Credit challenged AT&T customers may be out hundreds of dollars if they fail to understand the difference between AT&T’s service deposit and a “credit management fee” for new customers. 

For years, postpaid customers with damaged/no credit have been asked by AT&T employees to post a significant deposit to establish service. For many U-verse and cell phone customers that amount can reach $449 or more. Customers complain AT&T sales employees rarely explain whether they are being asked to put down a refundable deposit or being billed AT&T’s novel “credit management fee,” especially after they are reassured the “deposit” will eventually be returned to customers.

In Ohio, one customer is upset that AT&T has misrepresented its $449 one time “credit management fee” as a refundable deposit and claims AT&T now wants to keep that money for itself, despite his perfect payment record.

Michael Tedesco told FOX 28 in Columbus when he signed up for cable provider AT&T, he was required to spend $449 towards a deposit to get U-verse service activated.

“I was 19 and didn’t have any established credit, so they told me I had to put down a deposit,” said Tedesco. He claims AT&T promised to return $5 of that money each month as a credit on his bill, which means Tedesco would receive his full deposit back only after approximately 7 1/2 years of staying with AT&T. Tedesco also claimed AT&T promised to immediately return the balance of any remaining deposit if he canceled service.

But that isn’t what happened.

“I’d been with them for two years, so that’s $120,” said Tedesco. “So $329 should be returned to me. But now they’re saying they changed their story. That it’s a non-refundable fee.”

AT&T’s non-refundable “Credit Management Fee” is often called a deposit by AT&T’s salespeople. But it isn’t.

A Google search about the non-refundable nature of AT&T’s “deposit” has revealed considerable controversy over AT&T’s “credit management fee” and how it is represented by AT&T employees trying to make a sale. When customers return to complain, they are told to read AT&T’s voluminous terms and conditions, which claim the fee might or might not be refundable.

Telecom companies have traditionally used refundable deposits as a way to insure themselves against a customer considered more likely to default on their bill. For decades, phone companies usually returned deposits back to customers, with interest, after 12-24 months of a satisfactory payment history.

AT&T has instead turned that insurance protection into another way to earn revenue for itself, and critics contend AT&T employees are misrepresenting the costly fee and how customers can get it back.

An AT&T spokesperson admitted shareholders come before customers.

“The credit management fee is in place to cover the upfront cost of service while protecting our shareholders against loss in the event a customer isn’t able to pay their bill,” wrote the spokesperson in a written statement. AT&T also claimed it tells customers up front it is not a deposit. “We communicate to these customers before they sign-up that this is a one-time non-refundable fee.”

If AT&T returns a portion of its “Credit Management Fee” at its discretion, it comes in $5 increments, which means it will take over seven years to get your money back.

The Ohio Attorney General has little power over AT&T’s contracts, language, or sales practices, and offered that consumers need to protect themselves from companies like AT&T.

“It’s helpful to ask things like ‘is there a schedule of when money will be credited to my account? What happens if I leave? How long do I have to stay with the company?'” Melissa Smith, from the AG’s Consumer Division, told the Columbus FOX affiliate. “But what’s most important, no matter what that operator says, is to make sure it lines up with what’s in the contract.”

In dozens of pages of terms and conditions for AT&T’s products and services, the relevant language is found under the Billing section (emphasis ours in the language below), and it is highly confusing because it conflates a traditional deposit program with AT&T’s newer, non-refundable “credit management fee,” making it next to impossible for consumers to understand which applies  until after their first bill arrives:

Advance Payments, Deposits, Fees and Limits.

We may require you to make deposits or advance payments for Services, which we may use to satisfy your initial bill for Services, to offset against any unpaid balance on your account, or as otherwise set forth in these TOS or permitted by law. Interest will not be paid on advance payments or deposits unless required by law. We may require additional advance payments or deposits if we determine that the initial payment was inadequate. Upon determination solely by AT&T of satisfactory payment history or as required by law, AT&T may begin refunding of the deposit or advance payment through bill credits, cash payments, or as otherwise determined solely by AT&T. Based on your creditworthiness, a non-refundable fee may be required to establish service and we may require you to enroll, and remain enrolled, in an automatic payment or electronic funds transfer plan. We may establish additional limits and restrict service or features as we deem appropriate. If your account balance goes beyond the limit we set for you, we may immediately interrupt or suspend service until your balance is brought below the limit. Any charges you incur in excess of your limit become immediately due.

