Some proponents for AT&T U-verse suggest people will quickly get used to AT&T's metal cabinets.

A coalition of neighborhoods opposed to the installation of more than 700 4-foot tall metal cabinets across the city of San Francisco have filed suit against AT&T in Superior Court demanding the city follow its own environmental codes and conduct an environmental impact assessment.

The suit comes in response to last month’s close 6-5 vote by the Board of Supervisors permitting AT&T to install up to 726 boxes on the public-right-of-way — typically street corners and sidewalks — to support expansion of its U-verse television, broadband, and phone service.

San Francisco Beautiful, San Francisco Tomorrow, the Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association, the Dogpatch Neighborhood Association, and the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association are all parties to the lawsuit filed Wednesday, which calls the boxes graffiti targets, a safety problem for traffic and pedestrians, and just plain ugly.

Milo Hanke, past president of San Francisco Beautiful, accuses the city of ignoring its own rules to give a green light to AT&T.

“We really don’t want to sue, but we are left with no choice when the city refuses to uphold its own environment codes and is about to give away our sidewalks for the benefit of a private company without objective review,” Hanke told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Long time observers of city politics are frankly surprised AT&T won permission for the controversial boxes.

“It wasn’t that long ago that something like this would have been stopped dead in its tracks in [one] environmental review [after another],” said KCBS-TV reporter Phil Matier.  “But this year, whether it’s a change in the tone for business or for jobs it actually got the six votes needed, and that is going to be interesting as this plays out in an election year in San Francisco.”

Lane Kasselman, an AT&T spokesman countered: “This is about choice and competition for San Francisco residents. It’s about new, better technology that enhances peoples’ lives. AT&T thanks the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for supporting the deployment of U-verse throughout San Francisco. We’ve already started construction and are working as quickly as possible to bring next generation IP network services to every block and household that wants it.”

But Hanke thinks the city has gone too far for the benefit of AT&T at the expense of local residents.

“This is a private enterprise with a benefit to private parties,” Hanke told KCBS.  “Why should the public be subsidizing a Dallas-based corporation, and having to look at these ugly boxes in the process.”

Sean Elsbernd, who serves on San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors personally thinks the boxes are a great idea, suggesting Comcast needs competition.

“I have a suspicion that four or five months after they are in, people aren’t going to notice them anymore,” Elsebernd said.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KCBS San Francisco Groups Sue ATT 8-24-11.mp4[/flv]

KCBS in San Francisco covers the continuing controversy over AT&T’s 4-foot tall utility boxes and the lawsuit designed to stop or delay their installation.  (3 minutes)

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KBAK Bakersfield Homeowner fights utility project in her front yard 5-27-10.flv[/flv]

KBAK in Bakersfield shows what happened when AT&T brought their lawn refrigerator-sized boxes to that city in the spring of 2010 — one woman woke up and found AT&T crews tearing up her yard, without any notice, as part of a major construction project.  (3 minutes)

AT&T: Suing its own customers

AT&T has filed suit against at least eight of their wireless customers who are opposed to the company’s attempts to buy T-Mobile.

The lawsuits, filed in federal court, include a request for an injunction against what AT&T calls abuse of the court with “meritless” arbitration claims being filed as a class action lawsuit.

Stop the Cap! earlier covered the efforts by law firm Bursor & Fisher to seek an end to the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, and payments of up to $10,000 in damages per customer if the merger goes through.

Now AT&T is pushing back.

Bursor and Fisher’s legal theory is that customers can use the arbitration provisions found in AT&T’s terms and conditions to seek relief against the company for what attorney Scott Bursor suggests will be a future of higher wireless prices for AT&T Wireless customers.

AT&T’s suit seeks to dispel that legal theory:

“Defendant is among the 1,000 (and counting) ATTM [AT&T Mobility] customers whom the law firm of Bursor & Fisher P.A. (‘Bursor’) has solicited and now claims to have recruited as part of a scheme to pressure ATTM into settling meritless claims.”

“Bursor and Faruqi’s [another attorney partnering with Bursor & Fisher’s lawsuit] scheme plainly violates the arbitration agreement between ATTM and defendant. Among other limitations on the scope of arbitration, the agreement expressly precludes ‘any form of representative or class proceeding’ and permits claims for injunctive relief ‘only in favor of the individual party seeking relief and only to the extent necessary to provide relief warranted by that party’s individual claim.'”

Bursor

AT&T may have gotten serious after losing an appeal to the American Arbitration Association to block administration of the cases.  In a rare move, the Association overrode AT&T’s objection and started processing cases last week.  Arbitration has never been considered consumer-friendly, because the arbitration industry is heavily dependent on businesses and their arbitration agreements to survive.

AT&T’s general counsel stated the arbitration actions will “place a $39 billion merger in jeopardy.”

Bursor and Fisher appeared to be unintimidated by AT&T and suggested a wireless company willing to sue its own customers is “desperate.”

“AT&T now realizes it faces a substantial likelihood that one or more of these arbitration [cases] will indeed stop the takeover from happening,” Bursor said. “But AT&T’s legal arguments are frivolous. We expect the courts will reject AT&T’s arguments and dismiss these cases very quickly.”

Verizon Communications has gone to court to limit picketing and protest activity among striking union workers who have been accused of taking their cause too far.

The company filed a lawsuit Wednesday in New York and won a court order Monday in Pennsylvania, and another in Delaware on Wednesday.  The company is waiting for rulings in New Jersey and Massachusetts that would force Verizon strikers to limit the number of picketers at any given location and stop blocking access to company buildings.

