A very frustrated employee of Frontier Communications working in one of their Ohio offices sent Stop the Cap! a detailed report on some of Frontier’s problems with customer service, unfair fees, and other horror stories. Over the next several days, we will present excerpts of this very long and detailed open letter, starting with what it is like to work in a Frontier customer service center dealing with customers unhappy with Frontier’s way of doing business. (Stop the Cap’s comments appear in italics.)

I work for a company that I am, quite frankly, frustrated with. The company is Frontier Communications.

I am currently an employee in the Marion, Ohio office/call center, and I am a customer service representative. I handle everything in terms of selling services, troubleshooting issues with telephone service, writing orders, setting up payment arrangements, etc. We occasionally refer to ourselves as universal service representatives. The latter title would admittedly sound better on a resume if my company were to ever find out that I had wrote this and fired me. So, after spending a long while working for this company I have learned a lot. I have taken every type of call that there is to take out there, ranging from a simple billing issue to someone getting absolutely screwed because of a mistake one our other representatives made.

I understand that when you have a customer base of three million residential accounts that you will take some angry calls, statistically speaking. It happens. I imagine that happens with every company out there, whether it sells phone service or a t-shirts. You will eventually run into a dissatisfied customer. I feel with Frontier, it happens way too often.

First off, before I go any further, I would like to say my supervisor and director are very knowledgeable individuals, and in no way am I implicating them in this open letter. They do their best to curb ignorance and poor customer service. I feel that the company limits their abilities to do even more to make customer service at Frontier a much more honest experience. Even the director of our call center still has to take orders from someone.

Frontier’s Shock and Awe:  The $200 Early Termination Fee for a Two-Year Contract Customers Never Realized They Had

Frontier’s early termination fees and contracts often come as a surprise to customers who had no idea they signed up.

I have noticed a lot of people calling in (and leaving comments on numerous review sites, as well as our Facebook page) voicing their displeasure about suddenly finding out that they were in a two-year contract, unable to cancel their services without incurring a 200 dollar early termination fee (ETF). This is something that I hate to deal with, as there are almost always no notes on any of these accounts left by previous representatives indicating they informed the customer of an ETF. Unless it is a special circumstance, we are supposed to tell you that you are notified on every billing statement that you are in a contract, and there is nothing that we can do to waive your fees. Most of the time, if a customer is persistent, they can actually escape and have these fees credited.

Firstly, the systems we use to write orders (Salesforce and DPI — yes, we have two different and completely redundant systems that serve the same function — one just looks prettier) both automatically default to the option of a 1 year contract with the option of automatically renewing that contact indefinitely. Frontier does offer a no-contract plan, but then you will fail to receive any sort of promotional pricing. So, a rep will write an order, complete it, and most of the time fail to review with the customer they are agreeing to a one year contract. We get a LOT of these types of calls, the majority originating from orders written by our service center in DeLand, Fla. What frustrates me is the lack of protocol that makes sure a rep notifies the customer that they are indeed being put on a contract. The calls are recorded and could be reviewed, but there are still too many of these people who fly under the radar and get stuck with a fee when it is too late to opt out.

It sucks to no end to have to tell somebody that they will have to spend an extra $200 to cancel their phone and Internet service, and many are left bewildered over the fee. It is always  hard to tell who has really been screwed and who is trying to dodge an ETF. So we handle it with our gut. That’s the best we can do.

Once a Frontier Customer, Always a Frontier Customer… Unless You Pay and Pray

Frontier works hard at holding onto the customers they have, either with long term contracts with heavy early termination penalties or other tricks and traps that can make departing Frontier a difficult and costly ordeal. In addition to term contracts, Frontier heavily markets extra services they claim will protect your account from mischief, but in reality makes it much more difficult to switch phone companies or terminate landline service.

Locking your phone number from third party transfers also buys you a headache if you want to switch providers.