Many customers learn about the fee only after receiving their first bill, which usually arrives after the contract grace period deadline offered to customers who change their mind and exit the contract penalty-free.

“I recently ordered new service and I was told ‘Congratulations you don’t require a deposit,'” wrote ‘Susanja.’ “That’s great, right? Not! I just opened my first bill and there’s a $500 credit management fee for a total of $600+ for my first month’s bill.”

By the time the first bill arrived, she was already locked into a contract with a substantial cancellation penalty.

WTTE-TV in Columbus investigates AT&T’s “Credit Management Fee.” (3:29)

President Donald Trump promised voters during last summer’s Republican National Convention that he would ‘not look the other way’ and ignore Washington politicians that have “sold out to some corporate lobbyist for cash.”

But newly released documents show that while Mr. Trump was delivering his remarks, top Republican officials and some of the nation’s biggest corporate lobbyists were enjoying a plush, corporate funded private hideaway where politicians could safely meet with corporate interests away from the public’s glare.

The Center for Public Integrity could not directly obtain information about the “cloakroom” — the informal name designated by the GOP for the space designed to look like a cross between an elite hotel lobby, a private club, and expensive office space — because the organizers sought to keep it a secret. But an unrelated lawsuit filed in a Ohio court made public important bank records which revealed just how much some of America’s top corporations were willing to quietly spend to keep the Republicans happy.

The top donor was Comcast Corp., which contributed $200,000. Microsoft, the Koch Brothers, and AT&T each donated $100,000. Those companies were joined by large banks, the oil, gas, and pharmaceutical industries, and curiously an $80,000 check from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, among the top political donors in California. The group has spent more than a quarter-billion dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying to convince lawmakers to allow the Native Americans the right to spread slot machines around the state.

To keep the contributions a secret, Republicans created a limited liability corporation — “Friends of the House 2016 LLC,” according to bank records. This group was not obligated to disclose its funding sources, and fought hard in court to keep the names of its corporate donors from being revealed to the public.

Corporate interests were nervous about sponsoring the 2016 Republican convention that was widely expected to choose Mr. Trump as the Republican candidate. Corporate interests told the New York Times last year they were under pressure to scale back their contributions as the campaign grew divisive. AT&T told the newspaper it was limiting its contributions to convention activity “aimed at benefiting the democratic process.” The company had no comment about how their contribution to fund an exclusive, strictly off-limits to the public-“cloakroom” accomplished that.

Instead of foregoing contributions, the Republicans devised a way to quietly obtain corporate money while giving donors cover from public scrutiny.

“The immediate effect is it looks like it hid certain donors to the convention,” said Lawrence Noble, senior director and general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for campaign finance reform.

One of the designated perks of being a donor to the ‘Friends of the House’ was a free pass to enjoy the facilities for refreshment and relaxation.

“As a sponsor of the hospitality venue, we were invited to use it, as well,” said Jori Fine, a spokeswoman for Health Care Service Corp. The company paid Friends of the House 2016 LLC $100,000, according to bank records, a payment that Fine said “supported hospitality and other events during the 2016 GOP Convention in Cleveland.”

Should a donor’s lobbyist or corporate executive bump into top Republican lawmakers inside, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, who was given his own private space in the “cloakroom,” that was ‘purely coincidental.’ Since donor companies were given access while non-donors were not, lawmakers using the “cloakroom” could easily deduce donors by the presence of their lobbyists or company officials.

Most of the companies who made contributions are still trying to keep it a secret. In addition to an effort to get a Ohio judge to seal the records before they were made public, 15 of the 20 donor companies refused to confirm they were donors and had no comment or did not respond when asked about it.

Marketing materials from the company that constructed the “cloakroom” give the public their only view of its elegance. Members of the public were not allowed inside.

