More than 200 Verizon customers in Pennsylvania found their checking accounts balance-challenged when Verizon accidentally withdrew as much as $400 from those already paid in full.

Stop the Cap! reader Chandalee in Pittsburgh sent word her family’s checking account saw a surprise withdrawal from Verizon amounting to hundreds of dollars which helpfully paid for another customer’s past due balance.

“I was outraged when I saw Verizon cleaned us out, and I only learned about it when my debit card was declined at the grocery store — an incredibly embarrassing situation,” Chandalee shares.  “If we didn’t have bank reform, our bank would have probably charged us another $300 in bounced debit transaction fees before we learned about what Verizon did.”

Chandalee logged into her bank’s website when she got home and discovered the surprise charge from Verizon.

“I called them on the phone, they hung up on me twice, then told me they didn’t know what I was talking about,” Chandalee says. “I told them I have nearly 400 reasons they were working my last nerve and if they didn’t want to see my face in theirs, they had better put back my money.”

Verizon accused Chandalee of being rude.

“They don’t know what rude is,” she retorts.  “I asked for a supervisor and the woman — Ms. Jefferson or something, tells me she is the supervisor, and I told her get someone who supervises her ass on the line real quick.”

Finally, someone noticed her account was already paid in full and they couldn’t find evidence of the extra withdrawal, leading to a new series of questions about whether she had a Verizon Wireless account and maybe she meant to call them instead.

“As if Verizon isn’t also Verizon Wireless… it sure looks like the same red “V” to me — besides I have Sprint,” Chandalee said.  “They don’t know who they are dealing with.”

After logging more than two hours on the phone with Verizon, the stalemate ended in a draw.  Verizon wanted copies of the bank statement showing the charges and Chandalee was speed dialing her bank to reverse them.

[flv width=”480″ height=”290″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WTAE Pittsburgh Verizon Mixes Up Billing, Charges Customer Extra 385.mp4[/flv]

Last Thursday, the mystery was solved when WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh reported Chandalee wasn’t the only customer suffering from Verizon Empty Bank Account Syndrome.  It turned out a “system glitch” was responsible for payments being withdrawn from the “wrong accounts,” and Verizon promised a quick fix.  Chandalee wonders if the only way to get Verizon’s attention is to call the local TV station whenever the bill is wrong, because they sure didn’t listen to her when she called.  In the end, her bank reversed the charges and Chandalee told Verizon to delete all auto-debit information on her account.  “I will write these people my own check from now on,” she says.  “People need to watch their bank accounts so this doesn’t happen to them.”  (2 minutes)

[Updated 10:14pm — We received word the 200+ impacted customers were from across the nation, not just in Pennsylvania.]

A consumer group has filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission alleging that Verizon Wireless is violating its agreement with federal authorities by attempting to restrict the use of third-party wireless tethering applications.

The basis of the complaint, filed by Free Press, is that Verizon agreed not to “deny, limit, or restrict” customers from accessing the applications of their choosing as part of Verizon’s LTE license spectrum agreement.

“Verizon’s conduct is bad for the public and bad for innovation. It also appears to be illegal under the FCC’s rules that govern Verizon’s LTE network. Users pay through the nose for Verizon’s LTE service, and having done so, they should be able to use their connections as they see fit. Instead, Verizon’s approach is to sell you broadband but then put up roadblocks to control your use of it,” said Free Press policy counsel Aparna Sridhar.  “In 2007, Verizon argued aggressively against the adoption of these basic openness protections. Having lost that policy battle but won the auction for the spectrum licenses, Verizon has adopted a new regulatory strategy: simply ignore the rules on the books. The Commission must move quickly to investigate and stop these harmful practices.”

As Stop the Cap! reported earlier, Verizon has taken measures to try and warn off customers using the third-party tethering apps instead of purchasing the company’s $20 tethering plan, which offers 2GB of data usage per month.  In addition to text warning messages, the company has asked Google to disable access to tethering software in the Android Market for Verizon customers.