When a Frontier rep asks you to put a free service on your account that will make sure nobody else can steal it without your permission, most people agree to it. This is called a Primary Local Exchange Carrier Freeze. Representatives have an incentive to push this free service, winning a $3 bonus to our commission if you let us add it to your account.

This service makes sure any third party companies cannot port your service over to theirs without your permission. Even with your permission, they still can’t do it until a Frontier rep removes the freeze. That requires customers to call in and speak with us. This gives us a very valuable opportunity to rescue your business and get you to change your mind. Customer retention is vital, which is why Frontier pays us extra to push a service that costs you nothing.

If a customer insists on “porting out” — keeping their current phone number but moving service to a new provider — we will remove the freeze on your account, but you will pay us for doing it.

It does not cost Frontier anything to remove the freeze, but we now charge customers a $1 fee to change your provider. Want local service with one company and long distance service with another? We charge $1 for each.

When customers accept our offer to place a freeze on unauthorized third parties messing with your phone service without your permission, we are required to obtain third party verification of your desire to have this service. Frontier uses an independent verification company that is god-awful and treats customers rudely, even yelling at some who do not follow the precise verification procedure. If they don’t like your answers, the order will not go through.

Their treatment of our customers reflects poorly on Frontier, especially when a customer’s order to obtain service never gets beyond the verification process.

I’ve heard these reps rip into customers for not answering with a “yes” or “no.” In one case, a gentleman from South Carolina had simply wanted to make sure that telemarketing calls would not screw with his phone bill/service, so I offered a freeze to ease his mind. I was absolutely appalled when he was asked by the third party verifier if he authorized the changes and he replied with the usual southern-accented “ya” and the woman on the other end literally yelled at him for not answering “yes.” The customer was completely taken aback and abruptly hung up. I would have too.

As a result, I often do not bother to include line freezes on larger orders, fearing the unprofessional attitude customers might endure could sabotage my commission and the customer’s scheduled service date. I wish Frontier would utilize a different company to process and verify orders.

So You Are Leaving? Do Exactly What We Say or Lose Your Phone Number

Listen very carefully

Oh boy, do I LOVE number porting. Of course that is absolute sarcasm. So, a port-in/out on paper sounds like a rock solid type of deal. The customer can retain his or her phone number, and check out the grass on the other side, greener or browner.

The process for handling a port-in is also fairly simple, and you would think that this would not be an issue for the customer to worry about. Of course, I wouldn’t be venting about it if this were always the case.

One big mistake routinely made by Frontier and other companies is cancelling your existing telephone service before the number port is complete. Some customers want to hurry the divorce and take it upon themselves to terminate service with their old provider as soon as the new service is turned on.

Under no circumstances should you do this, as it will absolutely screw you out of keeping your phone number. This is basic knowledge instilled in every Frontier rep during training, yet screw-ups still happen when one of our reps cuts off service before the other company has taken ownership of your phone number. That means your number is gone. Sometimes the porting process takes as long as 60 days to go through, so please be patient.

Unfortunately, with no system in place to prevent ignorant reps from screwing things up, numbers get lost. Sometimes it is our fault, sometimes it is with the customer, other times the new company created the problem. But we are often the ones left to explain to a customer the phone number they have had for 40 years is gone for good.

But it can get worse once someone else randomly grabs your old number. Imagine what happens when a grandmother’s lost number is reassigned to a porn smut peddler. Now some porn shop down the way has grandma’s number. This actually happened to a customer of a major cable provider. Imagine her friends and family trying to get her only to reach these people instead. It’s not a fun mess to clean up.

Coming Up: Wheel of Installation & Modem Fees, Adventures With Missed Appointments & Lost Trouble Tickets, and Big Trouble in Little DeLand

Frontier has dealt with PaymentOne for years. This bill shows unauthorized cramming charges billed to a Frontier customer in the fall of 2010.

An Oregon man found himself facing $300 in early termination fees from Frontier Communications after the phone company first refused to intervene on his behalf and credit his account for unauthorized “phone cramming” charges.

