Storm damage in eastern Massachusetts. (Courtesy: WGBH Boston)

The northeastern United States got more than its fair share of severe storms these past few months.  Remnants of Hurricane Irene caused severe flooding, heavy rainstorms that followed didn’t help.  But one of the worst of all was the Halloween Nor’easter that left serious wind damage in some areas, heavy snowfall in others, leaving customers without power, phone, cable, and broadband service for days, if not weeks.

Telecommunications companies including Cablevision, Charter Communications, Comcast, Cox Communications, Dish Network, Time Warner Cable, and Metrocast Communications of Connecticut are under fire across the region for not providing automatic service credits for impacted customers.  Charter and Comcast are both facing a class action lawsuit filed last week by a Massachusetts law firm that accuses the cable operators of “gouging” their customers by not automatically crediting affected subscribers for lost service.

Jeffrey Morneau of Springfield, Mass. law firm Connor, Morneau & Olin says up to 1.2 million Charter and Comcast customers were without service, but the companies will only provide credits on a case-by-case basis, and only if customers request them within a short time after the outage occurred.

“If you pay for a service and you don’t get it, the company can’t keep your money,” Morneau said.

Stop the Cap! readers in Massachusetts and New Hampshire report Comcast will grant reasonable service credit requests, assuming you get through to ask for them.

“Hold times are epic,” reports Tom Turlin, a Comcast customer in Massachusetts.  “I managed to get my credit by using their web contact form instead.”

Most providers require consumers to request credits for outages within 30-60 days of the service interruption, and time is running out for Nor’easter credits.

“Most people think they will only get 50 cents back so why bother, but actually with today’s huge cable bills, credits can be substantial,” Turlin says. “I received almost $15 back on my bill.”

Only AT&T, Connecticut’s largest phone company, agreed to automatically credit customers the company determined were without service for at least 24 hours.  Customers who don’t receive credit automatically can appeal to the company for credit they believe they are entitled to receive.

Here’s how different companies are responding:

AT&T: “We will give U-verse TV customers in Connecticut who experience a service outage for longer than 24 hours a pro-rated credit,” AT&T said. “In addition, we will voluntarily give similar credits for U-verse Voice and U-verse High Speed Internet service customers who experienced a service outage for longer than 24 hours. Customers are not required to take any action: the credits will be applied automatically on the customer bill for impacted customers within the next several billing cycles.”

Cablevision: “While state law provides for consumer credits for qualifying outages for cable service only, Cablevision has been providing a credit to customers on an individualized basis for all their services,” Cablevision said. “Customers will be credited when they notify us that they had a service outage. We are extending our normal period to request refunds to 45 days from the date of the storm.”

Charter: Customers must call or visit the cable company offices in person to request service credit.  “We are providing credit to customers for the entire time they were without service, from the time they lost power to the time their Charter services were fully restored, and we are providing credit for all services,” Charter said.

Comcast: “In order to receive a credit, a customer must contact Comcast and identify the time period during which they did not have access to Comcast services,” Comcast said.

Cox: “We need our customers to call us after their service is restored to report that they were without Cox services, and for how long,” Cox said. “We then credit their accounts from the time of the service outage until service was actually restored.”

DISH Network: The satellite provider is waiving service and equipment fees for consumers who need their equipment realigned, reinstalled or repaired due to the storm. “DISH subscribers who indicated that they were without service due to the storm were provided a credit for their time without service,” DISH said. “In addition, DISH subscribers who needed to suspend their service due to storm damage were allowed to do so at no charge.”

MetroCast Communications of Connecticut: It will provide customers with a refund on their next invoice after contacting the company. “The credit equals a prorated amount of the affected customer’s monthly charges for all MetroCast services, calculated based on the number of days during which such services were interrupted, and are included in the customer’s next invoice,” MetroCast said.

Time Warner Cable: Customers must contact the cable company online, by e-mail or phone and request credit for the number of days they were without service.  Most service credit requests that can be verified are granted within hours, and will appear on the next billing statement.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSHM Springfield City councilor Comcast disagree on cable rebates 11-21-11.mp4[/flv]

WSHM in Springfield covers the ongoing dispute city officials have with Comcast, who is refusing to automatically provide storm credits to customers impacted by the October Nor’easter.  (2 minutes)

AT&T pays a lot of money — millions annually — to make sure its business agenda does not run into political or legislative roadblocks in Washington, D.C.  With dozens of members of Congress effectively on AT&T’s campaign contribution payroll and the company’s unparalleled skill at convincing non-profit organizations to advocate for its interests, worrying about the government’s antitrust views on its proposed buyout of Deutsche Telekom’s T-Mobile was the least of its troubles.

