Dear Chairman Genachowski, Attorney General Holder and Commissioner Sandoval:

We write to urge you to reject AT&T Inc.’s proposed purchase of T-Mobile because it will without question lead to higher prices for consumers.

This is not conjecture; it is the lesson of history. Seven years ago, AT&T Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiary, AT&T Mobility LLC (then known as Cingular Wireless Corporation) requested permission to buy AT&T’s wireless network (then known as AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.) for $41 billion. At that time, AT&T and Cingular had the first and second largest share, respectively, of wireless communications providers in the U.S.

In order to get the merger approved, AT&T and an army of executives, lobbyists and allies assured regulators and consumers that the deal was in the public interest by making promises — the very same promises that we’re hearing from AT&T today:

What happened after the AT&T – Cingular merger? Once the Federal Communications Commission approved the deal (after negligible scrutiny), the newly merged company – which later renamed itself AT&T Mobility LLC– betrayed its promises. It abandoned the old AT&T network, deliberately degrading the network so that AT&T customers would be forced to migrate to Cingular’s own network, pay an upgrade fee of $18, buy new phones and agree to new and more expensive rate plans. These anti-consumer moves were enforced by an anti-competitive “early termination fee” of anywhere between $175 and $400, which prevented customers of AT&T from moving to another carrier.

In short, AT&T policyholders were railroaded into spending hundreds of dollars more in order to maintain their cellular service – a colossal rip-off by the same corporate executives who are now asking for permission to do it all over again.

Nothing in the terms of the proposed merger bars AT&T from engaging in a repeat performance against helpless T-Mobile customers if this deal is approved. Indeed, even as the companies mount a massive public relations campaign to win your approval, T-Mobile executives are already implicitly acknowledging that once the merger is approved, AT&T will make changes in the T-Mobile network:

T-Mobile has no plans to alter our 3G / 4G network in any way that would make your device obsolete. The deal is expected to close in approximately 12 months. After that, decisions about the network will be AT&T’s to make. That said, the president and CEO of AT&T Mobility was quoted in the Associated Press saying “there’s nothing for [customers] to worry about… [network changes affecting devices] will be done over time… ”

Moreover, AT&T has publicly admitted that if the merger goes through, T-Mobile subscribers with 3G phones will have to replace their phones to keep their wireless broadband service. AT&T plans to “rearrange how T-Mobile’s cell towers work” so that T-Mobile’s airwaves can be used for 4G service rather than 3G. Even though AT&T will be altering T-Mobile’s 3G cell towers to operate 4G services, Ralph de la Vega, president and CEO of AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets, said that after the merger, T-Mobile 3G phones will need to be replaced with AT&T 3G phones, which “will happen as part of the normal phone upgrade process.” Once AT&T forces the T-Mobile subscribers with 3G phones to buy AT&T 3G phones, it is only a matter of time before AT&T pushes all of its subscribers over to the 4G network.

T-Mobile customers who are forced to migrate to AT&T’s network will have to buy new phones, agree to more expensive rate plans, or cancel their contracts and pay a termination fee.

Once known for its low prices, T-Mobile has already begun increasing its rates and decreasing options in anticipation of the merger. On July 20, 2011, T-Mobile discontinued its unlimited data plans, replacing them with plans that cap the amount of data a customer can use; once the customer hits the data cap, T-Mobile will substantially slow down their network speed. Nine days later, AT&T, which stopped offering new unlimited data plans last year, announced it would similarly start throttling data speeds even for customers on “grandfathered” unlimited data plans. AT&T is attributing its slow-down to the “serious wireless spectrum crunch.” In another implicit promise sure to be broken, AT&T has told its customers and regulators that “[n]othing short of completing the T-Mobile merger will provide additional spectrum capacity to address these near term challenges.”

Finally, T-Mobile was recently named one of the world’s most ethical companies for 2011. It was the only U.S. wireless telecommunication service provider that made the list. By contrast, complaints about AT&T’s service and prices are legion. Indeed, the views of millions of AT&T customers have been summarized by an online campaign known as “#attfail.” This merger will eliminate a U.S. wireless company that at least seemed to care about its customers.