Tim Curns was with Frontier since the 1990s, but not anymore.

“I pulled the plug,” Curns told KGW-TV after unsuccessfully trying to get Frontier to help remove an unauthorized charge from his land line phone bill.

Curns found a $14.95 charge on his bill from something called “PaymentOne.” When he called Frontier, they could not tell him what the charge was for and at first refused to credit him for the unauthorized charge. That is surprising because Frontier has been billing customers on behalf of PaymentOne for more than two years.

With Frontier uninterested in investigating the phone cramming incident, Curns was told he would be on his own trying to stop PaymentOne from billing his phone line every month.

Curns tried to tackle the problem himself, first calling PaymentOne and learning the company had enrolled his line for the service despite having the wrong mailing address on file. Frontier, upon learning that, eventually agreed to a one-time courtesy credit but could not promise additional charges would not be forthcoming the following month.

Engraged, Curns said if Frontier could not stop unauthorized charges, he could stop being their customer. At that point, the Frontier representative surprised Curns with news he was unknowingly committed to a two-year service contract, and he could cancel his service… if he paid around $300 in early termination fees.

That would leave PaymentOne with their money, Frontier enriched on an early termination fee the customer never knew he would owe, and little left in Curns’ wallet.

“My question to the phone company was, okay, if you make an adjustment on this bill for 14.95 what are you going to do to stop this from being a recurring charge,” Curns said, “and they said there’s nothing they can do, you have to call these people.”

So Curns called and said PaymentOne told him the name of that company is My Global 4-1-1, which is a front company for a firm called Doink Media LLC, which the Federal Trade Commission been chasing all over the country.

Kyle Kavas, Spokesperson for The Better Business Bureau said, “most of the time it’s just companies that are randomly picking out phone numbers and charging them. Those cramming charges are very dangerous because they come from companies that are usually scammers.”

KGW received this less-than-helpful statement from Frontier:

“Frontier takes customer concerns very seriously and always tries to make things right. Our normal policy on a ‘cramming’ issue, which is an unauthorized charge on a customer’s account, is to assist the customer in contacting the 3rd party company who added the charge. These 3rd party companies get a customer authorization from the customer although in some cases the customer doesn’t realize they’ve authorized the charge. An easy way to avoid these is to have a 3rd party block put on your account by calling Frontier Customer Service.”

Curns called Frontier and learned although the company does not currently charge a fee for third party charge-blocking, it might in the future.

What Frontier doesn’t admit is that it earns a piece of the action from every phone cramming charge found on a customer’s bill.

Curns ultimately decided to pull the plug on Frontier for good, paid a pro-rated early termination fee, and recommended other customers follow in his footsteps before unauthorized third party charges make their way to another phone bill.

For now, customers can call Frontier customer service and request all third party charges be blocked from your phone line. The service is free of charge, although there are no guarantees it will always remain that way. It would also be a good time to review your current account and learn if Frontier has put you on a contract plan with an early termination fee attached. If you did not authorize this, demand it be removed from your account at once. If you did authorize it, have Frontier note your account that you do not want it automatically renewed at the end of the term, a practice Frontier regularly engages in, and note your contract expiration date.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KGW Portland Frontier Cramming 6-26-12.mp4[/flv]

KGW-TV visits with Tim Curns to discuss Frontier’s “look the other way” attitude about phone cramming charges.  (2 minutes)

If you die, Verizon Wireless will bury your family’s unlimited data plans with you.

Amidst the brouhaha over Verizon Wireless’ impending transition to new Share Everything plans that will raise the wireless phone bills of a lot of Verizon customers, the wireless company is also quietly inserting a change in the terms and conditions that will strip away the unlimited data plans of surviving family members if the primary account holder passes away.

