Pulling the wool over your eyes.

As the Federal Communications Commission continues to consider AT&T’s proposal to abandon its wired infrastructure in rural service areas, hundreds of comments are arriving at the federal agency both for and against the idea. Between the submissions from large telecom companies and state regulators, a curious mix of professionally prepared comments favoring AT&T’s proposal have also arrived, many from organizations that simply do not have a direct interest in the outcome.

These Friends of AT&T include a range of non-profit, minority, and civil rights groups that have little interest in rural telecommunications policy but every interest in pleasing a company that lends executives to serve on advisory boards or writes big checks.

Even worse, some of the constituencies these groups purport to represent are among the most vulnerable. The rural poor, elderly, and economically disadvantaged are precisely those that cannot afford to lose budget-friendly phone and broadband service in favor of the expensive wireless solutions AT&T proposes as replacements.

Not all groups favoring AT&T are simply trolling for corporate contributions. Some seem to have been hoodwinked by the AT&T’s lobbyists, believing that abandoning rural wired infrastructure is an evolutionary step towards better service. They do not understand AT&T will offer exceptionally expensive broadband and voice calling over a wireless network notorious for dropped calls, poor rural reception, and stingy data caps in its place.

Stop the Cap! is here to help. Over the coming weeks, we will be running a special series calling out a range of groups that either take AT&T money and advocate for their cause or seem misinformed about the future rural reality AT&T has in store for rural America. We encourage readers to contact these groups and let them know they are hurting themselves — and you — spending precious resources advocating for a multibillion dollar telecommunications company that honestly does not need their help and does not have their interests at heart.

Ask these groups to carefully consider the comments from organizations that live and breathe rural broadband, consumer protection, and oversight:

A million-five can buy a lot of advocacy.

RURAL BROADBAND POLICY GROUP: “[We are] alarmed at the request AT&T has presented before the Commission, and believes that approving this petition will inflict negative consequences on rural communities and consumers including loss of affordable and reliable basic telephone service, which is the only form of communication many remote communities can access; eliminate consumer protections that have made it possible for rural people to access telecommunications services; reverse our commitment to Universal Service; endanger our national public safety; and fuel a divest-from-Rural-trend that will disadvantage our national economy and global competency. We simply cannot allow that to happen.”

FREE PRESS: “For the typical consumer, the grant of AT&T’s wishes would mean no protections from price gouging, no accountability for service outages, no consumer protections from cramming and slamming, and no reliable access to emergency services. For millions of consumers and businesses, it would mean no access at all, as AT&T would be free to stop providing service. And because there would no longer be any obligation for interconnection, Americans should expect to see rolling localized Internet blackouts as intercarrier disputes pop up, which will be “resolved” by higher prices paid to dominant carriers like AT&T.”

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION: “The MPSC recognizes that the transition to an IP-based network is already underway. The MPSC supports the transition from TDM to IP-based or other next generation networks and services, and the deployment of affordable, open, and high-capacity broadband by all broadband providers. However, it is imperative to recognize that great care must be taken to ensure the continuation of the competitive marketplace, universal service, and consumer protections. AT&T’s Petition proposes sweeping deregulation of the incumbent providers, which would allow them to withdraw service unilaterally. There cannot be a reduction in competition, thus leaving customers subject to prices and/or rates that are not just, reasonable, and affordable, with little or no competitive recourse.”

Coming Up: The National Farmers Union: Hoodwinked by AT&T’s Lobbyists

AT&T and Verizon have forced some of their customers to abandon DSL service in favor of fiber upgrades that are sometimes not actually up and running or leave customers with no phone service during power outages.

Wall, N.J. resident James Hallock found his DSL service suddenly stopped working earlier this month, so he called Verizon Communications to get service restored.

“A Verizon tech explained that the service was no longer being offered,” Hallock said.

The termination of his DSL service came with no prior notification, complained Hallock, and Verizon told him his only way back to broadband with the phone company was a forced upgrade to a more costly FiOS package that included phone service that won’t work during power outages.

“In the last outage I saw, people were out of electricity for weeks,” Hallock told the Asbury Park Press in an email. “I don’t believe it’s true that we have to give up traditional phone service, but try spending hours on the phone with Verizon to find out.”

Verizon spokesman Lee J. Gierczynski told the newspaper, “We don’t discontinue a customer’s service without notification, so we’ll have to find out more about what specifically is going on with this customer.”

But Verizon’s CEO says the company is embarked on a plan to rid itself of its copper wire network, especially where FiOS fiber exists.

“Every place we have FiOS, we are going to kill the copper,” Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam told attendees of an investor conference last year. “We are going to just take it out of service. Areas that are more rural and more sparsely populated, we have got LTE built that will handle all of those services and so we are going to cut the copper off there.”

Jackie Patterson, another Verizon customer, found her DSL service suddenly stopped working on Christmas Day.

“Verizon said that they were discontinuing the service and we had to get FIOS Internet (no more DSL) and FiOS phone service,” Patterson said. “I liked the idea that we still had phone service during blackouts — like during Sandy — but now we won’t be able to have that with FIOS.”

AT&T has been doing its part to cut off DSL customers as well. One AT&T customer reported her AT&T DSL service was suddenly terminated without notice in October, 2012 because her neighborhood was scheduled to be upgraded to U-verse, AT&T’s fiber to the neighborhood service. Five months later, AT&T’s U-verse network is still not available, despite the “forcible upgrade,” and nobody at AT&T can tell when it ultimately will be.

“It’ll be resolved on February 22nd,” AT&T promised back in December — two months after Brie’s service initially went dead, she tells The Consumerist.

