Perhaps the RV tour can also help customers cope with unauthorized cramming charges greeting many ex-Verizon customers on their first Frontier bills

Frontier Communications has themselves an RV and they’re sending it on a “Great Conversations Tour” with their newest customers in Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin.  The company tweeted its intention to visit “10 Cities, 7 Executives, 5 Days, 3 States,” all in one recreational vehicle.

On the agenda are promises the company intends to deliver their version of broadband to a larger number of customers.

“On average, these properties that we purchased from Verizon had 62 percent broadband accessibility, and we will be looking to take that to 85 percent in two years,” says John Lass, president of Frontier’s Central Region. “In our current properties, we are averaging 92 percent broadband accessibility.”

The broadband most of those customers will end up with will range from 1-3Mbps in rural areas, perhaps up to 6Mbps in more urban ex-Verizon service areas, but everything is dependent on the quality of the lines Frontier has to work with.

That increasingly poses problems for the company, who had to cope with yet another major service outage in Illinois — the second in a month, that knocked out phone and emergency services for 28,000 residents across eight counties in central and northwestern Illinois.

The landline service failure, originally thought to be a fiber cable cut, turned out to be a hardware failure in the company’s central office in the village of McLean.  The impact was immediate as cell phone customers could not reach Frontier lines and Frontier customers in many areas could not make long distance calls or reach 911.

Peoria’s Journal-Star reported businesses were particularly impacted by the outage:

Carol Hamilton, Washington Chamber of Commerce executive director, said city business owners reported problems making landline-to-cell phone and cell phone-to-landline calls. Landline-to-landline calls were going through.

“We actually started hearing about the phone problems Wednesday,” Hamilton said. “People were getting a busy signal, or were told the number they were calling was out of order when they tried to make a call. The problem didn’t affect our office until Thursday morning.”

Frontier’s equipment failure also knocked out the Logan County computer system, and the Woodford County Sheriff’s Department computer system. Residents in those counties were instructed to call Illinois State Police posts in Springfield and Metamora for emergencies.

One local resident noted this is why he doesn’t have a landline anymore.

Since Frontier can gas up its RV and tour the countryside, Stop the Cap! can take you on a virtual RV tour of our own to visit with some disgruntled Frontier customers.  Our first stop…

Unauthorized Bill Cramming Plague Leads to Lawsuit Against Frontier

Hal Greene was reviewing his monthly Frontier phone bills when he discovered his monthly charges shot up from $230 to $290.  The Pine Bush, N.Y., resident found $39.95 charges on each of this bills for something called “Enhance SVCS Billing Inc Long Distance Calls … IBA-Services.”  He had no idea what that charge was for, and he knew he didn’t authorize it.

The Times Herald-Record picks up the story:

He called the company, Enhanced Services Billing Inc., but the company wouldn’t refund his money. He called the phone company, Frontier, which blocked the charges moving forward, but Greene never got a refund.

He went online to research the company, and found countless complaints from other consumers about ESBI, an aggregator that purports to bill for services provided by third parties.

Greene also found the contact information for a law firm, Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart in Manhattan, that was looking into the company. He called and became the named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Frontier and ESBI.

“I was very angry because it was so surreptitious the way they snuck that charge in there, and they’re just kind of counting on stealthing it into the bill without you noticing,” Greene said.

The suit alleges that the defendants know they are collecting charges customers didn’t authorize. It seeks monetary and compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and further relief “as equity and justice may require.”

Representatives of ESBI and parent company BSG Clearing declined to comment. Frontier also would not comment, said spokeswoman Brigid Smith.

Greene is a classic victim of bill cramming, a practice where phone companies allow third parties to bill for services on their phone bills, in return getting a major cut of the action.

Most customers find themselves victims of cramming when they complete “surveys” or sign up for free trials of unrelated services.  Other victims purchase products from websites that offer future discounts just for “previewing” shopping clubs or credit monitoring services.  Even obtaining a “free reward” like a magazine subscription, ringtone, or avatar image for use on a social networking website could come with a very expensive “gotcha” on your landline or mobile bill a month later.

