Meet Daniel and Kate Methot, proud owners of $5000+ in Bell data charges the company cannot explain.

A couple from Merritt, B.C. has received bills from Bell for more than $5,000 in data usage, even after the skyrocketing bills made the family so frightened of their phone, they turned it off.

This is the story of Daniel and Kate Methot, who purchased a smartphone from Bell in October of last year.  When the first bill arrived, it contained more than $1,000 in data charges.

“My wife looked at me and I thought ‘Oh boy, what did I do that I didn’t know that I had done? I am in trouble’,” Daniel told CBC News.

When Internet Overcharging of this magnitude occurs, most people first blame themselves, assuming they did something wrong.  The Methot family figured they downloaded a malfunctioning or data hungry app or left something running on the phone.

“We never thought we would be billed for something we weren’t using. That was sort of a new concept for us,” Daniel said, but the family still sought guidance from Bell on how the charges could get that high.

“They really couldn’t give us an answer,” Kate said.

The family deleted everything they could find on their new Samsung Galaxy phone in hopes of stopping the surprise charges.

But when the December bill arrived, the couple was horrified to discover their new bill was more than $3,500 — almost entirely for data usage that literally cost Bell pennies to provide.  In fact, the phone company managed to bill the couple for 30 hours of usage during one 24-hour day, a clear warning sign there was a severe billing problem at work here.

But when it comes to protesting charges with Bell, the Methots discovered customers are guilty until proved innocent.

“I felt like I was being treated like a criminal — like we were trying to essentially steal from them,” Daniel said. “When you call in to argue a bill, that’s what they do. They tell you to pay — and don’t ask questions.”

Kate got a stern lecture from Bell telling her to quit watching videos on her phone all day long.

Of course, the couple denied doing any such thing.  In fact, by the time January arrived, both Daniel and Kate became afraid of even going near their phone, much less using it.  The couple routinely shuts the phone off when they are not actually using it for calls, but still the data charges kept coming — more than $5,200 to date.

CBC News asked Bell several times for a response to the Methot’s complaint. While refusing an in-depth interview on the topic, Bell told CBC News it cannot yet explain what is happening with the account.

That hardly inspires confidence for the Methot family.  Despite Bell being unable to explain the charges, they continue to insist on being paid for at least some of them.

The couple even hired a lawyer for $400 to send a letter to Bell demanding better answers or the couple would not continue to pay the unexplained charges.

In that case, Bell would simply turn their account over to collections, and potentially ruin their credit rating.

Bell’s theories about the stratospheric bills include:

• They are running up the bill themselves and now trying to run away from the charges they incurred;
• They are using the phone’s Wi-Fi hotspot feature, inadvertently allowing the entire neighborhood to share their connection;
• They are watching Netflix all day and into the night;
• They ran across the border into the United States and are incurring roaming charges;
• They are tethering their computer to the phone and that consumes massive amounts of data.

The one explanation Bell hasn’t imagined is that their billing system is completely fouled up and their usage meter cannot be trusted.  One might imagine Bell could actually determine where the phone is being used, to dismiss the roaming theory.  Plus Daniel reports he is incurring data charges even when the phone is completely powered off.

Finally, Bell admitted they were responsible, credited the account for more than $3,000 of the charges, and the Methot family thought their long nightmare was over.

Only it isn’t.

Merritt, B.C.

Days later, though, they received a bill with $1,204 in new charges.

“It was just a temporary relief and then the stress is back again,” Kate said.

“At that point I wasn’t interested in being a Bell customer anymore,” Daniel added.

On top of that, Bell has reneged on their apology, now claiming they were not responsible for the faulty charges after all.  The Methot family can pay their $1,200 phone bill with cash, check, money order or credit card.  And if they plan to leave, they better be ready to cough up the early termination fee as well — another several hundred dollars.

Isolated incident?  Don’t bet on it.