“The convention is one big loophole to the limits of corrupting money on politics,” Paul S. Ryan, vice president for policy and litigation at Common Cause, a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for limits on money in politics told the Center. He is not related to House Speaker Paul Ryan.

The Center for Public Integrity also exposed how companies and individuals like the Koch Brothers claimed they were staying away from contributing to the GOP convention, while eagerly feeding secret contributions to the LLC that benefited it:

Friends of the House 2016 LLC appears to have provided companies an especially discreet opportunity to support the GOP convention.

For several of the companies that didn’t otherwise donate cash directly to the Cleveland 2016 Host Committee — a list that includes 12 of the entities listed in the bank records — there was little or no public evidence of their use of corporate dollars to support of the 2016 Republican convention.

For example, Comcast Corp., which wrote a $200,000 check to Friends of the House 2016 LLC, isn’t listed as a donor by the Cleveland 2016 Host Committee.

Neither is Koch Companies Public Sector, which wrote a $100,000 check to Friends of the House 2016 LLC. In fact, a Koch Industries spokesman in June said the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, well-known Republican megadonors, weren’t planning to contribute to the convention at all.

Neither firm responded to a request for comment about the payments to Friends of the House 2016 LLC.

The majestic space created for politicians and corporate interests to relax together in a familiar “cloakroom” setting was no small undertaking, according to Joe Mineo Creative, the company that transformed the Cleveland Cavaliers’ practice basketball court inside the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland into something that would fit comfortably in a high-end D.C. hotel or private offices for corporate executives. It was with some embarrassment to the Republicans that the company that did the work was sufficiently proud of it to boast about it in marketing materials, giving the public its only glimpse of how more than $1 million in corporate contributions was spent during the three-day convention. When it was over, the “cloakroom” was torn down to restore the basketball court.

It isn’t known if any campaign finance laws were broken as a result of these contributions.

Rep. Michele Hoitenga (R-Manton) doesn’t care much for community broadband, so she introduced a bill in the Michigan legislature that is as stark as it is short:

House Bill 5099:

The bill is remarkable for its brevity — most proposed community broadband ban bills avoid outright bans, preferring to use forced complicated referendums or operational limitations that usually make municipal broadband projects untenable. But Rep. Hoitenga’s bill leaves no doubt she wants private cable and phone companies left unmolested by publicly funded alternatives. Although the Michigan Republican chairs the House’s Communications and Technology committee, she appears confused about the difference between upload and download speeds. Her bill would define a “qualified” internet service as one offering at least 1/10Mbps service. Yes — 1Mbps download speed and 10Mbps upload speed.

Ars Technica’s Jon Brodkin asked Rep. Hoitenga about the oddity of the language in her bill:

When asked about this on Twitter, Hoitenga said she would have to “speak with the attorneys who wrote the bill” to determine whether the listed speed was a mistake. “I will speak with the attorneys who wrote the bill. They changed the language I submitted but will ask why they changed it,” Hoitenga wrote.

Rep. Hoitenga

Rep. Hoitenga used her Twitter account to promote and defend her bill, pointing out the district she represents had “37 providers” to choose from — a fact she gleaned from an online AT&T Yellow Pages directory. Stop the Cap! investigated that claim and found the majority of the providers cited did not offer internet access to members of her district, provided service only in adjacent communities, or sold commercial internet services to businesses only. In fact, for the overwhelming majority of her constituents, there are only two providers to choose from — AT&T or Comcast. Both are top donors to Rep. Hoitenga’s campaign, but more on that later.

Michigan has never been a hotbed of community broadband initiatives, despite having uneven broadband service in suburban and rural areas across the state. Michigan law already includes several significant roadblocks for public broadband projects, notes Lisa Gonzalez from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance:

“Michigan already has a significant state barrier in place; municipalities that wish to improve connectivity must first appeal to the private sector and can only invest in a network if they receive fewer than three qualifying bids. If a local community then goes on to build a publicly owned network, they must comply with the terms of the RFP, even though terms for a private sector vendor may not be ideal for a public entity.

“Nevertheless, several communities in Michigan have dealt with the restrictions in recent years as a way to ameliorate poor connectivity. They’ve come to realize that their local economies and the livelihood of their towns depend on improving Internet access for businesses, institutions, and residents.”