IBA charged Greene $40 a month for dial-up Internet access and other services of dubious value.

In Greene’s case, his “gotcha” was IBA Services — Internet Business Advisors, which offers a very dubious package of dial-up Internet, web hosting, and discounts at office supply stores.  For that, customers pay $20-40 or more per month.  Greene was paying for it across multiple phone bills, each with their own charges.

IBA Services is an example of how anyone can set up a business and use billing services like ESBI to sit back and wait for the checks to arrive.  Unfortunately, too often those charges are unauthorized and crammed onto phone bills.  Critics charge phone companies have a financial incentive to look the other way, as they earn a substantial percentage of the charges as a commission.  Millions are waiting to be earned at your expense.

Of course, phone companies correctly say they are required to accept third party billing services.  But what they don’t tell you is that they are not required to continue to accept those with a track record of cramming.

Stop the Cap! looked into IBA and discovered the “company” is “located” at 980 9th Street, 16th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814.  That sounds like quite a prestigious address, considering it is located in Sacramento’s US Bank Plaza.  But the 16th floor is a mighty crowded floor considering the enormous number of companies calling it home.  Those firms range from IBA to a scam operation trying to collect “fees” on behalf of the state of California to “Medical Hair Restoration.”  (That latter firm might be useful if you’ve torn all of your hair out fighting illegitimate charges on your phone bill.)

Truth be told, 980 9th Street — 16th Floor is a “virtual office” address.  A company that specializes in the practice, Regus, maintains that address as a mail drop and short term meeting space location for countless companies looking to keep their actual locations (often a home) out of public records. Additionally, utilizing a professional mailing address through a London-based service is a wise move for enhancing both your privacy and your business’s reputation. It allows you to separate your personal life from your business dealings, which is essential in today’s environment. So you can easily get a prestigious and virtual London postal address for professional correspondence. Regus itself isn’t a questionable enterprise, but some of their clients are.

For $99, we could have an address at the US Bank Plaza as well.  Best of all, Regus throws in access to high speed Internet service as part of the package price — something IBA doesn’t even offer their own clients.

Greene’s anger is understandable considering anyone can get in on this action, peddling useless voicemail service, credit repair, ringtones, shopping clubs, and a myriad of other services carrying steep monthly fees, all conveniently billed to your monthly Frontier phone bill.

IBA’s “offices” are located on a floor offering “virtual suites” and mail-drop services to clients who want to avoid disclosing their real addresses.

When we called IBA Services’ toll-free number, we were connected with a generic “customer care” department.  The representative, who would only give her first name, told us at first she had no idea what company we were calling about.

“We handle customer service calls for many different providers,” Inez told us. “When customers call, we ask for their phone number which usually brings up what provider they are doing business with.”

When she learned we were not a victim customer, she refused to answer any further questions about the company she works for or how many customers call claiming they are being crammed.

For dozens of customers who have been in similar circumstances, bill cramming quickly evolves into buck passing.

“The best part of this entire scam is that when you call Frontier, Verizon, AT&T or other phone companies, they tell customers to call the crammer directly to get the charges off the bill,” says our reader Gene who was also a victim of Frontier cramming.  “When you call the crammer, they always say you must have authorized it because they don’t bill just anyone, so you need to call your local phone company to deal with the charges.”

Marte Cliff was a victim of bill cramming on her very first bill from Frontier Communications

When customers tell phone companies the crammers refuse to credit their account and stop the charges, many will agree to place a block on future 3rd party billing, but neglect to reverse the charges.  By now many exasperated consumers just give up and eat the cost, something crammers count on.

“Frontier is happy because they got a substantial percentage of that fee and the crammer gets to walk away with whatever money they earned before the consumer noticed,” Gene says.

