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)

Canadians looking for more competitive wireless prices and faster service may think they’re going to get them if they sign on to a new campaign sponsored by Rogers Communications that calls on the Canadian government to eliminate spectrum “set-asides” for the country’s smaller wireless competitors.  Rogers wants those frequencies for itself, critics charge, and they have the resources to outbid any new player in the country’s wireless market.

From Rogers’ “I Want My LTE” Website:

[…] There are some who are supporting a Federal Government regulation that would limit who can have access to the spectrum. Such regulation would exclude select companies from the upcoming auction to license the 700 MHz spectrum band. The outcome of this auction will have a major impact on deploying LTE across Canada. If a decision is made that prevents certain companies, including Rogers, from participating in the spectrum auction, it would be a recipe for leaving Canada behind the rest of the world, stalling Canadian innovation and limiting who can access LTE.

The website offers a pre-written plea to policymakers in government to allow for an open bidding process for the forthcoming 700MHz frequencies many wireless companies crave for their robust performance.

The problem is, according to industry observers, if a wide-open, no-limits auction takes place, it’s a virtual certainty Canada’s largest wireless companies — Bell, Telus, and Rogers, would walk away with most, if not all of the auctioned spectrum.  Even worse, it will stall competition that will lead to lower prices.

“The future of affordable wireless rates is at risk, not the future of long-term evolution (LTE) networks,” said Chief Operating Officer Stewart Lyons. “Mobilicity has helped bring down the cost of wireless in Canada significantly and we need to augment our limited amount of spectrum to ensure affordable pricing continues.”

“[The] big 3 wireless carriers have more spectrum than they need and will stop at nothing to dress up and misrepresent their hidden agenda of eliminating competition so they can raise their rates back up again,” he added.

The government is not planning to ban Rogers and the others from the spectrum sale.  They just want to set aside some frequencies for bidding among the smaller, newer competitors.  But even that is too much for Rogers, who has bad memories from the last spectrum auction that allowed those competitors to become established in the first place.

Today, new cell service providers like Wind Mobile, Mobilicity and Quebecor’s Videotron are forcing larger carriers to reduce prices or lose business.

Fido is actually Rogers under a different name.

For some Canadians, wireless bills have dropped a lot since the competition arrived.  Some are leaving Rogers in favor of better prices elsewhere.

Andy Lehrer from Toronto had a cellular plan with Fido, an ostensibly independent cell phone company that is, in fact, owned outright by Rogers Communications.  Lehrer was paying Fido $150 a month for his Blackberry voice and data plan.  Today, with one of the new competitors, he pays $44 a month for a plan that offers more data and talk time.

Although new competitors still have just under 5 percent of the Canadian market, the price differences have become too enormous to ignore in many cases, especially if a customer is willing to give a new carrier a break as it works through growing pains.

Lehrer told the Globe & Mail his cellular reception is poorer, but not bad enough to make him switch back to Rogers’ Fido.

Convergence Consulting Group Ltd. notes the price disparities mean savings as much as 58 percent with new competitors’ combined voice and data plans.  For data services alone, new providers charge as much as 83 percent less.

If Rogers and the two others head home from spectrum auctions with everything up for bid, it will assuredly stall competition and help protect today’s high wireless prices.  Rogers, Bell, and Telus have never seen fit to undercut each other, adopting a rising prices raise all balance sheets-approach at doing business.  But scrappy new entrants like Wind and Mobilicity are willing to slash prices to attract customers.  But nobody will buy service if those companies cannot obtain necessary spectrum to actually compete.

Regardless of the outcome, North America in general has a long way to go to find the lower wireless prices commonplace abroad.

AT&T customers in western Colorado are furious at AT&T for suggesting expensive phone upgrades were required to get back cell phone service that actually went out because of a cell tower failure.

Stop the Cap! first reported this story earlier this week, when Grand Valley customers discovered their cell phone service (and 2G data services) suddenly stopped working last weekend.  Customers lined up inside and outside the doors of AT&T stores in the Grand Junction area to get an explanation for the service disruption, only to be told their 2G data service had been discontinued and they’ll need to buy new phones to get their service restored.

An undisclosed number of customers signed new two year contracts and upgraded to smartphones — which carry a considerably upgraded price to cover the mandatory data plan that accompanies them.

But now AT&T says a cell tower failure was responsible for customers losing access to voice calling, and any disruption to 2G service will be temporary until the company completes shifting that data service to a different frequency band.

Now customers are complaining they were defrauded by AT&T store employees who emphatically told them no cell service outage existed in the area.

“Is that fraud,” AT&T customer Bill Somerville asked KJCT-TV. “Are they taking advantage of people by not giving them the information they should have gotten?”

“They categorically lied about the status of the service and [forced] people into a new contract and new equipment,” said AT&T customer Jay Anderson.