“These customers are not alone,” Howard Maker, the head of the federal Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services told CBC News. “Unfortunately, Canadian telecom consumers do suffer from many billing errors from their providers.”

Maker said his office received more than 1,900 complaints about wireless providers last year, and 40 per cent of them were about overcharging.

With Bell insisting customers can trust their usage meter — the one that generates $5,000 in data charges for one family alone — Canadians should prepare themselves for the bills that will follow. With no oversight agency able to monitor the accuracy of the meter, Bell customers will just have to take their word for it.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News Couple’s huge bills unexplained by Bell 3-1-11.flv[/flv]

CBC News talks with the Methot family about their Internet Overcharging experience.  (5 minutes)

The Associated Press reports, and Stop the Cap! can confirm AT&T is allowing some of their long-standing customers to switch back to unlimited data plans, even if they gave them up after the company introduced cheaper, limited data plan options.

After our regular reader “PreventCAPS” sent word AT&T was relenting on some requests for unlimited data plans, we spent some time late this afternoon with Jim Scott, an AT&T customer from New Rochelle, N.Y. as he navigated his way through AT&T customer service trying to get back to an unlimited data plan.

“When AT&T offered customers new, cheaper data plans, I never knew those replaced the unlimited option and I thought I could save some money downgrading to a cheaper data option,” Scott told us.

But Scott discovered the plan allowances he got didn’t save him money at all, because he exceeded them.

“I am a contractor and I spend all day on my phone moving large image files and even video of work being done on the properties I manage,” Scott says.  “Two gigabytes didn’t cut it.”

Scott tried to switch back to his unlimited plan this summer, but was told he could not, as it was no longer offered.

Enter Verizon Wireless, which is keeping its unlimited service plan at least temporarily as it introduces the Verizon iPhone.  Verizon’s imminent iPhone has become leverage for customers who want to turn the tables on AT&T.

“Thanks to AT&T’s greed, I had already made the decision to dump them for Verizon when my contract ends in February,” Scott says. “AT&T works fine in this part of New York, and the only reason I am leaving is because they don’t have a wireless data plan that met my needs.”

We worked with Scott and suggested he threaten to cancel his AT&T service and walk his future business to Verizon Wireless.  We asked him to make sure to tell AT&T the reason he was planning to cancel his service was because of the end of unlimited data option.

On a three-way call with AT&T customer service, AT&T promptly offered to restore Scott’s access to its discontinued unlimited data plan.

“All I had to say was ‘Verizon’ and ‘iPhone’ and the customer service representative immediately starting clacking away on her keyboard, and I had my unlimited data plan restored in less than five minutes,” Scott said.

The AP reports the key to success is having been a previous subscriber to AT&T’s unlimited data option.  New customers who signed up after June 2010 never had that option, and AT&T has refused to offer unlimited data to these customers.

Because newer customers are under relatively new contracts, actually following through on a threat to drop AT&T is an expensive proposition with early termination fees still well into the hundreds of dollars.  For those closer to a penalty-free exit, AT&T recognizes many of these customers already have one foot out the door.

Jose Argumedo, of Brentwood, N.Y., told the AP he and a friend were switched to an unlimited plan recently after they called AT&T’s customer service. Both have iPhone 4s, and previously had earlier iPhone models.

AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel wouldn’t confirm the option to return to an unlimited plan.

“We handle customers and their situations individually, and we’re not going to discuss specifics,” he said.

Scott says he is comfortable with his iPhone, but getting back an unlimited data plan was more important than the handset.

“If I can use the iPhone as leverage against these guys, why not?” Scott says.  “They’ve had me under their thumb for more than six months now with overlimit fees — now the table is turned.”

Stop the Cap! advises customers who want to follow in Scott’s footsteps get organized before calling:

1. Be sure to note the number of years you have been an AT&T customer;
2. Explain you used to have unlimited data and now want that plan back;
3. Tell them you are prepared to drop AT&T, even at the risk of a cancellation fee, if they don’t restore your access to the unlimited data plan.

