Stop the Cap! received this unsolicited letter from an employee working at Frontier Communications about how the company has been running the business and treating their customers.  We’ve been able to independently verify enough of this letter, by talking with other Frontier employees, to highlight it for our readers. 

Frontier Communications is a long way from its progenitor (and namesake) — Rochester Telephone Corporation, which operated locally with excellence for 100 years.  Rochester Tel changed its name to Frontier Communications as it sought to abandon its image as a basic phone company.  It was later sold to Global Crossings, which later sold it to Citizens Communications, which decided to adopt the Frontier name itself.

A Winston-Salem man with a judgment from a North Carolina court in hand shocked AT&T store employees on Summit Square Boulevard Tuesday when he walked in with a Forsyth County Sheriff’s deputy to serve AT&T a court order that allowed the Sheriff’s Office to seize the store’s assets and sell them to satisfy his $2,000 judgment.

George Kontos says AT&T has been stonewalling his family for more than three months after winning a lawsuit against AT&T for Internet Overcharging.  The company had been stalling Kontos with paperwork requests, but a visit by a sheriff’s deputy prepared to begin selling off the store’s property to pay Kontos managed to finally get AT&T to act.

“AT&T is making arrangements to pay the sum owed to the Kontos family and will deliver the payment to the appropriate entity,” an AT&T spokesperson said in a statement.

Kontos had little trouble arguing his case in small claims court.

(Courtesy: WFMY News)

“When I went into AT&T to look at the plan, I wanted to make sure I had a comparable data plan with what I had been using and the rep pulled up the account and obviously even as an AT&T employee it must have been outstanding for him because his first reaction was, ‘wow you’re paying too much,'” Kontos told WFMY News.

With an AT&T employee on his side, Kontos thought AT&T would do the right thing and credit his account for 24 months of overcharging.  AT&T agreed to partial credits for the last five months.  Kontos said he would see the company in court.

In July, a county small claims court judge quickly found for Kontos and handed him a judgment and Kontos has been waiting by his mailbox for AT&T’s check ever since.

Kontos calls the matter a real David vs. Goliath story, and openly wonders how many other customers in the Triad are being overcharged by AT&T.

“Demand that they review your account for the last two years minimum,” he told the station. “Find out what you’ve been paying. Find out what other rate plans exist. Find out what you could have been paying and if you’ve got money that’s owed to you, get it back.”

If AT&T won’t provide an owed refund willingly, and you live in North Carolina, you can use this form — the same one used by the Kontos family — to sue AT&T yourself.

[flv width=”640″ height=”447″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WFMY Greensboro Customer George Kontos Took ATT Mobility To Court And Won 10-7-11.flv[/flv]

WFMY in Greensboro shares the story of the Kontos family, who discovered they were overcharged for a data plan for more than two years.  When the company refused to issue an appropriate credit, Kontos took the company to court and won.  (2 minutes)

Frontier Communications customers may be owed refunds for their Internet service because, a new lawsuit alleges, the company deceptively billed customers fees the company is not entitled to receive.

Four Frontier customers — three in Minnesota and one in New York — are suing the company for add-on charges the company claims are required by the government, but in fact are pocketed by the phone company.

The lawsuit claims Frontier is guilty of fraud, breach of contract, deceptive practices, false advertising and violations of the Federal Communications Act and the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

The plaintiffs claim broadband customers are being billed for certain state and federal taxes, 911 surcharges, and Universal Service Fund fees, even though they don’t apply to broadband service.

“It is merely a junk fee that Frontier imposes on customers,” the lawsuit says.  “The fee bears no relationship to any governmentally-imposed fee or regulation, and is nothing other than an effort by Frontier to increase prices above the advertised price.”

Adding fuel to the fire, Frontier recently imposed a new “HSI Surcharge” on broadband customers, and as Stop the Cap! reported earlier, some company representatives have claimed that fee is government mandated as well.

In fact, federal law bans most taxes on Internet service under the Internet Tax Freedom Act.  Since broadband customers cannot dial 911 from a DSL modem, 911 surcharges should not apply either.  USF fees only apply to voice telephone service.  Frontier, the suit alleges, levies all of these fees on the broadband portion of customer bills.

Frontier has more than 7 million customers nationwide, although the company does not disclose how many of them purchase broadband service.  If the lawsuit achieves class action status, Frontier could be required to return the ill-gotten gains to customers if a judge agrees they were wrongly collected.  That could cost the company millions in retroactive refunds.

Crumpton

NAACP national board member and former Missouri Public Service Commission member Harold Crumpton believes that combining AT&T and T-Mobile will create 100,000 new jobs, despite the fact both companies have promoted “cost savings” from eliminating redundant services and winning “increased efficiencies.”

That’s code language for layoffs, and it has been that way with every telecommunications merger in the last decade.  But Crumpton prefers to deny reality in a guest opinion piece published today in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Most mergers result in — and pay for themselves with — job losses and higher prices. Not this one.

