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.

Frontier Communications continues to alienate customers up and down the state of West Virginia with more service outages, billing problems, and emergency 911 service interruptions.

This time, it’s the community of Marmet that suffered an outage the company described as “temporary.”  Service to the area’s Metro 911 emergency operations center was interrupted Monday and residents knew what to do when Frontier could not deliver landline service that works — they grabbed their cell phones.

In Dunbar, the funeral director at Keller Funeral Home noticed he stopped getting calls from local area customers after Frontier took over operations July 1st.  Michael McCarty told a Charleston television station Frontier initially blamed him for the problems, but later discovered malfunctioning switching equipment was at fault and forked over a $344 refund.  McCarty’s business probably took a bigger financial hit than that when potential customers could not get through — for months.

“People would call, but it wasn’t ringing here,” McCarty told the Charleston Gazette. “There really wasn’t much we could do but wait it out.”

Two dozen complaints about Frontier’s performance are still pending at the West Virginia Public Service Commission.  The state’s consumer advocate says Frontier’s service quality in the state is not improving.  Frontier blames Verizon’s aging and poorly maintained network for most of the problems.

But many of Frontier’s complaints, not just in West Virginia, are about unfair early cancellation fees, inaccurate billing, lost service orders, and lousy customer service.  Here’s a sample:

• “The customer service representative was extremely rude and angry. We called in response to the unfair cancellation fee of $250.00. Last week we were told that we had until 9/30 to opt for other phone service without a cancellation fee. Each representative gives different information. Small business were treated horribly by Verizon and now Frontier. After the rudeness, I will never bring my business service back to Frontier!”
• “I have fought this company for six months because every month they cannot get billing right. They are the absolute WORST I have ever dealt with. They charge for services not wanted. They charge late fees when none should have been charged and then didn’t remove them after admitting their mistakes. If you have any other choice, avoid Frontier like it’s a plague, because it is.”
• “They never processed my order to transfer my service. I called back 4 times in a week to get them to do their job. On the last day, I was left on hold for 2 hours in the morning and then 1.5 hours in the afternoon, only to be told I would have to wait another 3 days for a servicemen to come out. The wait times were nothing less than abusive.”
• “Horrible folks to do business with. Verizon sold my FiOS/Phone account to Frontier and soon afterward mysterious charges for “ID protect” etc. started appearing on my bill. Whenever I call their service, it loops and hangs up. I tried the option for “we will call you back” – when it calls back , it will give another number to call back, where you have to wait again. Can’t wait to get rid of them.”
• “Frontier recently bought out Verizon’s service in my area. The automated phone tree system goes in loops and hangs up on you. Furthermore, once I finally figured out how to get someone on the line (responding to every question the automated system asked with “operator”) and moved up to a supervisor… the supervisor got very short with me when I tried to cancel my service and then hung up on me. When I called right back, I got an automated message saying the offices were closed.”

Some enterprising Frontier customers have learned their hold times will be much shorter if they opt to speak with a Spanish-speaking operator.  “Many of the call centers are in Florida anyway, so you may get a bilingual operator no matter which language you choose,” writes our reader Danielle.  “I cut my hold times from over an hour to less than five minutes this way.”

Meanwhile, one of Frontier’s primary competitors in the state, Citynet, accused Gov. Joe Manchin’s office of wasting $126 million in taxpayer money that will benefit Frontier Communications far more than state residents starved for broadband.

Citynet CEO Jim Martin urged federal officials Wednesday to suspend the grant after the state defended plans to allocate a large amount of the grant exclusively to connect state agencies.

“The state’s response clearly highlights why the federal government needs to suspend the award until there are major modifications to the plan,” Martin said. “It is clear from the state’s letter that little will be done with the federal taxpayer funds to increase the availability of adequate and competitively priced high-speed infrastructure in West Virginia. The current approach will cost the state future job growth.”

Martin is upset that more than half of the grant, $69 million dollars, will be spent on Frontier’s behalf to construct a broadband network for the state government.  The agencies who get access will still have to pay Frontier market rates for high speed broadband access, despite the fact taxpayer dollars were spent to construct the network Frontier will operate.

Manchin

Citynet wants stimulus funding diverted to construct a “middle mile” broadband network that every telecommunications company can access at wholesale rates to deliver improved broadband services to residents and businesses, not just government buildings.