If a representative is unable to make the switch, or doesn’t have information about how to switch you back, ask for a supervisor or hang up and call back.

A Sprint customer in Tulsa, Okla., was recently sold a Blackberry plan that included a data add-on service that allowed him to tether his Sprint wireless connection to his laptop, perfect for wireless broadband on the go.

John signed a two-year contract with the company, which included a copy of his plan choice and the charges associated with his account. There it was, right on his bill — Sprint’s “Phone as Modem” add-on, priced at $15 per month.

A few weeks later, the service stopped working, and after multiple phone calls with Sprint, John was told he should have never been sold that data plan add-on; it was only available to corporate customers, not individuals.

John pointed to his contract with Sprint, which clearly showed he was paying to receive the service, but Sprint didn’t care.  Nor would it permit him to exchange his phone for wireless broadband equipment that would provide him with the broadband service he needed.  Why?  Because he was already into his two year contract.

John was left fuming, wondering why Sprint’s contracts allow them to renege on a deal made fair and square while trapping him with equipment he can no longer use to obtain the service he needs.

“To me, they voided the contract when they took away the service without my knowledge,” John told KJRH-TV’s Problem Solver Pete Knutson. “This is principle, this is sole principle.”

John canceled his contract, but Sprint promptly billed him a $125 early termination fee and sent his account to collections, threatening his credit rating.

John was not alone in his predicament.

Sprint quietly canceled its individual “phone as modem” tethering option for Blackberry owners last April, literally stripping the feature off of any plan set up with a personal Social Security number.  Business accounts configured with a Taxpayer ID Number associated with the business name on the account kept the option.

Sprint was supposed to notify affected customers through bill inserts, but since most Sprint customers are now billed electronically, few customers got the message.

Several customers reported they were “notified” when the service simply stopped working one day last spring.  One Shenandoah Valley customer found out the hard way.

“My wife used her 8330 for internet access, and we purchased the MBR900 to tether the phone so she could have it in the best place for reception,” the customer notes.  “Sprint decided to disable the use of the phone as a modem, I thought the router went kaput until she called Sprint.”

It took five rounds of calls with Sprint customer service before finding a support representative with the real answer.

An even bigger question is why a Sprint salesperson pitched John a plan with an option that has not been sold to individuals for nine months.

As has so often been the case, phone companies seeking to avoid bad publicity nearly always waive fees and credit a customer’s account when the media comes calling.  John’s account balance was brought back from collections and promptly credited to reflect a zero balance.

Sprint refused to provide a specific explanation for how this happened. Channel 2’s Knutson advises customers to always check their cell phone contracts to make sure they are actually getting the services they are paying to receive.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KJRH Tulsa Cell company drops service still charges cancellation fee 1-13-11.flv[/flv]

KJRH-TV in Tulsa shares the story of John, a former Sprint customer who didn’t get the service his contract promised.  (2 minutes)

Frontier used Time Warner Cable's usage cap experiment against them in this ad to attract new customers in the spring of 2009. Now they're no better.

Stop the Cap! reader Mike in Elk Grove, California reports his departure from Frontier Communications carried a goodbye kiss he’ll not soon forget: a $680 final bill made up primarily of early termination fees:

“I just got my Frontier bill after canceling (they canceled me because I ported my number to another provider),” Mike writes.  “The bill cycle was through 2/14/2011 (my contract ends on March 6, 2011).”

The bill was for $679.72.

More than 22 months into his 24 month contract, Frontier charged him early termination fees at the same rate he would pay if he departed 14 days into his term:

• High Speed Internet Loyalty Fee: $200
• Netbook Term Fee: $300
• California Unlimited Term: $200

The only reason his final bill was not higher is that he received some service credits for the partial month he was not their customer.