While the departed may no longer care about keeping worry-free data, surviving family members might:

Verizon Wireless has confirmed to PhoneNews.com that, effective June 28, Assumptions of Liability will be stripped of unlimited data plan codes during the account transfer. New customers receiving the account will be required to select from Verizon’s metered data plan add-ons for legacy Nationwide and America’s Choice II accounts, or switch to a new Share Everything plan.

The main problem, is that this will negatively impact those who suffer a loss in the family. If someone passes away, say a husband, the surviving widow can no longer keep the same plan terms. Worse, a customer cannot port out without an assumption of liability. This creates an awful Catch-22 potential for families looking to keep their phone numbers; either accept massively higher bills under Share Everything, or pay massively high Early Termination Fees to port out.

For many, the move is seen as unsurprising. Verizon’s CFO Fran Shammo stated that “all customers” would be forced onto a Share Everything plan once they went into effect, and upgraded devices. Verizon quickly clarified that customers who waived handset subsidies would still be permitted to keep their unlimited data plans, even when migrating from a 3G smartphone, such as an iPhone 4/4S, to a future LTE smartphone.

Verizon’s move wasn’t intended to directly target dead people, but rather stop customers from selling off their unlimited plans to the highest bidder on eBay. Using the Assumptions of Liability clause, the winning eBay bidder could take over control of a Verizon line grandfathered with a more favorable plan than the company sells today. Bids running several hundred dollars for the assumption of a line with unlimited data were not uncommon.

As PhoneNews reports, “Verizon Wireless defended the lack of a specific mention of this change, citing that they have said all along that Share Everything plans will apply to all new customers. For those suffering the loss of a family member, and use a Verizon unlimited data plan, it will be adding insult to injury that they may be forced off their plans.”

Your modem needs an expensive upgrade, even if you own your own.

Frontier Communications customers may get less than they bargained for when calling the company about a malfunctioning modem or problem with service. Andrew, a Stop the Cap! reader from Tennessee discovered a simple service call left him stuck with two separate contracts for phone and Internet service, a major broadband speed reduction, and a sense that Frontier is willing to sign up customers without fully disclosing what they are selling.

Andrew reports he originally called Frontier to discuss a possibly damaged DSL modem. Upon hearing the model number, a Frontier customer service representative needed to hear no more — the modem “needed to be upgraded.” In fact, Frontier has been mailing postcards to customers with older modems not subject to monthly rental fees telling them their existing modem was “no longer supported” and needed to be replaced with a new model. In the fine print, the customer learns if they proceed, they will end up paying a monthly modem rental fee starting at $6.99… forever.

But things got much worse for this Frontier customer after he contacted the company to say he’d be keeping his current DSL modem, which turned out to be working just fine:

I was then told there would be about a $20 price drop on my next bill (for July). I asked the agent why and her response was, “oh, our prices are going down.” I said okay, thanked her and hung up the phone.

The next morning, I got an email from Frontier thanking me for my ”recent purchase or renewal of services,” further asking me to click and view the Terms of Service agreement for High Speed Internet (and to submit the PIN number associated with my account).

I then called Customer Service about the email. I was told that I had upgraded my phone service the previous day. It turned out that the agent upgraded my phone service to include their ”Digital Essentials” phone features package and had locked me into two price protection plans for both services. There was a one-year plan regarding the phone service and a two-year plan for the High Speed Internet.

I was shocked and informed the agent that I had made no such changes to my phone/Internet services and that I had simply called about cancelling a support ticket on my account regarding the modem.

He later tried to claim that I had given the previous agent authorization when I said okay after she had informed me about the price drop. I told him that was absolutely ridiculous, especially since she never discussed any upgrades to my phone service or any changes regarding my Internet. I asked him how it could be an authorization when what was done to my account was never fully explained (or asked for).

We’ve got a deal too good to refuse.