Marte Cliff, a freelance copyrighter who blogs from Priest River, Idaho was one of millions of ex-Verizon customers who received their first bill from Frontier over this summer.  Hers included $14.95 in charges for an “e-mail bundle.”  Cliff was alarmed:

When I opened our first bill from the new provider it was about $15 more than my normal bill, so I went looking to see why. And I found a charge from a company called Email Bundle. Why?

There was a notice – for billing questions call 888-934-7750 to reach PayOne Billing, so I did. I got a recording that told me everyone was busy and that I needed to wait. Then I got a brief busy signal and a message saying I was being transferred… and then a “looped” recording telling me a web address over and over and over.

Obviously, PayOne billing was not going to answer my call.

So I called Frontier. After 10 minutes or so of recorded messages I finally made contact with a live person… who said I just wouldn’t believe how many people had called this week over the same issue.

While Cliff doesn’t blame Frontier and got her money back, she is concerned many new customers may find it easy to miss such add-on fees, assuming they are just the cost of doing business with their new phone company.

“My bill is the same every month because I pay a flat for unlimited long distance, but other people have long distance charges and their bill is different each month,” she blogged. “They might not notice a $15 discrepancy – especially if they’re running a business and have large phone bills. And especially not since phone bills are generally so convoluted that it takes a puzzle expert to figure them out.”

Billing Services Group does business as ESBI, among other names.

ESBI, responsible for billing Greene $40 for dial-up Internet, itself has a long sordid history, having been the target of a Federal Trade Commission investigation in 2001. The biller, part of the Billing Services Group, Ltd. (an offshore entity incorporated in Bermuda), has 120 employees in San Antonio.  BSG’s financial presentations to their investors go to new heights to diplomatically explain away their questionable business practices, such as this passage from one of their recent press releases:

Background of Enhanced Service Billings and the Company’s Action Plan

Historically, enhanced service billings have been susceptible to misunderstanding between the enhanced service provider and the consumer over such issues as charges and scope of service. As a result, enhanced services have typically involved a higher consumer inquiry or complaint rate than regular telephone usage charges, which, in turn, can precipitate negative perceptions about enhanced service billings.

The Company has taken proactive measures, including the implementation of certain procedures over the last year, to minimize the level of disputed charges in connection with enhanced services. These measures include:

• Submitting enhanced service charges to each LEC (local phone company) only after that LEC has expressly approved the billing of a particular service offering by a specific enhanced service provider;
• Authenticating all enhanced product sales through the Company’s Bill2Phone™ authentication engine;
• Company employees anonymously subscribing to random enhanced services offerings to assess the quality of service and accuracy of charges; and
• Actively monitoring the level of complaints received in respect of its customers’ enhanced service offerings.

If there are perceived irregularities in the authentication of orders, quality of service, accuracy of charges or the frequency of consumer complaints involving an enhanced service provider, the Company takes appropriate action, including, if necessary, termination of billing for that customer. Each LEC in the United States requires that providers of enhanced services comply with certain end user inquiry or complaint thresholds; that is, a maximum number of inquiries or complaints in any particular month and in each LEC region. As described above, the Company actively monitors the level of consumer inquiries and complaints in respect of its customers’ enhanced service offerings and believes that the level of such inquiries or complaints is, for every one of its existing 98 enhanced service customers, below the contractual thresholds required by, among others, the largest LEC in the United States.

BSG uses the United Way logo on its site.

ESBI calls their business practices “powerful and innovative.”  Gene calls them “underhanded and deceptive.”

“These are bottom feeders that try and protect their ill-gotten gains by incorporating in Bermuda and throwing some goodwill contributions to the San Antonio chapter of the United Way to make you feel they’re ethical,” Gene says.  “When the company’s own financial presentations warn investors their future revenue is at risk from telephone company crackdowns, their long term future is an open question.”

What is also remarkable is that ESBI scores higher than Frontier Communications with the Better Business Bureau.

