Plans by Frontier Communications to clamp down on “excessive usage” of their DSL service and overcharge customers who exceed 100GB of usage per month brought a strong negative reaction from a consumer group, who called Frontier’s limits “divorced from the underlying economics.”

Sources also tell Stop the Cap! the company is actively working on changing language in their Acceptable Use Policy that, as of this morning, is still misleading customers in Minnesota about their service.

A Frontier spokesperson also told an Oregon newspaper Frontier’s acquired FiOS service areas are not guaranteed cap-free service — the company may implement some restrictions there as well.

But first, Frontier Communications’ Acceptable Use Policy no longer matches reality for customers in Mound, Minnesota who are getting notified that their service is at risk of being shut off if they don’t agree to new, dramatically-higher priced service plans.  But such e-mails run contrary to several sections in the company’s own published policies:

Frontier’s Residential Acceptable Use Policy (Last Update: December 23, 2008) (PDF Archived 4/15)

The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

Frontier’s Supplementary “5GB” Addendum to their Acceptable Use Policy (PDF Archived 4/15)

Frontier has not implemented tiered usage plans and will continue to evaluate if and when they would be necessary. If and when Frontier implements a tiered usage plan pricing and usage information will be communicated to all High-Speed customers.

Does Frontier plan to limit my use of the Internet?
Frontier is providing (NOT LIMITING) all customers with a minimum of 5GB of usage on a monthly basis. The Company has made no decision at this time to charge for additional usage but wants to start to educate customers about their usage.

If I hit 5GB will my service be interrupted?
No. Your service will not be interrupted at 5Gb. You will continue to use our High Speed Internet service without disruption.

How will I know how many Gigabytes I am using?
Sometime in the future, Frontier will provide to all customers visibility as to what your usage is on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. We will also provide a the ability to estimate bandwidth usage for different types of activities – like streaming video downloads or file sharing. These tools will give our customers the ability to make informed decisions about broadband usage consumption.

Tell that to the customers in Mound who have 14 or fewer days and counting to either pay extortionist broadband pricing, curtail their usage, or go elsewhere for service (if they can).

It’s no surprise some customers in Mound are outraged when receiving the company’s e-mailed notification about paying higher prices for usage because it runs completely contrary to the published policies of Frontier’s broadband service.

That’s just one more mistake in a series of mistakes Frontier has made in marketing its broadband service, especially in areas where consumers can take their business elsewhere and not have to worry about exceeding Frontier’s minuscule usage allowance.

Wendy Davis at MediaPost quotes a statement released by Free Press research director S. Derek Turner: “While there may be a place for discussing reasonable usage-based billing, the scheme Frontier is testing is completely divorced from the underlying economics. Even worse than their price-gouging is Frontier’s assertion that a mere 5 gigabytes per month is a ‘reasonable’ amount of usage when just last month the National Broadband Plan reported that average Internet users with a fixed connection consume 9 gigabytes of data per month.”

Davis also managed to get a Frontier spokesperson on the record about the debacle, telling MediaPost, “the company is only trying to prevent some exceptionally heavy bandwidth users from degrading service for others on the network. She also says that people who received the letters were given an option of decreasing their bandwidth consumption or switching to a different, higher-priced plan.”

Yet the concept of DSL customers degrading the broadband experience of other customers on the network is itself controversial, as DSL providers have always emphasized they do not suffer from slowdowns like shared networks used by cable broadband providers.  While heavy consumption can theoretically congest “middle mile” networks that serve regional areas or connect telephone company switching offices, those congestion issues are not difficult to address when companies use fiber connections to connect them, as Frontier frequently does.  Indeed, Frontier is far more likely to suffer congestion issues when millions of former Verizon customers are piled on Frontier’s network.

Nowhere in Frontier’s e-mail does it tell customers they can reduce usage to retain service.  It only says “if you do not wish to switch to this new rate plan, you can have your service disconnected.”  Mound residents are faced with the prospect of immediately reducing usage from 100GB to just 5GB to stay within Frontier’s terms and conditions.  Under those conditions, they could do better with dial-up.