To this day, the AT&T customers who were misled and overcharged by AT&T’s actions after the 2004 merger are still fighting in the courts for refunds and other remediation arising from the merger. In 2006, lawyers for Consumer Watchdog, joined by a group of private law firms, filed a national class action lawsuit against AT&T on behalf of the millions of customers who were victimized by the merger: Coneff v. AT&T Corp., et al., No. C06-0944 (W.D. Wash). In response, AT&T’s lawyers claimed that when AT&T customers were forcibly moved to the new network, they simultaneously agreed to waive their right to seek refunds from AT&T in court because of a provision buried in the fine-print of AT&T’s contract that required arbitration of all disputes and barred customers from joining together in an arbitration. Throughout the litigation, AT&T changed its arbitration clause several times, each time modifying various terms while retaining the arbitration clause that prohibited customers from bringing or participating in a class action, regardless of whether it is brought in arbitration or in court.

In 2009, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington, held that AT&T’s arbitration clause was unconscionable because most AT&T customers would never obtain redress without the ability to bring a class action. The case is presently before the 9th Circuit. In its briefing, AT&T now contends that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion 563 U.S. __ (2011) should be interpreted by the courts to apply to the egregiously unfair and one-sided mandatory arbitration clauses like the one struck down in Coneff in 2009, which, in our case and unlike in Concepcion, has been shown to preclude customers’ basic due process rights.

Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Considering AT&T’s track record, it is irrational to expect that the AT&T and T-Mobile merger will yield different results. If the merger is approved, millions of T-Mobile customers will be subjected to the same costly and unfair practices that AT&T customers experienced after the 2004 Cingular merger. Moreover, permitting AT&T to swallow a competitor will leave the American cellular marketplace controlled by a duopoly that, through the artifice of termination fees and arbitration agreements, will effectively eliminate competition between them.

This is a bread and butter test of the federal government’s commitment to American consumers versus the Wall Street and corporate interests that too often seem to be the winners every time the federal government takes action.  The Administration should ignore the lofty pronouncements of the corporate-funded academics and allies who provide cover for the glib promises of two cellular giants, along with the Wall Street firms that will reap millions in fees for providing the merger paperwork, in favor of the average American family, who, after all they have been forced to sacrifice these last few years, should not be required to pay more of their dollars for the ability to use a cell phone.

Harvey Rosenfeld

Laura Antonini

You can find documented footnotes accompanying this letter here.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT T-Mobile Merger Ad.flv[/flv]

AT&T is blanketing the airwaves with claims of improved service in its advertising promoting the merger with T-Mobile.  (1 minute)

Verizon is charging customers for text messages sent to mobile broadband devices, even though the devices themselves have no effective way to view the messages.  That allegation is the subject of a class-action lawsuit filed against the wireless carrier by Hagens Berman LLP, a law firm representing consumers who were unfairly billed for text messages from July 28, 2004 to the present.

The lawsuit, originally filed August 4, 2010, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeks compensatory damages and an injunction prohibiting Verizon from billing customers for text messages sent to mobile broadband devices.  The law firm sent out a reminder this week for customers either billed in the past or still being billed they still have a chance to join the lawsuit.

Verizon’s mobile broadband devices allow its customers to access the Internet through Verizon’s wireless network. Each device is assigned a unique 10-digit telephone number and therefore, text messages can be sent to the 10 digit number associated with the device. However, according to the lawsuit, the devices have no screens and users have no effective way to view them.

If Verizon billed you for text messages you cannot access in connection with your Verizon Mobile Broadband device, you can request further information or join the case at the firm’s website or by email at VerizonMiFi@hbsslaw.com.

AT&T customers using modified phones to share their 3G wireless connection with other devices are complaining about the company’s warning that if they don’t cease tethering their phones, they will be automatically enrolled in the company’s premium $45 a month DataPro for Smartphone Tethering plan next week.

