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)

This scrap copper wire is as good as gold

While telephone companies continue to suffer repeated outages from copper wire thieves, the growing problem of copper theft has now begun to impact cable-TV providers and even electric service in some areas.

Over the Memorial Day holiday, thieves were busy stripping phone, cable, and electric wiring from utility poles, underground conduit, and even buildings. Windstream suffered significant losses in the greater Tulsa area late last week when thieves sliced through wiring supporting phone, television, and broadband service, quickly spooling it up on pickup trucks to be hauled to copper recyclers, often to finance drug habits.

Windstream reports the problem of copper wire theft is growing and becoming more widespread, especially in out of the way places where thieves are not likely to be caught in the act. The Tulsa-area copper capers are characterized as semi-professional because thieves are starting to use professional tools to quickly slice through wiring and can scoop up 1,000 feet or more of cable in minutes.

Copper theft has even become a problem in office parks, where thieves are stealing high voltage electrical cables, often at the point where they attach to buildings. One Albuquerque radio station was off the air for nearly 14 hours after thieves ripped the radio station’s electrical wiring right off the building and out of the underground conduit.

[flv width=”360″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOKI Tulsa Thieves cut copper and knock out cable 5-25-12.mp4[/flv]

KOKI in Tulsa takes a look at the latest wave in copper cable theft — stealing cable television -and- telephone wires that disrupt phone, TV and Internet service all at once. (Warning: Loud Volume) (2 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KOB Albuquerque Copper thieves knock local radio station off the air 5-30-12.mp4[/flv]

KOB in Albuquerque talks with a nearby radio station taken off the air when cable thieves cut the building’s electrical wiring and yanked some of it right out of the ground.  (2 minutes)

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)

AT&T’s ongoing efforts to win deregulation and an end to universal landline service have now reached Colorado, where state lawmakers are reacting favorably to an AT&T-sponsored bill that would strip away rural landline subsidies and deregulate basic phone rates, much to the consternation of incumbent provider CenturyLink.

The long-winded bill,  SB 157 – Concerning the Regulation of Telecommunications Service and, in Connection Therewith, Enacting the “Telecommunications Modernization Act of 2012,” is just the latest in a series of deregulation measures co-authored by AT&T that would let phone companies off the hook for guaranteeing affordable, universal landline service to every American.  Instead, AT&T is happy to sell rural consumers pricey mobile phone service.

Ironically, AT&T’s bill would deliver the worst blows to fellow landline provider CenturyLink, the largest phone company in the state. Consumers pay 2.9 percent of their phone bill toward a rural landline subsidy fund, or 87 cents for a $30 bill. It is no surprise CenturyLink is adamantly opposed to the measure, declaring the loss of rural phone service subsidies a guarantee of future rate hikes and discriminatory pricing, if not the end of basic telephone service in rural Colorado.  The company also receives more than 90 percent of the annual proceeds collected from Colorado ratepayers.

“The bill continues to legislate discrimination of one very large group of consumers. It allows a consumer living on one side of the street in rural Colorado to continue to receive High Cost Fund support while his neighbor on the other side of the street will not, simply because of the logo at the top of their telephone bills” said Jim Campbell, CenturyLink regional vice president for regulatory and legislative affairs. “We continue to be baffled that lawmakers voting in favor of this bill feel it is good public policy to write consumer discrimination into Colorado law.”

As with other AT&T-written deregulation bills, the “sufficient competition” test to prove consumers have plenty of choices for phone service is notoriously easy to meet.  SB 157 defines a market competitive when 90 percent of customers in a geographic area have a choice of at least five providers.  While that sounds like competition, in fact the bill defines just about anything resembling a phone company as “competition.”  That includes traditional landline service, mobile phones, satellite telephony, Voice Over IP providers like Skype, and cable company phone service.

Back for More....

A provider declaring service to any particular geographic area on a coverage map is sufficient evidence that competition exists, even if that provider does not deliver a consistently suitable signal, charges extraordinarily high prices, or only markets service in selected areas or in a package that includes other services.  In rural Colorado, wireless companies maintaining roaming agreements with other providers would count as multiple competitors, even though they rely on the same infrastructure to handle calls.  Poor reception? That’s your problem.

The bill also allows phone companies to charge whatever they like for traditional phone service, and only requires one day’s notice of pricing changes.  The bill would also strip away the right of regulators to demand justification for the inevitable rate increases and takes away their right to reject, modify or suspend rate hikes they deem unacceptably unfair.

That could force CenturyLink prices way up in rural Colorado, perhaps to a level that makes AT&T cell phone pricing not that bad after all.

CenturyLink: Victim of Friendly Fire from AT&T?

