An 85-year-old woman with dementia and her ailing 90-year-old husband in Rockaway were left without telephone service for three weeks because Verizon could not contact them on their out-of-service phone line.

The couple’s daughter, Rita Burgess, made at least 13 calls to Verizon Communications trying to get the couple’s phone line back up and running, but to no avail. A Verizon spokesperson later told the New York Daily News the company couldn’t get the line repaired because they couldn’t call the couple… on the phone line that was out of service.

“You people put me through hell,” Burgess thought after Verizon finally reached out to get the phone line repaired.

By then it was too late. Burgess took matters into her own hands and switched the family to Time Warner Cable’s phone service.

The incident has turned into a cause célèbre for consumer advocates, who claim Verizon continues to neglect its landline network in favor of its limited fiber optic FiOS service. New York consumer groups want the state to more aggressively regulate Verizon’s landline network to make certain extended outages like this cannot happen.

Burgess, who lives on Long Island, found herself cut off from her parents at a time when her father was hospitalized. Both father and daughter were unable to reach Mrs. Burgess, who requires regular attention because of dementia.

Bob Master, legislative and political director for the Communications Workers of America, told the Daily News the couple’s ordeal is not unique.

“They’re diverting resources from basic phone services,” Master said of Verizon. “That’s the business model, to divert resources to the most lucrative areas.”

Verizon counters the union is in dispute with the phone company over stalled contract negotiations and points to a 2012 first quarter report from the state Public Service Commission showing Verizon is meeting standards for reliability and repair times.

But Verizon has also lost half of its landline customers in New York State, which could also account for a declining number of complaints.

The Burgess family has decided to stick with Time Warner Cable for phone service.

The AARP was surprised to learn Idaho was considering loosening the rules imposed on the state’s phone companies to complete repairs on out of service landlines within 24 hours. The organization, which represents the elderly, says the new rules are a serious threat to older Idahoans who are the least likely to have a cell phone and require landlines in case of an emergency.

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission is considering relaxing regulations governing service outages at the behest of CenturyLink and Frontier Communications, two of the state’s largest phone companies. Both phone companies argue that consumers have cell phone alternatives and do not need rapid repair of landline service. The companies also do not want to face penalties from regulators over incomplete or delayed repairs to out of service landlines.

CenturyLink claims the declining number of landline customers justifies the reduced regulations on the state’s phone companies.

But the AARP argued otherwise in opposing comments filed last week:

• Give telephone companies twice as long to repair outages (from 24 hours to 48 hours), and even more time if they occur over the weekend.  Opposing the change, AARP reminds the PUC of the importance of landlines to the elderly, and the fact that home and health emergencies also occur over the weekend.
• Remove any penalties to telephone companies for not restoring service within the allotted period of time.  Currently if service is not restored within the repair interval, customers can receive a one month service credit.  AARP says removing the penalty leaves little incentive for timely repairs and erodes consumer protections.
• Lower benchmark for fixing outages. Currently, at least 90% of service outage reports must be fixed, the proposed changes would lower that to 80%.  AARP says the lower benchmark could mean more consumers going without crucial service for a longer period of time.

Other claims made by CenturyLink – such as the assertion that its ability to deploy broadband suffers because its personnel are unreasonably diverted to repair work – are unproven and largely irrelevant to its obligation to maintain reliable telephone services, says AARP.

The elderly advocacy group argues the little known case is one more example of the need for Idaho to establish a Utility Consumer Advocate Office to ensure residential consumers are represented in complex regulatory matters.  Idaho is the only state in the West without such an office and one of a handful nationwide.

Upgrade or else.

AT&T is now forcing some of their customers relying on the company’s traditional DSL service to upgrade to AT&T U-verse or face service suspension.

The latest customers impacted by AT&T’s forced upgrade are in parts of Connecticut.

“This is a reminder that within the next 30 days, your current service will change to AT&T U-verse High Speed Internet,” reads the letter mailed to customers facing the mandatory transition. Unfortunately, customers have to call AT&T to arrange for new equipment if they want their service to continue uninterrupted — existing DSL modems don’t work with U-verse.

Callers who dial the toll-free number in the letter get to order the U-verse equipment for free, but they routinely endure a hard sales pitch selling U-verse video and phone service as well, at a corresponding higher price. Customers are sent self-install kits at no charge and are offered the same rate they currently pay for DSL, sometimes with faster speeds on the U-verse network. But after one year, regular U-verse prices apply, and they are often significantly more expensive than traditional DSL service.

A Broadband Reports reader in Conn. shared a copy of the AT&T U-verse upgrade letter posted on that site's AT&T forum.

The promotional prices offered to Stop the Cap! reader Ralph were not as good as what he was currently paying for basic DSL on a promotion he purchased earlier.

“I am now paying $14.95 a month under the promotion I am on now and AT&T first tried to sell me a plan that cost $5 more,” Ralph writes. “They quickly agreed to keep my current promotional price after I told them about it, but what they will not tell me is what I will pay after the one year is up, nor can I find U-verse regular pricing on AT&T’s website.”

This special offer bundle comes with a surprise after the promotion ends -- a much higher bill.

AT&T is currently promoting Internet-only promotional pricing as follows: Basic Internet: $19.95, Express Internet: $19.95, Pro Internet: $19.95, Elite Internet: $24.95, Max Internet: $29.95, Max Plus Internet: $34.95, Max Turbo Internet: $44.95. We could not find a disclosure of what the regular prices would be after the one-year contract expired, and that bothers Ralph.

