A surprise announcement from the U.S. Supreme Court that it will hear an appeal brought by Comcast Corporation in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Philadelphia consumers, despite a pending settlement, may mean the Supreme Court is on the verge of issuing another business-friendly ruling that will make class action cases more difficult to file.

Comcast had reached a tentative settlement in June with lawyers who brought a $875 million class-action lawsuit on behalf of Philadelphia area cable subscribers. The antitrust case, originally filed in 2003, accused Comcast of strategically swapping or acquiring cable systems owned by Marcus Cable, Greater Philadelphia Cablevision, Inc., Lenfest Communications, Inc., AT&T, Adelphia Communications Corp., Time Warner, and Patriot Media in and around Philadelphia for the purpose of creating a super-sized Comcast cable system that could deter competitors from entering the market and allow Comcast to charge higher prices for service.

RCN Telecom Services originally intended to compete for cable customers in the Philadelphia region, but found it could not break into the market because Comcast allegedly hired as many available technicians it could find and tied them down with exclusive contracts. RCN also claimed Comcast targeted potential customers with special, allegedly below-cost deals to retain their business. RCN later filed for bankruptcy.

“Stated bluntly, Comcast and other large cable operators have demonstrated both the inclination and the wherewithal to use their market power to crush broadband competition in their local markets whenever it has the audacity to appear,” RCN alleged.

In 2002, RCN went public with a series of allegations:

Comcast intimidates independent construction and installation contractors. Comcast prevented or tried to prevent about 15 Philadelphia-area contractors from doing business with RCN through “non-compete” clauses, RCN alleged. The company provided specific names of contractors and Comcast personnel in sealed documents.

Those practices dated at least to the late 1990s, when Comcast acquired Suburban Cable, RCN said. Both Suburban and Comcast went “to extraordinary lengths to document ‘violations’ and intimidate contractors who were thought to be in contact with, or working for, RCN,” RCN said.

RCN cited instances of Suburban Cable employees, many of whom later worked for Comcast, allegedly following contractors in their trucks and taking photographs to document contractors seen at an RCN office or work site. These photographs then became “evidence,” RCN said, to support contractors’ termination.

As for predatory pricing, RCN claimed that before its entry into Folcroft in 2000, Comcast allegedly established a sales “swat team” instructed to sign up customers for 18-month contracts in exchange for cheaper cable services.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys want subscribers to receive refunds representing the savings they would have enjoyed had a competitor successfully forced prices down.

Comcast and the plaintiffs’ counsel reached a tentative settlement in June after both sides learned the lawsuit would proceed to trial this September. But in a surprise announcement, the U.S. Supreme Court suddenly decided to step in and hear an appeal filed by Comcast. Comcast immediately declared the settlement incomplete and has now declined to proceed with it, believing it has a more favorable outcome waiting at the Supreme Court.

Kenneth A. Jacobson, a professor at Temple University’s law school, told the Philadelphia Inquirer the Supreme Court does not typically decide to hear a case “during the settlement negotiation and approval process.”

Other Supreme Court watchers suspect the Court’s sudden involvement in the case means it is likely to issue a precedent-setting decision, more likely than not in Comcast’s favor, that will be talked about in law journals for the next decade.

Comcast Center in downtown Philadelphia

The specific point of Comcast’s appeal that interests the Supreme Court has to do with how a class action case certifies damages to the court hearing the case. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case based on, “whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.

Currently, courts insist that the burden of proof for damages lies with the plaintiff, but they are not necessarily required to demonstrate the actual individual damages suffered by each member of a proposed class action. Many judges accept the concept of fixed group damages based on a composite of an average proposed class member. That amount gets multiplied by the number of members in the certified class action to arrive at the total requested damages. Typically, both sides negotiate a final settlement, deduct attorney fees and costs, and then class members typically get a change in a company’s policies, coupons good for a future purchase or an actual refund in the mail.

The Supreme Court may find that concept inadequate, and insist on a detailed analysis of actual harm done to each proposed class member — a high and potentially expensive hurdle to cross for many class action cases. Legal analysts suggest the intended effect of such a decision would be to further deter class action lawsuits against companies, because the costs and complexities involved would increasingly not be justified.