“It’s a done deal,” several analysts predicted shortly after the deal was announced, especially after AT&T demonstrated its confidence level in the merger was as high as the enormous $6 billion dollar breakup concession payable to Telekom if it ever fell apart.

Then the government dared to put its two cents in, in the form of a “are you kidding me?”-lawsuit courtesy of the U.S. Department of Justice.  It seems, in the words of some Beltway cynics, the Obama Administration can manage to see a clear cut case of anti-competitive behavior when given enough time.

Since the lawsuit was announced on Aug. 31, it has been “all-hands-on-deck” for the company’s government relations division, packed full of the company’s top lobbyists.  While company lawyers desperately attempt to block what it sees as “pile on” objections and lawsuits from worried competitors, Sprint-Nextel in particular, AT&T lobbyists are trying to compromise away the Justice Department case with proposals of concessions and giveaways to make approval more palatable.

Further north, as fall turns into winter in New York’s financial district, Wall Street analysts are cold on the troubled deal themselves.

The Financial Times reports most analysts think there is now less than a 50-50 chance the merger will be completed unless the two companies agree to disgorge themselves of market share, territories, and increasing “shareholder value” that will come from eventual rate increases a wireless duopoly would inevitably bring.

Some are even less sanguine, predicting AT&T has only a 20 percent shot, and only if it sells off considerable chunks of valuable spectrum to competitors other than Verizon Wireless.

AT&T is retuning its “message” for the times, downplaying the original, ludicrous notion that urban-focused T-Mobile would be the keystone of a new era in 4G wireless service for rural America.  There is a reason T-Mobile isn’t the first choice for small town America’s cell phone buyers.

Instead, AT&T is now positioning the merger deal as a lifeboat for its troubled competitor.  AT&T suggests the number four carrier is in immediate peril — hemorrhaging customers, caught without a coherent 4G strategy, and an exodus of interest by its increasingly neglectful parent — Deutsche Telekom.

Could Time Warner Cable be an eventual part-owner of T-Mobile USA?

“Over the past two years, T-Mobile USA has been losing customers despite explosive demand for mobile broadband,” AT&T said in a statement this week. “T-Mobile USA has no clear path to 4G LTE, the industry’s next generation network, and its German parent, Deutsche Telekom, has said it would not continue to make significant investments in the United States.”

With AT&T predicting the demise of its smaller would-be cousin, consumers may not be in the mood to sign a two-year contract with a company that could soon be rechristened AT&T, especially those leaving AT&T for T-Mobile.

But don’t tell T-Mobile’s marketing department it’s a phone company on life support.  T-Mobile has beefed up its advertising and continues to irritate its larger competitors, particularly AT&T, with very aggressive pricing on its prepaid plans.

T-Mobile recently unveiled two disruptive $30 4G prepaid plans that offer either 1500 shared minutes/text messages and 30MB of data usage -or- 100 voice minutes combined with unlimited texting and up to 5GB of mobile data before the speed throttle kicks in.  Those prices are too low for AT&T and Verizon to ignore, especially when offered on a 4G network.

So far, the Justice Department shows no signs of backing down from their resolute opposition to the deal, minor concessions or not.  Shareholders may not appreciate giving the government too much of what it wants in order to win approval.  Washington lawmakers are split — virtually every Republican favors the merger, Democrats are less absolute, with most opposed.  Among those in favor, by how much is often a measure of what kind of campaign money AT&T has thrown their way.

AT&T absolutely denies they have a “Plan B” in case the merger eventually fails.  But the Times doubts that, reporting as time drags on, an alternative deal might emerge.  Some of the possibilities:

• T-Mobile USA could merge its spectrum with Dish Network, the satellite TV company, to launch a new 4G mobile operator in the USA;
• Combine forces (and spectrum) in a deal with leading U.S. cable companies like Cox, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable to launch a new cable-branded mobile operator;
• Sell or merge operations with MetroPCS, Leap Wireless’ Cricket, or one of several regional cell companies.

Perennial cable booster Craig Moffett from Sanford Bernstein predictably favors the cable solution, which would let companies offer a quad or quint-play of cable TV, wireless mobile broadband, wired broadband, phone, and cell phone service all on one bill.  It would also get the FCC off the backs of cable operators Time Warner and Comcast, who both control a total of 20MHz of favored wireless spectrum they have left unused since acquiring it at auction.  The Commission is increasingly irritated at companies who own unused spectrum at a time when the agency is trying to find additional frequencies for wireless providers.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg ATTs 96000 Job Claim in T-Mobile Deal Questioned 11-8-11.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News questions AT&T’s claim its merger deal with T-Mobile will create 96,000 new jobs. [Nov. 8] (3 minutes)

A class action lawsuit accusing AT&T of methodically over-measuring wireless customers’ usage and subjecting them to overlimit fees has been re-assigned to arbitration because AT&T wrote terms into contracts denying customers the right to pursue grievances any other way.

