AT&T’s solution for rural Americans without access to broadband service arrived this week with the introduction of an $80/month plan bundling a mandatory wireless home landline with a 10GB usage-capped Internet plan.

AT&T Wireless Home Phone and Internet has undergone market testing in selected northeastern areas (largely outside of AT&T’s landline service territory). This week the service became available nationwide and is marketed to customers disconnected (or soon will be if regulators approve) from AT&T’s traditional landline service. AT&T is petitioning to dismantle its rural and outer suburban wired landline network and transfer customers to wireless service. But AT&T’s wireless replacement is both expensive and usage capped with an allowance that is just a fraction of what AT&T DSL offers:

• Customers start with a $20/month wireless landline phone replacement, powered by AT&T’s wireless network. Customers will keep their current phone number and home phones and will be sent a “Home Base” device that will interface between AT&T’s wireless network and up to two telephones. AT&T does not permit its device to be connected to your existing home phone wiring, so it strongly urges customers to buy cordless phones. The device is portable so it can be taken with you when traveling. The standalone service offers unlimited nationwide calling, Voicemail, caller ID and call waiting;
• Those interested in also purchasing broadband can add one of three different data plans: $60 for 10GB, $90 for 20GB and $120 for 30GB. AT&T charges a $10 overlimit fee for each extra gigabyte. You cannot buy broadband service unless you also subscribe to AT&T’s wireless landline product. That means the lowest possible price for rural broadband is $80 a month for up to 10GB of usage. Access may be over AT&T’s 4G LTE network (5-12Mbps maximum speeds) or their much-slower, but more common 3G network. In contrast, AT&T sells DSL for as little as $15 a month with a 150GB usage allowance included.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Wireless Home Phone Internet Intro 5-2014.flv[/flv]

AT&T introduces its new solution for rural America — wireless home phone and Internet service, at a price much higher than what urban customers pay. (1:42)

AT&T’s Home Base

AT&T’s Wireless Home Phone and Internet includes plenty of fine print and disclaimers:

• A two-year service commitment is required to avoid a $199 charge for the Home Base device;
• 911 service is not guaranteed and you will be required to give your physical location to the 911 operator so they can send help to the proper address;
• A backup battery powers the Home Base allowing up to 1.5 hours of talk time and 18 hours of standby time. However, a standard corded phone that does not need electric power to operate is required to place or receive calls (including 911) during a power outage;
• Not compatible with wireless messaging services/text messaging, home security systems, fax machines, medical alert & monitoring systems, credit card machines, IP/PBX Phone systems, or dial-up Internet service. May not be compatible with DVR/Satellite systems;
• Call quality, wireless coverage, and service reliability are not guaranteed;
• Well-qualified credit approval required;
• An activation fee (undisclosed) also applies.

There are many surcharges that also may apply, including a $35 restocking fee, federal, state, and local taxes and the universal service fee. Customers must also pay AT&T-originated fees kept by AT&T, including a $1.25 “cost recovery charge,” a gross receipts surcharge, administrative fees and any government-originated assessments that AT&T passes on to customers in various states.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Wireless Home Phone Internet Setup 5-2014.flv[/flv]

AT&T explains how to set up and configure its Home Base to receive phone and broadband service wirelessly. (3:16)

The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office released this mug shot of Leonard I. Solt, 49, of Land O’Lakes, one of three people accused of defrauding the federal Lifeline program out of more than $32 million.

A lack of robust state oversight of independent contractors and resellers may have cost the Universal Service Fund and nationwide Lifeline program up to $1 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse.

This month, three men were accused of stealing more than $32 million in Universal Service Fund (USF) money that supported lavish lifestyles including the purchase of multiple luxury automobiles. The federal government wants the money back.

Leonard I. Solt, 49, of Land O’Lakes, Fla.,Thomas Biddix, 44, of Melbourne, Fla. and Kevin Brian Cox, 38, of Arlington, Tenn., all face federal criminal charges for allegedly padding the number of customers signed up for Lifeline phone service through five companies all connected to the men: American Dial Tone, Bellerud Communications, BLC Management, LifeConnex Telecom and Triarch Marketing.