Needless to say, Mike is livid.  He is one of several Sacramento-area customers who received letters from Frontier threatening to terminate his Internet service if he did not reduce his usage.  When Mike ultimately decided to reduce his usage to zero and switch providers, Frontier dumped every termination fee it could find on Mike’s final bill.

But before Mike opens his checkbook, he (and any other customer gouged with early termination fees) should remember this:

Frontier cannot bill you early termination fees and expect to be paid when they unilaterally changed the terms of the contract.

From Frontier’s Terms and Conditions for High Speed Internet:

Our Right To Make Changes

UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY LAW, WE MAY CHANGE PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS AT ANY TIME BY GIVING YOU 30 DAYS NOTICE BY BILL MESSAGE, E-MAIL OR OTHER NOTICE, INCLUDING POSTING NOTICE OF SUCH CHANGES ON THIS WEB SITE, UNLESS THE PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE GUARANTEED BY CONTRACT. YOU ACCEPT THE CHANGES IF YOU USE THE SERVICES AFTER NOTICE IS PROVIDED.

When Mike (among others) signed up for Frontier service, their broadband service did not carry any usage limits.  Frontier’s “price protection agreement” claims it will “lock in” your current price.  But Frontier violated their own contract when they sent letters to customers threatening to terminate their broadband service for using Internet service that had no specified usage limit and demanding they pay a higher price of up to $250 a month to continue service.  So much for “price protection.”

You are not obligated to accept Frontier’s unilateral action and can notify the company they have made a “materially adverse” change to your contract by specifying that you exceeded a never-defined usage limit (100GB), and that the company sought a price increase ranging from $99-250 to continue service with them.  If you exceeded 100GB a year ago, you would not have received this letter.  Today you will — and that is a change you need not accept.

Frontier defaulted on their obligations to you as a customer, and your recourse is to cancel the contract, penalty-free.

Frontier Communications’ outrageous term contract fees were precisely what got the company in hot water with the New York State Attorney General in 2009, and the company settled charges with refunds and waivers for those unjustly billed cancellation fees Frontier was not entitled to receive.  Apparently they have not learned their lesson.

Your response:

1. Send a registered, return receipt requested letter to Frontier notifying them under the terms of their own contract, you do not accept the changes outlined in their letter limiting your broadband service.  Your original contract with Frontier did not include a specified usage limit and now using more than 100GB results in a request to pay more or reduce usage.  That represents a “materially adverse change” in your agreement.
2. Under these conditions, you are exercising your right to depart, penalty-free, from your term contract with Frontier Communications.
3. Warn Frontier that any attempt to collect early termination fees or other cancellation fees will result in civil action appropriate to protect your credit rating and will trigger a complaint with the California Attorney General’s office.
4. Keep copies of all correspondence and record dates, times, and names of any representatives you speak with, as they will be helpful in any official investigations that follow.
5. Also be sure to proceed with the terms found on the back your Frontier bill to protest erroneous charges, preferably in writing.  You want a paper trail and you want to protect your credit rating from any adverse collection activity.

Mike has already contacted local media about his case, which is a smart idea.  Warning other consumers about the potential costs of doing business with Frontier is likely to only further deteriorate their reputation in the Elk Grove area.  Alienating and overcharging your customers is a great way to get them to share their story with as many people they can find, and that only makes a bad company look worse.

[flv width=”360″ height=”240″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WROC Rochester Frontier Flagged for Not Telling Customers About Fees 10-5-09.flv[/flv]

WROC-TV Rochester reported back in October, 2009 that Frontier was on the hook for hundreds of dollars in refunds to some customers. (2 minutes)

While Time Warner Cable and Sinclair Broadcasting duel to the Dec. 31 deadline, some Time Warner Cable customers are using the dispute to their advantage — demanding, and winning price concessions on their cable service.

Time Warner Cable has fielded so many calls about the dispute, it has added a message to its customer call-in lines to share its side of the dispute.