“A representative showed up today to complete our installation,” complained Brie. “Guess what he found? The lines outside aren’t working. And guess what he told me? He’d talk to his manager. He’d escalate it. He’d get engineering out. He didn’t know how to fix it. He couldn’t tell me when or how or what needed to be done and no timetable as to when the work would be complete.”

Unfortunately for Brie, switching to the local cable company isn’t an option – it doesn’t offer service to her home.

Frontier Communications has admitted in a December regulatory filing it lost a combined 60 percent of its residential and business landline customers in Washington over the last decade, with more than 15,000 more departing during the first nine months of 2012.

The company revealed those numbers as part of an effort to win “minimal regulation” in the state of Washington, claiming its cable, wireless, and Voice Over IP competitors have eaten away its customer base. During the period between 2000 and 2011, the number of access lines served by Frontier in Washington declined from 895,435 to 342,869.

Frontier revealed it lost 15,310 more customers from March-September 2012 in cities like Everett (1,302), Marysville (2,009), and Redmond (2,975). Many of those customers took their business to Comcast. Others rely on wireless service Frontier does not provide.

Frontier claims it faces robust competition in Washington and should be entitled to deregulation.

“These alternative providers have captured a significant share of the market for business and residential telecommunications services and additional features,” Frontier’s filing says. “Frontier is no longer the largest or predominant provider of telecommunications service.”

In Washington, companies like Frontier now just hold 19% of the voice telephone business. Wireless providers are now the predominant voice service provider, serving 6.1 million subscribers in Washington.

Frontier admits the competition has been beating the company’s pants off:

“The alternative service providers have clearly been successful in competing with Frontier as evidenced by the persistent and continuing loss of access lines by Frontier,” Frontier’s filing says. “As noted above, Frontier has experienced a 62% reduction in the number of access lines it serves in Washington from 895,435 as of January 1, 2001 to 342,869 as of September 30, 2012. This loss of access lines has been ubiquitous across Frontier’s exchanges in that all but one of Frontier’s 102 exchanges has experienced line losses since 2009.”

Deregulation would allow Frontier to increase prices or change how its markets and bundles certain products. It would also reduce the amount of oversight the company faces from state regulators.

The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission temporarily set aside Frontier’s request at a meeting held Jan. 31. The regulator wants further time to investigate Frontier’s petition and will schedule future hearings on the matter in the future.

Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Steve who first noticed the regulatory filing.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act strikes again.

Effective this week, a temporary provision that protected consumers taking their existing, newly-unlocked phone to another carrier has expired. As a result, anyone who attempts to unlock a cell phone without permission could be liable for up to $1,000,000 in fines, imprisonment for up to ten years, or both. Phone companies are exempt, but the customers who purchase phones from them are not.

The DMCA was never specifically written to stop customers from moving phones between wireless companies, but because its provisions are so broad, the Act caused a number of unintentional problems that leave copyright lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation scratching their heads.

“This shows just how absurd the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is: a law that was supposed to stop the breaking of digital locks on copyrighted materials has led to the Librarian of Congress trying to regulate the used cellphone market,” says EFF attorney Mitch Stoltz.

The DMCA’s overly broad provisions are slightly tempered by the Library of Congress, which maintains an extensive exemptions list designed to cover for the law’s more ridiculous overreaching consequences. But those exemptions only last three years, and the one covering cell phone unlocking expired Sunday.

Jailbreaking your phone to strip away carrier-installed and mandated bloatware remains technically legal, but you won’t get far taking your phone to another provider without getting your current carrier’s permission. Some companies will gladly unlock cell phones for customers who have maintained an account for a certain number of days or have fulfilled their two-year service contract. But not all.

If your current phone company wants you to stay, your only recourse may be to buy a new cell phone from your new provider, who may never want you to leave either.

The billing address on file at Verizon Wireless can make a difference in your monthly bill.

One Maryland man recently appealed for a refund of $840 when he discovered the wireless provider had specified his Bethesda workplace as his billing address, exposing him to additional taxes even though Verizon sends the bill to his Annapolis home.

That distinction cost Larry Sisle an extra $3.50 a month — the difference between mobile taxes charged in Annapolis and those levied in Montgomery County, which includes the city of Bethesda.

Adding up the incorrect taxes applied to his two phones over the years he has been with Verizon revealed Sisle was potentially out hundreds of dollars and he wanted his money back.

In a classic “pass the hundreds of bucks”-move, Verizon told him to work with his local government to get a refund — a virtual impossibility for a telecommunications tax collected by a third party.

Make sure you are being billed the correct county and state taxes based on your billing address, not the location designated by your Verizon Wireless phone number.

“Excuse me? Why should I have to take this up with Montgomery County when it was Verizon who collected the tax incorrectly,” Sisle asked the Capital Gazette’s consumer watchdog.

A spokesperson for Montgomery County agreed with Sisle, telling the newspaper the phone company pays the tax directly, not the consumer, so the only recourse would be to pursue Verizon directly.

A Verizon Wireless representative eventually explained his Anne Arundel wireless number was accidentally put into the Montgomery County tax category in early 2010, which is what caused the error. That should raise eyebrows among other Verizon customers with Anne Arundel numbers that could have been overcharged as well.

Verizon says since the error has been ongoing only since 2010, it is processing a refund of just under $200 which will be credited to Sisle’s account.

Customers should scrutinize their Verizon Wireless bills, particularly checking to see if the company is appropriately billing state, county, or local taxes based on your billing address, not the city and county associated with your original Verizon Wireless number.