Plaintiff Patrick Hendricks claimed AT&T was systematically overstating customer usage by 7-14 percent with a rigged usage meter.  Hendricks claims some customers were overbilled by as much as 300 percent for phantom data usage that he claims never took place.  The measuring errors found in a two-month study cited by Hendricks were in AT&T’s favor, potentially exposing customers to surprise overlimit fees or, more recently, speed throttles.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer shut down the court case, heard in a San Francisco federal courtroom.  Breyer ruled that since AT&T’s contracts bar lawsuits by customers, Hendricks must pursue his case in the venue required by AT&T — arbitration.

“[AT&T’s contract] requires the use of arbitration on an individual basis to resolve disputes, rather than jury trials or class actions, and also limits the remedies available … in the event of a suit,” Breyer ruled.

Ironically, Breyer is the same judge that dissented from an earlier case — AT&T v. Concepcion, that ultimately set the stage allowing AT&T to force consumers to pursue arbitration and practically speaking, remove their right to pursue class action relief.

“What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?,” Breyer wrote. “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’.”

Brandi M. Bennett, a California attorney who specializes in intellectual property law, considers arbitration clauses to be a major threat to class action cases:

“Class actions make it possible to find recourse for individuals with damages that make traditional litigation impractical. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion appears to leave the average consumer at risk of being defrauded by corporations for $10, $20, $50 without any practical remedy. If one million customers are damaged for $20 each, a corporation can improperly realize a $20 million gain. Class actions serve to prevent that.”

Arbitration can offer a poor substitute, because most arbitration firms are beholden to their corporate clients for repeat business.  An arbitrator perceived to be exceptionally pro-consumer stands little chance of being retained when corporate defendants pay the arbitration firm for its services.  Some arbitration policies require consumers and the company to split the costs of arbitration, but those costs often easily exceed the value of the original claim, discouraging customers from pursuing a refund settlement.

Companies understand that reality, which is why clauses requiring arbitration to settle disputes are increasingly common in service contracts.

Hendricks’ original suit sought restitution for the entire class of consumers and damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair and fraudulent business practices, unfair competition, and violations of the federal Communications Act.  Most arbitration clauses require consumers to file individual complaints, which few may ultimately do considering arbitration proceedings may occur in another city and often requires the complainant to appear in person to provide testimony.

Phillip Dampier on USF Reform: It might have been great, it could have been a lot worse, but ultimately it turned out to be not very good.

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission unveiled their grand plan to reform the Universal Service Fund, a program originally designed to subsidize voice telephone service in rural areas deemed to be unprofitable or ridiculously expensive to serve.  Every American with a phone line pays into the fund through a surcharge found on phone bills. Urban Americans effectively subsidize their rural cousins, but the resulting access to telecommunications services have helped rural economies, important industries, and the jobs they bring in agriculture, cattle, resource extraction, and manufacturing.

The era of the voice landline is increasingly over, however, and the original goals of the USF have “evolved” to fund some not-so-rural projects including cell phone service for schools, wireless broadband in Hollywood, and a whole mess of projects critics call waste, fraud, and abuse.  For the last several years, USF critics have accused the program of straying far from its core mission, especially considering the costs passed on to ratepayers.  What originally began as a 5% USF surcharge is today higher than 15%, funding new projects even as Americans increasingly disconnect their landline service.

For at least a decade, proposals to reform the USF program to bridge the next urban-rural divide, namely broadband, have been available for consideration.  Most have been lobbied right off the table by independent rural phone companies who are at risk of failure without the security of the existing subsidy system.  Proposals that survived that challenge next faced larger phone company lobbyists seeking to protect their share of USF money, or by would-be competitors like the wireless industry or cable operators who have generally been barred from the USF Money Party.

This year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski finally achieved a unanimous vote to shift USF funding towards the construction and operation of rural broadband networks.  The need for broadband funding in rural areas is acute.  Most commercial providers will candidly admit they have already wired the areas deemed sufficiently profitable to earn a return on the initial investment required to provide the service.  The areas remaining without service are unlikely to get it anytime soon because they are especially rural, have expensive and difficult climate or terrain challenges to overcome, or endure a high rate of poverty among would-be customers, unable to afford the monthly cost for the service.  Some smaller independent phone companies are attempting to provide the service anyway, but too often the result is exceptionally slow speed service at a very high cost.

The new Connect America Fund will shift $4.5 billion annually towards rural broadband construction projects.  Nearly a billion dollars of that will be reserved in a “mobility fund” designated for mobile broadband networks.

The goal is to bring broadband to seven million additional households out the 18 million currently ignored by phone and cable operators.

The FCC believes AT&T will take a new interest in upgrading its rural landline networks, even as the company continues to lobby for the right to abandon them.