Martin says the Manchin Administration is making “blatantly false” claims that the stimulus money would deliver high-speed Internet to 700,000 homes and 110,000 businesses.  Unless those homes and businesses are stuffed into government agency buildings, it won’t.

According to Martin, all of the benefits will go to only two places — state agencies and Frontier’s pockets.

“It’s a political favor to Frontier,” Martin charged.

“The citizens of West Virginia deserve transparency and accountability from their public servants, and this is even more true given the magnitude and importance of the need for broadband enablement in our state,” Martin said Wednesday. “I was born and raised in West Virginia, and I am aware of the consequences this program could have for West Virginia in terms of job growth and competing for high-paying 21st century jobs.”

Frontier's Maggie Wilderotter escapes reality

Frontier Communications CEO Maggie Wilderotter has bought a first class ticket to Fiber Fantasy Island, where phone companies dream of delivering fiber-optic broadband service without actually deploying fiber.  They just tell you they did.

In an interview published today in The Oregonian, Wilderotter tries to convince residents Frontier’s arrival is good news, making promises about broadband and service improvements based on a company track record an independent observer would conclude she simply made up.

If Wilderotter’s command of the facts about her own company are reflective of “a distinct, improved image in its new territories,” Oregon is in big trouble.

Let’s review:

CLAIM: “We deploy fiber to the home all across the country. We don’t call it FiOS. We call it high-speed Internet. For our customers, the technology doesn’t matter. What matters is access, speed and capacity.”

REALITY CHECK: Frontier, as far as we have been able to determine, has not deployed fiber to the home anywhere in the country, with the exception of the FiOS network it acquired from Verizon.  Frontier Communications’ deployment of fiber optics to the home is comparable to the amount of fiber found in a box of Cookie Crisp cereal.  In their largest market, Rochester, N.Y., Frontier relies on the same legacy copper wire phone network it utilizes everywhere else.  It is highly misleading for Wilderotter to represent otherwise.  Fiber to the home means exactly that — fiber optic cable brought right to the home.  This is not a case of “you call it corn, we call it maize.”

This kitten is not an iguana.

Fiber optic cable is not also known as “high-speed Internet,” just as the cute kitten on the left is not called an iguana.  For the significant number of customers who ask Frontier to disconnect their service year-after-year, technology matters very much, and this particular phone company lacks it.  Frontier relies on the same DSL technology other phone companies and customers increasingly consider yesterday’s news.

In many Frontier service areas, there is no access to broadband because line quality will not support the service.  In Brighton, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester less than a minute from the Rochester city line, Frontier could only manage to deliver 3.1Mbps DSL speeds, and until recently Frontier was crying it needed a 5GB usage allowance because of the threat higher amounts of consumption might have on its network capacity.  Access, speed, and capacity does matter, which is why Time Warner Cable is picking up the bulk of its new broadband subscribers at Frontier’s expense.

CLAIM: “For high-speed, it means having speed and capacity in addition to reach. We’ll do add-on services. We have a terrific Yahoo-Frontier portal that will be a gateway on our high-speed Internet service. We are in the throes of putting together Wi-Fi hotspots that will be distributed throughout this market for customers.  If you’re a high-speed Internet customer of ours it’s free. We’re looking to put one at Hillsboro Stadium. Typically, we put them in hotels, convention centers, truck stops, trailer parks, outside parks, campuses for colleges, shopping centers, business campuses.”

REALITY CHECK:  Those “add-on services,” such as Frontier’s Peace of Mind, come with a price tag and are often required components of a bundled service discount offer.  As first impressions go, a company still relying on Yahoo! for a front end is not exactly on the cutting edge, nor are “portals.”  It’s like trying to impress new customers with free web space through GeoCities.  Actually, that is something Frontier could offer because GeoCities is now owned by Yahoo!