In the Comcast case, the cable company wanted the court to dismiss the case, and for some very novel reasons:

1. Since Comcast effectively kept competing “overbuilding” cable systems out of Philadelphia, there is no evidence of any theoretical competition benefits such as reduced prices;
2. Since no competitor actually got their service up and running in Philadelphia, Comcast argues there was no competition to eliminate;
3. RCN, in Comcast’s view, was never actually going to start service in Philadelphia because of their own financial woes;
4. Without actual competition in Philadelphia, there is no basis for any expert witness hired by the plaintiff to credibly estimate damages;
5. Even if Comcast was engaged in anti-competitive behavior in Delaware County, that cannot be used by plaintiffs to serve as evidence of class-wide impact for the entire multi-county Philadelphia Comcast cluster.

Over the past few years, the Court has ruled in favor of corporations trying to compel less-costly legal avenues — like mandatory arbitration — for consumers who feel harmed by a company’s actions.

Comcast faces $2.4 million in lost sales after a Philadelphia area crime ring sold nearly 6,000 cable customers discounted cable service and free premium channels in return for a one-time fee they pocketed themselves.

Authorities have arrested five men and are looking for 18 others after uncovering the scheme. Prosecutors have been pouring over streams of text messages sent back and forth between members of the “sales crew” referencing strippers, weapons, and luxury goods. One exchange advised one alleged member to destroy “the book” naming customers as police closed in.

Despite pleas to stay “off the map” to avoid attracting attention, at least some of the alleged crooks could not help themselves, some splurging on top dollar luxury watches, autos, technology, and weekends in Atlantic City and Miami Beach.

Prosecutors dubbed the busting of the alleged crime ring “Operation Out of Service.” (Image: Montgomery County District Attorney)

Authorities have since learned the scam was run through “a secret computer” installed in a Comcast subcontractor’s office in Upper Moreland. Customers were approached on the street or in area establishments and offered discounted cable service with free premium movie channels in return for $150.

After payment, the alleged perpetrators logged into Comcast’s account management system and activated channels and changed customer records.

Comcast did not catch on until one of their own employees was solicited while she sat in a beautician’s chair. The employee reported it to Comcast’s security department.

Prosecutors have since released many additional sordid details, primarily focused around another Comcast subcontractor, which appears to be the cable company’s latest weak link:

This corrupt organization was headed by Alston Buchanan of Philadelphia, PA (DOB 10/07/1983). Buchanan designed, implemented and controlled the organization that utilized compromised Comcast technician identifications (IDs) to apply promotional discounts onto Comcast customer accounts.  When used legitimately, the IDs allow Comcast personnel to authorize services, such as premium cable channels or other promotions, to new or existing customers.  Buchanan obtained these unique IDs from a number of sources, including from a terminated employee and an employee on disability. In one instance, Buchanan paid a Comcast subcontractor $5,000 in exchange for her user ID.  This arrangement was brokered by Leighton Harrell of Philadelphia, PA (DOB 1/17/1986).

Once Buchanan had the IDs, he could access the billing accounts for Comcast customers and lower their payments and/or provide them with additional services without Comcast’s knowledge. Those involved in the scheme paid various amounts to Buchanan and his agents ranging from $100.00 – $200.00 to manipulate the billing and services of their Comcast accounts.  The investigation determined there were 5,795 accounts affected over the course of a year from April 2011 to April 2012, with a revenue loss to Comcast Cable of $2,401,673. The effected Comcast accounts were located throughout the Delaware Valley with the majority in Montgomery, Philadelphia, Delaware and Bucks counties.

Buchanan was familiar with Comcast’s billing system, because he was employed by Comcast as a dispatcher from May 2007 through March 2008 and as a dispatcher for Advanced Communications, Incorporated (ACI), a Comcast subcontractor, from October 2009 to July 2010.  In 2010, Comcast began investigating an identical scheme of billing manipulation through unauthorized promotions and believed that Buchanan was responsible.