Unfortunately, the FCC has set the bar pretty low in its requirements for USF funding.  The FCC defines the minimum level of “broadband” they expect to result from the program — 4/1Mbps.  That’s DSL speed territory and that is no accident.  The phone companies have advocated a “less is more” strategy in broadband speed for years, arguing they can reach more rural customers if speed requirements are kept as low as possible.  DSL networks are distance sensitive.  The faster the minimum speed, the more investment phone companies need to make to reduce the length of copper wiring between their office and the customer.  Arguing 4Mbps is better than nothing has gotten them a long way in Washington, but it also foreshadows the next digital divide — urban/rural broadband speed disparity.  While large cities enjoy speeds of 50Mbps or more, rural towns will still be coping with speeds “up to” 4Mbps.

The FCC does not seem too worried, relying heavily on a mild incentive program to prod providers to upgrade their DSL service to speeds of 6/1.5Mbps.

The irony of asking AT&T to invest in an aging landline network they are lobbying to win the right to abandon is lost on Washington, and future speed upgrades for rural America from companies like Verizon are in serious doubt when they sell off their rural areas to companies like FairPoint and Frontier and leave town.

Critics of USF reform suggest the program is still stacked in favor of the phone companies, and considering the state of their copper wire networks, would-be competitors are scratching their heads.

The cable industry, in particular, is still peeved by reforms they feel leave them at a disadvantage.  Of course, Washington may simply be recognizing the fact cable companies are the least likely to wire rural America, but when they do, the service that results is often faster than what the phone company offers.  The nation’s biggest cable lobbyist — ironically also the former chairman of the FCC, Michael Powell — still feels a little abused after reading the final proposal.

“While we are disappointed in the Commission’s apparent decision to ignore its longstanding principle of competitive neutrality and provide incumbent telephone companies an unwarranted advantage for broadband support,” said National Cable & Telecommunications Association President Michael Powell, “we remain hopeful that the order otherwise reflects the pro-consumer principles of fiscal discipline and technological neutrality that will bring needed accountability and greater efficiency to the existing subsidy system.  We are particularly heartened by the Commission’s efforts to ensure that carriers are fairly compensated for completing VoIP calls.”

Wireless operators are not happy either, because the arcane requirements that come with the USF bureaucracy were written with the phone companies in mind, not them.  Small, family-owned providers find it particularly difficult to do business with the USF, if only because they don’t have the staff or time to navigate through endless documents and forms.  Phone companies do.

Your phone bill is going up.

Many consumer groups are relieved because it could have been much worse.   The FCC could have simply capitulated and adopted the phone companies’ wish-list — the ABC Plan.  Thankfully, they didn’t, but the FCC has naively left the door open to substantial rate increases for consumers by not capping the maximum annual outlay of the fund.  That follows the same recipe that invited higher phone bills and questionable subsidies awarded in an effort to justify the original USF program even after it accomplished most of its goals. Consumers may face initial rate increases of $0.50 almost immediately, and up to $2.50 a month five years from now.

The FCC, unjustifiably optimistic, suspects phone companies and other telecommunications interests won’t gouge customers with higher prices.  They predict rate increases of no more than 10-15 cents a month.  I wouldn’t take that bet and neither will consumer groups.

“We’re going to press the FCC to ensure that these are temporary increases, because history has shown that these types of costs tend to stick around and go on and on and on,” said Parul Desai, policy counsel for Consumers Union.

An even bigger question left unanswered is just how far the FCC will get into the broadband arena when it refuses to take the steps necessary to ensure it has an admission ticket.  The agency has avoided classifying broadband as a telecommunications service, an important distinction that would bolster its authority to oversee the industry.  Without it, some members of Congress, and more importantly the courts, have questioned whether the FCC has any business in the broadband business.  Just one of the many high-powered players in the discussion could test that theory in the courts, and should a judge throw the FCC’s plan out, we’ll be back at square one.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/C-SPAN Tom Tauke from Verizon on Changes to the Universal Service Fund 10-29-11.flv[/flv]

Verizon’s chief lobbyist Tom Tauke spent a half hour last weekend on C-SPAN taking questions about USF reform and the side issues of IP Interconnection and Net Neutrality policies. Tauke supports consolidation of small phone companies into fewer, larger companies.  He also expands on his company’s lawsuit against Net Neutrality, which fortuitously (for Verizon) will he heard by the same D.C. Court of Appeals that threw out the FCC’s fines against Comcast for throttling broadband connections.  Politico’s Kim Hart participates in the questioning, which also covered wireless spectrum issues impacting Verizon Wireless, AT&T’s stumbling merger deal with T-Mobile, and Verizon’s latest lawsuit against the FCC for data roaming notification rules.  (28 minutes)