Frontier’s Peace of Mind Services

• Hard Drive Backup: $4.99 per month
• Hard Drive Backup + Unlimited Technical Support: $9.99 per month
• Hard Drive Backup + Unlimited Technical Support + Inside Wire Maintenance: $12.99 per month
• $50 early cancellation penalty if you get these services with a term commitment

Rochester’s experience with Frontier Wi-Fi has not been very impressive.  Most residents don’t even know the service exists.  The city and several suburbs offer limited Frontier pay-walled Wi-Fi service and a handful of free access hotspots in cooperation with Monroe County.  Unfortunately, many of the fee-based and free hotspots have fallen into disrepair and no longer function.  Signal strength is not impressive either, and many were not usable indoors.  We tested several of the free hotspots and discovered one only delivered a signal into a suburban parking lot, another only into an empty soccer field, and the third was not functioning at all.  Frontier’s record in Wi-Fi delivered more promises than actual service.

Those Wi-Fi services, by the way, are not free for all Frontier broadband customers.  Evidently Ms. Wilderotter is not acquainted with her own company’s products and services, nor Frontier’s own website:

So much for Wilderotter's claim Frontier's Wi-Fi network was free for all Frontier broadband customers.

CLAIM: “We deliver the highest value for the price you pay. We also have excellent customer service. We also don’t raise our rates every 12 months, no matter what.”

REALITY CHECK:  In Rochester, the out-the-door price Frontier charges its broadband customers is actually higher than that charged by Time Warner Cable, which delivers far faster connections.  In West Virginia, the state’s Consumer Advocate put together a chart depicting Frontier’s broadband prices.  Determine for yourself if it delivers the “highest value for the price you pay.”

Comparing Prices: Frontier's pricing doesn't look as exciting as Wilderotter would have you believe, as the West Virginia Consumer Advocate discovered

CLAIM: “If I look across the board at our basic service pricing, I don’t think we’ve raised prices anywhere in the last four or five years.”

REALITY CHECK: We looked and found Frontier demanding the right to increase basic service rates in New York by $2 a month each year for up to two years.  In fact, last November, the New York State Public Service Commission, at the request of Frontier, sent the company a letter authorizing a rate hike of $2 a month for customers in the state.  Even more enlightening was Frontier’s filing in August 2005 with the PSC demanding near-complete deregulation and rate relief allowing Frontier to raise rates up to $1 per month annually indefinitely for basic service.  Frontier also wanted consumer protection rules “relaxed” and ban the PSC from investigating consumer complaints.  One of the reasons they cited is that basic phone service is not the same critical service it used to be because people can communicate through blogs instead.

In fact, consumers should be asking why Frontier’s rates haven’t decreased.  From that same filing: “Frontier believes that with the decreasing costs and increasing bandwidths of new technologies and the acceleration of intermodal market entry, the market will cause rates for non-basic services in all parts of the State to decline.”

CLAIM: Local regulators tell me they did see a spike in billing complaints after Verizon took over. Any thoughts on why? — “Whenever there’s a change — you change the name on the bill, you change the format — customers tend to look at it more closely. We always expect a spike in billing calls whenever we’ve done acquisitions. It has already (settled out).”

REALITY CHECK: As Stop the Cap! has reported, Frontier’s takeover in West Virginia has hardly “settled out.”  Service interruptions, forgotten service calls, and other problems have plagued the state to the point the PSC needed new hearings to review the situation.  Many of Frontier’s billing complaints come from customers choosing to cancel Frontier service, only to find unjustified early termination fees added to their final bills, even when customers never agreed to a term contract.  That problem was so serious in New York, the state Attorney General fined the company and ordered customer refunds.  Changing a customer’s bill by adding $100 or more to the total amount due will always get a customer to look at the bill more closely.

CLAIM: “One of the big opportunities that we’re working on is the ability to display Internet content and video on the television set.”

REALITY CHECK: That “big opportunity” has been available to broadband users for several years now.

CLAIM: We also have a new site that’s called myfitv.com. We carry over 100,000 titles of free television content on this site. It’s a little bit like Hulu on steroids. It’s provided free of charge to all our customers.

REALITY CHECK: MyFitv is not “a little bit like Hulu on steroids.”  In fact, it is Hulu.  Frontier simply used Hulu’s “embed” feature to take content, slap the Frontier logo on it, and add Google ads in an attempt to rake in a few extra dollars.  You can do exactly the same thing yourself.  Meanwhile, the service is added to customer bills showing an amount of $0.00, a very inexpensive way to try and impress customers with content Frontier never developed, deployed, or created — just like their phantom fiber to the home network.

