A Comcast customer in San Carlos, Calif., wanted to change her Comcast account so she need not be reminded of the recent passing of her husband, under whose name the account was listed.  A simple call to Comcast to request a change met with resistance from a representative, who told her to get in her car, drive to Redwood City, and go stand in line with an original copy of his death certificate.

Judy did as she was told, and Comcast didn’t.  The following month, another bill in his name arrived.  Judy ended up telling the whole story to the San Jose Mercury News:

I again called customer service and was told, “Don’t worry, the change is in the system and will show on your next bill.”

Well, I received the bill dated Aug. 28, and it is still in his name.

On Sept. 1, I mailed a letter to the customer service manager at the Redwood City service center and to this date have had no response.

On Sept. 6, I emailed to the “We Want to Hear from You” address telling them about this, and I received an automatic response: “Thank you for your comments,” but nothing since.

In my letter I told them I will not pay that bill until I receive the bill in my name accompanied by a written apology for this gross insensitivity and complete lack of “customer service.”

A Comcast representative eventually called her back and told her the company doesn’t do written apologies, but did apologize over the phone.

After the newspaper intervened, attitudes changed dramatically.

“On Monday morning Debbie called me and after much apologizing on her part, we agreed on a month of our service deducted from my current bill,” Judy reports.

Cable companies who have earned the scorn of their customers could go a long way towards correcting their dismal record of customer service by using some common sense and sensitivity.  A family tragedy should never force someone to hike down to the local cable office with an original death certificate just to change a name on an account.  It also should not take media intervention to get someone to do the right thing.  Stop the Cap! has covered at least a dozen cases of customers running into brick walls with front line service representatives who are not authorized to do what needs to be done.  When that changes, consumers will be grateful.

Suddenlink will introduce an Internet Overcharging scheme beginning with their customers in Amarillo, Tex. Oct. 3rd, according to a company document obtained by Stop the Cap!  But the new usage cap and overlimit fee scheme will not be limited to Texas.  The company’s internal memo notes the new limits will eventually be imposed on customers nationwide, and incredibly, the cable operator claims it will make their Internet service better:

Early next month, October 2011, Suddenlink will notify residential (non-business) Internet customers in Amarillo, Texas, of a new usage allowance plan (AP) that is designed to further enhance their Internet experience.

This allowance plan will be introduced to other residential Internet customers, in other Suddenlink communities, in the following weeks and months.

An introductory letter will be mailed to Suddenlink residential Internet customers, when our allowance plan goes into effect in their community. The introductory letter to Amarillo customers will be mailed on or about October 3, 2011.

In addition to the introductory letter noted above, we will launch a new Web page on or about October 3, 2011, at suddenlink.com/allowanceplan.

This new page will provide additional information about the allowance plan in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs).

Suddenlink's national service area

On the first instance of exceeding the limit, the customer’s Internet service will be suspended until the customer reads and agrees to a web notification message that includes an understanding that on the fourth instance of going over their usage cap, customers will be billed $10 for every 50GB increment that exceeds their allowance, whether it is by 1MB or 40GB.  That pricing is identical to AT&T’s usage cap overlimit fee.

Amarillo residents already pay $55 a month for 15Mbps standalone broadband service from Suddenlink.

Stop the Cap! reached out twice today to Suddenlink officials to get their reasons for implementing the usage allowance program, what the specific allowances might be, and when the usage caps will reach markets beyond Amarillo.  We have still not heard back from them as we “go to press” but will update the piece if and when we do receive their comments.

Suddenlink’s employees are being trained on how to handle the inevitable complaints when customers discover their bills have suddenly increased.  Their employee FAQ:

Q. I only went over my allowance by 1 gigabyte, but I was still charged $10. I thought I would not be charged $10 until I was 50 gigabytes over my allowance. What happened?

Of the very few customers who go over their monthly allowance, we have found that most go over by a significant amount. Accordingly, to make this process as fair and simple as possible on all customers, we do not start charging until the third time someone goes over the allowance – and, once that happens, we automatically assign additional allowances to the account, in standard 50-gigabyte installments, at a standard price of $10 for each installment.