An attorney tells Stop the Cap! if the company does that, his firm will consider filing a class action lawsuit against the company for forcing customers into service plans they did not enroll in themselves.

This controversy comes to those who have been using “jailbroken” phones, modified to restore features blocked at the factory by North American cell phone carriers.  Among the most coveted restored features is turning your phone into a mini Wi-Fi hotspot or allowing the phone to connect directly to other equipment, sharing your 3G connection with other devices, such as a laptop, iPad, or iPod.  While many phones include this capability, most carriers in the United States and Canada disable it for those not enrolled in an extra cost add-on plan covering “tethering.”  AT&T offers two such plans — $45 a month for 4GB of usage, or $25 a month for 2GB.

For several years, some AT&T customers have used tethering as a convenient way to bring connectivity to devices out of reach from Wi-Fi or a home broadband connection.

Jonathan in San Francisco shares with Stop the Cap! he is grandfathered in on an unlimited use data plan from around the time the first smartphones entered the marketplace.

“AT&T even sold me the tethering equipment at the same time they sold me the data plan, which they promised was unlimited,” Jonathan says.  “I don’t buy their subsidized phones — I buy my own unlocked phones at full retail price every few years, and AT&T has allowed me to keep my plan the way it is.”

Until he received a notification message from AT&T claiming his account “may need updating.”

AT&T says customers tethering their phones must pay for both a data plan -and- a tethering plan if they want to use the feature, a condition not part of Jonathan’s plan.

“My plan with AT&T says nothing about an extra tethering plan; it says I have unlimited data — something I do not abuse,” Jonathan says.

He is particularly upset that if he uses his phone as he always has, AT&T will slap a $45 additional monthly fee on his phone bill.

“Even worse, when I called AT&T to complain, they told me my plan is so old, they would automatically ‘upgrade’ my service plan to one that costs more and delivers less, effective Monday,” he tells us.

It turns out some customers on legacy plans cannot easily add the tethering option without abandoning the plans they have carefully held onto for years.

“The lady I spoke with said their computer billing system cannot add the feature to my account because it is so old,” he said.

Janie, one of our readers in Seattle, noticed AT&T “‘graciously’ wants to auto-enroll you in their most expensive tethering plan, not the cheaper $25 one.”

“My cousin is lucky enough to still have their $30 a month plan which provided 5GB a month, but they discontinued it for new customers so they could raise prices,” Janie writes.

Janie is upset because it was an AT&T reseller that charged her $30 extra to enable the feature AT&T now wants her to pay even more to use.

“I have no idea what ‘jailbreaking’ is, or that I was doing anything wrong — I bought the phone from an AT&T authorized retailer and had no idea there was even a problem until I called and they lectured me about ‘stealing’ service,” Janie says.  “The company disgusts me and I have never been accused by anyone of stealing, so I am canceling with them when my contract is up.”

Janie is not the only customer to have had her phone modified by someone representing the company.

We found another customer who paid an employee at an official AT&T store to modify his phone.  The employee told him if he keeps monthly usage under 10GB per month, no red flags would be raised, a statement that some might consider a red flag itself.

Just how AT&T tracks down its tethering customer-underground remains a mystery, but some have speculated usage may have been the major contributing factor.  Not everyone who quietly tethers their AT&T phone has gotten the notification message, while many of those using tethered phones as their only Internet connection have.

“If you are using your tethered AT&T phone on a laptop and running up 25GB of usage, AT&T will notice if they look,” an employee tells us privately.  “AT&T can run an audit on data usage and discover considerable amounts of money being left on the table by customers not enrolled in the appropriate plan.”

One lawyer that has targeted AT&T in the past said his firm is carefully watching to see if AT&T follows through on its auto-enrollment threat.

“We’ve found judges and government officials take a very dim view on automatically enrolling customers in anything that costs money without their direct, informed consent,” the attorney who is not authorized to speak publicly on behalf of his firm tells us.  “We are obviously taking a close look at this.”