CLAIM: “We think over time the Internet will also provide different packaging, different prices, different ways to buy content than the traditional viewing platform. We also think that mobility is important. We want to make sure that whatever you do you’ll be able to take it with you.  The Sling technology is interesting, too. It’s something we’re talking about DISH Network with.”

REALITY CHECK: Every time Maggie has talked about “different packaging and prices,” it has been in the context of an Internet Overcharging scheme — limited usage allowances, extremely high rate increases for those deemed to have consumed too much, etc.  And yes, Sling technology is interesting.  A company conceived of the idea, built it, developed a marketing plan, and sold it.  That’s a concept Frontier needs to understand.  You cannot transform a legacy network with words alone.  Here’s an idea.  How about conceiving of a real fiber-to-the-home network, build one, develop a marketing plan, and then sell it.  For those in markets like Rochester, it’s the only way Frontier Communications will avoid becoming the horse and buggy carriage maker of the 21st century.

CLAIM: You’re around Seattle, around Portland, but not in them yet. Is there any possibility that Frontier would build into another company’s market? — “There’s always a possibility. It’s not a priority for us. And the reason why it’s not a priority is we’ve got a lot to do, just in the service areas that we own today. When I’m humming on all cylinders there, and I’ve been able to do everything I possibly can in those areas, then I might look to extend service areas out.”

REALITY CHECK: Translation — “when pigs fly.”  Frontier would be laughed out of the Seattle and Portland markets.

Ms. Wilderotter needs to be a lot more open and forthcoming with the press.  Frontier’s business plan makes it clear the company’s future is serving uncompetitive rural markets that will be forced to tolerate the products and pricing Frontier delivers.  Where competition exists, let’s face facts.  Frontier is not gaining market share — it is losing it, eroded away year after year by uncompetitive, substandard products at high prices.

That’s a reality you are bound to miss if you spend too much time with Mr. Rourke and Tattoo.

Verizon Wireless customers increasingly confront mandatory data plans costing $10-30 a month even if they don't intend to use their phones to access data services

An increasing number of Verizon Wireless customers at the end of their two-year contracts are suspended in time, unwilling to upgrade their phones because of costly mandated data plans that dramatically boost cellular phone bills, especially if everyone in the family wants an improved phone.

Kathy Vega, who lives in Rotterdam, N.Y., is just one example.

She complained to the Albany Times Union she’s effectively trapped with her old phone, an LG enV, because any upgrade will expose her to new mandatory data plans costing as much as $30 extra per month.

She’s been a satisfied Verizon Wireless customer for years. She also has Verizon Internet service, a Verizon e-mail address and a Verizon land line at home. She’s been a virtual walking, talking advertisement for the company’s products and services.

That’s why Vega was so irked by Verizon’s response when she tried to replace her enV phone and add a second one for her stepfather for free, thanks to a Father’s Day promotion the company was running.

Vega recalls that she was told that she’d have to pay another $30 each month for a “media pack” that would provide Internet and e-mail access.

It’s not clear to her now whether the additional price quoted to her was actually $30 per phone, which was her understanding at the time, or a total additional cost of $30 per month, based on a $9.99 data plan for each phone.

The Maroon enV model like hers on Verizon’s Web site now requires a data package costing “$9.99 or higher.”

The exact amount is almost irrelevant, as far as Vega is concerned. She just doesn’t see why she should have to pay for services she doesn’t use — especially since she wants the same phone she already has with no data charge.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Loyal Verizon customer laments plan – The Advocate 8-19-10.flv[/flv]

Kathy Vega explains her plight to the Albany Times Union Advocate.  (1 minute)

Good luck.

Verizon Wireless, like AT&T, is increasingly exposing loyal customers like Vega to hidden rate increases in the form of mandatory service add-ons, in this case to cover data usage.  While Verizon’s most basic cell phones are still free from these fees, the phones most popular with consumers these days all come with bill busting add-on requirements.

Vega pays $116 a month for cell phone service now.  Verizon’s salespeople don’t always volunteer the company offers a lower usage data plan for $10, so assuming she follows the path laid before her by Verizon’s in-store staff, she could face quite a rate hike.