“I realize they are going to match my 3Mbps service on U-verse, but somehow I suspect the regular U-verse price is going to come higher than the DSL service I have been using,” he says.

Ralph’s intuition is correct. Stop the Cap! called AT&T at the number provided on the letter and spoke with a customer service representative at the AT&T Web Sales Center. Although AT&T will ship the required equipment (a wireless router/modem combo) at no charge, AT&T will eventually make that money back charging customers higher prices for Internet service.

Current regular pricing for Ralph’s DSL service after his promotion ends will cost him $24 a month for 3Mbps service.  U-verse charges $38 a month (off promotion) for the same speed service — a $14 monthly difference.

“That sucks,” Ralph said after we shared the news. “Why should I have to change what works fine right now?”

AT&T says keeping DSL in certain U-verse upgrade areas is not possible. In fact, AT&T’s letter warns, if customers do not call to arrange for the U-verse “upgrade” by a certain date, their broadband service will be suspended. That could be a problem for customers who also use their broadband account with an Internet-based phone line.

“There goes 911 or any other emergency calling,” Ralph reminds us. “Thanks, AT&T.”

Some customers who have completed their U-verse upgrade report AT&T messed up their subsequent billing, charging full price instead of an agreed-upon promotion. Slickdeals members report AT&T often requires constant reminding to fix billing errors that generally hand customers higher bills than they expected.

“I am trying real hard to figure out how this represents the ‘next evolution of communications’ AT&T writes about in their letter,” Ralph concludes. “All I am going to eventually get is a much higher bill for a service I don’t want or need. I guess it’s time to call the cable company again.”

Rogers' "unconscionable" service contract allows the company to do just about anything.

Did you know that signing a contract with Rogers Communications for your broadband, phone, and cable television service will not protect you from the company’s annual rate increases?

It represents a classic example of an “unconscionable term” in a contract, according to Anthony Daimsis, a contract law professor at the University of Ottawa. Not because Rogers has inserted language that allows the company to raise rates on contract customers at will, but rather because consumers cannot escape the contract without paying a stiff early termination fee, usually approaching $200.

Rogers says its service contracts do not guarantee stable rates, instead providing a discount for bundling its services together. Most Canadians asked by CBC’s Marketwatch thought otherwise, believing it should lock in current rates for the term of the agreement.

The consumer show also chases Bell for charging Canadians $2.80 a month for touch-tone service — a fee that disappeared off most other phone company bills 20 years ago. Bell claims the touch-tone fee was introduced because the company met opposition from rotary phone customers when it tried to bundle the fee into its general price for phone service.

These days, buying a rotary dial phone requires a visit to an antique shop, but should you acquire one just to escape paying the phone company an extra $33 a year, it won’t work. Bell says the fee is now mandatory for all customers, rotary or otherwise — no one can “opt out.”

Bell’s touch tone bill padding rakes in an extra $100 million a year in revenue, all for a service upgrade paid for decades ago.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Busted 04-2012.flv[/flv]

CBC Marketplace presents “Busted,” a special marathon edition exposing consumer ripoffs and deceptive advertising. In this clip, the show chases down Bell’s bill padding touch tone fee and Rogers’ notorious service contracts that lock customers in place -and- subject them to annual rate increases.  (13 minutes)

A bizarre allegation (and theft-of-service complaint filed with local police) that a Voice Over IP service provider was “stealing” access to its fiber network has triggered the nation’s first formal Net Neutrality complaint under new Federal Communications Commission rules.

The complaint was triggered after Albany (Ga.)’s Water, Gas, and Light Commission (WG&L) filed a report with Dougherty County Police accusing L2Networks of accessing its municipal fiber network without paying.

If the FCC finds the city was correct asserting its claims of theft of service, other broadband providers could begin assessing additional fees for consumers who wish to access Google, Facebook, and Netflix, according the VoIP provider.

The case could create an “irreversible ripple effect along with the creation of various legal challenges across nearly every national content and application provider,” L2Networks CEO Kraig Beahn said in a press release. “We are deeply concerned that the alleged claim could potentially change the landscape of the national Internet marketplace as residential and commercial consumers see it today.”

Beahn's booking photo

In the view of L2Networks, the incident represents a direct and indisputable violation of the Federal Communications Commission’s Net Neutrality policies, which forbids providers from blocking service or selectively charging competitors additional fees to reach customers.

But details about the background of the complaint remain murky and a series of past disputes between Beahn and other telecommunications companies in Albany may require further exploration by federal officials investigating the complaint.

L2Networks is a small Albany-based telecommunications company that provides service to area businesses. L2Networks CEO Kraig Beahn is, however, well-known to both WG&L and local cable operator Mediacom, both of which have previously raised questions about his business practices.

L2 counters WG&L has made life increasingly difficult for the company since the two entities had a falling out in 2011.  That year, WG&L dumped L2 from its plans to deliver a competitive cable television service for Albany residents after the utility’s general manager accused Beahn of not fulfilling the promises he made with WG&L.

In January 2012, Beahn was arrested and charged with felony theft of service after Mediacom discovered an illegal tap on their cable line, which investigators learned was being used to provide Internet and phone service to L2 customer Adtran Logistics. Beahn called the charges “frivolous” and were part of an ongoing dispute with WG&L.

Mediacom vice president of legal and public affairs Tom Larsen noted the company did learn about the suspicious connection from the local utility.

“When our local team went to investigate, they discovered a Mediacom modem connected to two car batteries that was wired into our cable plant and being used [allegedly by L2] to serve a nearby business,” Larsen said.