Earlier this year, Comcast learned this same scheme was being perpetrated when a Comcast employee reported the fraudulent use of IDs to obtain services.  An internal investigation by Comcast revealed that Nicholas Caputo of Virginia Beach, VA (DOB 5/28/1981) was soliciting customers to provide one-time payments in exchange for a reduction of their Comcast bills.  Comcast Security, working with ACI, determined that the account manipulations were originating from the ACI Business Services Router located in the local office for ACI in Hatboro, Upper Moreland Township.

On April 9, 2012, ACI searched the data closet where the Business Services Router was stored.  Upon checking the closet, an unauthorized computer tower was discovered secreted in the corner.   This unauthorized computer tower was hardwired to the modem in the data closet which, in turn, was connected to the Business Services Router in the closet.  Accordingly, the hidden computer tower provided unauthorized access into the Comcast billing accounts.  The investigation revealed that the website “LogMeIn” was used to gain remote access to the unauthorized computer tower.  Ultimately, the computers located in Buchanan’s apartment were found to have accessed the “LogMeIn” accounts associated with the hidden computer tower.

“The Book” the alleged ringleaders wanted destroyed at all costs. (Image: Montgomery County District Attorney)

Comcast’s investigation revealed that Buchanan had an inside connection to ACI through Kendall Singleton of Philadelphia, PA (DOB 7/03/1986), an ACI employee.  On April 9 2012, an unrelated power outage occurred at the ACI office which caused the shutdown of the unauthorized tower.  Knowing that the unauthorized tower would have to be turned-on, Comcast Security installed a hidden camera to monitor the closet.  The next day, Singleton was seen on the camera entering the area of the closet and stooping down in the area of the unauthorized computer tower.  After the computer was re-booted, 96 customer billing accounts were accessed and manipulated within the following hour.

During the course of the investigation, Montgomery County Detectives served search warrants in several locations including the Philadelphia home of Buchanan and Richard Justin Spraggins (DOB 5/22/1983), resulting in the recovery of $103,000.00 cash in an attaché case, computers, cell phones and handwritten ledgers that contained records of the theft scheme, including the agents working for them.  Both Buchanan and Spraggins were in possession of these ledgers.  Analyses of the phones, computers and ledgers revealed the depth and scope of this corrupt organization, and extensive internal communications within the organization pertaining to the illegal scheme.

An investigation into the bank accounts of Buchanan and Spraggins revealed additional evidence of the profitability of the organization’s illegal scheme.  For example, a review of Buchanan’s checking account from December 2010 through April 2012 revealed 748 deposits totaling $221,133.29.  Of these 748 deposits, only 175 were not deposits of $150.00 or increments thereof.  Notably, $150.00 was the usual fee charged for the illegal billing manipulation.

Buchanan, Spraggins, Caputo, Harrell, Irving and Singleton are charged with Corrupt Organizations, Dealing in Proceeds of Unlawful Activity, Criminal Conspiracy, Theft of Services, Theft by Unlawful Taking, Receiving Stolen Property, Unlawful Use of Computer, Computer Theft, Computer Trespass, Criminal Use of Communication Facility and Possessing Instruments of Crime.  Arrest warrants have been issued for more than a dozen others who served as agents in this corrupt organization.

Preliminary hearings are scheduled for September 14, 2012 at 9:30 AM before Magisterial District Judge Jay S. Friedenberg in Willow Grove, Upper Moreland Township.  These cases will be prosecuted by the Captain of the Economic Crimes Team, Assistant District Attorney John F. Walko.

Comcast has obtained a complete list of customers who paid for the discounts or free channels, but does not expect to pursue charges or retroactive payments. The company said it would work with customers to transition them to “authorized packages” in the coming weeks.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KYW Philadelphia Cable TV Conman 8-8-12.mp4[/flv]

KYW in Philadelphia managed to score a short interview with alleged ringleader Alston Buchanan, who called himself a modern day Robin Hood. Of course, Robin Hood didn’t splurge on cars, hookers, and fancy watches, as prosecutors allege members of the cable crime ring did.  (2 minutes)

Normally, telephone companies looking for a rate increase file a request themselves with state regulators to charge customers more for service. But in Georgia, AT&T, Comcast, and the state cable lobbying group are asking the Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) to order two rural phone companies to raise rates because they are not “charging enough” for phone service, when compared with cable telephone services and AT&T.