The Frontier agent then proceeded to hard-sell Andrew the same plan the former agent already applied to his account. The Frontier representative did not bother to mention the “upgrade” and “savings” he was getting included a drastic speed reduction. Frontier sold Andrew a package that included just 1.2Mbps broadband.   That is less than half the speed of his original 3Mbps service, for which he paid $40 a month with no modem rental fee.

Now Andrew is stuck with two contracts, both which carry early termination fees that will total well in excess of $100, the likelihood of a modem rental fee for a new modem he has never received and does not want, and less than half the broadband speed he used to get.

“I was never told by either agent I spoke with that my Internet speed would be [reduced] once the ‘upgrade’ was performed,” Andrew writes. “This, in my opinion, is fraud. Had I known a slower speed would be the end result of their price drop, I would have never [signed up].”

Now Andrew wants his old plan back and Frontier is stalling.

Frontier has a track record of retiring older service plans and packages, but leaving existing customers grandfathered on them until a representative can convince a customer to switch to something else. Unfortunately, newer plans often come with higher prices and more surcharges than older ones, which is part of the company’s effort to increase average revenue earned from each customer. Once off a discontinued plan, low level customer service representatives typically cannot re-enroll a customer.

But those who complain the loudest can get back the service they used to have, just by becoming a nuisance. Start by calling Frontier and asking to speak to a supervisor or manager. If that fails, ask to be transferred to the department that handles disconnections and threaten to drop all Frontier services if the company does not relent and put you back on the plan you started with.

Customers can also file complaints with their state utility regulators. In Tennessee, that is the Tenessee Regulatory Authority. Their online complaint form is here. Unfortunately, many states have succumbed to deregulation rhetoric and state regulators lack significant enforcement powers. But utilities that routinely filibuster state officials risk generating enough legislative energy to support a “re-regulation” effort, so most utilities will connect complainers to an executive level customer service department that can cut through red tape.

Customers can also file complaints with the Better Business Bureau and their state’s Attorney General. The more noise you generate, the more likely Frontier will satisfy your request.

Frontier customers are advised that anytime a customer service representative asks you to complete an online agreement using your PIN number, it signals you are about to commit yourself to a term contract or other major change in service that could prove costly to undo.

Always ask the Frontier representative to e-mail you a copy of the terms of the plan you are enrolling in, including broadband speeds, phone features, contract length and early termination fees.

Always read the agreement you are being asked to complete online.

If you have any questions, call Frontier before you sign. Some plans include a 14 or 30 day penalty-free cancellation provision. While this alone may not restore your old service, it can prove an important negotiating tool to win back the service you had before.

The New York State Attorney General has argued that Sprint’s failure to pay at least $100 million in owed sales taxes to New York taxing authorities may leave its customers in the state on the hook for past taxes, interest, and fees the company never paid.

As the state continues its lawsuit against Sprint-Nextel for what it argues is deliberate underpayment of New York sales tax, Sprint’s lawyers argued Thursday that the entire case should be dismissed because the state is selectively interpreting state and federal law.

The case originally began as a whistleblower action through a private company, Empire State Ventures, which is seeking a 25% share of any lawsuit proceeds. N.Y. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is seeking $300 million in damages from Sprint for knowingly violating tax laws.

A review of the lawsuit shows there are serious implications for Sprint’s customers in New York if the company loses the suit or fails to pay sales taxes the state claims are owed.

Over three million current and former Sprint customers could be liable for sales tax underpayments representing a portion of their monthly bills dating back to 2005, potentially including accumulating interest charged at 14.5% annually, and penalties amounting to double the amount of the unpaid taxes or up to 30 percent of the underpayment.

Sprint has also misled millions of New York customers who purchased Sprint flat-rate plans. In its customer contracts, on its website and elsewhere, Sprint represented that it would collect and pay all applicable sales taxes. Yet Sprint did not, and it concealed this fact from its New York customers. As a result, Sprint exposed these customers to the risk of having to pay the unpaid taxes, for they are also liable under the law if Sprint fails to pay.