Meanwhile, those soon-to-be-discarded Verizon customers facing a transition to Frontier Communications may soon find themselves potentially impacted by some sort of usage limit as well, which could also apply to the areas served by FiOS.

Mike Rogoway at The Oregonian talked with Frontier spokesman Steven Crosby about Frontier’s plans:

I talked this afternoon with Frontier spokesman Steven Crosby, who said there won’t be tight bandwidth restrictions after Frontier acquires FiOS — but he indicated that there may be some restrictions.

Currently, Frontier’s user agreement sets a nominal 5 gigabyte cap on monthly bandwidth usage.

“You know, I know and everyone knows that’s a very low number,” Crosby said. “We don’t hold people to that.”

The letters that went out in Minnesota went to a small group of very heavy bandwidth users in one community, Crosby told me. It’s not meant to reflect a broader policy.

As Frontier prepares to take over Verizon’s operations in Oregon and other states — Crosby says the deal is on track and likely to close in late June or early July — Frontier is reviewing its Internet use policies.

I pointed out Comcast’s bandwidth cap, and told Crosby that it seems likely his company will do something similar. He left that possibility open, but said any Internet limits are still under discussion.

“I don’t know what that limit will be,” he said. “The one thing I do know is we don’t want to impact our customers.”

St0p the Cap! responds:

• This is the first time Frontier has hinted that usage limits could eventually apply to the FiOS fiber-to-the-home service it is acquiring from Verizon, a network constructed to manage 21st century broadband traffic Frontier now also seems willing to limit;
• Frontier does hold people to the 5GB usage cap when they are in violation of it, using it as an excuse to expose customers to far-higher-priced service plans or service disconnection.  If Frontier isn’t serious about it, why retain the language in customer agreements?
• If Frontier’s Mound e-mail notifications do not reflect a broader policy, than the only customers who will see a change in the Acceptable Use Policy will be those in the Mound, Minnesota area.  If customers elsewhere see a change, it -does- reflect a broader policy after all.
• As part of Frontier’s “review of Internet use policies,” the company should not defray expenses surrounding the Frontier-Verizon deal by dumping them on broadband customers with outrageously punitive pricing plans.
• As for not wanting to impact customers, our response is “too late.”  Frontier’s original introduction of the 5GB usage allowance in the summer of 2008 impacted customers far and wide, and for its largest service area — Rochester, NY, gave Time Warner Cable happy hunting grounds to experiment with a usage cap of their own.

Wendy Davis at MediaPost offers some food for thought:

Frontier’s letters could well trigger regulatory or judicial scrutiny, especially given the seeming disconnect between the company’s acceptable use policy and its recent actions.

Of course, the underlying problem is the lack of competition. If consumers had more options for broadband providers, a company that threatened to disconnect its customers, or charge $99 or $250 a month for broadband service, might quickly find itself dealing with more pressing problems than public criticism.

Frontier Communications has quietly begun testing an Internet Overcharging scheme in Minnesota designed to charge confiscatory prices to residents who exceed the company’s usage allowances, demanding customers pay up to $249.99 a month to keep their broadband service running.

Stop the Cap! has learned Frontier has begun measuring customers’ broadband usage, and for those in Minnesota who exceed 100GB of usage during a month, Frontier is dispatching e-mail messages telling them they’ll have to agree to pay more — much more — or their service will be cut off in 15 days.

Two e-mail messages are being sent to customers who break the 100 and 250GB usage barriers.  Both reference Frontier’s 5GB usage allowance that Stop the Cap! has strongly and repeatedly criticized the company for implementing in the first place.  Using that usage allowance as a baseline, Frontier calls out its customers using more demanding they switch to a higher priced service plan if they want to continue service with the company.