The Ringgold Telephone Company (RTC) and Chickamauga Telephone Company both argue the action is anti-competitive.

“By forcing [both companies] to increase rates, these competitors are seeking to make wireless and cable companies more attractive to consumers,” says the Don’t Raise My Rate website.

The independent phone companies are vehemently against raising their rates, and executives at both companies are outraged AT&T and the state’s cable companies are literally trying to force the GPSC to order rate increases on residential and business customers.

“It’s totally unprecedented,” Phil Erli, executive vice president at RTC told the Times Free Press.  “It is ludicrous and illogical.”

The Georgia Public Service Commission will decide on Oct. 16 whether the rate increases are justified, following local public hearings Aug. 13.

AT&T, which is driving the campaign to force customers to pay higher rates, says they are pressing the case because both companies unfairly charge substantially lower rates than AT&T does in Georgia.

Peter F. Martin, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs in Georgia openly admits he wants both companies to charge essentially the same prices AT&T bills its customers in other areas of the state.

“The premise of my recommendation is that [the two phone companies] raise rates to roughly the same levels that are being charged by other local exchange carriers in surrounding areas,” Martin testified before the GPSC. “In other words, my recommendation is that [the two phone companies] increase their own end-user rates to market-based levels comparable to what other carriers are charging their subscribers.”

For customers of Chickamauga Telephone, that would amount to a 42% rate increase on residential customers, 100% on business customers. Customers of RTC would pay 20 percent more for residential service, 37% more for business service.

AT&T claims both companies, in deeply rural Georgia, are tapping into the state’s rural service fund and are receiving some of the largest state-mandated telecom subsidies, which are funded by all of Georgia’s phone companies and ratepayers. But both companies claim they have spent a large portion of those funds repairing damages to their rural networks incurred from a series of tornadoes which hit the area two years in a row.

The state cable lobbying group, the Cable Television Association of Georgia (CTAG) also has a dog in this fight. Comcast Cable, the dominant provider in Georgia, directly competes with both phone companies. They support AT&T’s demands that both phone companies hike their rates. It is not difficult to understand why:

Residential Service With Calling Features:

Business Service With Calling Features:

(EPB, a publicly-owned provider from nearby Chattanooga, Tenn., also offers service in some areas.)

Chickamauga Telephone executives argue Georgia’s telephone deregulation policies are heavily weighted in favor of huge phone and cable companies and leave independent, rural phone companies with no new revenue opportunities. Chickamauga argues AT&T and the cable industry are using legislatively imposed “unfunded mandates” to win favor and additional profits for themselves and their shareholders, with no resulting savings for Georgia ratepayers, especially in rural areas.

If AT&T and cable operators have their way, both independent phone companies “would be priced out of the competitive market,” and “would soon find [themselves] out of business.”

“If you lived down here and you had a phone with us and your rates went up, how would you respond?” asked Ted Austin, a spokesman for Chickamauga Telephone. “Nobody wants their bills to go up, especially when it’s not something that Chickamauga Telephone is asking for.”

Randolph (Chesterfield Township Police booking photo)

Even with proper identification, the cable guy who comes to install or repair your cable service may not be trustworthy.

Maureen Sharp of Chesterfield Township, Mich. discovered that for herself when she called Comcast to help fix a problem with a phone line.

The cable company sent Lequentin Ahmad Randolph, 22, who told the family to leave their own bedroom while he “checked for a problem.”

Instead, he allegedly checked out Laureen’s armoire and emptied it of its contents — $10,000 worth of sentimental jewelry including her wedding ring.

Randolph, a Detroit resident, was found nearby by local authorities and was pulled over still in his cable truck. Chesterfield Township police found two pieces of gold jewelry on the driver’s seat, the rest in a bag hidden behind a panel in the truck.

Comcast immediately declared they were not responsible and had no comment regarding the alleged actions of the cable repairman because he was an employee working for LE Com Communications, a contractor hired by Comcast to handle routine installation and repair work.