“One has to wonder how a bottom feeder operation like ESBI/BSG managed to earn a “D” while Frontier scored a rock-bottom “F,” Gene wonders.

How You Can Protect Yourself

1. Scrutinize your phone bill carefully, especially if it has increased recently.  Pay special attention to sections labeled “Miscellaneous,” and the long-distance, 900-number, and “third-party” charge sections on your bill. Third-party charges are charges from anyone other than your phone company. Many phone companies are trying to switch customers to “out of sight, out of mind” electronic billing with automatic payments.  That makes it easy to ignore a bill you have to click a link to see until after the amount due is withdrawn from your checking account.  Not paying illegitimate charges keeps the money in your pocket — trying to get a refund from the phone company keeps it in theirs.
2. Demand the phone company place a “3rd party billing block” on your phone line.  Frontier calls this service “Bill Block.”  I have yet to encounter a worthwhile service that needs to bill customers using 3rd party phone bill charges, so why give them the chance to try?
3. Avoid pop-ups and other online ads that promise free services in return for sharing your phone or mobile number.  Chances are the freebies also come with sneaky add-ons that will cost plenty.
4. Do not enter surveys or contests that require a phone number.  If you are a winner, they should be able to contact you by mail.  Many of these contests also include fine print authorizing the promoter to start telemarketing you later, so the prize is rarely worth the aggravation.
5. Obtain a virtual phone number from a service like Google Voice.  It’s free. You can give out this phone number to those you are not sure about.  If a crammer tries to sign that number up for unauthorized services, they’ll encounter a roadblock.
6. If you are a victim, tell the phone company you want all of those charges reversed at once — they are unauthorized.  Do not accept their request to contact these companies yourself.  They are capable of reversing the charges, letting the billing agency protest the chargeback.  They rarely do, and you don’t have to waste your time dealing with “Inez” at “customer care.”

Finally, if you are victimized, contact the Federal Trade Commission by calling 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357) and file a complaint.

Verizon, the nation’s largest wireless phone company, has agreed to refund erroneous data charges for 15 million subscribers who paid for data sessions they did not initiate.

Those familiar with the proposed refund settlement claim the company could spend between $50-90 million in refunds for customers without data plans who were charged, in some cases repeatedly, $1.99 for a few seconds of web access.

The problem stems from Verizon phones that make accessing data services easy to trigger.  One misplaced button press can launch a data session, resulting in a web access fee.  Verizon repeatedly denied the company was charging customers who accidentally landed on the provider’s wireless home page, but customers loudly claimed otherwise, filing hundreds of complaints against Verizon with the Federal Communications Commission.

Teresa Dixon Murray, a reporter for The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, was among the first to report on the mysterious charges many customers couldn’t figure out, especially as they continued even for customers who placed a “block” on accessing data services or who had powered their phones off and were still charged the fees:

In a column last summer, I chronicled my battle with Verizon after I discovered Verizon had been concocting $1.99 monthly charges for supposed Web use by my family plan numbers. Verizon’s ruse ended the month that my son’s phone was dead and locked away for weeks.

Verizon responded directly to me in a meeting with several top executives, and they promised to investigate the problems suffered by thousands of customers nationwide. The company in August also promised to change its policy of charging customers if they accidentally hit their phone’s “mobile Web” button. The new policy: To get charged, customers now supposedly have to type in a Web address.

A Verizon Wireless employee anonymously told the New York Times the scheme was a planned money-maker for Verizon, which earned up to $300 million a month just from accidental web access:

“The phone is designed in such a way that you can almost never avoid getting $1.99 charge on the bill. Around the OK button on a typical flip phone are the up, down, left, right arrows. If you open the flip and accidentally press the up arrow key, you see that the phone starts to connect to the web. So you hit END right away. Well, too late. You will be charged $1.99 for that 0.02 kilobytes of data. NOT COOL. I’ve had phones for years, and I sometimes do that mistake to this day, as I’m sure you have. Legal, yes; ethical, NO.