Although Sprint misrepresented how it would handle sales taxes, it has locked its customers into contracts with early termination fees. The customers must remain in these contracts sold under false pretenses unless they pay hundreds of dollars to Sprint.

Schneiderman

Schneiderman’s office appears to have a strong case, with evidence showing Sprint allegedly conspiring to undertax customers using an arbitrary formula to gain a competitive advantage over other wireless carriers with the promise of a lower monthly bill, in part because the company was not collecting the proper amount of state sales tax.

The lawsuit claims Sprint repeatedly ignored warnings from state taxing authorities, including senior tax officials, that declared Sprint’s creative way of determining applicable taxes was putting the company at serious risk of adverse tax department action.

That adverse action came in April when the state filed the lawsuit against Sprint seeking back taxes and triple damages.

A careful reading of the lawsuit reveals just how much bureaucracy America’s wireless industry maintains to seek out any edge it can find against regulators, tax authorities, and local, state, and federal elected officials.

Sprint, the third largest wireless company in the country, can afford to maintain that bureaucracy with $33 billion in annual revenues partly at stake.

Wireless Industry’s Tax Employees Go to Vail to Ski Discuss Tax-Avoidance Strategies

The wireless industry employs hundreds of workers who spend their days pouring over tax laws in all 50 states looking for loopholes, strategies, and creative solutions to the ongoing problem of paying local, state, and federal taxes. Sprint, a considerably smaller wireless carrier than either Verizon or AT&T, still has the resources to maintain more than 100 workers in their State and Local Tax Group. It includes a well-defined management chain, with an assistant vice-president that runs the unit reporting to Sprint’s vice president of Tax, who, in turn, reports to Sprint’s chief financial officer.

These employees, and similar ones working at every other wireless phone company, try to figure out how to pay the least amount of owed tax possible, and kick tax strategies around in regular sessions and conferences at posh resorts in places like Vail (come for the corporate meeting, stay for the skiing), Colorado.

At the 2002 Communications Tax Executive Conference in Vail, Sprint executives told other wireless carriers that tax avoidance strategies like “unbundling” posed risks of audits by taxing authorities and litigation.

The wireless industry sends their tax experts to posh resorts in Vail, Colorado to discuss tax-avoidance strategies.

The following year, a Sprint executive turned up at another industry-backed conference run by “the Wireless Tax Group,”  alerting other wireless companies that “unbundling for taxes causes significant assessment risk.” He told the group that his “marching orders” at Sprint were to “mitigate tax issues by pursuing legislation or pre-audit agreements that allow for component taxing.”

In Schneiderman’s view, Sprint never followed those marching orders in New York.

In fact, the lawsuit argues even as Sprint was lecturing other phone companies about the importance of being conservative when dealing with tax authorities, the company was conspiring to use its own creative tax interpretations to undercut their competitors with a lower monthly cell phone bill.

How to Lower Your Prices Without Risking Profits

The technique Sprint uses to this day to hand customers that lower bill is based on selectively applying sales taxes only to certain portions of a customer’s voice plan. Sprint is the only company engaged in this practice in New York. Verizon, T-Mobile, Cricket, AT&T, and MetroPCS won’t go near the concept.

New York tax law says that phone companies must collect taxes on the monthly voice plans wireless companies sell customers. If Sprint sells you 450 minutes a month for $39.99 a month, New York taxing authorities expect customers will be charged the prevailing state and local tax rate on the fixed amount of $39.99 each month. Only Sprint does not do this. Sprint leverages federal rules which state that telephone calls placed to numbers outside of the state (also known as an “interstate call”) cannot be taxed. Therefore, in Sprint’s view, customers deserve a tax break for those interstate, non-taxable calls.