Confronted with her options, Vega is toughing it out with her current phone and an expired contract — like many other Verizon Wireless customers.

For those who have been loyal to Verizon for years, it’s galling to find higher priced monthly bills when it’s time to renew a contract and upgrade a phone.

Jen Smith said she was peeved when she learned of the new data program and associated costs.

“It’s sickening. I also hate that they have no customer loyalty. We have been with Verizon since they took over for Bell Atlantic Mobile in the area (~11 years ago). We have six phones and spend about $320 a month for them. You’d think we’d get a little better service for that, or a free accessory or some little perk, or heck, even a polite customer service specialist, but nope,” she writes.

Reader Sarah discovered the same thing, and she headed out the door to Sprint:

“This is exactly why I left Verizon over a year ago. I wanted a Palm. I didn’t want the data plan. Even though you can put a block on the phone to prevent the “unintentional use” of the data plan, they refuse to sell any smart phone without a data plan. So I had to go to Sprint. Can’t say I’m totally pleased with Sprint, but at least I could get what I wanted, and that was no data.”

For Verizon spokesman John O’Malley, it’s all a matter of doing some math.

He told the Times Union’s Cathy Woodruff, who serves as the newspaper’s consumer advocate, mandating data plans actually saves customers from unexpectedly high bills. He described circumstances where many owners of such devices had been racking up unexpected charges, suffering bill shock from Verizon’s punitive charge of $1.99 per megabite of data consumed.

“Customers who purchase these phones tend to take full advantage of the phone’s capabilities for surfing the Web, checking e-mail, etc.,” O’Malley said. “We’ve seen that those customers use an average of 17 megabytes of data per month. At our pay-as-you-go rate of $1.99 per megabite, that would cost them more than $30 a month.”

The $9.99 data feature provides up to 25 megabytes of data per month, which would cost nearly $50 under the old pricing policy, which makes the package “more cost effective,” he said.

Woodruff argued it won’t save any money for customers who don’t use data services.

But beyond that, we contend O’Malley’s math only works when using Verizon’s numbers.

It was Verizon Wireless that set the price of $1,990 per gigabyte of usage for “occasional users.”  Had Verizon chosen pricing more reflective of its actual costs, consumers finding an extra dollar or two on their bill for a piddly 17 megabytes of data would still leave Verizon fat and happy, more than covering their costs.  By inflating accidental and occasional use pricing into the ionosphere, O’Malley has a stronger argument to sell customers mandatory data plans that protect them from data pricing traps created by Verizon itself.

Overpricing data plans for loyal Verizon Wireless customers who can’t or won’t jump for joy at the prospect of spending $100 a month or more for a single cell phone with data service are now shopping around for better deals.  Unfortunately, they won’t find them at AT&T, who generally charges the same prices Verizon does.  But the financially-stressed consumer can find savings if they are willing to explore the second-tier of carriers, ranging from Sprint and T-Mobile and prepaid plans that require no contract.

Sprint promotes itself as a better value than larger carriers AT&T and Verizon

Sprint is banking on Verizon and AT&T overplaying their hand and overcharging their customers.  With Sprint’s newest handset hit — the HTV Evo, which also works on Sprint’s slowly growing 4G network, the company is attracting another look by advanced smartphone users.  Sprint’s latest marketing also targets families weary of tricks and traps from their cell phone provider, especially usage-limits and allowances.  Sprint bundles more services into its unlimited plans than other carriers, and its prepaid unit, Virgin Mobile, is no longer limiting wireless broadband usage on its 3G network.

Sprint’s biggest challenges to regain its top-tier footing come from years of bad customer service which company CEO Dan Hesse now assures is behind them, and a considerably more limited coverage area that simply cannot compare to AT&T and Verizon.

But for customers like Vega, being able to use the phone she wants and not pay gotcha fees for services she doesn’t use may be enough to compel a switch. 

Verizon isn’t fooling her.

Woodruff

As Woodruff observes, “it seems foolish for Verizon to close out options for loyal customers, though, at a time when options can be such a strong selling point.”

“I just think (Verizon’s data package) is their way of building it to create more revenue, which I understand,” Vega told Woodruff, “but the customer should have a choice.”

She is so right.