• For those achieving 100GB of usage, the new monthly rate is $99.99 per month
• For those achieving 250GB of usage, the new monthly rate is an incredible $249.99 per month

Sources tell Stop the Cap! the Internet Overcharging scheme Frontier is running is an experiment to gauge customer reaction.  If the furious customer e-mail reaching us is any indication, it’s another public relations disaster for Frontier Communications.  One customer didn’t even realize there was a 5GB usage allowance to begin with, much less a vastly higher new monthly price if he wants to stay with Frontier DSL.  He’s not.

"You can earn this much money just from overcharging Minnesotans for their Internet service!"

Ironically, the experimental pricing plan comes at a time when Frontier is still trying to get state regulators to approve its deal with Verizon to assume control of landline and broadband service in several states.  Residents in West Virginia and a dozen other states might be a bit concerned that their unlimited Verizon DSL broadband service, often the only service provider available, could be replaced with a company that is willing to punish its customers with $250 in monthly charges once a customer hits 250GB in usage.  Even worse, Frontier takes the overlimit penalty concept to a whole new level, telling customers that new high price represents their new monthly rate plan, not just a temporary penalty.

To add insult to injury, Frontier continues to mislead its customers about the experimental pricing on its own website.  As of this writing, Frontier’s Acceptable Use Policy still states:

Customers may not resell High Speed Internet Access Service (“Service”) without a legal and written agency agreement with Frontier. Customers may not retransmit the Service or make the Service available to anyone outside the premises (i.e., wi-fi or other methods of networking). Customers may not use the Service to host any type of commercial server. Customers must comply with all Frontier network, bandwidth, data storage and usage limitations. Frontier may suspend, terminate or apply additional charges to the Service if such usage exceeds a reasonable amount of usage. A reasonable amount of usage is defined as 5GB combined upload and download consumption during the course of a 30-day billing period. The Company has made no decision about potential charges for monthly usage in excess of 5GB.

For customers receiving Frontier’s Scare-o-Gram, it sure sounds like they made up their minds… to charge a lot more for the exact same level of service.

For state regulators, watching Frontier charge ludicrous pricing for broadband service that would make most providers blush should be more than enough evidence that approving Frontier’s plans to take over Internet and landline service in their state is not in the best interests of consumers.  For many, it saddles them with a broadband provider that can charge these kinds of prices knowing full well many customers have nowhere else to go.

Copy of E-Mail Sent to Minnesota Customers Exceeding 100 GB of usage a month [emphasis in bold is ours]:

Dear [Customer]:

Frontier is focused on providing the best possible internet experience across our entire customer base.  We bring you a quality service at a fair price, dependent upon an average monthly bandwidth usage of 5GB.  Over the past months, your account is in violation of our Residential Internet Acceptable Use Policy.

Our policy states that Frontier reserves the right to suspend, terminate or apply additional charges to the Service if such usage exceeds a reasonable amount of usage. A reasonable amount of usage is defined as 5GB combined upload and download consumption during the course of a 30-day billing period.

We realize there are times when our customers use the internet for services such as video and music downloads, however your specific usage has consistently exceeded 100GB over a 30 day period.

We would like to provide you with the option of keeping your Frontier internet service at a monthly rate of $99.99 which is reflective of your average monthly usage.  Please call us within 7 days of the date of this email at 1-877-273-0489 Monday – Friday, 8AM – 5PM CST to review your options.  If you do not wish to switch to this new rate plan, you can have your service disconnected.  If we do not hear from you within 15 days, your internet service will be automatically disconnected.

We continue to manage our network to ensure all of our customers have equal access to the internet and the ability to enjoy all of its available content, at our committed level of service quality.

Sincerely,

Frontier Communications

Copy of E-Mail Sent to Minnesota Customers Exceeding 250 GB of usage a month [emphasis in bold is ours]:

Dear [Customer]:

Frontier is focused on providing the best possible internet experience across our entire customer base.  We bring you a quality service at a fair price, dependent upon an average monthly bandwidth usage of 5GB.  Over the past months, your account is in violation of our Residential Internet Acceptable Use Policy.

Our policy states that Frontier reserves the right to suspend, terminate or apply additional charges to the Service if such usage exceeds a reasonable amount of usage. A reasonable amount of usage is defined as 5GB combined upload and download consumption during the course of a 30-day billing period.

