decision.

Wolfson

Wolfson’s written ruling on the case seemed unimpressed with claims that Verizon’s fees were unconscionable:

In this case, Plaintiffs are customers who chose Verizon as their wireless provider at least four years ago and continue to use Verizon today. They signed the customer Agreement with the arbitration clause and agreed to subsequent terms of service as added by Verizon. Plaintiffs do not allege that they did not understand the Agreement that they voluntarily entered into nor do they allege fraud or misrepresentation. The parties agreed “to settle [their] disputes . . . only by arbitration,” and the “agreement doesn’t permit class arbitration.” Therefore, [federal law] requires this Court to uphold the arbitration provision within Plaintiffs’ service Agreement.

But Judge Wolfson did recognize the effective impact of her decision:

“The Court recognizes the many hardships visited upon plaintiffs, such as in this case, based upon this ruling. First, it creates the opportunity for a different result depending on whether the case is brought in federal or state court. Second, it is also clear that compelling individual arbitration in this case will be tantamount to ending the Plaintiffs’ pursuit of their claims, as there is very little possibility that these Plaintiffs or any other plaintiff will pursue individual arbitration for claims that amount only to several dollars in damages. While this outcome is harsh, this Court is bound by Third Circuit precedent.”

Lately, Verizon Wireless customers have been seeking other forms of relief when Verizon unilaterally changes or implements new fees or surcharges.  Many are invoking the “materially adverse” clause found in Verizon’s terms and conditions, which theoretically allows customers to exit their contracts penalty-free if they do not agree to the changes Verizon is imposing on customers.  Verizon Wireless appears to be increasingly aggressive in fighting these claims, too, refusing to allow customers to leave without stiff early termination fees.  That may become the subject of another lawsuit at some point in the future.

Small town media, always eager for an easy story to tell, is notorious for rewriting industry press releases and calling it news, but when a major “news radio” station in Chicago does it, it’s simply sloppy and embarrassing.

WBBM Radio decided AT&T’s merger with T-Mobile, announced several months ago, has suddenly become newsworthy.  Why?  Because AT&T has been sending out press releases touting the merger’s benefits for Illinois customers.

News that a merger with America’s fourth largest wireless carrier would suddenly bring widespread 4G coverage to communities large and small has become catnip for lazy reporters who never bother to research the claims.  Even AT&T’s attorneys are on a different page from AT&T’s public relations department.

But the extent of WBBM’s investigation by reporter Alex Degman began and ended with a proposed AT&T coverage map:

A coverage map of the proposed network coverage shows most of the state would indeed be covered, minus large sections of the Shawnee National Forest in southeastern Illinois and scattered pockets in west central Illinois. The merger is expected to be approved in January.

Degman’s report was little more than a disguised advertisement for AT&T, completely reliant on the company’s claims and ignorant of the fact AT&T would bring 4G service to anyone in WBBM’s local coverage area with or without T-Mobile.

Apparently there was no time for merger opponents.

WBBM Reporter Alex Degman “covers” the impact of the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile on Illinois. August 22, 2011. (1 minute)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Listener Seth Weintraub was not impressed.

“Are you kidding?” Weintraub wrote. “Is AT&T writing your copy now?”

“How about reporting on the FCC document filings instead of unsubstantiated claims made by the company,” writes listener Patrick Dailey. “This is what is wrong with media today.”

Some proponents for AT&T U-verse suggest people will quickly get used to AT&T's metal cabinets.

A coalition of neighborhoods opposed to the installation of more than 700 4-foot tall metal cabinets across the city of San Francisco have filed suit against AT&T in Superior Court demanding the city follow its own environmental codes and conduct an environmental impact assessment.

The suit comes in response to last month’s close 6-5 vote by the Board of Supervisors permitting AT&T to install up to 726 boxes on the public-right-of-way — typically street corners and sidewalks — to support expansion of its U-verse television, broadband, and phone service.

San Francisco Beautiful, San Francisco Tomorrow, the Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association, the Dogpatch Neighborhood Association, and the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association are all parties to the lawsuit filed Wednesday, which calls the boxes graffiti targets, a safety problem for traffic and pedestrians, and just plain ugly.

Milo Hanke, past president of San Francisco Beautiful, accuses the city of ignoring its own rules to give a green light to AT&T.

“We really don’t want to sue, but we are left with no choice when the city refuses to uphold its own environment codes and is about to give away our sidewalks for the benefit of a private company without objective review,” Hanke told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Long time observers of city politics are frankly surprised AT&T won permission for the controversial boxes.

“It wasn’t that long ago that something like this would have been stopped dead in its tracks in [one] environmental review [after another],” said KCBS-TV reporter Phil Matier.  “But this year, whether it’s a change in the tone for business or for jobs it actually got the six votes needed, and that is going to be interesting as this plays out in an election year in San Francisco.”