That suits AT&T’s Colorado president William Soards just fine, as AT&T is willing to sell rural Colorado lots of wireless phones.

“There’s plenty of competition out there that will be very excited to take their business, and AT&T will be one of them,” Soards told the Denver Post.

Colorado’s Rural Broadband Fund: The Fix Is In

One of the boldest provisions of SB 157 is the establishment of a rural broadband fund that delivers up to $25 million of ratepayer money to a select group of telecommunications companies to underwrite the costs of building  non-competitive broadband networks in the most distant, unwired corners of the state.  They wrote the rules, so it comes as no surprise they are, by definition, the intended recipients — often the very same companies that have refused to provide service in rural communities in the past.  Among those they’ve made certain are prohibited from accessing the broadband fund:

• Broadcasters experimenting with sub-channel broadband data service;
• Government agencies;
• Local municipalities;
• Public-private partnerships;
• Any organization, including non-profits, controlled in whole or part by a public entity;
• Electric utilities;
• Electric co-ops;
• Non-profit electric companies or associations;
• Every other supplier of electrical energy.

Who can access the broadband fund?  Why, the backers of the bill of course, especially AT&T:

• Wireless companies like AT&T;
• Telephone companies;
• Cable operators;
• Wireless ISPs (meeting certain conditions).

Padgett: Let local communities solve their broadband challenges themselves.

The bill is written to require a minimum level of 4/1Mbps service, which may lock out many rural telephone companies unable to deliver those speeds over traditional DSL as well as congestion and distance-sensitive wireless ISPs.  Cable operators are unlikely to provide any service in the most rural areas qualified to receive broadband funding. CenturyLink’s ongoing opposition to the bill suggests they don’t see much broadband funding in their immediate future either. That leaves just one technology most suitable to receive ratepayer funding: heavily capped and expensive wireless 4G broadband from companies like AT&T.

That may leave rural (but potentially not rural enough) Ouray County up the broadband creek without a paddle.

CenturyLink has shown minimal interest in providing ubiquitous broadband across the area dubbed the “Switzerland of America” for its rugged mountainous topography.  With just 4,450 residents, Ouray County is not the phone company’s highest priority.  But the company serves just enough of the county that it might fail the “unserved area” test — a ludicrous notion for broadband-starved Colona, Eldredge, Dallas, Ridgway, Ouray, Thistledown and Camp Bird.

Long-term residents have been through something like this before.  Some remember having to fight for basic electric service as well.  The San Miguel Power Association, a non-profit, member-owned rural electric cooperative established back in 1938, finally brought electric service to the San Miguel Basin area after residents were denied service for years by Western Colorado Power.  The region ultimately had to fend for itself, and did so successfully.

That same electric co-op may just have the best broadband solution for Ouray County — fiber infrastructure already in place, but prohibited from being funded to completion by AT&T’s corporate welfare bill.

Many rural legislators understand the rural broadband problem and see community-owned co-ops as their best chance of getting broadband service in rural Colorado.  They want to amend the bill to strip out the anti-competitive, anti-public broadband language.

Ouray County Commissioner Lynn Padgett is convinced her county’s broadband problems will never be solved by the Colorado Legislature or AT&T.

“Fundamentally, I believe that we need to let those closest to the areas with the rural broadband challenges, and those most accountable, help their communities,” Padgett said.

10-digit dialing is a nuisance in Canada too, where British Columbia and Alberta customers were told to dial the area code for every call.

Verizon FiOS’ “digital phone” product is a far cry from Verizon’s traditional landline service.  Some central New York customers now getting hooked up to the fiber-to-the-home service report they are frustrated because they have to dial an area code for every phone call, even those to friends and neighbors right next door.

Verizon told WSYR-TV that unlike traditional landline service based in your neighborhood, Verizon FiOS phone service is, in fact, a nationwide Voice Over IP (VOIP) service, and uses servers across the country to process phone calls.  Although many traditional VOIP services have since learned ways around the area code limitation, Verizon has not made a similar effort to allow customers to pre-designate an area code.  That would permit Verizon’s servers to assume any seven digit number dialed was within a particular area code and complete the call accordingly.

Instead, Verizon advises customers to learn how to use the included “speed dial” feature to make dialing more convenient.

Verizon’s competitors, including companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable are quick to point out seven digit dialing is available from them, except where multiple overlaid area codes in the same geographic area exist.  So far, parts of western and central New York have endured area code splits, but for now each service area maintains just a single area code.

[flv width=”400″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSYR Syracuse Dialing area code for Verizon FiOS 1-25-12.mp4[/flv]

WSYR in Syracuse answers viewers’ suggested stories.  Today, it’s about why Verizon FiOS customers are forced to dial 10 numbers for every phone call.  (1 minute)