AT&T’s e-mail notification text is below the jump.

… Continue Reading

Clearwire’s often-unclear “network management” policies are the subject of a lawsuit filed yesterday in Seattle seeking class action status.

Angelo Dennings vs. Clearwire Corporation was filed in the Western District of Washington federal court, and seeks refunds for consumers who were mislead by the company’s failure to disclose its network speed throttling and usage limitations, and charged early termination fees when subsequently canceling service.

Clearwire promises that its high-speed Internet service provides a “fast” and “always on, always secure” Internet connection allowing users to “[d]ownload pictures, music and videos.” But Clearwire does not provide an “always on,” “high-speed” connection as it promises. Clearwire purposefully slows the connection of its users because it cannot accommodate the high volume of traffic. Clearwire engages in a practice known as “throttling,” which is the intentional delay and/or blocking of Internet communications. This practice deprives Clearwire customers of the ability to “[d]ownload music and videos,” and leads to slow connection speeds.  Clearwire engages in throttling at times when demand for Internet use is highest, beginning at approximately 7:30 p.m. and ending at about 1:00-to-2:00 a.m.

If users attempt to cancel their service, Clearwire claims that, pursuant to its “contract” with them, it is entitled to collect an early termination or a re-stocking fee. The “contract” referred to by Clearwire is not a contract between it and its customers. The contract between Clearwire and its customers is simply that the customers will pay for, and Clearwire will provide, “unlimited” Internet usage at certain speeds, depending on the speed and payment plan selected in Clearwire’s stores, kiosks, or online.

The remaining “terms” invoked by Clearwire at its convenience are embedded in a document that consumers never see prior to subscribing to Clearwire’s service. Clearwire sells its services in its stores, kiosks at shopping centers, and online. Clearwire’s stores and kiosks do not have copies of this “contract” on hand for potential subscribers to read before they “agree” to its terms. Users who subscribe through Clearwire’s website never see the contract either because the link to it is at the bottom of a page, in substantially smaller font and lighter shade than all of the other text on the page. The text states: “Want to read the fine print (and who doesn’t read the fine print?) It’s all there in the CLEAR Legal Index.” No one wants to read fine print legalese and almost no one does. The statement is obviously and sharply ironic, and mocks anyone who may have been fussy enough to have considered continuing.

Despite not showing its terms to consumers, Clearwire refuses to allow users to cancel their service without paying the unconscionable fees it claims it is owed under this “contract.” These fees include an early termination fee (“ETF”), which penalizes consumers that want out before the end of the two-year term. Although Clearwire breached its contract with its customers, Clearwire insists on the payment of this ETF when customers realize they are not getting what they bargained for.

The suit argues that Clearwire has oversold its wireless broadband network, and allegedly quotes a company representative at one point telling Dennings, “Clearwire had signed up more customers than its cell towers could accommodate, and that therefore it was ‘managing’ users’ accounts.”

Attorney Clifford Cantor argues in the filing that Clearwire reduces customer speeds to 300kbps or lower when their network is congested, making the service unsuitable for most broadband applications.  Dennings, who lives near Ft. Worth, Tex., was outraged to learn Clear sold him a home and mobile broadband account that was advertised as a replacement for wired cable or DSL broadband, but was left with service he considered largely useless when throttled.  Even more upsetting, the suit alleges, Denning was asked to pay a $219 early contract termination and restocking fee when he tried to cancel service over the matter.

Cantor is asking for a court ruling declaring Clear’s policies to be unconscionable, attorneys’ fees of at least $5,000, and refunds for all impacted subscribers.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Michael in Chicago for sending along a copy of the lawsuit.  He runs the “Clear/Clearwire internet not as advertised” Facebook group.

Not really

Back in 2002 Vincent and Liza Concepcion walked into a southern California AT&T Mobility store to purchase new cellphones for themselves.  AT&T advertised a buy one, get one “free” offer for cellphones.  What AT&T didn’t say was that the family would end up paying more than $30 in hidden sales taxes for both phones.