In some cases, Lifeline cell phone service was completely subsidized by USF funding, allowing customers to sign up for free cell phone service. Average Americans cover the costs of the program through a surcharge on monthly phone bills.

The indictment charges the defendants with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and 15 substantive counts of wire fraud, false claims and money laundering.

In an 18-month period from 2009 to 2011, the phone companies obtained more than $46 million through the Lifeline program.

Regulators have been suspicious of the companies and the men who ran them since at least 2010 when the Florida Public Service Commission noticed a dramatic spike in Lifeline reimbursement requests from Associated Telecommunications Management Services, LLC., the parent company of the five entities. The Florida PSC accused AMTS of misrepresenting customer enrollment when claiming reimbursement. It was not until June 2011 that the Florida PSC approved a settlement of $4 million from AMTS and an agreement to stop doing business in the state.

The case illustrated several ostensibly-independent companies were created to market service across Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Many had ties back to AMTS management. Despite the Florida settlement, the firms continued to do business in multiple states. Many of the states involved have deregulated the telephone business and have cut staff at state agencies tasked with oversight issues.

By the time the federal government moved in to prosecute, the three men had used USF funds to buy a private jet, a 28-foot boat and six luxury cars, including an orange Lamborghini, a red-bronze Chevrolet Corvette, a black Cadillac Escalade, a Chevrolet Suburban limo, a black Mercedes Benz S63 and a blue Audi R8.

Last week, government agents seized the vehicles from Biddix’s Melbourne-based pawn shop, Outdoor Gun and Pawn.

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2013 that the FCC’s own data showed that more than 40% of the six million subscribers at five of the program’s top carriers were either ineligible or failed to show that they qualified for subsidized service. As more independent companies win authorization to start pitching Lifeline landline and mobile phone service to the poor, the cost of the program has skyrocketed to $2.2 billion last year, up from $819 million four years earlier.

The companies are reimbursed for providing service, providing an incentive to sign up as many as possible.

In Alaska, a GCI subsidiary, Alaska DigiTel hired a marketing company to help it sell Lifeline cell phone service. The company quickly began signing up patients in hospitals, using hospital addresses as their residence. It also encouraged applicants to list phony addresses. For four years, GCI profited from questionable  reimbursements filed with the FCC. GCI finally agreed to pay a $1.5 million settlement that includes no admission of liability.

Other providers simply used telephone directories to collect names and mailing addresses of “customers” and sent them unsolicited cell phones for which they requested reimbursement.

An Oklahoma provider that regulators suspect got exceptionally greedy allegedly signed up so many Oklahoma residents to Lifeline service, the state is likely to exhaust the supply of phone numbers remaining in the 405 area code sooner than expected.

True Wireless received nearly $46 million under the program in 2012, bringing questions from Oklahoma’s Corporation Commission as to whether enrolling that many residents was mathematically possible. A cursory review found some customers had signed up multiple times in violation of federal rules.

In Wisconsin, the state Public Service Commission eventually revoked Midwestern Telecommunications Inc.’s ability to receive Lifeline funding after its overworked staff discovered MTI was mailing phones to customer that never requested them, billing the USF Fund for reimbursement. Some turned out to be children.

The scheme eventually began to unravel when a former Public Service Commission staffer received an unsolicited Lifeline phone. The alleged fraud was so great, MTI went from receiving 1% of Lifeline reimbursements in Wisconsin during the second quarter of 2010 to 33% of disbursements in the same quarter the following year.

The fraud also extends to Lifeline recipients, some who have bilked the program for free phones. A review of the Lifeline customer database revealed many customers had multiple Lifeline accounts, including some sent more than 10 free phones that were later reportedly resold on street corners.

Nationally, the $1.8 billion Lifeline Program subsidized phone service last year for 14.5 million low-income customers.

Customers are usually eligible if they are already enrolled in income-based programs such as Medicaid, food assistance or public housing, or if household income falls below 150 percent of federal poverty guidelines.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSJ Lifeline Fraud 2-18-13.flv[/flv]

WSJ’s Spencer Ante has details of a $2.2 billion government program to give cell phones to poor people that resulted in phones winding up in the hands of people ineligible for the program. (1:13)

A sweeping deregulation measure sponsored by Verizon Communications would end the telephone company’s obligation to provide landline service and remove state-mandated customer quality of service standards in Massachusetts.