“Every month, the 87 million customers will accidentally hit that key a few times a month! That’s over $300 million per month in data revenue off a simple mistake!

“Our marketing, billing, and technical departments are all aware of this. But they have failed to do anything about it—and why? Because if you get 87 million customers to pay $1.99, why stop this revenue? Customer Service might credit you if you call and complain, but this practice is just not right.

“Now, you can ask to have this feature blocked. But even then, if you one of those buttons by accident, your phone transmits data; you get a message that you cannot use the service because it’s blocked–BUT you just used 0.06 kilobytes of data to get that message, so you are now charged $1.99 again!

“They have started training us reps that too many data blocks are being put on accounts now; they’re actually making us take classes called Alternatives to Data Blocks. They do not want all the blocks, because 40% of Verizon’s revenue now comes from data use. I just know there are millions of people out there that don’t even notice this $1.99 on the bill.”

Verizon’s decision to refund the erroneous data charges also comes long after a class action lawsuit was filed earlier this year against the company by Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., of behalf of customers.

Impacted existing customers can expect credits, typically ranging from $2-6 on their October or November bills.  Former customers will get refund checks in the mail.

The Federal Communications Commission said it was opening an investigation into the Verizon overcharges, seeking a financial penalty from the wireless carrier, according to Reuters.

The news agency noted some customers were billed for data fees just because of software pre-loaded onto phones:

The charges affected customers who did not have data usage plans, but were billed because of exchanges initiated by software built into their phones.

For example, trying out a demonstration of a game that Verizon Wireless had pre-loaded onto a phone would sometimes trigger data transmissions from the phone unbeknownst to the customers who were then charged by Verizon Wireless for the data.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WPRI Providence Verizon To Pay Millions In Refunds 10-4-10.flv[/flv]

WPRI-TV in Providence covers the Verizon overcharges, pondering ‘why did it take more than two years for refunds?’  (3 minutes)

Don't touch this -- Bridging the gap (circled) can drive your iPhone's signal bars into a ditch

The long lines are over.  The hype that drove some Apple fanboys to wait hours in line, even with an advance reservation for the phone, has died down.  The people in the office you irritated bragging about your conquest have moved on with their lives.  For a growing number of early iPhone 4 buyers, that exhilaration is now being replaced with a realization: you are a beta tester for a new product that has some nagging design problems and defects.  And you are still stuck with AT&T, the nation’s least favorite wireless carrier.  Only now, it’s not just AT&T dropping your calls — it’s the iPhone itself.

A growing number of buyers have discovered a flaw so obvious even the most rudimentary testing, even from the drunk guy who left his phone in that California bar, should have picked up — if you hold the phone in your hand a certain way to make a call, the iPhone has a tendency to drop it.  That problem has grown so significant, Apple had to lock the message thread discussing the matter because it was crashing the browsers of support forum visitors.

You didn’t buy the iPhone to actually make calls, did you?

Sorting out whether the dropped calls are Apple’s fault or just business as usual at AT&T is now underway.

Apple’s answer to this particular problem is to turn the potential marketing crisis into an opportunity — by selling you a $30 “bumper”-case to keep your hands from actually touching the phone’s side, which is part of the antenna system.  The case’s odd design, which only covers the sides of the phone, has some speculating Apple knew about this problem all along and designed a case to mitigate the problem, and pocket the proceeds.

A leaked memo from Apple includes talking points to calm customers who have concerns Apple thinks are non-issues.  Apple even insists its representatives take a moment to summon up the proper “tone” when dealing with customers:

1. Keep all of the positioning statements in the BN handy – your tone when delivering this information is important.

• The iPhone 4’s wireless performance is the best we have ever shipped. Our testing shows that iPhone 4’s overall antenna performance is better than iPhone 3GS.
• Gripping almost any mobile phone in certain places will reduce its reception. This is true of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, and many other phones we have tested. It is a fact of life in the wireless world.
• If you are experiencing this on your iPhone 3GS, avoid covering the bottom-right side with your hand.
• If you are experiencing this on your iPhone 4, avoid covering the black strip in the lower-left corner of the metal band.
• The use of a case or Bumper that is made out of rubber or plastic may improve wireless performance by keeping your hand from directly covering these areas.