“If that is customer care, that’s not the customer care I’d like to have,” added Somerville.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KJCT Grand Junction ATT Customers Without Service And Definite Answers 9-21-11.mp4[/flv]

KJCT-TV talked to more angry customers who feel AT&T mislead them into signing expensive new two year contracts for new phones when a tower outage actually was responsible for the disrupted service.  (3 minutes)

According to Edmonton city Councillor Kerry Diotte (11th Ward), Rogers Communications told him the company needs up to 1,000 new cell towers in the Edmonton area alone to meet the growing demands from cell phone, smartphone, and tablet owners who are putting pressure on the company’s wireless network.  That’s a number Rogers disputes, but regardless of how many towers eventually get erected, few residents want to live next door to one.

Diotte is caught in the middle of a major, some say inevitable, fight between the telecommunications giant and homeowners living near the proposed home of a new 25 meter cell tower that is as tall as an eight story building.

Diotte

Diotte attended a heated public meeting Tuesday evening between residents of Hazeldean and Rogers officials over plans to place the new monopole antenna right in the center of town in a residential district.

“I will absolutely bring everything that I can to try to stop this,” Diotte told CTV Edmonton. “It’s the will of the people in this ward.”

CBC Radio in Edmonton explored the cell tower controversy in Hazeldean back in July when Rogers first announced plans to erect an 82 foot monopole cell tower at a local senior’s center. Rogers says increased demand requires the company to place new cell towers in residential neighborhoods to meet demand. July 14, 2011. (7 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Rogers officials found themselves shouted down at times during Tuesday evening’s meeting, as dozens of residents complained the new tower would reduce property values and could pose a health risk.  At least one resident wants Rogers to pay moving expenses to allow her family to leave the area before the tower is built.

Hazeldean residents say a better spot for the antenna would be in an industrial neighborhood a few blocks away.

Rogers Communications says wireless data demands are growing exponentially, and constructing new cell towers improves reception, data speeds, and divides up the increasing load of data traffic on their network.  Unfortunately, cell towers are increasingly required where customers live, work… and use their wireless devices.

For the immediate future, Rogers has plans for 20 new cell towers in Edmonton, a number dwarfed by their competitor Telus, which has plans to install 80 new cell towers across the province this year.

Industry Canada has the final say on whether Rogers will ultimately win approval to place its proposed cell tower in Hazeldean.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CTV Edmonton Residents Upset Over Rogers Cell Tower 9-21-11.flv[/flv]

CTV Edmonton covered the Hazeldean cell phone tower controversy and spoke with a city councilman who shared Rogers told him they would need another 1,000 cell phone towers in the Edmonton area alone to meet growing demands for cell phone users.  (5 minutes)

KJCT-TV caught customers lined up literally out the door of this AT&T store in Grand Junction, Colorado.

AT&T store employees in the Grand Valley of Colorado are using the company’s upgrade of former Alltel service areas to 3G service as an excuse to tell customers they need to buy new cell phones if they continue to want to use their wireless service.

Customers lined up outside AT&T stores in communities like Grand Valley, Colorado on Monday fuming over service problems than began last weekend.

“I had about an half hour wait just to find out I had to buy a new phone and they wouldn’t credit me for it or anything,” customer Josh Simpson told KJCT-TV.

AT&T employees told the television newscast the company is “getting rid of the 2G service in Grand Junction to make room for larger networks.” Employees also said customers were sent a letter informing them about the service change, but customers might have overlooked the e-mail because it looked like spam.

Local employees shrugged their shoulders as customers repeatedly complained about having to foot the bill for brand new phones, often at full price, in order to continue using their service.

“It’s a corporate decision,” one replied.

At issue is AT&T’s adopted network, acquired originally by Verizon Wireless from Alltel but spun away to AT&T as part of an agreement with federal anti-trust officials.  Alltel’s network in the Grand Valley placed more prominence on its legacy 2G EDGE network than AT&T is willing to continue.  AT&T isn’t actually discontinuing the 2G network — it is moving 2G service to less-favorable spectrum it owns in order to make room for improved 3G coverage.  That might work fine in areas less expansive and rugged than western Colorado, but in the Grand Valley, it means many customers will find they no longer have data service at all.

The ongoing tower upgrades have also disrupted cell service generally, and when customers arrive at AT&T’s stores to complain, the employees on hand attempt to upsell them more expensive phones to “fix” the problem.

Customers calling to complain are met with busy signals or general statements from AT&T telling them the changes are for their own good.  But because so many basic cell phones don’t support 3G service, upgrades to phones that do often represent a major unexpected financial hit (and another two year contract and data plan if the phone happens to be a smartphone).

“Alltel served us just fine for many years,” writes our Glade Park reader Tim. “When AT&T eventually showed up, we got everything we never wanted, and this should be a lesson for those who think AT&T will somehow ‘improve’ service at T-Mobile if they acquire them.”

AT&T customer Joan Burns told KJCT AT&T just made up her mind for her.

“I will never again sign a contract with them,” she said. “That’s bull.”

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KJCT Grand Junction ATT Customers Forced To Upgrade Cell Phones 9-19-11.mp4[/flv]

KJCT in Grand Junction reports AT&T customers may be noticing a disturbance in their cell phone service, as AT&T employees use it as an opportunity to get customers to upgrade to more expensive phones.  (3 minutes)