House Bill 2930, “An Act modernizing telephone regulation and encouraging economic growth,” introduced by Rep. Stephen L. DiNatale (D-Fitchburg) is succinct:

SECTION 1. Chapter 25C of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2010 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after section 7 thereof the following sections.

Section 8. Notwithstanding any other general or special law to the contrary, the department shall have no jurisdiction, general supervision, regulation or control over wireless service, including mobile radio telephone service, or radio utilities.

Section 9. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, subject to the provisions of section 10 of this chapter, no provision of this chapter, Chapter 25 or Chapter 159, 8 and no regulation, order or settlement or portion thereof adopted pursuant to any such provision, shall apply to any telephone company (or a common carrier offering telephone service) in any municipality for which the company or carrier certifies to the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation that there are at least two providers offering voice telephone service to retail residential customers in that municipality using any technology, including but not limited to wireless voice service and VoIP service.

Section 10. Nothing in sections 8 or 9 of this chapter shall be construed to affect or modify:
a. the authority of the attorney general to apply and enforce chapter 93A or other consumer protection laws of general applicability;
b. the department’s authority under sections 18B and 18H of Chapter 159, concerning enhanced 911 service, and under section 15E of Chapter 166, concerning telephone relay service;
c. the rights or obligations of any carrier under 47 U.S.C. § 251 or 47 U.S.C. § 252; or
d. the department’s authority to administer the federal Lifeline and Link-up programs or the Connect America Fund.

SECTION 2. Sections 11, 12, 12A, 13, 14 and 15 of Chapter 166 are hereby repealed.

The measure was discussed at a hearing this week before the Legislature’s Energy & Telecommunications Committee. Verizon argued its company is still regulated as if it was a monopoly, with reporting requirements and customer service mandates that do not apply to its competitors in the cable or wireless industry.

DiNatale

“We have to answer a customer’s call within x number of seconds,” said Verizon spokesman Phil Santoro. “If we don’t, we get penalized. No other company that provides phone service has to do that. They’re all regulations that were formed when we were a monopoly, and they haven’t been changed.”

Verizon lobbyist Joe Zukowski told the Boston Business Journal Verizon is required to respond to repair calls within a 24-hour window, something not required of its biggest competitor Comcast. Verizon has to report its annual finances and various customer metrics governing response times and outages to state regulators. Verizon also has to offer landline service anywhere in its service area across most of the state, while cable companies can pick the places they wish to serve.

DiNatale regularly supports Verizon’s legislative initiatives. In 2012, he proposed a bill to amend state law to remove the authority of the Department of Telecommunications and Cable to regulate the wireless industry, deferring instead to federal regulations that industry representatives said would level the playing field.

DiNatale suggested Massachusetts could be left behind if the legislature didn’t adopt the measure. Rep. Randy Hunt, a Sandwich Republican, asked if Massachusetts had missed out on any innovations in technology because of overregulation. Zukowski suggested a Massachusetts legislature hostile to business interests would make the company think twice about expanding its 4G LTE network in the state. By November, the bill was effectively buried in a legislative maneuver and by June 2013, Verizon announced it largely completed its 4G LTE upgrade, regardless of the bill.

DiNatale’s latest bill includes last year’s wireless oversight ban as well as forbidding the Department of Telecommunications and Cable from regulating Verizon in any part of the state where at least one provider of any kind offers competitive service.

Despite DiNatale’s attempt to ban state regulation of wireless service,  Sen. Karen Spilka (D-Ashland), argued at Tuesday’s hearing for (S 1617), “The Cellphone User’s Bill of Rights,” that would require clearly published prices and service policies, monitors the quality of cell service in the state, and limits all cell contracts to 12 months.

“Many people don’t have landline phones anymore. However, as wireless subscribership increases, so do complaints about the contracts and services,” Spilka told the committee.

Zukowski suggested that rural areas will still be covered by regulation where Verizon maintains a monopoly. But the legislation eliminates regulation from any part of the state where even one competitor promises to provide service. AT&T Mobility alone would give Verizon an effective way out of regulatory oversight, because AT&T claims it already provides solid service to the majority of the state.