Customers can use all or some of that additional allowance, depending on their individual situations. What’s more, if they exceed the additional allowance of 50 gigabytes, another 50-gig allowance is automatically applied, again at the standard price of $10.

To help customers manage their Internet accounts, we have provided a way for them to monitor their monthly usage at Suddenlink.net.
• If you’re already registered at Suddenlink.net, log on, go to “My Account,” and then click the link for “My Internet Usage Summary.”
• If you’re not already registered at Suddenlink.net, visit that site, look toward the upper right corner for the log-in box and the link that reads “Don’t have an account? Sign up now!” Follow that link to a set of instructions on how to register your account, and then, when you’re finished, click the link for “My Internet Usage Summary.”

Kent: The days of system upgrades are over.

Finally, we offer some tips at suddenlink.com/allowanceplan, about ways to keep usage within the monthly allowances we’ve established.

Q. Can I have fewer than 50 gigabytes or less than $10.00 applied to my account the next time I go over?

Not at this time. The 50-gigabyte installments and $10 per installment charges have been standardized in all areas where we’ve rolled out this allowance plan, to make the process as fair and simple as possible on all customers.

Q. I don’t recall being notified that this was starting in my area. When did that happen?

We mailed letters announcing this change to all customers in your area several weeks before the allowance plan was put into place. I’m sorry if you missed that letter, but rest assured, very few customers – less than 1 out of every 100 – go over their allowance. And for the very few customers who do go over their allowances, charges are waived the first couple of times.

Q. What gives Suddenlink the right to do this?

We occasionally make changes to our Internet services, consistent with our Residential Services Agreement, which is published on our website. This allowance plan is one of those changes.

If asked: To view our Residential Services Agreement, go to Suddenlink.com, and look for a link near the bottom of the page titled, “Terms & Policies.” Click on that link and then look for another link titled, “Residential Services Agreement.” Click on that link and then scroll down the page until you see the sections related to Internet service, such as Section 46.

Suddenlink’s new Internet Overcharging website is not yet active, so we are unsure exactly what plan limits will be, but Suddenlink has been no stranger to usage caps.  The company introduced a usage meter in several markets in the summer of 2009, and used to claim usage limits were partly to handle traffic loads on a limited number of cable systems that were in the process of upgrading.  Once the upgrades were complete, the caps were supposed to be relaxed or retired.

Then, Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent appeared on CNBC last September to announce that people don’t realize the days of system upgrades are over and it was time to rake in the profits:

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Suddenlink’s journey to usage caps includes all the hallmarks we foretold in an article published on Stop the Cap! in 2009:

1. Establish a foundation for usage caps.  In their 2009 FAQ, Suddenlink conflated broadband usage with electricity: “What is “Internet usage”?  Much like electric usage is measured in kilowatts, and water usage is measured in gallons, Internet usage is measured in gigabytes (GB).”
2. Establish a ‘pulled from the air’ number of gigabytes (which often conveniently later becomes your usage allowance) and then tell subscribers what they can do with that.  In Humboldt County, Calif., in March 2011, Suddenlink began telling “heavy users” what other customers were doing with what the company deemed a more appropriate, average amount of Internet service.  Suddenlink also told customers the Internet service they were providing was for “entertainment only.”
3. Tell customers such tools are actually for their benefit.  See above.
   
4. Lie to customers when a usage meter suddenly shows up or terms and conditions are quietly changed to support an Internet Overcharging scheme.  In 2009, Suddenlink introduced a usage meter but tried to reassure customers, telling them: “Does Suddenlink plan to set a maximum usage allowance for its Internet customers, like other companies are doing? Do you plan to charge extra if a customer’s usage is too high?  Those steps are not part of our current plan. Our only goal at this time is to help the few customers whose usage is well above (two to three times higher than) the typical range to identify the reasons for that high usage and take steps to protect and secure their computers and accounts.”

You used too much. Look what you can do with an "average" amount of usage instead.