More than eight years later, that purchase — and the resulting class action lawsuit it launched — threatens to sweep away important consumer protections by letting corporations ban class action cases and curtail Attorneys General from enforcing state consumer protection laws.

Oral arguments in the case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion were heard before the U.S. Supreme Court last Tuesday in one of the most important consumer protection cases in decades. At issue is this clause, inserted into the Concepcion’s service contract with AT&T that would disallow the family from participating in a class action lawsuit:

“You and AT&T agree that each may bring claims against the other only in your or its individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding.”

That clause clashes with several state laws, California’s included, which basically say consumers cannot be compelled to sign away their basic consumer protection rights.  California law also says some contracts can be considered unenforceable ‘if they are built on deception, are too-one sided, or violate broader public policy.’

Hello, AT&T.

Vincent and Liza, through their attorney, argue that bringing an individual lawsuit against AT&T over $30 in sales taxes would be crazy — no lawyer would take the case and no plaintiff would front a retainer well beyond the amount in dispute.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in another class action case, “The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”

The “class action” concept provides at outlet for aggrieved consumers who can attract legal representation if a company can be sued on behalf of every impacted customer.  For AT&T, that could mean facing not just the Concepcion family, but millions of Californians — each charged sales taxes for phones the company advertised as “free.”

How AT&T’s Case Has Broadened Into a Major Dispute Over Arbitration vs. Class Action Lawsuits

It's easy to navigate AT&T's terms and conditions to achieve a good outcome from arbitration, right?

But what began as a legal argument over a “free” phone has broadened into a much larger legal case before the Supreme Court: can consumers be compelled to participate in company dispute settlement schemes and give up their legal right to petition the court system for relief?  Further, what happens when those contract clauses conflict with state consumer protection laws?

Following in the footsteps of the credit card industry, AT&T inserted a clause mandating customers stay away from class action lawsuits.  By telling consumers they are forbidden to participate in such cases, AT&T pushes customers into the murky world of “arbitration” — a system where AT&T picks a private company, with whom it has a financial-business relationship, to “impartially” rule on customer complaints in secret proceedings.  Consumers have to pay their own way to attend arbitration hearings, often held in cities a thousand miles away or more.  They also must agree the decisions are binding and final.

AT&T argues, both directly and through its dollar-a-holler advocates, that class action cases are annoying, expensive, and do not typically deliver substantial benefits to class members.  The wireless carrier argues arbitration of individual cases is much faster and potentially more lucrative to would-be class action members.  Stephen J. Ware, a professor of law at the University of Kansas School of Law argues consumers have often done far better avoiding litigation and entering into arbitration programs.

But consumer advocates claim AT&T’s arbitration rules are stacked against consumers.  Arthur H. Byrant, executive director of Public Justice argues:

First, AT&T’s “agreement” bars its customers from court (except small claims court) and requires them to utilize the company’s mandatory arbitration program. Its rules say that, if a customer completes the process and recovers more than the last written settlement offer AT&T made before the arbitrator was chosen, a $7,500 premium will be paid. Second, the “agreement” bans AT&T’s customers from bringing or participating in class actions against it. Third, the “agreement” provides that, if AT&T’s class action ban is found to violate the law (as 20 states have held contractual class action bans do when they effectively immunize a company from liability), the arbitration clause “blows up” and the class action must proceed in court. Then, when the class action ban is struck down under state law (as AT&T knew it would be), the company springs its wacky trap: It argues that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 (FAA) pre-empts — and invalidates — that state law because (believe it or not) the state law is biased against arbitration.

AT&T’s call for pre-emption suffers from a bad connection. State law is not biased against arbitration. It allows AT&T to resolve disputes in either arbitration or court. Only AT&T’s “agreement” is biased against arbitration. Its “blowup clause” precludes class actions from proceeding in arbitration, but not in court.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

Using the scroll bar to the right of the player, move down and click on Attorney Paul Bland’s name and watch him argue forcefully that AT&T’s motives are plain and simple — to allow them to get away with anything they want and not face accountability from the legal system. — “Arbitration is not the Candy Bridge into Rainbow Land.”