AT&T Mobility claims its competing cell service is available across almost the entire state of Massachusetts. The areas boxed in red are the only significant parts of the state without claimed coverage by AT&T.

There are only about three dozen or so towns in the state with no cable voice service, and even fewer with significant sections that have no cell phone service, all in the sparsely populated rural central and western parts of the state.

Other key components of this and another bill Verizon is supporting this term:

• Verizon would end its commitment to provide universal service in the state. Under the terms of the bill, Verizon could also justify ceasing rural landline service and offer an alternative such as Voice Link, a wireless landline replacement not subject to state oversight;
• Verizon would not have to report finances and customer service metrics and would no longer have to meet mandated customer service standards;
• State authority to compel reliable E911 service without any charge to the calling party and mandates regarding service for the disabled are weakened or eliminated;
• Elimination of a requirement providing Verizon customers with 10 free directory assistance calls per month, unless the customer is certified as elderly or disabled;
• Impose clear terms that wireless service is off-limits to state regulators.

The bill is co-sponsored by: Rep. Stephen Kulik (D-Worthington), Sen. Anthony Petruccelli (D-East Boston), Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein (D-Revere), and Sen. Sal DiDomenico (D-Everett).

AT&T’s latest effort to rid itself of universal service obligations and a commitment to offer discounted phone service to more than one million low-income Californians has been temporarily stopped in the state legislature after advocates for the poor objected to the bill.

AB 1407 would have made major changes to the state’s regulations governing LifeLine, the low-cost phone service for the poor. In its place, both AT&T and Verizon advocated a voucher program that would effectively raise rates for everyone, gut regulatory authority to limit future rate hikes, and open a loophole that could allow phone companies to unilaterally abandon landline service in favor of wireless.

The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), would drop the current LifeLine program offering landline service at rates not to exceed $6.84 a month and replace it with a fixed amount voucher worth $11.85 a month that could be applied to reduce a wireless or landline provider bill. AT&T says the proposal will make it easier for consumers to adopt wireless LifeLine phone service and cut burdensome oversight and rate regulations.

Consumer groups argue the legislation delivers all of its benefits to phone companies like AT&T while eliminating consumer protection regulations. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) also complained the bill could end guaranteed quality landline service, potentially permitting AT&T and other companies to stop providing wired phone service and force customers to wireless services instead.

The little-known and less understood bill moved quickly through the Democratic-controlled legislature over the summer and on July 9, AB 1407 passed a key Senate committee in a 6-1 vote, well on the way to passage in the state Senate. Consumer groups and low-income advocates learned of the bill and launched a broad-based opposition campaign including the Coalition for Economic Survival, AARP, the California Labor Federation and The Utility Reform Network. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a tea party group that vigilantly monitors the state legislature for attempts to circumvent Proposition 13 limits on tax hikes, also opposed the measure because it adds a 3.3% state-mandated surcharge on all intrastate telephone services, also applicable to Voice over IP providers.

AT&T found a good friend in Bradford, who has advocated for the company’s interests since AT&T became his biggest campaign contributor by far, donating more than $40,000 to his re-election coffers.

Bradford

Larry Gross of the Los Angeles-based Coalition for Economic Survival described Bradford as a “front person for AT&T.”

Bradford and AT&T’s lobbyists, dominating earlier discussions on AB 1407, were overrun at an Aug. 19 hearing when a group of tenants from San Francisco’s Central City SRO Collaborative (CCSRO) appeared and opposed the bill and its impact on the poor.

BeyondChron noted Bradford was so confident about the momentum his AT&T-ghost-written bill had received, he waived his testimony. Minutes later, he discovered the growing number of speakers lined up to oppose the bill. Bradford then attempted to rebut the surprising opposition, but it was too late. The tenants persuaded the majority on the Senate Appropriations Committee to suspend further consideration of the bill for now.

The proposed legislation had support from a number of elected officials, almost all recipients of AT&T campaign contributions.

Nearly all the non-profit groups supporting AB 1407 also received direct financial support from AT&T and/or Verizon. Among the first 20 supporters investigated by Stop the Cap!, all but a few turned out to have direct financial ties to either AT&T, Verizon, or both:

Verizon is linked from COFEM’s home page.

• Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Association: AT&T is a “major sponsor.”
• Bakersfield Homeless Center: AT&T is a funding partner.
• Brotherhood Crusade: AT&T is a “silver partner.” Verizon, which also supports the measure, is a “platinum” donor.
• California Black Chamber of Commerce: Verizon is a “corporate member.”
• California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce: AT&T is a corporate member.
• California Partnership to End Domestic Violence: Verizon cut them a check for $130,000 to become a partner.
• Center for Fathers and Families: AT&T is a sponsor.
• COFEM: Verizon is so important to their mission, the company’s logo is on the group’s home page.
• Community Youth Center of San Francisco: AT&T is a “diamond sponsor.”
• Congress of California Seniors: Verizon is one of their “key sponsors.”
• Eskaton Foundation: AT&T is a “level 3” donor.
• Florence Douglas Senior Center: AT&T is a “primary sponsor.”

We stopped looking after researching the first 20 groups, but it is highly likely the others will also have similar ties.

Although Assemblyman Bradford repeatedly has claimed there is no intent to eliminate or diminish universal service “Carrier of Last Resort (COLR)” obligations that require basic phone service be provided to any California resident requesting it, the CPUC found ambiguous language in the bill that muddies the author’s intent. One section of AB 1407 states that “any lifeline provider, including a local exchange carrier, may use any technology, or multiple technologies, within the provider’s service territory.” This could be interpreted to allow a provider to meet its basic service obligation with wireless technology that may not meet the CPUC’s definition of basic landline service.

The legislation repeatedly states LifeLine providers should only be obligated to offer the minimum service elements as required by the FCC. Those provisions ignore the CPUC’s own rules and AT&T could theoretically prevent a wireless LifeLine customer from switching back to landline service because the wireless alternative is considered good enough.

Other provisions in the bill are tailored primarily for the benefit of wireless providers, including AT&T, and introduce new fees and charges for services that many customers would assume are included in the price of basic service:

• Flat rate local calling is eliminated;
• Providers can charge customers extra or deduct wireless minutes for 911 calls, calls to toll-free 800-type numbers, and incoming calls of all kinds;
• Providers can require a deposit for LifeLine customers and all former exemptions from taxes, surcharges and fees are canceled;
• The requirement to provide a toll-free method to reach customer service is eliminated;
• Providers can charge extra or deduct minutes for use of the California 711 Relay Service;
• Provisions requiring providers to offer surcharge-free outgoing calling service, touch-tone dialing, directory assistance (for LifeLine customers), access to an operator, a listing in the telephone directory, and a copy of the White Pages are eliminated.

The bill is probably shelved for the rest of this year but will likely return for consideration in 2014.

Time Warner Cable’s approval of its request to offer regulated “digital phone” service in New York has been quickly followed by an appeal for deregulation to loosen rules covering disconnection for non-payment and reduced service quality standards.

The cable operator now qualifies — as a designated Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) — for significant federal and state subsidies in return for providing discounted Lifeline telephone service for the state’s poorest residents.

The cable industry has traditionally escaped regulation and oversight with claims “digital phone” Voice over IP (VoIP) products are “unregulated information services.”

In March, the New York Public Service Commission approved a petition filed by subsidiary Time Warner Cable Information Services (NY) LLP (TWCIS-NY), to begin offering regulated telephone service to the company’s 1,235,710 phone customers in New York.

As a result, Time Warner agreed to a range of oversight and service standard requirements. But on May 1 — less than two months later — Time Warner filed a new petition with the PSC requesting deregulation and exemption from several provisions the company initially agreed to follow.

“Now that it is concededly a regulated telephone service provider, Time Warner is acting like other regulated phone companies, in that it immediately is seeking to relax the rules designed to protect customers,” writes Gerry Norlander from the Public Utility Law Project of New York (PULP), a consumer protection group.

Not so, says the cable company.

“In order to offer the best telecommunications service to its customers and expand this customer base, TWCIS-NY respectfully requests that the Commission grant the waivers discussed in this Petition,” the company writes.