We realize there are times when our customers use the internet for services such as video and music downloads, however your specific usage has consistently exceeded 250GB over a 30 day period.

We would like to provide you with the option of keeping your Frontier internet service at a monthly rate of $249.99 which is reflective of your average monthly usage.  Please call us within 7 days of the date of this email at 1-877-273-0489 Monday – Friday, 8AM – 5PM CST to review your options.  If you do not wish to switch to this new rate plan, you can have your service disconnected.  If we do not hear from you within 15 days, your internet service will be automatically disconnected.

We continue to manage our network to ensure all of our customers have equal access to the internet and the ability to enjoy all of its available content, at our committed level of service quality.

Sincerely,

Frontier Communications

A lobbying campaign to add language to a Senate bill that would retroactively apply a federal ban on a tax loophole could derail plans by Verizon to sell off landlines in 14 states to Frontier Communications.

Verizon has relied on provisions of the “Reverse Morris Trust” (RMT) — which lets companies spin-off subsidiaries that merge into smaller companies do so tax free — to dump landlines across the United States, leading to crushing debt and bankruptcy for the buyers.

The House Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010 includes provisions killing off the tax loophole, and the measure passed the House at the end of March by a vote of 246 to 178.  But the House measure only applies to new deals, not to those already on the table.

Union officials and several public interest groups are asking consumers to contact their senators and request insertion of language in the Senate companion bill that would apply the ban retroactively to the latest Verizon deal with Frontier Communications.

Such a ban would prevent Verizon and Frontier from walking away from a $600 million dollar tax obligation.

Ironically, one of the House leaders strongly supporting the loophole-closing legislation is Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), whose district covers Frontier’s largest service area — Rochester, New York.

“This tax avoidance loophole does nothing to help people in rural communities who rely on traditional landlines for their phone service,” Slaughter said. “If these transactions are allowed to go forward, Verizon may drop landlines in 14 different states, a development that would mean a loss of jobs for workers and poor quality phone service for millions of Americans.”

For Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), passage of the ban represents some late justice for the disastrous tax-free deal between Verizon and FairPoint Communications, which took over phone service in his state and other parts of northern New England.  FairPoint staggered under the debt load from the deal before collapsing in bankruptcy.

Slaughter

“The RMT was used by Verizon to avoid federal taxes when it sold its northern New England landline operations to FairPoint Communications in 2008,” Welch’s office noted.

“This loophole is bad for taxpayers, bad for consumers and bad for workers. By closing it and investing the savings in job creation, hardworking Americans – not corporations – will benefit,” Welch said.

The ban has special importance for West Virginia, which faces the prospect of turning over most of the state’s phone business to Frontier.

“The House has recognized the Reverse Morris Trust as a greedy grab by corporations to avoid paying their fare share of taxes,” said Elaine Harris, spokeswoman for the Communications Workers of America. “We pay our taxes. Why shouldn’t Verizon have to pay one cent on an $8 billion deal?”

“The Reverse Morris Trust was designed by Wall Street for Wall Street, not West Virginians,” said Ron Collins, a union vice president. “We’re happy Congress shares our view that the Reverse Morris Trust is a tax break for corporations, not a job-creating tool. Without this tax loophole, I don’t believe Verizon would be so eager to sell to Frontier.”

The Charleston Gazette attempted to get the views of Verizon and Frontier over the bill’s passage in the House.  Verizon spokeswoman Christy Reap declined comment. A Frontier spokesman couldn’t be reached for comment.

FCC Headquarters in Washington, D.C.

America’s broadband blueprint could wither on the vine of good intentions if some of America’s largest telecommunications companies prevail in efforts to derail the parts they dislike.  This morning, Reuters reports Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and his circle of advisers are weighing options to try and keep the Obama Administration’s broadband policies on track.

They have their work cut out for them.

Net Neutrality vs. Restraint of Trade

In January, the Federal District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gave a hostile reception to the Commission’s argument it had the authority to order Comcast to stop throttling the speeds of their broadband customers.  Although Comcast complied, they also filed suit claiming the FCC overstepped its boundaries when it interfered with the company’s business practices.