Cathy Woodruff is known to Times Union readers as The Advocate.  Cathy covers telecommunications issues regularly in her column which appears twice-weekly in the newspaper.  She has covered the capital region of New York around Albany for more than 25 years, becoming The Advocate in July, 2009.  She grew up in Herkimer County in upstate New York. Her column is highly recommended.

One month after Frontier Communications took over phone service from Verizon Communications in West Virginia, unresolved problems over West Virginia’s telephone system continue to mount, leaving one sheriff’s department using Facebook to communicate with some residents and a renewed call for an investigation over Frontier’s poorly functioning “Operational Support System.”

One serious problem is in Wetzel County, where the local sheriff’s office faces trouble from disruptions to their call management system that began July 1st, the date Frontier switched over operations from Verizon Communications.  Calls that are intended to reach individual officers’ direct extensions or voicemail are instead being diverted into a black hole, as callers are told they will be transferred to an operator that does not exist.

The result of the ongoing, month-long problem is that individual residents are unable to reach officers except through the county’s Facebook page and website.  Emergency calls to 911 are not affected, but calls transferred from 911 to the sheriff’s office are.

Despite weeks of back and forth, Frontier is blaming an outside vendor for the problem, claiming the sheriff’s office needs to order a “part” to repair the all-digital call management system.  That doesn’t seem to impress Wetzel County Sheriff James Hoskins, who wonders why the problem suddenly started the same day Frontier switched away from Verizon’s systems.  Additionally, voicemail messages saved on Verizon’s old system are no longer accessible to the department.

Meanwhile, other service disruptions continue to pile up across the state, along with consumer and business complaints at the Consumer Advocate’s Division of the Public Service Commission.  Things have deteriorated so much, the state’s Consumer Advocate Byron Harris is asking the Commission to hold hearings on Frontier’s poor performance in the state.

Harris told MetroNews the problems have gone beyond glitches.

“In any transition between companies, there are always going to be some glitches, but this has gotten past the point of glitches,” Harris said.

FiberNet uses Frontier’s landline network and, last week, that company asked for a similar review.  FiberNet officials say their customers have been experiencing many problems since the change at the beginning of the month.

“At the Consumer Advocate’s Division, we’ve also noticed a significant increase in complaints, across the board, all types of complaints from customers,” he said.

Harris says customers that are having problems are, in some cases, also finding it difficult to get in touch with anyone with Frontier to report their issues.

But Frontier Spokesperson Brigid Smith says it’s impossible to completely avoid all such problems.

“We are 30 days into a very, very large change which, by and large, has gone very well,” Smith told MetroNews.

“There have been glitches.  We have taken accountability for those.  We are trying to fix a system that has been sorely neglected and we are very, very committed to the state.”

Stop the Cap! reader Janel from Huntington thinks that excuse is becoming the equivalent of a broken record.

“Frontier can’t help but tell people here over and over and over how great of a job they’re doing and how well the transition went,” she writes.  “But there are a whole lot of people who disagree — they just don’t happen to work for Frontier.”

Janel’s cousin lost his DSL service for nearly a week after the transition and after repeated calls to customer service finally learned the company lost his records.

“They deactivated his account and their customer service people, when they bothered to answer, were about as useful as a car in a ditch,” she notes. “They had no record he even had an account and thought he was served by some other company, despite having a phone bill he was willing to fax them showing he had their DSL service.”

Frontier eventually “re-established service” after re-entering his customer information and reauthorized the DSL modem.

Frontier’s unionized employees facing enormous overtime demands are perhaps the best evidence Frontier continues to experience serious transition issues.

Frontier used a provision in its union contract with the Communications Workers of America to demand 70-hour workweeks for many Frontier service technicians working in West Virginia, declaring an “emergency and long term service difficulty.”

With an extremely hot summer underway, line technicians are facing long hours in 90 degree plus weather repairing lines Verizon neglected for years.  Transition issues are also being blamed for long overtime hours as Frontier works its way through a large number of unresolved support requests.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTRF Wheeling Major Concerns With Phone Line at Wetzel County Sheriff’s Office 7-31-10.flv[/flv]

WTRF-TV in Wheeling, W.V., reports on the concerns of the Wetzel County Sheriff’s Office, which is still without properly working phone service a month after Frontier Communications took over phone service in the state.  (3 minutes)