The changes Time Warner requests would make it easier for the cable company to disconnect service for late or non-payment, allow Time Warner to avoid distributing unwanted paper telephone directories, and escape oversight of its phone service for all but the most critical “core” customers with special needs.

Your Partial Payment Will Not Necessarily Prevent Us From Cutting Off Your Phone Line

The Telephone Fair Practices Act (TFPA), prohibits regulated phone companies from shutting off phone service for late/non-payment outside of normal business hours, Fridays after 1pm, weekends, and holidays:

(d) Suspension or termination of service–time. A telephone corporation complying with the conditions set forth in this section may suspend or terminate service to a residential customer for nonpayment of bills only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Friday, provided such day or the following day is not:
(1) a public holiday, as defined in the General Construction Law;
(2) a day on which the main business office of the telephone corporation is closed for business; or
(3) during the periods of December 23rd through December 26th and December 30th through January 2nd.

Time Warner Cable claims those limitations are too much, and “for its customers’ convenience, TWCIS-NY respectfully requests […] to extend these hours.”

If approved, Time Warner claims it will make your life easier if they can cut you off at their convenience — between the hours of 8:00am and 9:00pm, Monday through Friday, and between 8:00am and 5:00pm on Saturday.

Those times coincidentally match the hours technicians are now dispatched to collect equipment and shut off service for deadbeat customers.

Time Warner says people are often busy or not at home during the day and it would make more sense to coordinate the surrender of service when people are available to hand over equipment. Unfortunately, Time Warner’s preferred hours often fall outside of the calling hours at the Public Service Commission, which maintains a ‘last resort hotline’ for customers about to have their service disconnected.

‘Time Warner Cable Punishes Late Payers With Telephone Service Suspensions and Terminations on a “Massive” Scale’

Unlike cable television and broadband, New York designates telephone service as an essential utility, and regulators take every step to maintain service wherever possible.

Under rules originally adopted when consumers chose both a local and long distance phone company that put all of your charges on a single monthly invoice, regulators sought to protect landline service when customers did not pay the full amount due. Under those rules, partial payments are allocated first to past due charges from the local phone company, then past due charges for regional long distance or local calling, then charges billed by your long distance carrier, and then everything else.

Since your local phone company has the power to cut off your dial tone for late payment, making sure they were first in line to get paid usually kept your phone line working.

“It Appears that Time Warner Has Increased its Reliance Upon Telephone Service Suspensions and Terminations as a Tool to Enforce Customer Payment Obligations.”

According to data provided by Time Warner Cable in response to PULP information requests, during the month of March, 2012 Time Warner Cable sent 68,134 shutoff notices to Time Warner phone customers in New York. The threats worked for the majority of those customers. Only 17,218 were eventually disconnected after the shutoff deadline passed.

Since then, shutoffs and suspensions have soared. By July 2013, Time Warner mailed 146,026 shutoff notices and followed through with 42,777 disconnects, increases of 114% and 148%, respectively.

“As a consequence, interruption of phone service for bill collection purposes has reached massive proportion,” says PULP. “It appears that Time Warner has increased its reliance upon telephone service suspensions and terminations as a tool to enforce customer payment obligations. In the 12 months ending July 2013, Time Warner terminated or suspended telephone service on 592,250 occasions for bill collection purposes. Of that number, telephone service was reinstated after an interruption for collection purposes on 461,268 occasions. Thus, 130,982 or 22% of the customers terminated were not promptly reinstated.”

Those figures concern PULP because it suggests many disconnected customers are now without phone service, swelling the “unacceptably large number of New York households lacking telephone service.”

New York now ranks fourth from the bottom of all states in the most recent FCC Universal Services Monitoring Report of telephone subscribers.

Verizon’s Request to “Streamline” the Payment Process Gives Time Warner Cable the Same Idea

In 2010, Verizon New York successfully petitioned the PSC to streamline that payment allocation system. Few people bother with choosing a long distance carrier these days because most phone companies now offer unlimited long distance as part of a bundled service package. Verizon asked to simplify things so that Verizon New York got paid first and everything else came second.

Time Warner is seeking a variation on that same theme, requesting the PSC allow it to allocate partial payments first to telephone service, with the rest distributed to cover charges for broadband and cable television service.