Randolph was booked for felony larceny and was scheduled for a preliminary hearing today.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WXYZ Detroit Cable Guy Allegedly Steals Jewel From Womans Home 7-24-12.mp4[/flv]

WXYZ in Detroit says one Chesterfield Township family’s trust has been shaken after welcoming a cable repairman into their home that allegedly robbed them of $10,000 in sentimental jewelry.  (2 minutes)

When a company like Comcast grows so big, it no longer cares whether its marketing claims are true or false, perhaps it is time to put those claims to the test in court or before a state attorney general for review.

Recently, Comcast’s claim it runs the fastest Internet Service Provider in the nation came under scrutiny by the Better Business Bureau. The simple truth is, Comcast is not the fastest ISP in the nation — not even close. But because PC Magazine ran a limited test of some national broadband providers and found Comcast barely making it to the top, the cable giant has been running ads across the country that are disingenuous and incomplete at best, completely misleading and false at worst.

Phillip “Comcast is not too big to deserve a FAIL“ Dampier

The National Advertising Division of the BBB, a self-regulating industry-controlled body, found the advertising deceptive, which says a lot for a group that lives or dies on the whims of the industries that support its operations.

NAD previously determined that Comcast cannot, based on its current offerings, make an unqualified claim in national advertising to be faster than the competition. NAD noted that while Comcast is the fastest Internet option for 94 percent of the 52 million households in its competitive footprint, it is not the fastest where Verizon FiOS is available.

Consumers need deep pockets to read the actual report that mildly criticizes Comcast. The NAD keeps the public out of its business with a subscription rate of $550 a year to read detailed individual case reports. We learned about the case from one of our readers who shared a copy.

Among the false claims Comcast is still making:

• “It’s official.  We’re the fastest.” — Officially, Comcast is not the fastest.
• “…the fastest downloads available.” — False.
• “FiOS Does Not Live up to Expectations….With Speeds of Up to 105Mbps, XFINITY was rated as the fastest Internet provider in the nation by PC Magazine.” — But FiOS speeds are faster than Comcast. PC Magazine did not test Verizon FiOS.

Comcast agreed to consider making changes to their advertising to comply, but that now appears to be a non-starter.

In Chattanooga, Tenn., EPB Fiber broadband beats the pants off Comcast. No, it’s actually worse than that. EPB embarrasses Comcast’s comparatively slow broadband service. While Comcast was looking for a way to manipulate customers into using its Xbox online video app to avoid their unjustified usage cap, EPB customers were bypassing that problem altogether by choosing EPB’s fiber to the home service that doesn’t have usage caps and delivers speeds up to 1Gbps.  Comcast, (remember they are “America’s fastest”) tops out at 105Mbps.

One would think Comcast would be hurrying their blatantly false advertising off the air and out of sight in Chattanooga, but the company has refused.

The Times Free Press reports Comcast won’t be making any changes to their ads, and has actually doubled-down with more blatantly false marketing claims. Why? Because EPB is too small of a player for Comcast to be concerned with telling the truth:

Jim Weigert, vice president and general manager of Comcast in Chattanooga, said the request won’t apply to this area and advertising will stay the same.

“I don’t see any changes at all,” he said. “Our use of that designation as the fastest ISP and fastest commercial ISP is still the same and will still be used the same as it is today.”

Weigert said local networks such as EPB, which delivers maximum download speeds about 10 times faster than those of Comcast, is too small of a player to affect the region’s advertising or PC Magazine‘s designation.

“Those awards exist, and we just need to make sure we’re using it properly and quoting it properly,” he said. “It doesn’t reference EPB at all because they’re not national. They’re not big enough to get that attention.”

In other words, actual facts about broadband speed don’t matter. With standards like this, it is only a matter of time before we’ll be seeing program length commercials for snake oil.

Beyond the fact Comcast is morally and ethically wrong here, I’m not sure I would want my company admitting to customers truth should come in second. With that kind of attitude, Comcast customers should put their wallets in their front pockets, leave the kids home and lock their car doors before visiting a Comcast Cable Store.

Deborah Dwyer, public relations supervisor for EPB, notes the Comcast ads are self-serving and “cause pretty significant confusion among the public.”

At least the public that still believes what Comcast Cable tells them represents the truth.