From Free Press’ complaint:

Efforts to disable smartphone features and create barriers to this useful, productive, pro-innovation activity should cause concern no matter who initiates them; but when Verizon Wireless interferes with the use of third-party tethering applications, that conduct also violates the rules governing its LTE network. When Verizon purchased the licenses for the spectrum over which it has deployed LTE, it agreed to abide by a set of pro-consumer, pro-innovation openness principles. In particular, Verizon promised that it would not “deny, limit, or restrict the ability of [its] customers to use the devices and applications of their choice.” Verizon’s recent move to limit and restrict access to tethering applications by actively requesting that Google make them unavailable in the Android Market (the Google market for mobile applications) deliberately and unequivocally violates this prohibition. The FCC should immediately open an investigation to assess Verizon’s practices and determine appropriate penalties for this clear breach of the Commission’s rules.

[…] When the FCC auctioned the C Block of the Upper 700 MHz spectrum — the spectrum on which Verizon has deployed its LTE offering — the Commission adopted important license conditions to protect the openness of broadband networks. It provided that licensees using that spectrum “shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice.” In the words of Chairman Kevin Martin, the Commission adopted the conditions to ensure that “[c]onsumers will be able to use the wireless device of their choice and download whatever software they want onto it.”

Verizon Communications is a study in contrasts.  It runs one of the most advanced wired broadband services in the country that wins rave reviews from consumers and businesses, is on the verge of ending its unlimited use data plans for smartphone customers on the wireless side, and has launched a major “police action” against individuals that are using their smartphones as wireless hotspots without paying an additional $20 a month for the privilege.

Verizon Says No to Data Caps and Consumption Billing

When you run an advanced fiber to the home network like FiOS, the concept of data caps is as silly as charging for each glass of water collected from Niagara Falls.  That’s a point recognized by Joseph Ambeault, director of media and entertainment services for Verizon.  Talking with GigaOm’s Stacey Higginbotham, Verizon continues to insist their network was built to handle both today and tomorrow’s network demands.

“Our network is always engineered for big amounts of data and right now there are no plans [to implement caps], but of course you never want to say never because things could change.”

However, in the same conversation he talked about how the FiOS service has gone from offering a maximum of 622 Mbps shared among 24 homes in the beginning to tests of 10-gigabit-per-second connections in individual homes that Ambeault mentioned. For now, Verizon is testing 10-gigabit-per-second-shared connections and offering up to 150 Mbps home connections. This kind of relish for massive bandwidth is not evident in conversations with folks at AT&T or even those cable firms deploying DOCSIS 3.0. Which is why when Ambeault added, “We don’t want to take the gleam off of FiOS,” as his final say on caps, I tend to believe that Verizon may be the last holdout as other ISPs such as AT&T, Charter and Comcast implement caps.

Verizon Says Yes to Ending Unlimited Smartphone Data Plans

Verizon is among the last holdouts still offering unlimited data plans for smartphone customers.  Priced at $30 a month per phone, these plans have proved very profitable for Verizon in the past, in part because they are mandatory whether you use a little data or a lot.  But now as data consumption grows, Verizon’s profits are not as luxurious as they once were, so the “unlimited plan” must and will go, probably within the next three months.

Verizon has always been hesitant about following AT&T’s lead for wireless data pricing, which delivers a paltry 2GB for $25 a month.  AT&T still sells its legacy unlimited plan, grandfathered for existing customers, for just $4 more per month.  So while AT&T can claim they’ve reduced the price for their data plans, they’ve also introduced a usage allowance.  Those exceeding it will find a much higher bill than the one they would have received under the old unlimited plan.

Verizon will probably echo AT&T’s tiered data plans, perhaps with slightly more generous allowances, but the real excitement came from Verizon CFO Fran Shammo, who told attendees at the Reuters Global Technology Summit it was prepared to finally introduce the much-wanted “family data plan,” which would allow every family member to share data on a single plan.  That’s a potential smartphone breakthrough as customers resistant to paying up to $30 a month per phone for each individual data plan might see their way clear to buying smartphones for everyone in the family if they all shared a single family-use data plan.

“I think it’s safe to assume that at some point you are going to have megaplans and people are going to share that megaplan based on the number of devices within their family. That’s just a logical progression,” Shammo said.

Of course, the devil is in the details, starting with how much the plan will cost and what kind of shared allowance it will offer.

Verizon Says ‘Oh No You Didn’t Tether Your Phone Without Our $20 Add-On’

Phandroid posted this copy of a message Verizon customers are receiving if they are using unauthorized third party tethering apps. (Click to enlarge.)