Tapping Into Consumer Discontent With Class Action Cases for the Benefit of AT&T

What the lawyers get

Ask anyone about the merits of most class action settlements and one will often get a response that the lawyers win while consumers lose.  Just this week many owners of HP printers will get word a deal has been reached over a class action case involving printer ink.  The multiple law firms involved will split not more than $2.9 million under the terms of the proposed settlement.  Consumers will get “e-credit” worth $5, $2, or $6 redeemable at HP’s online store, which sells ink cartridges at inflated prices.  In effect, HP has little to grumble about delivering “awards” to consumers that ultimately benefit its own enterprise, the only place those awards can be redeemed.

With settlements like that all too common, it is easy for AT&T’s advocates to tap into consumer discontent with class action lawyers, proclaiming AT&T’s case is actually consumer-friendly because it would cut those money-grabbers out of disputes with the company.

But consumer advocates stress class action cases do more than deliver settlements — they deter bad behavior on the part of would-be wrongdoers, bring corporations to account fiscally when they are forced to settle, and open the door to legal discovery which can uncover patterns of extensive wrongdoing that would otherwise remain secret in arbitration.

But most important of all, class actions impact every customer, not just the handful who navigate arbitration to achieve a confidential settlement.  That can be critically important to stop unfair business practices.

What you get

Of course, reform is also desperately needed in the class action system.  Too often, judges approve class action cases that deliver maximum benefits to the law firms that bring them, leaving consumers with peanuts.  Strict limits on legal fees recouped in such cases, perhaps tied to a percentage of total recovery would be a start, as are bans on settlements that don’t provide cash refunds to consumers who choose not to conduct further business with companies that abuse them.  Coupons, low value trinkets, and donations to third party groups (non-profit or otherwise) are insufficient.  Attorneys that selfishly claim most of the proceeds for themselves have only themselves to blame when corporations use that fact against them under so-called “tort reform” proposals.

Some advocates of AT&T’s position also argue that government oversight can provide a more effective system of checks and balances against corporate overreach.  While a noble sentiment, anyone who has watched the revolving door of lobbyists going to work for such agencies, later returning to lucrative jobs with the companies they formerly regulated, knows that is a classic case of the fox overseeing the hen house.  In an era of government “oversight” that missed everything from BP’s safety lapses, salmonella-infected eggs, produce, and meat, tainted pet food ingredients from China, and indecisiveness about telecommunications reform like Net Neutrality — such proposals are not to be treated seriously.

The Supreme Court Decision

While it will be months before the Court rules, most observers suspect consumers will ultimately win the case.  Liberals on the court are skeptical AT&T’s efforts to preempt state consumer protection laws are actually for the benefit of consumers, and some of the most conservative members of the court like Justice Clarence Thomas, big believers in “states’ rights” are likely to find for the Concepcion family.

“Based on what was said during the argument, I predict a 8-1 or 7-2 vote for the consumers and California, with Samuel Alito dissenting and John Roberts a toss up. Thomas, who never speaks at oral argument, will vote for the consumers and state on federalism grounds, as he always does in [arbitration] cases,” writes Lawrence Cunningham, Argument in Class Waiver Case Favors Consumers, States, Concurring Opinions.

“[I]t doesn’t look as though there are too many votes at the high court to do away with the right of consumers to band together to sue the great American manufacturers of fine print,” said Dahlia Lithwick, Can You Hear Them Now? The Supreme Court reads the fine print on your cell phone contract, Slate.

If these two observers are wrong, it will be open season on consumers who will be forced into arbitration agreements that deliver all of the benefits to companies like AT&T.  Under such a scenario, there would be little to dissuade companies from developing new fine print to trick and overcharge consumers.  Few will be willing to buy a ticket to fly halfway across the country to sit for arbitration proceedings over a $20 dispute, especially when the arbitration firm’s income depends on fees paid by the very companies that are accused of wrongdoing.