A favorable court ruling for Comcast could create major problems for the Obama Administration’s Net Neutrality plans and broadband industry oversight in general.

Those monitoring the DC Circuit suspect the court will find for Comcast, but to what degree is unknown.  A narrow ruling could simply find the FCC erred in how it censured Comcast.  A broader ruling could require the Commission to seek more explicit authority from Congress to oversee broadband.  A sweeping ruling could wipe away the Commission’s ability to involve itself in broadband oversight, period.

Plan B: Regulate Broadband Under Existing Telephone Rules

One way around a court ruling unfavorable to Commission oversight powers would be to regulate broadband services under the existing rules governing phone service.  The most controversial aspect of those rules are found in “common carrier” provisions — including those that could potentially force open the broadband networks offered by cable and telephone companies to third party competitors.

While telephone companies have grudgingly accepted their more regulated status under the Commission’s regulatory service model, broadening it to also cover broadband will start World War III, according to Susan Crawford, former special assistant to President Barack Obama for science, technology, and innovation policy.

With billions in profits at stake, large telecommunications companies from AT&T and Verizon on the telephone side to Comcast and Time Warner Cable on the cable side would likely file lawsuits demanding such regulatory policies be deemed unconstitutional or also exceed Commission authority.

One warning sign that Obama’s FCC is not the same as the one in place under President Bush arrived in last week’s approval of a merger between Skyterra, a satellite company planning a nationwide 4G mobile network, and private capital equity firm Harbinger.  The FCC included provisions in the approval permitting the agency to review any plans by SkyTerra to lease or provide wholesale access of its spectrum to AT&T Mobility or Verizon Wireless.  In effect, the Commission can veto moves by the two mega-carriers to become even larger through SkyTerra.

AT&T and Verizon Wireless called the FCC’s approval terms “flawed” and “manifestly unwise and potentially unlawful.”

Congressional Action: Reopening the Telecommunications Act of 1996

The presidential signing ceremony for the 1996 Telecommunications Act

Another possible option for the FCC is to seek expanded authority with the passage of new telecommunications laws enacted in Congress.  The last wholesale review of telecom policy was during the second term of the Clinton Administration.  The 1996 Telecommunications Act was a gift to the industry, delivering sweeping deregulation, allowing increased consolidation and reduced oversight.

Opening the door to a 2010 Telecom Act would bring millions of dollars in lobbying by large players to preserve, protect, or expand their positions in the marketplace.  Many providers still favor telecommunications reform that would further deregulate their businesses.

Amit Schejter, professor of telecommunications policy at Penn State University, told Reuters he doesn’t believe Congress can pass such legislation at this time, especially with a divided, partisan Congress.

Not everyone is concerned that the FCC’s position between a rock and a hard place is all that unusual.  The last administration’s FCC rarely tangled with the telecommunications industry.  That Chairman Genachowski may be leading the Commission in a different direction is welcome news for some.

“The only reason this looks new and shocking is that for so long the FCC hasn’t made a decision opposed by a major company,” Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press told the Washington Post. “The FCC has spars with companies on a regular basis and this is good news.”

This AT&T customer was billed $12.95 in cramming charges. (Click image for more information)

AT&T and Verizon are among the top recipients of ill-gotten gains from so-called “cramming” incidents — customers who find unauthorized charges on their phone bill placed there by third party companies that maintain a cozy billing relationship with the two phone companies.

Boston-area resident Mike Cunningham paid $567 in phone charges billed “conveniently” to his Verizon Wireless phone bill.  Only he didn’t authorize them.

Cunningham recently sat down and reviewed nearly two years’ worth of dozen-page phone bills scrutinizing them for unauthorized charges.  Speaking to the Boston Globe, Cunningham didn’t initially notice the “enhanced voice mail’’ charges of $14.95 and $13.22 buried on pages five and six.  That’s not surprising, since many Verizon Wireless customers are now billed online and most customers don’t wade through multi-page online billing statements.