Now usage caps will protect and enhance Suddenlink’s profits on Internet service.  Remarkably, Suddenlink put itself in the “predicament” of facing increased customer demand of the Internet through its own marketing.  The company’s website heavily promotes its bandwidth-heavy Suddenlink2GO™ service to “watch TV online anytime, anywhere in the U.S. on any computer for FREE when you subscribe!”

But “free” becomes $10 for every 50GB if you watch too much.

How to Get Unlimited Back: If you are a Suddenlink residential customer who does not want to face restricted-use Internet, you can avoid the limits by switching to Business Class service, which will not have caps.  Unfortunately, pricing information was not immediately available to us.  One customer in Lubbock noted he paid $69 a month for 6Mbps Business Class service and $107 a month for 107Mbps residential service, so expect to pay comparatively more for lower speed service.

The Barstow Verizon Superpages

Verizon Communications today announced it was ending more than 100 years of residential telephone directory distribution, instead directing callers to online listings services or a CD-ROM, available free for California customers.  The White Pages will still be available upon request in print form, but the company expects many Californians will skip the request, keeping an estimated 1,900 tons of paper per year out of the California waste stream.

But if Verizon’s intent was to avoid excessive paper use, the effort comes up short.  The company will still automatically distribute the much larger, and much more lucrative Yellow Pages on every customer doorstep whether they ask for it or not.

Verizon asked the state Public Utility Commission to stop automatic distribution of the White Pages last October.  The PUC granted the request on June 9.  The last automatically delivered edition of residential listings will be the 2011-2012 Barstow Regional and High Desert Verizon Superpages in November.

Despite the discontinuation of the automatic delivery, customers will be able to order free residential print and CD-ROM versions of white pages directories by calling 1-800-888-8448 as each local yellow pages directory begins delivery.  In addition, all white pages listings are accessible at www.verizon.com/whitepages.

Telephone customers across the country, regardless of provider, can opt-out of all telephone directory delivery by visiting a website sponsored by the Association of Directory Publishers.

Company-owned store or third party reseller?

Customers who see the logo of their favorite wireless phone company on a storefront might do better to look a little closer to determine if they are doing business with a company-owned store, or a third-party reseller.  A Bakersfield, Calif., man quickly learned the difference when he bought a mobile broadband service plan from Go Wireless that Verizon says no longer exists.

Allan Fox found out the hard way when his first bill arrived with a steep overlimit fee attached, and without the broadband plan he signed up for.

Fox purchased the discontinued plan from Go Wireless, a third party reseller of Verizon Wireless services.  Fox thought he was purchasing a 3GB plan for $35, with a two-year service contract.  Verizon thought otherwise, and so began weeks of a runaround between Fox, Go Wireless, and Verizon.

It turned out that Verizon no longer offered the plan Fox bought from what he thought was Verizon Wireless itself.  Go Wireless is one of several independent third party companies that resell Verizon Wireless service, often with their own terms and conditions that include early termination fees owed not just to Verizon, but also to Go Wireless.

Go Wireless’ retail stores prominently feature Verizon Wireless’ logo, with their own logo appearing in reduced size, next to a message indicating they were a “premium retailer.”  That presumably sounds better than “third party reseller.”

After several attempts to straighten out the mess, Fox wanted to cancel his contract and just move on.  But then he discovered Go Wireless would charge him a $175 early cancellation fee, even though Fox’s predicament was their fault.  That’s when Fox called a local television newscast for help.

Wirefly is a major online reseller of Verizon Wireless

KBAK-TV news waded into the middle of the dispute that had gone on for nearly six weeks.  Verizon Wireless told the station it was willing to cancel Fox’s service penalty-free, but since Fox purchased the phone from a third-party reseller, and not from a company-owned store, Go Wireless would have to credit their own cancel fee.  Go Wireless, experiencing some turnover in local management, finally agreed to waive the fee, but only after the TV station got involved.

Customers must be careful when purchasing phones or signing contracts with third party sellers — both online and in traditional stores.  Most company-owned stores display their respective carrier logos and nothing else.  Words that usually provide a clue you are dealing with a reseller include: “authorized retailer,” “authorized dealer,” “Service provided by: (name of third party company),” “authorized agent,” and a dead giveaway is a signed contract with anyone other than the cell phone company you are using for service.