2. Do not perform warranty service. Use the positioning above for any customer questions or concerns.

3. Don’t forget YOU STILL NEED to probe and troubleshoot. If a customer calls about their reception while the phone is sitting on a table (not being held) it is not the metal band.

4. ONLY escalate if the issue exists when the phone is not held AND you cannot resolve it.

5. We ARE NOT appeasing customers with free bumpers – DON’T promise a free bumper to customers.

The yellow blotch problem

This week, even more problems are showing up:

• The Glitchy Proximity Sensor: PC World covers the iPhone’s sudden activation of the menu screen while talking on the phone.  With one’s face next to the screen, customers are reporting calls suddenly switched to speakerphone mode, muted, or throwing blasts of touchtones at callers.
• AT&T “Still Sucks”: Customers in San Francisco and Los Angeles, among other large cities, report “Bermuda Triangle” reception zones where calls regularly drop and cannot be made.  Randomly dropped calls are also still a major problem, and some customers believe the latest iPhone is more prone to showing “no service” than earlier models.
• Yellow Screen Blotches: Yellow-tinted blotches are visible on several owners’ iPhone screens.  Apple claims this is residue from the manufacturing process to bind the glass to the screen and will disappear with use as the adhesive fully dries.  Gizmodo reports these phones were likely rushed through manufacturing and shipped in time for the iPhone release day.  While some customers confirm the blotches do seem to be fading, others have been instructed by Apple to return yellow-tinged phones for replacement.
• Easily-Scratchable: Despite the hype about breakthrough glass technology making the phone more scratch resistant than ever, folks on Engadget found it was quite easy to tear up the phone when placed in a pocket with keys or other scratchy things.

Engadget received photos of scratched iPods hours after being unboxed (click to enlarge)

A Sacramento law firm, Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff has already started looking for customers experiencing poor reception quality and dropped calls, presumably to consider a class action lawsuit against Apple, AT&T, or both.  As of now, the law firm has received more than 400 complaints.

The signal loss problem has the prospect of becoming the most notorious — for both Apple and AT&T — especially when it is easily reproduced by reporters on the local evening news (see below).  But Steve Jobs thinks the complaints are overblown, writing back to one complainer, “Non issue. Just avoid holding it in that way.”

Despite that,  Gizmodo launched a petition urging Apple to give free cases to all iPhone 4 owners.

Every product launch has its bugs. We’ve seen a lot this time. Many issues, like the yellow screens, will go away as manufacturing fine tunes and adjusts to solve the problems. But the antenna issue is a fundamental one, a design flaw, that won’t go away as easily without adjusting the product in a deeper way.

So with all these great things, it’s terrible that buyers should have this excellent phone ruined for them because of a single, but serious, design problem. And even worse that Apple should suggest users use their phones in unnatural ways or shell out $30—for what is essentially a double wide livestrong armband—to fix it.

According to some Apple-watchers, the company plans a software fix, suggesting the signal meter displayed on the phone is the real issue, not the actual quality of reception from AT&T.  If the software fix only re-calibrates the signal meter and consumers still see dropped calls and reception problems, additional complaints are likely.

After a week of made-for-TV-lines outside of Apple stores across the country, reality has set in and several stations are now turning their attention to the iPhone 4’s pesky problems.

We have a number of videos for you to watch below the jump!