After Cunningham added several years of these monthly charges up, totaling $567, that got his attention.

Cunningham was billed by ILD Teleservices Inc., which said Cunningham’s grandson — then 10 years old — ordered its services while on a website that offers free video games. Cunningham said his grandson, who doesn’t have a cellphone, did not intentionally order voice mail — and knew nothing about it.

ILD generates an enormous number of complaints about unauthorized charges placed on consumer phone bills.  The company describes itself as a leading payment processor of online transactions between merchants and consumers, processing more than 120 million billing transactions per year totaling $500 million of third party charges placed on telephone bills.  Although the company claims to put its potential clients through a rigorous screening process, the avalanche of customer complaints, including the fact a 10-year old was able to be victimized by one of ILD’s clients, suggests otherwise.

Even worse, companies like AT&T and Verizon profit handsomely from fees paid by payment processors like ILD to gain the lucrative ability to charge customers’ phone bills for services, ordered or otherwise.  With a profit incentive to protect, consumers are getting the short end of the stick when calling Verizon or AT&T to complain.  More often than not they pass the buck (while keeping the change for themselves) back to the third party billing agency to try and secure refunds.

Only a staggering amount of potential earnings from such billing practices would seem enough to make risking the customer’s relationship with their phone company worthwhile.  After customers spend hours dealing with unruly and hostile customer service representatives working for such billing agencies, there is little chance that customer will be endeared to the phone company that put them through the nightmare in the first place.

Susan from Ambler, Pennsylvania is an excellent example:

“ILD Teleservices placed a charge on my Verizon phone bill for a service that was not requested, authorized or that would even work (ringtones for a land line!) on Feb 22, 2010. When I called Verizon to question the bill, they informed me the charge was not a Verizon charge but from a third party company,” she told Consumer Affairs.

David in Galt, California was billed by ILD on his AT&T phone bill for ordering a service over his home computer, an amazing feat considering he doesn’t have one.

“I received a charge of 14.95 on my AT&T phone bill from ILD Teleservices. They claimed that someone in the household went online and ordered the service. We did not have the capability to do that with no computer at the house,” he writes.

More than 3,000 complaints have been logged against ILD by Consumer Affairs, with customers highly annoyed that their phone companies refuse to stand by them when illegitimate charges show up on their phone bills. John from Wisconsin got no help from AT&T when identify theft allowed someone to add unwanted services to his phone bill under his wife’s name.

It turns out someone signed him up for TotalContactSolutions, a Florida-based company that charges $14.95 a month to alert up to 10 people with text or voice messages “during catastrophic events such as terrorist attacks or natural disasters.”  Perhaps the service will come in handy to contact those 10 friends and family members when you discover the charges on your phone bill and pass out on the floor.

John reports his credit rating is being terrorized by a company that refuses to refund the unauthorized charges unless he can prove, with an e-mail from AT&T no less, that nobody could have signed up for the service from John’s home.  Unfortunately for John, AT&T’s surveillance of its customers doesn’t extend that far, and the company refused to forgive the charges, instead threatening him with collections.

Unfortunately, your tax dollars are hard at work paying for state utility commissions, the Federal Communications Commission, and consumer service agencies to assist consumers who are victimized twice by cramming charges — once by Verizon or AT&T for allowing them on their bills in the first place, and a second time trying to deal with a third party company to reverse them.

A Boston Globe review of more than 200 cramming-related complaints from consumers — filed with the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable and the attorney general since 2007 — found that state workers reviewing complaints sometimes spent hours trying to resolve a single one.

The case of Soren Jensen, a retired engineer who lives in Duxbury, is typical. Jensen said he spotted four charges of $9.99 apiece for text messages on his wife and son’s cellphone bills starting in 2008. There was a common thread: Jensen’s wife and son said they had both taken IQ tests online, entering their cellphone numbers to receive the results. He suspected they mistakenly signed up for text messaging in the process.