Third party resellers make their money on generous commissions earned when a customer signs a new contract or renews an existing one.  That commission can be forfeit if a customer returns the phone or cancels service early, which is why third party dealers protect themselves with their own contracts that include early termination or cancellation penalties owed to them, not the wireless provider.  Some customers can find themselves exposed to $500 or more in total cancellation penalty fees owed between the wireless phone company and the reseller.

So why do people purchase phones from these resellers?  Convenience and savings.

In smaller communities, company-owned stores may be few in number (or non-existent), and in-person help can be a godsend for customers who need to figure out their phone or obtain a warranty replacement.  Online, resellers like Amazon.com, Newegg, Wirefly, and others often charge substantially less than wireless carriers charge themselves for phones.  That savings can often be more than $100.  But these resellers are not for those who are unsure about the phone they want (or the provider).  Returning a phone or canceling service means dealing with two parties — the carrier and the reseller, to end service.  The cost of doing so can be very steep, so always read the terms and conditions before buying.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KBAK Bakersfield Man has Internet billing trouble 9-26-11.mp4[/flv]

KBAK-TV’s Investigation Bakersfield unit helped a local man untangle a major billing mess that began when he was sold a mobile broadband plan that no longer existed.  (3 minutes)

At least seven states including New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington and Ohio have announced they are joining the Justice Department lawsuit to stop AT&T’s attempted buyout of T-Mobile USA.

The merger has been heavily criticized by consumer groups for its potential to reduce wireless competition and stifle the marketplace with just two dominant carriers — AT&T and Verizon Mobile.  Now several Attorneys General have joined the voices of opposition to the merger.

“This proposed merger would stifle competition in markets that are crucial to New York’s consumers and businesses, while reducing access to low-cost options and the newest broadband-based technologies,” New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman said in a statement.

Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna said the deal would “result in less competition, fewer choices and higher prices for Washington state consumers.”

“The proposed merger would create highly concentrated markets in Massachusetts and could lead to higher prices and poorer service.” Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said the deal would “substantially lessen competition for mobile wireless telecommunications services in Illinois and across the United States.”

“Blocking this acquisition protects consumers and businesses against fewer choices, higher prices, less innovation, and lower quality service,” Madigan added.

“Our review of the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile has led me to conclude that it would hinder competition and reduce consumer choice,” California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris said. “Enforcement of antitrust law is the responsibility of the Attorney General and is vital to protecting our state’s economic strength and tradition of innovation for the betterment of all Californians.”

Shuler

Although the level of opposition to the transaction continues to grow, AT&T itself claims to remain confident it can push the merger through.

“It is not unusual for state attorneys general to participate in DOJ merger review proceedings or court filings,” AT&T representative Michael Balmoris said.

Several Democratic lawmakers, most of whom receive substantial campaign contributions from AT&T, would seem to underline the company has the support of at least some in Congress.

Rep. Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina), joined 14 Democratic co-signers in a letter sent Thursday to President Barack Obama encouraging him to support the merger deal.

“By settling the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA we can put thousands of Americans back to work and promote economic development across the country,” Shuler said. “I urge the President to strongly consider the vast benefits this merger will have on job creation and the economy and quickly resolve any concerns the Administration may have with the proposal.”

Among the co-signers: Rep. John Barrow, Rep. Mike Ross, Rep. Dan Boren, Rep. Dennis Cardoza, Rep. Joe Baca, Rep. Leonard Boswell, Rep. Ben Chandler, Rep. Jim Costa, Rep. Henry Cuellar, Rep. Mike McIntyre, Rep. Mike Michaud, Rep. Collin Peterson, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, and Rep. David Scott.

AT&T currently also has support for their deal from 11 states, many which receive very little service directly from T-Mobile: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

A court hearing is scheduled for Sept. 21 to discuss settlement options.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KFOR Oklahoma City ATT T Mobile Merger 9-19-11.mp4[/flv]

KFOR in Oklahoma City explores the latest developments in the T-Mobile/AT&T merger case.  (2 minutes)