… Continue Reading

A California attorney has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against AT&T for fraud and misrepresentation over claims the company baited consumers to purchase Apple iPads with unlimited access and then subjected them to Internet Overcharging schemes after AT&T ended its unlimited data plan.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP claims AT&T knew it was going to break its promise to thousands of customers who were told they could switch between unlimited and limited data plans as their needs changed.  On June 7th, AT&T ended its unlimited data plan but grandfathered existing contract customers, permitting them to retain the plan indefinitely.  But if a customer changed to a limited usage plan or discontinued service, they lose the chance to get the unlimited plan back.

Apple and AT&T announced this policy change with less than one week’s notice to their customers and only about a month after Apple and AT&T began selling 3G-enabled iPads.  Apple and AT&T had promised consumers flexibility with their data plans, allowing them the ability switch back and forth between the limited data plan, the unlimited data plan, and no data plan.

No more.

“The availability of an unlimited data plan was a key reason why consumers paid the extra $130 charge to access the 3-G network, and their ability to switch in and out of the unlimited data plan was also an important consideration in the decision to purchase an iPad,” stated Lieff Cabraser attorney Michael W. Sobol. “The complaint alleges that Apple and AT&T should have known at the time they were promoting the availability of unlimited data plans, they were not going to keep that promise.”

“I originally purchased a standard iPad. Three weeks later, I returned it to the Apple store, paying an additional $130 plus sales tax to upgrade to an iPad with 3G capability. I thought the iPad 3G was worth the additional money because, with the unlimited data plan, I could work outside my office or home and access all the data I needed for a fixed, monthly price,” commented plaintiff Adam Weisblatt of Fulton, New York. “But I also knew that for several months each year, with my schedule, a lesser expensive, limited data plan was sufficient. I would have never purchased a 3G-capable iPad if I knew Apple and AT&T were planning on suddenly taking away from me the freedom to opt in and out of an unlimited data plan at my choice.”

The proposed class plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class consisting of all individuals and entities within the United States who purchased or ordered an Apple iPad 3G on or before June 6, 2010.

Consumers wishing to join the suit can contact the law firm for additional details.  There are no details on exactly what the attorneys will be seeking from AT&T.

Class action lawsuits have often delivered far more in benefits and compensation to the law firm that filed the lawsuit, with consumers usually left with discount coupons or less than $10 in compensation.  In this case, demanding AT&T deliver on its marketing promises or permitting customers to return their iPads for full refunds would seem appropriate.  Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Marcus for the news tip.

AT&T has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that accused the company of selling DSL service at speeds it often never provided to customers.

The case, Robert Schmidt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. AT&T and SBC Internet Services, Inc., (d/b/a AT&T Internet Services), was filed in 20o9 when AT&T customers learned the company was configuring some customers’ DSL modems at maximum speed rates below those advertised by AT&T.

AT&T has agreed to settle the lawsuit for a maximum of nearly $100 million, or less depending on the total number of claims received nationwide.

The amount customers are entitled to receive will vary depending on how much of an impact AT&T’s speed limiting configuration had on a their service.  The settlement is also retroactive back to April 1, 1995 meaning longtime AT&T DSL customers could be entitled to several hundred dollars in compensation.  For those dissatisfied with the speeds they received from AT&T’s DSL service, their compensation will be limited to a one-time payment of $2.00.

For some others, the settlement will provide more generous compensation.  The law firm that brought the case, Dworken & Bernstein, will receive up to $11 million in compensation and also get to hand out $3.75 million dollars of AT&T’s money to no less than 20 charities.

Some Background

AT&T provides DSL service to the vast majority of its customers.  This technology works over traditional copper wire phone lines.  Unfortunately, that infrastructure was never designed to carry data, but after years of development engineers found a way to make Ma Bell’s wires work for broadband service.  Unfortunately, the service has never been able to provide consistent speeds to every customer.  The further away you are from the phone company’s central office (where your phone line ultimately ends up), the slower the speed your line can support.  Someone a block away from the phone company office can easily achieve the speeds AT&T promised its customers in its marketing.  But if you are a few miles away, chances are you cannot.