If, to use the government antitrust lingo, there is a “relevant product market” for this merger, it would be “jobs” because jobs are the No. 1 product of the broadband factory. The AT&T and T-Mobile merger is structured as an engine of job creation — yielding 100,000 new jobs by delivering on President Obama’s call for a national high-speed broadband network. That’s far more jobs than would be lost because of AT&T and T-Mobile overlaps.

Ironically, AT&T announced the repatriation of 5,000 call center jobs and pledged not to terminate call center employees because of the merger. Two hours later, without warning to AT&T, the Justice Department filed its suit. Suffice to say that President Obama, our greatest champion of job creation, was not well-served that morning.

How will AT&T produce all these new jobs? By creating the first national next-generation high-speed (4G) mobile network. The merger is what will make the network possible, and it will do that by aggregating and redeploying spectrum T-Mobile can’t use for 4G. In this way, the network would reach 55 million more Americans than 4G currently reaches.

AT&T couldn’t have argued the case better.  Oh wait.  They have, in the company’s advocacy package mailed to the NAACP and dozens of other groups who receive the company’s financial support.  Those talking points inevitably end up in the guest editorials penned by Crumpton and others.

While the bloom is clearly off the rose of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, thanks in part to consumer groups and the U.S. Department of Justice who filed a lawsuit to stop it, AT&T is still flailing about trying to find some way to get the deal done, if only to avoid the outrageous break-up fee self-imposed by the telecommunications giant if the deal falls apart.  AT&T’s promise to bring an end to the obnoxious practice of offshoring their customer support call centers — if the merger gets approved — has been compared with blackmail by some customers who have spent an hour or more negotiating with heavily accented customer support agents that companies like Discover Card routinely mock.

AT&T promises customers a solution to the "Peggy Problem" if their merger with T-Mobile gets approved.

It clearly wasn’t enough to move critics of the deal to reconsider — AT&T could voluntarily hire American workers who speak the language of their customers for the benefit of those customers with or without a merger with the fourth largest wireless carrier in the country.

Crumpton argues President Obama was not well served by the Justice Department.  Consumer groups argue T-Mobile and AT&T’s customers will not be well-served if this merger ever happens.

As Stop the Cap! has repeatedly argued, both AT&T and T-Mobile will construct 4G mobile broadband networks in all of the places where the economics to deploy those networks makes sense.  No more, no less, no matter if AT&T and T-Mobile are two companies or one.

Crumpton might as well have argued the merger would deliver 4G service to Sprint customers as well.  It’s the same disconnected logic.

Crumpton thinks AT&T’s high-priced, heavily-capped 4G network will somehow solve the pervasive problem of the digital divide — the millions of poor Americans who can’t afford AT&T’s prices.  Incredibly, Crumpton’s answer is to allow one of the most price-aggressive, innovative carriers in the country favored by many budget-conscious consumers to be snapped up by the lowest rated, if not most-hated wireless company in the country.

It just doesn’t make sense.  But it does make dollars… for the NAACP, which receives boatloads of corporate money from AT&T.  It’s no surprise the pretzel-twisted logic that drives merger advocates like Mr. Crumpton comes fact-free.  The money makes up for all that.

“The NAACP stands ready to work with the public and private sectors to ensure that every American has an equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from this awesome ‘broadband revolution,'” Crumpton writes.

We can only hope that is true.  The NAACP can get started by admitting publicly it receives substantial support from AT&T and it will either agree to remain neutral in corporate advocacy issues to avoid conflicts of interest, or return AT&T’s money.  After all, it sounds like they need it to build the digital divide-erasing 4G network Crumpton is purportedly so concerned about.

AT&T has lost a case it appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to win favorable tax treatment for income it received from the Universal Service Fund program, designed to help underwrite the costs of providing rural telephone service.

AT&T was seeking a $500 million income tax refund on its 1998 and 1999 federal taxes from money the government provided AT&T.

Federal tax law requires phone companies to treat the USF revenue as income, subject to regular taxation.  AT&T argued the money was actually a “contribution to capital,” which would have substantially reduced the company’s tax burden.  Contribution to capital, as a concept, has been the subject of several corporate lawsuits over the years.  The genesis of court challenges comes from a 1925 case — Edwards v. Cuba Railroad Co., that held government subsidies provided to induce the construction of facilities and provision of service were not taxable income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

AT&T believed that USF funding subsidized the delivery of phone service, so it cannot be considered taxable income.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.  The justices elected to leave intact a lower court ruling that threw AT&T’s arguments aside.

Considering the long history of court losses for other corporate entities who have argued similar cases all the way back to the 1950s, the decision should not come as a surprise to the phone company, and AT&T’s reaction was muted.

“We are disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision,” the company said in a statement. “However, AT&T does not expect any impact to our financial statements.”

The case is AT&T v. United States, 10-1204.