Although Rep. Hoitenga’s bill offers the possibility for “public-private” partnerships, her bill would bring a significant chilling effect because the proposed law fails to define how such partnerships should be structured.

Rep. Hoitenga told Stop the Cap! the bill would put a stop to tax dollars being spent on broadband service, something she felt was unwarranted. We asked the Michigan representative, “Did you know the phone and cable companies receive taxpayer subsidies already in the form of PILOT agreements, and other incentives?” which received the non-sequitur response that her office’s phones were ringing constantly with callers praising her new bill.

But that isn’t what Rep. Hoitenga told her Facebook fans.

“Many individuals have reached out to my office in regards to HB5099; with the belief that I am attempting to limit broadband expansion,” Hoitenga wrote. “This could not be further from the truth. One of my main goals as the Chair of the House Communications and Technology committee is to make internet access more easily obtainable. This legislation does indeed prevent cities from using tax dollars to subsidize ISPs; especially without a vote of the people. While at first glance government operated networks may sound like a good idea, the argument in support of them crumbles with an in depth look into the financial and long-term investment side of implementing such a network.”

So we remain unsure if the wave of phone calls Hoitenga referenced were in support of her proposed bill or opposed to it. Either way, the Michigan representative mischaracterized her own three-paragraph bill by claiming it would prevent cities from using tax dollars for internet service, “without a vote of the people.” But no provision for such a vote exists or would be allowed by her existing bill. Hoitenga’s bill also clearly makes internet access less obtainable, especially in communities where a for profit provider does not exist and a community is seeking to provide an alternative.

Hoitenga later states communities may not need to worry about internet accessibility because, “there is also a package of bills in the senate regarding Small Cell Technology (which also attempts to reduce barriers),” she wrote. That provision is backed by AT&T, which is currently one of the two ISPs serving her district.

She then picks up familiar talking points distributed by public broadband opponents:

“There are examples throughout the state and nation of taxpayers being on the hook for failed networks. There is also concern that some of these networks are in towns where employee pensions are severely underfunded, causing layoffs and cutting services, yet there seems to be money for high risk broadband investments. It’s time to address these issues.

She also cited a 2017 study critical of municipal broadband networks authored by University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Christopher Yoo and co-author Timothy Pfenninger. Neither author or Rep. Hoitenga disclosed the group that produced the study is funded by AT&T and Comcast, among other large telecom companies and their respective lobbying organizations.

After opening a dialogue with the Michigan representative, she did not take kindly to questions or criticism about her bill, and summarily blocked Stop the Cap! from seeing her Tweets or communicating with her further — the first time anyone has blocked our group on Twitter. Shortly after that, she changed her Twitter channel to be viewable by invitation only, limiting her potential audience to her 284 current followers. At the moment, the only social media outlet that seems to be still open to communicating with Rep. Hoitenga is Facebook, where she is taking heat from her constituents about her bill.

The Michigan representative has been behind several controversial bills introduced in the current session of the Michigan House, including a proposal to allow concealed pistols to be carried in public and a ban on Sharia law being practiced in the United States.

Her top donors for the current legislative session include:

#2 – Telecommunications Association of Michigan PAC, $3,000
#4 – AT&T Michigan, $1,500
#11 – Comcast Corp. & NBC Universal, $500

Cable operators that have watched their stocks get pounded after warning their third quarter earnings would reflect an undeniable trend towards cord-cutting are considering dramatically raising broadband-only pricing to $80 or more to protect profits.

Comcast is among the largest cable companies responding to repeated calls from Wall Street analysts to boost broadband pricing, hiking broadband-only rates to around $65 a month after a customer’s $40 promotional pricing offer expires. Charter Communications also hiked prices earlier this year to $65 a month for its entry-level 60 or 100Mbps package, with further rate increases expected in early 2018. But those incremental rate hikes are not enough to satisfy analysts who fear cable’s video earnings losses are already higher than the revenue gained from charging more for broadband service.

In a note to investors, Morgan Stanley said the cable industry’s efforts to jack up prices for those dropping video service have made some progress, noting most companies raised prices by 12% in 2017, establishing a new beachhead rate of $65 a month — the rate broadband-only customers should now expect to pay.