Earlier today, Verizon Wireless customers using popular third-party tethering apps to share their smartphone’s built-in Wi-Fi Hotspot with other nearby wireless devices began receiving the first of what is expected to be a series of warnings that the jig is up.

Tethering allows anything from a tablet computer to a netbook or laptop to share a Verizon Wireless data connection without having to pay for individual data plans for each device.  Third party software applications bypass Verizon’s own built-in app, the 3G Mobile Hotspot, which involves paying an additional $20 a month for a secondary data plan delivering a 2GB monthly usage allowance.

Just as AT&T hated to see the possibility of lost revenue passing them by, Verizon has begun ferreting out customers using these apps and sending them friendly reminders that tethering requires an official Verizon Wireless add-on plan.  While the third party apps are not yet being blocked, most expect Verizon to gradually crack down on their use if customers persist in using them.  Verizon can also block the sale of the apps from the Android Market and can also insert roadblocks to prevent their use.  Or they can follow AT&T’s lead and threaten (perhaps illegally) to automatically enroll customers caught using tethering apps in their paid tethering plans.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/TVNZ Sam Morgan Interview Digital Future 5-29-11.flv[/flv]

Southern Cross has the monopoly for international fiber connections between New Zealand and the rest of the world.

Three companies — Telecom New Zealand, Verizon, and Optus jointly own the single underseas fiber network that connects New Zealand with the rest of the world.  Unless a second underseas fiber provider provides competition, the monopoly control on international connectivity may guarantee New Zealand an ultra fast fiber broadband network for domestic use, but leave consumers heavily usage-capped and subjected to monopoly price-gouging for international traffic.  Those are the claims of Sam Morgan, a venture capitalist and philanthropist who advises Pacific Fibre, the company that wants to bring that second underseas fiber cable to New Zealand.

American and Canadian providers routinely point to Australia and New Zealand as examples of countries with usage-caps firmly in place, arguing this provides justification to do likewise in North America.  But usage caps in the South Pacific are a product of international capacity shortages — a problem not found in either the United States or Canada, so their claims have no merit.

Morgan explores the implications of a second fiber cable reaching New Zealand — the imminent removal of the hated Internet Overcharging schemes.  The clip comes courtesy of TV New Zealand.  (17 minutes)

David Lazarus in the Los Angeles Times relays southern California consumer horror stories regularly in his twice-weekly column, but this week’s news that Verizon provides a 50% discount for past due balances owed by those who have passed away represents a whole new level in customer service failure.

It seems Betty Howard forgot to include disconnecting her Verizon Internet service as part of putting her affairs in order before passing away after a valiant battle against breast cancer.  Verizon ended up billing Howard’s survivors $110.80 for three months of broadband service she was unable to use… because she was dead.

Lazarus reports Verizon considered that an insufficient excuse to waive the charges:

This was the final insult for Howard’s daughter-in-law, Marilynn Loveless, who’d been battling with the phone giant for months over what she termed broken promises and questionable bills, not to mention an inability to grasp that its former customer was no longer among the living.

“I don’t like bullies,” Loveless told me. “That’s what this seemed to be. They bully you and bully you until they get what they want.”

Verizon cut Howard’s bill to $54.82 but then turned it over to a debt-collection firm. Loveless started getting calls from debt collectors trying to recover the cash from her dead mother-in-law.

As the collection calls started coming, Loveless reached out to Lazarus in hopes of giving the story enough exposure to get Verizon to pay attention.  Lazarus quickly uncovered the fact Howard was being double-billed for Internet service — once as part of a standalone account and a second time as part of a bundle Loveless herself pays for.  Neither account worked for even a single day.

No matter, Verizon would now only pony up a credit to reduce the bill to $42.75, even after understanding a reporter from the Times was witnessing this publicity train wreck in the making.

Shortly thereafter, Verizon finally relented and issued a full credit and a brief statement:

“Mistakes were made,” a Verizon spokesman said. “We apologize.”

Lazarus ponders whether Verizon will learn from any of this:

A good first step would be to empower its service reps — many of whom are overseas — to actually deal with specific issues, rather than follow scripts and hope a problem goes away.

Like I say, there’s a reason many consumers view big companies as heartless and unbending. It’s not because these businesses are misunderstood.

It’s because their actions speak for themselves.