Relations between the company and striking workers have deteriorated significantly as the first week of the strike wears on.

Near Buffalo, two strikers were hit by a replacement worker’s vehicle.  A BB gun was fired at a worker still on the job in the Bronx.  Several incidents of pushing and shoving by both sides have also been documented.  But among the most serious incidents are acts of sabotage that have cut off landline and cell service, mostly in upstate New York.

Service was restored late yesterday to residents in Oneida County, who lost both home and cell phone service after fiber cables were cut.  Verizon has rushed out press releases decrying what they call “sabotage” and indirectly implying Verizon strikers are responsible.  The New York State Police continues criminal investigations in several upstate communities were vandalism has occurred.

Austin (Courtesy: Boston Herald; Photo by M. Stone)

Verizon strikers have also been following around replacement workers assigned to do home installations and repair work, and this has occasionally led to picketers arriving outside of customer homes where repair work is underway.

The Boston Herald reports one Quincy, Mass. mom found a circus outside her home yesterday when Verizon showed up to fix her phone line:

A Quincy mom has disconnected her support for striking Verizon workers yesterday after a group of mouthy picketers surrounded non-union repairmen and turned a phone-line fix at her home into what she is calling a “ridiculous” protest scene.

“I looked in the street and there are picketers, 10 of them or more, doing a circle around the Verizon truck,” said Karen Austin, 64, a mother of five who lives on Forest Avenue.

“Every time (the repairmen) would walk up to my house they would follow them. I couldn’t believe my eyes. This is ridiculous. Why are they picketing my house?”

“I’m not on a main street … I’m not a business. I’m a person who needed a line fixed,” she said.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WHDH Boston Verizon Sabotage in Mass 8-8-11.mp4[/flv]

Verizon alleges vandalism may be responsible for a significant service outage in Tewksbury, Mass., but union officials suggest Verizon’s claims are “straight out of the Verizon strike playbook.”  WHDH in Boston reports.  (2 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WABC NY Verizon goes to court over workers strike in East 8-10-11.mp4[/flv]

WABC in New York watched as Verizon strikers booed anyone approaching an entrance to Verizon’s headquarters.  Company officials are seeking court orders to restrain picketing activities in five states.  (3 minutes)

A California company with a novel approach for renting DVDs faces the prospect of a preliminary injunction against the service if a judge agrees the service is skirting copyright law.

Zediva promotes itself as a remote DVD rental service that avoids lengthy delays often imposed on online streaming and pay-per-view services.  The company allows customers to “rent” DVD titles the same they are released, remotely streaming the contents over a broadband connection.  Zediva says it literally has a bank of DVD players which customers can access and remotely control.  When a customer “rents” a DVD, a Zediva employee inserts the disc into a DVD player and gives each customer up to two weeks to watch the movie.  Because Zediva says only one customer can rent the physical DVD at a time, it is not skirting copyright or streaming laws. The service will even mail the DVD to a customer if they don’t want to watch it over their Internet connection.

Zediva argues it is using the Internet as a way to connect the DVD player to a renter’s television.  The company says it should not matter where the player is physically located, and because a customer can exclusively control the actual player during the rental period, it is not violating any laws.

Hollywood disagrees, and the Motion Picture Association of America promptly filed suit in April, claiming Zediva’s business model undermines its licensing agreements with online movie services.  The lawsuit claims Zediva is not paying movie streaming rights like other online movie services, and is not comparable to a traditional movie rental store because the company makes individual titles available for viewing by other parties as soon as four hours after a customer stops watching, even though they can return and watch the movie again for no additional charge for up to two weeks.

This week, the MPAA touted a potential new friend of the lawsuit — Cablevision, which filed its own amicus brief in the case drawing distinctions between its Remote DVR service and Zediva.  Cablevision is in trouble with some rights holders over its new Remote DVR, which records shows on equipment at the cable company’s offices and then streams the programming on-demand to subscribers’ TV sets.  Some contend Cablevision owes “per performance” license payments for every show watched over the service.  Cablevision has consistently argued to the contrary, suggesting the actual location of the storage system should not matter, so long as the recordings are made and watched by only a single customer.

But Cablevision’s brief shows the company has no interest in being connected to Zediva, arguing its Remote DVR service is not comparable to the pay-per-view business Zediva is running.

A judge is expected to hear the case early next week.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Zediva Video Streaming Service 3-17-11.flv[/flv]

CNBC and the New York Times’ David Pogue tried out Zediva back when it was introduced in March of this year.  (3 minutes)

Verizon is charging customers for text messages sent to mobile broadband devices, even though the devices themselves have no effective way to view the messages.  That allegation is the subject of a class-action lawsuit filed against the wireless carrier by Hagens Berman LLP, a law firm representing consumers who were unfairly billed for text messages from July 28, 2004 to the present.

The lawsuit, originally filed August 4, 2010, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeks compensatory damages and an injunction prohibiting Verizon from billing customers for text messages sent to mobile broadband devices.  The law firm sent out a reminder this week for customers either billed in the past or still being billed they still have a chance to join the lawsuit.

Verizon’s mobile broadband devices allow its customers to access the Internet through Verizon’s wireless network. Each device is assigned a unique 10-digit telephone number and therefore, text messages can be sent to the 10 digit number associated with the device. However, according to the lawsuit, the devices have no screens and users have no effective way to view them.

If Verizon billed you for text messages you cannot access in connection with your Verizon Mobile Broadband device, you can request further information or join the case at the firm’s website or by email at [email protected].