But Sprint does not actually review individual calling records to figure out what specific out-of-state numbers were called. Instead it created what New York officials argue is “an arbitrary formula” to guesstimate how much the average customer spends talking to in-state vs. out-of-state numbers. But those percentages varied wildly from 2005 to the present day, with different amounts for Sprint-Nextel customers living in upstate and downstate New York:

• July 2005-October 2008: Sprint did not pay state or local sales taxes on 28.5% of its fixed monthly voice service charge;
• April 2006-October 2008: Nextel of New York did not pay state or local taxes on 13.7% of its fixed monthly voice service charge;
• May 2006-October 2008: Nextel Partners of Upstate New York did not pay state or local taxes on 15% of its fixed monthly voice service charge;
• October 2009-Present Day: Sprint does not pay state or local taxes on 22.5% of its fixed monthly voice service charge.

Here comes the taxman.

In January 2005, an internal Sprint memo obtained by New York State found the company could save $4.6 million per month using this tax avoidance strategy, without costing the company a cent in profits.

It implemented the strategy later that summer.

New York’s lawsuit makes it clear the company was warned about the practice before the suit was filed:

Sprint continues to not collect and pay New York state and local sales taxes on the full amount of its receipts from its fixed monthly charges for wireless voice services, despite being specifically informed of the illegality of this practice by a field-auditor of the New York Tax Department in 2009, and then, in 2011, by a senior enforcement official of the New York Tax Department.

Customers Caught in the Middle?

As the case winds its way through court, New York has informally put Sprint customers on notice they could be held responsible for the unpaid taxes and penalties if Sprint reneges on the owed amounts. Schneiderman’s office recognizes customers are caught in the middle, partly because Sprint decided to keep the tax changes “secret” to keep customers off the phone to Sprint customer service:

[…] In its contracts with these customers, on its website and elsewhere, Sprint represented that it would collect and pay all applicable sales taxes on its calling plans. […] Sprint’s representations in the contracts, on its website and elsewhere were false because Sprint knew it would not collect and pay the applicable sales taxes in New York.

Contrary to its promises, Sprint failed to collect and pay sales taxes on substantial portions of the fixed monthly charges for voice services under its flat-rate calling plans. As a result of this non-payment, Sprint left its New York customers liable for those unpaid amounts of sales taxes under New York law.

At no point did Sprint disclose to its New York customers that it was leaving them liable for the sales taxes that Sprint failed to collect from the customers and pay to the government, as promised.

Before Sprint began unbundling, members of its State and Local Tax Group and its marketing group considered in the early part of July 2005 whether to communicate with customers about the fact that Sprint was unbundling and that the unbundling would affect taxes for some customers. They jointly opted not to communicate the change. Sprint’s Director of External Tax was concerned that disclosing the information would “drive too many calls” to Sprint’s customer care division.

In November 2005, just months after Sprint began unbundling, a Sprint employee in the Customer Billing Services department questioned a member of Sprint’s State and Local Tax Group about whether unbundling was “presented to the customer as part of the Subscriber agreement, shown in the invoice and/or available to Customer Care Rep.” The response was simply that “we have not educated our customers on how we are de-bundling transactions for their tax relief.”

Sprint continues to misinform its current and prospective customers about sales taxes, and to subject them to undisclosed sales tax liability even today.

Sprint’s position in court is that New York’s tax laws give the company the option of unbundling its tax obligations and that the state was trying to collect money it was not owed.

“The New York Attorney General’s complaint seeks to impose liability for practices that do not violate New York law,” said Sprint’s response to the lawsuit.

Luckily for Sprint’s tax experts, many states foreclose the possibility of creatively escaping taxes by imposing a “gross receipts tax” on the total gross revenues of a company, regardless of their source. That makes it difficult, if not impossible to escape the kind of sales taxes Sprint has been maneuvering around for nearly a dozen years in New York. With fewer loopholes to find, that leaves the wireless industry’s tax experts more time on the ski slopes.

It is safe to assume Sprint hopes for a positive outcome of the case, if only to avoid the inevitable avalanche of customer complaints from New York customers who might find a notice of apparent tax liability in their mailbox one day in the future.