Lane Kasselman, an AT&T spokesman countered: “This is about choice and competition for San Francisco residents. It’s about new, better technology that enhances peoples’ lives. AT&T thanks the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for supporting the deployment of U-verse throughout San Francisco. We’ve already started construction and are working as quickly as possible to bring next generation IP network services to every block and household that wants it.”

But Hanke thinks the city has gone too far for the benefit of AT&T at the expense of local residents.

“This is a private enterprise with a benefit to private parties,” Hanke told KCBS.  “Why should the public be subsidizing a Dallas-based corporation, and having to look at these ugly boxes in the process.”

Sean Elsbernd, who serves on San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors personally thinks the boxes are a great idea, suggesting Comcast needs competition.

“I have a suspicion that four or five months after they are in, people aren’t going to notice them anymore,” Elsebernd said.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCBS San Francisco Groups Sue ATT 8-24-11.mp4[/flv]

KCBS in San Francisco covers the continuing controversy over AT&T’s 4-foot tall utility boxes and the lawsuit designed to stop or delay their installation.  (3 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KBAK Bakersfield Homeowner fights utility project in her front yard 5-27-10.flv[/flv]

KBAK in Bakersfield shows what happened when AT&T brought their lawn refrigerator-sized boxes to that city in the spring of 2010 — one woman woke up and found AT&T crews tearing up her yard, without any notice, as part of a major construction project.  (3 minutes)

Rumors are swirling Sprint will begin selling Apple’s iconic iPhone this October, bringing the number of carriers supporting the wildly popular phone to three.  Sprint shares soared 10 percent on the news.  But while Sprint customers and shareholders are celebrating the potential imminent arrival of iPhone, launching the phone on the Sprint network is no simple matter, especially for the last remaining carrier delivering truly unlimited data.

On the Plus Side

Apple’s iPhone has become a must-have for a significant number of consumers.  They won’t leave the phone behind to switch carriers, not even for Verizon Wireless, until they introduced the phone earlier this year.  Now Sprint can win its own share of iPhone devotees.

Sprint’s iPhone promotions could draw customers away from larger carriers, especially enticed by Sprint’s worry-free unlimited data plan that has become extinct at other wireless companies.

The iPhone locks customers into new two-year contracts with Sprint, helpful security at a time when AT&T threatens to further consolidate the wireless industry in its efforts to acquire T-Mobile.

On the Down Side

Sprint’s phone subsidy expenses will skyrocket with Apple’s iPhone, which commands the highest subsidies in the industry.  Analysts suspect AT&T currently shells out up to $425 for iPhone 4 and $375 for iPhone 3GS.  Then AT&T sells the phone to consumers for $200 or less, making the subsidy back over the life of the two year contract.  That hits AT&T’s cash on hand hard.  For Sprint, regularly accused by Wall Street of spending too much on customer promotions, it will only increase those costs.  Sprint pays less than $150 for its top of the line Evo phones in comparison.

One guarantee the iPhone always delivers: Lots of data hungry users.  The introduction of the iPhone may ultimately threaten Sprint’s unlimited usage experience because of demand placed on an already burdened 3G network.  There is also no guarantee the first Sprint iPhone will support Sprint’s 4G network.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KMBC Kansas City Sprint May Sell iPhone in October 8-24-11.mp4[/flv]

KMBC in Kansas City talked with customers looking forward to Sprint’s iPhone.  Sprint is a major employer in Kansas City.  (2 minutes)

Accidents can be forgiven, but when AT&T’s repair crews take nearly a week to fix them, they are rarely forgotten.

More than 350 residents of Burbank, Calif., learned that first hand when they lost their AT&T landlines for six days, after an unrelated construction crew accidentally cut a telephone cable.

For more than a few impacted residents, AT&T took their sweet time fixing the problem, costing area businesses thousands of dollars and leaving hundreds of customers mystified.

The accidental cable cut on Front Street Aug. 13 left consumers reaching for their cellphones and local businesses trying to convince their own customers they had not gone out of business.

The Glendale News-Press shared the misery:

Brian Schneider of Schneider & Associates Claim Services said he has been without phone service since Monday morning.

“It’s really destroying my business, I feel very helpless,” Schneider said. “I feel like I’m living in a Third World country with no telephone.”

He estimated a loss of $6,000 to $7,000 a day because customers cannot reach him.

“Customers are sending emails asking if we’re still in business,” Schneider said. “I have 25 employees who are going to be adversely affected by this.”

Compounding matters is the fact that he just rolled out a marketing campaign to attract new customers.

“It’s not easy to get new clients in this environment, and then they call and the phone just rings and we don’t pick it up — bye-bye new client.”

AT&T claims they had to dig down at least 12 feet to reach and repair the affected cable, and told the newspaper it would take up to a week to restore service, and it did.  But many customers were infuriated they were kept in the dark on the company’s progress, and others had trouble convincing AT&T to forward affected calls to unaffected cellphones and other working numbers.

AT&T said reimbursements for lost service, finally restored six days after the cable cut, were not automatic.  Customers seeking a refund have to call the company’s customer service line and request one.