While that is good news for your Time Warner phone line, it is bad news for your broadband and television service which can still be interrupted for non-payment because your partial payment was applied to phone service above all else.

Customers are unlikely to be aware of this, however. Time Warner Cable bills include a regular notice that if a customer is in arrears for any Time Warner Cable service, telephone service may be shut off.

PULP argues the cable company should let customers decide which services are most important to keep up and running during an emergency.

“For example, a customer might want to jettison cable TV and keep the Internet on to hunt for jobs during a spell of unemployment or other household financial crisis,” writes Norlander. “While the bills include separate items for cable TV, broadband, and telephone services, there is no information given in the bills on how customers can, if they are in arrears, keep the service they pay for with a partial payment.”

Indeed, there is no provision on Time Warner’s website or on its paper bill payment coupon to allocate which services a customer wishes their partial payment to be applied to first.

Time Warner Cable argues it gives late paying customers every opportunity to either make up past due payments or negotiate a payment plan before any service is interrupted.

“Customers have the opportunity to walk into the local [cable] office and make a payment during these extended hours,” Time Warner argues. “They also have the opportunity to pay online and over the phone 24 hours a day, as well as paying cable representatives directly when they arrive at the customer’s premises to disconnect service. TWCIS-NY believes that streamlining of the rules for disconnection of phone and cable services will make the Commission’s rules more consistent across the board and less confusing for customers.”

We Shouldn’t Have to Provide Printed Residential Phone Books We Didn’t Offer Anyway

Time Warner Cable wants to opt out from distributing printed copies of residential telephone directories it doesn’t publish.

When the company provided unregulated telephone service, it never had to offer customers a phone book. But in its new life as a regulated provider, New York requires phone companies to offer, upon request, a printed telephone directory:

Each service provider shall distribute at no charge to its customers within a local exchange area, a copy of the local exchange directory for that area, and one additional copy shall be provided for each working telephone number upon request. A copy shall be filed with the Commission.

Nobody has formally opposed Time Warner Cable’s proposed alternative: distributing residential listings only to customers who specifically request them in print or on CD-ROM.

Most customers don’t realize Time Warner Cable used to outsource most of its telephone service operation to Sprint. In addition to providing VoIP service, Sprint relied on dominant local telephone companies to provide phone books to Time Warner phone customers. In return, Sprint passed along customers’ names, addresses and phone numbers to phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, Frontier, CenturyLink and Windstream to be incorporated into those directories.

In 2010, Time Warner announced a four-year transition project to take its telephone service “in-house.”

Will All of This Competition, Oversight Rules Should Be Relaxed; If Customers Don’t Like Us, They Can Go Somewhere Else

Virtually every telephone company in New York agrees with the assessment Verizon has made for years — if a phone company does not provide excellent service, subscribers will simply switch to a competitor, negating the need for oversight of service quality standards.

Verizon paved the road Time Warner Cable is driving down to offer NY’ers less-regulated phone service.

The PSC agreed, reducing requirements for service outage reporting and other documented service issues. Today, Verizon only reports incidents involving “core” customers — low-income Lifeline subscribers, “special needs” customers including the elderly, those with serious medical conditions, the disabled and the visually impaired. Core customers also include those with no competitive service providers available to them.

Time Warner Cable wants a modified version of the Verizon “core customer” standard applied to its cable phone service — one that defines core customers as those with Lifeline service or special needs.

Time Warner does not want to include those without competitive alternatives and seeks an exemption from any reporting requirements until it signs up at least 5,000 accounts designated as “core customers.” That could take a while. PULP obtained records from Time Warner Cable showing as of Aug. 7 the company has only signed up 149 telephone customers it defines as “core customers.”

The cable company may be thinking of the future. Verizon Communications has made its intentions clear it wants to abandon rural landline service in favor of questionably regulated wireless Voice Link service. The idea that a cable company provides landline service in an area the local phone company no longer does is unprecedented in New York, but perhaps for not much longer.

If Time Warner Cable successfully argues “core customers” need not include those without competing alternatives, the PSC may unintentionally hand the cable operator a rural telephone monopoly without quality of service oversight in some communities.