“As video revenue growth is increasingly pressured, leaning on data pricing is tempting to sustain earnings,” said Benjamin Swinburne, a Morgan Stanley analyst in a report.

But recent rate hikes don’t go far enough for some. Prices must rise at least another $15 a month to satisfy Jeffries analyst Mike McCormack and restore industry profits lost from cord-cutting. McCormack notes customers who have not canceled cable television are being insulated from the most dramatic rate hikes impacting cord-cutters, pointing out the average customer with a bundle of services now pays around $49 a month for broadband service — $16 less.

“Cable companies are likely to raise stand-alone broadband pricing in order to combat the EBITDA declines from downsizing,” said McCormack in a report. “This practice is already evident and justified given the lack of a bundling discount. Based on our analysis, we estimate Comcast would need to raise stand-alone pricing to roughly $80 in order to break even from a profitability perspective.”

Swinburne

Jonathan Chaplin, an analyst for New Street Research who has called on the cable industry to double broadband pricing for more than a year, thinks the marketplace is ripe for sweeping rate increases.

“We have argued that broadband is underpriced, given that pricing has barely increased over the past decade while broadband utility has exploded,” New Street said. “Our analysis suggested a ‘utility-adjusted’ ARPU target of ~$90. Comcast recently increased standalone broadband to $90 (including modem), paving the way for faster ARPU growth as the mix shifts in favor of broadband-only households. Charter will likely follow, once they are through the integration of Time Warner Cable.”

Wall Street analysts typically use code language that avoids portraying the marketplace as a monopoly or barely-competitive duopoly, instead preferring to note there is little risk or headwind to prevent operators from boosting prices or using their large market share to their advantage. Chaplin argues that cable television is no longer to profit center it used to be — broadband is.

“In fact, the [free cash flow] lost from subs dropping pay-TV is generally recovered through higher [broadband] pricing,” said Chaplin.

Many analysts also argue that most of the proceeds collected from charging higher broadband prices should be used to buy back shares of stock or returned to shareholders, not used to upgrade or expand service. In fact, Wall Street is currently punishing Altice USA, sending its initial stock price from $30 a share to just $24.49 this week. One of the reasons for the fall is the money its Cablevision unit is spending to replace its coaxial cable network with fiber optics. AT&T’s stock has also suffered as the company continues to spend money on expanding its AT&T Fiber service while combating cord cutting with its U-verse and DirecTV services.

AT&T tried to calm investors Wednesday in an 8-K filing with regulators, reporting that although it has likely lost 390,000 DirecTV satellite and U-verse video customers in the last three months, it has gained 300,000 online streaming customers for its DirecTV Now TV service.

The company is required to report materially adverse changes to its business to shareholders, and AT&T elected not to wait until its next quarterly earnings report to divulge the substantial losses in video customers. DirecTV Now gains are not expected to be a significant panacea for investors because AT&T reportedly makes little or no profit from the service since it launched in late 2016.

AT&T avoided blaming cord-cutting for customer losses:

The video net losses were driven by heightened competition in traditional pay TV markets and over-the-top services, hurricanes and our stricter credit standards. The decline of traditional video subscribers negatively impacts our Entertainment Group revenues and margins, resulting in an adjusted consolidated operating income margin that will be essentially flat versus the year-ago third quarter.

Overall, the company confessed it lost 90,000 total video subscriptions once DirecTV Now’s gains were included.

AT&T told investors earlier this year it was substantially cutting marketing of its U-verse video service and began encouraging customers to subscribe to DirecTV satellite service instead. But the satellite TV service is rapidly losing customers as well. Wall Street analysts suggest the only explanation for this is cord-cutting.

“The issue is in the acceleration in cord-cutting, and the prevalence of [online streaming], not each other,” said Craig Moffett of MoffettNathanson. “It is becoming increasingly clear that the wheels are falling off of satellite TV” noting that Dish Networks subscriber numbers appeared dismal as well.

Moffett predicted with the ongoing video losses impacting satellite television, he thought it unthinkable the two satellite companies might consider merging.