Listen to the announcements Time Warner Cable is using around the country on its customer service lines to address the Sinclair-Time Warner dispute. (7 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

Some customers tired of being put in the middle have decided to take their business elsewhere.  Others are just threatening, which brings forth customer retention deals to keep customers from cutting Time Warner’s cord.

“I scored a one year extension of my new customer deal — $99 a month for every kind of service the cable company offers,” writes Scott from Syracuse, N.Y.  Time Warner Cable is expected to drop WSYT (Fox) and WNYS (MyNetwork TV) late Friday night.  “I told them their rate hike notice was bad enough, but dropping two stations from my lineup without offering me a refund was too much.”

Scott was prepared to switch to Verizon FiOS, but Time Warner offered a price he’ll take for some inconvenience.

“I threw my Time Warner rate hike notice in the trash — it doesn’t apply to me for a year,” Scott says.  “It took ten minutes on the phone with the cable company and now I’ll save hundreds a year.”

In Texas, Time Warner Cable customers trying to exit the cable company for a competitor found the cable company’s term contract harder to walk away from.

“They are playing hardball with me, telling me I’ll have to pay an early termination fee if I switch,” says Stop the Cap! reader Rod who lives in San Antonio.  He’s preparing to say goodbye to KABB (Fox) and KMYS (MyNetwork TV).”

“I told them with their attitude, it would be worth paying the fee to see the back of them,” Rod says.  “Besides, when you tell some of their competitors about the cable company’s exit fees, they sweeten the deal as a sign of goodwill, something I am not getting from the cable company.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sinclair TW Dispute 12-30-10.flv[/flv]

Sinclair stations across the country are airing various news reports about the upcoming signal blackout on both Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, which uses Time Warner to negotiate programming contracts.  Virtually all are biased towards Sinclair’s position, and ignore the fact Time Warner plans to import Fox network programming regardless of what happens.  (25 minutes)

In Rochester and Buffalo, the cable company is willing to extend their $99 triple play promotion to customers threatening to drop service over the Sinclair dispute, especially when customers also mention the company’s recently announced rate hike.

“If the first person you speak with doesn’t offer you a better deal, hang up and call back,” advises Susan, our reader in Amherst, N.Y.  Both she and her mother in Cheektowaga are saving $35 a month for the next year all thanks to Sinclair and Time Warner’s money fight.

One of the stations impacted in the dispute

“We would have never thought about doing this before we started reading Stop the Cap!,” she says. “We had no idea we could get these kind of deals.”

“We’d lose WUTV (Fox) and WNYO (MyNetwork TV), but Time Warner promises all of the Fox network shows will still be aired and losing MyNetwork TV is hardly a loss at all,” Susan shares.  “Just call them and use the word ‘cancel’ and see what they offer.”

Sinclair stations are notorious for running local news operations on the cheap, when they bother to run local news at all.  So many viewers remain blissfully unaware of the dispute because many of the affected Sinclair stations are low-rated afterthoughts.  Of the 35+ impacted stations, fewer than six have serious local news operations, and many of those are in last place in the local ratings.  That’s a point Time Warner Cable had reportedly raised in their negotiations, noting the stations are not worth Sinclair’s asking price.

But the cable operator is also not saying a whole lot about the dispute on their various local news channels.  The company has instead taken out full page advertisements in newspapers alerting viewers to the upcoming signal disruptions and pushing customers to visit the cable operator’s national carriage dispute website: RollOverOrGetTough.com.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Time Warner News Sinclair 12-30-10.flv[/flv]

Time Warner Cable briefly mentioned the dispute between the cable company and Sinclair Broadcasting on a few of their local news channels.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHAM Rochester TW Sinclair Dispute 12-30-10.flv[/flv]

WHAM-TV in Rochester took a third party look at the dispute and explained it to western New York viewers.  Special bonus: A brief interview with Scott Fybush, editor of Northeast Radio Watch who understands western New York media like few others.  (3 minutes)