For those more distant, or who live in areas with bad phone lines, your DSL modem won’t be able to maintain a consistent connection at the speeds AT&T sold you.  That will cause the modem to reset itself regularly, trying to re-establish an appropriately fast connection.  That can drive customers crazy because your service will often stop working while the modem tries to renegotiate the connection.  Some phone companies stop the constant reconnection battle by configuring the modem to work at a lower, more stable speed that will work with an individual’s phone line.

For instance, here in Rochester Frontier Communications advertises 10Mbps DSL service.  But for me, more than 10,000 feet away from Frontier’s central office for my area, the line simply couldn’t support that speed.  So Frontier locked the modem to deliver just 3.1Mbps, not the 10Mbps the company markets to customers in this area.

While that practice may seem technically smart, it’s obviously not legally smart, as AT&T has discovered.  Even using the traditional weasel words of “up to” when marketing broadband speeds, AT&T felt it was exposed to charges of false advertising and defrauding customers, and decided to settle the case.  It should be noted AT&T strongly denies any allegations of wrongdoing, but has agreed to settle to avoid the burden and cost of further litigation.

AT&T now faces the prospect of paying compensation to every DSL customer it speed limited in this fashion, and has also agreed to stop the practice.

The Details

Who Gets the Settlement? — Potentially any AT&T DSL customer paying for service after March 31, 1994.  This also includes customers of companies acquired by AT&T:

• SBC Internet Services, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Internet Services
• BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
• Pacific Bell Internet Services
• Southwestern Bell Internet Services, Inc.
• Ameritech Interactive Media Services, Inc.
• SNET Diversified Group, Inc.
• Prodigy Communications Corporation
• Oklahoma Internet Online

Many AT&T customers may have already been notified about this settlement through postcards or other mailers sent by AT&T based on customer records.

What Kind of Settlement Will I Get? — For longstanding AT&T DSL customers, the amount could be substantial, so it’s worth your while to participate, even if you are no longer a customer.  For most everyone else, it’s probably worth $2.00.

There are three types of benefits that will be paid to those who submit valid claims under the settlement once it becomes final. Payments will be made by check or by credits on a customer’s bill.

• Group A Benefit. If AT&T’s Records indicate that AT&T configured the downstream speed of your DSL service, for one month or more during the Settlement Class Period, at a level lower than the Maximum DSL Speed for the plan you purchased, you may be eligible to receive $2.90 for each month your service was so configured.  This could add up to hundreds of dollars.
• Group B Benefit. If you are not eligible for the Group A Benefit and AT&T’s Records show that your DSL service may have performed, for one month or more during the Settlement Class Period, at downstream speeds below the following levels, you may be eligible to receive $2.00 for each such month:
  • 200 Kbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 768 Kbps;
  • 384 Kbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 1.5 Mbps before October 2008;
  • 769 Kbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 1.5 Mbps after October 2008;
  • 1.5 Mbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 3.0 Mbps; or
  • 3.0 Mbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 6.0 Mbps.

  Because the settlement provides for monthly credits, you could also receive hundreds of dollars in refunds or service credits, making participation in the settlement worthwhile.

• Group C Benefit. If AT&T’s records do not show that either you fall within Group A or Group B but you nonetheless believe that your DSL service has not performed at satisfactory speeds based upon the plan that you purchased, you may still be eligible for a one-time payment or bill credit of $2.00. In other words, if at anytime you were underwhelmed by AT&T’s DSL speeds, you can file a claim and get two dollars back.

AT&T has also agreed to monitor customers’ DSL speeds over a period of 12 months and if service cannot achieve the speeds promised, the company will either make repairs to boost speed or adjust billing.

For AT&T customers in Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, and Texas, AT&T’s settlement would replace a similar class action case filed in St. Louis.  Ford and Dunne v. SBC Communications, Inc. and SBC Internet Services, Inc., would have only covered customers after December 31, 2000.

Customers who believe they are entitled to participate in the settlement can get additional information and file an online claim at the DSL Speed Settlement website.