After reviewing the fine print on his bill and doing some online sleuthing, he found Verizon Wireless had an agreement with Solow, a computer gaming website that contacts players using a text message service that charges $9.99 per message.

Jensen said he called Verizon Wireless to complain, and the company agreed to remove one of the $9.99 charges.

“I just don’t get why Verizon doesn’t want to protect us, as the customer,’’ Jensen said. “Verizon should not allow this kind of stuff. It raises a lot of questions.’’

The answers aren’t difficult to find when you follow the money.  Both AT&T and Verizon collect plenty from fees charged to cramming companies and billing agencies for the right to bill their services directly on your phone bill.  Neither company will disclose exactly how much they profit from such arrangements, but they are clear about who is responsible when mystery fees turn up on your phone bill:  you are.

Both companies told the Boston Globe they “encourage customers to scrutinize their bills to make sure they are not improperly charged for services.”

And they make that very easy by labeling mystery fees with such helpful billing descriptions as “enhanced calling service” or “enhanced voicemail.”  One of Stop the Cap!‘s readers was billed for services described as an “enhanced recovery fee” and another for “customer support and assistance.”

Verizon claims complaints about third-party charges are “infrequent” and says customers can contact the company and block all third-party charges from their bills, something we strongly recommend you consider doing before being victimized.

AT&T won’t go that far.  It told the Globe:

AT&T, which also allows third-party billing, advises customers to direct their complaints to the company assessing the fee. Names of third-party vendors are disclosed on AT&T bills, the company said. “AT&T’s third-party billing contracts require service providers to address cramming complaints appropriately, including issuing credits if customers have been crammed,’’ an AT&T spokeswoman said in an e-mail.

But AT&T is still in the business of scaring its customers.  TotalContactSolutions maintains a required AT&T customer disclaimer on their website, which includes several states where AT&T can disconnect your phone line over billing disputes:

You have the right to dispute the Employee Notification Services charges billed on your local telephone bill. You are not legally responsible for Employee Notification Services charges incurred by minors or vulnerable adults without your consent. Your local telephone service will not be disconnected because you fail to pay a charge by Employee Notification Services, except that nonpayment of certain regulated telecommunications charges may result in disconnection of service in AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, SC, and TN.

And we know what phone company lobbied their way into obtaining the right to cut your service off if you don’t pay, don’t we?

In the end, Cunningham got refunds for the unauthorized fees on his Verizon Wireless bill, after the companies discovered a minor child was involved.

ILD claims to have sent Cunningham $1,000 in coupons as part of a settlement, something Cunningham claims is a lie.  Cunningham is better off without them.  The $1,000 in coupons ILD offered is suspiciously similar to an offer from another ILD client that promises that amount in grocery coupons you can print on your computer… if you sign-up for enhanced voicemail service for $12.95 a month.

Was this the $1,000 in "free coupons" offered to Mike Cunningham? If so, it comes with some very expensive strings attached.

Cunningham is so disgusted with Verizon Wireless for putting him through this ordeal, he wanted to cancel his service and move on.  But Verizon knows how to hold customers captive.  Instead of sending him a refund check for $567, they applied it as a credit that can only be redeemed by remaining a Verizon Wireless customer until the credit is exhausted.

“It’s like salt in the wound,’’ he told the Globe. “I can’t leave. I’m a captive audience.’’

Stop the Cap! notes the Federal Communications Commission is overwhelmed with cramming complaints that number well into the thousands every year.  Since telephone companies refuse to stand up for their customers, it is imperative that the FCC order phone companies to stop allowing all third-party billing unless and until a customer “opts-in” to such billing, in writing.  No third party “opt-in” requests should be permitted, and customers should not have to chase their phone companies to opt-out of a service that has a built-in profit incentive for funny business, fraud, and costly scams that cost customers enormous time and money to resolve.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBS News Cramming Charges 2-23-08.flv[/flv]

The CBS Evening News ran this item about cramming charges and the problems they cause customers more than two years ago, interviewing a representative from Verizon Wireless.  Very little has changed as the money, and complaints, keep pouring in.  (3 minutes)