This is, of course, raising some questions about why exactly the government is sponsoring NASCAR teams as a way of "raising awareness."

“I believe this sponsorship is an extremely effective way for the FCC to raise DTV awareness among people of all ages and income levels across the United States who loyally follow one of the most popular sports in America,” FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said in a statement last week, announcing the deal.

The WSJ says they've also spent $1 million advertising in AARP magazine.

FCC’s Race Car to Promote Digital TV Hits the Wall [WSJ]
(Photo: Getty)

First the bad news: no, there's no "Do Not Fax" list. However, you you can still file a complaint with the FCC if you're being faxed without permission.

You might also check out JunkFax.org, an advocacy site that's filled with resources to fight junk faxers. JunkFax.org will ask you to provide an email address for some services—they say they want to be able to contact you when there's legislative news in your state—but even if you don't participate in their general cause you can find a lot of useful information, including a lengthy step-by-step process to fight back.

They also suggest you turn to your phone service provider for help:

The foolproof way to actually find out who they are is to call the phone company and have them put a "call trap" on your line (see Investigation tools for more information). Then file a small claims case against "john doe" and fill out a small claims subpoena either to the sheriff or the phone company so they will tell you who is calling you. Then use Abika to find out who they really are if the phone company data didn't reveal that. Then contact them. If they don't stop, sue them.

Finally, if you're willing to spend money rather than time to fight junk faxers, you can invest in equipment or services to filter them out.

Sources tell me that Comcast will officially announce that they're implementing this new system starting October first.

Originally, the source indicated Comcast was considering charging $15 for each 10 GB over the cap customers travel. A press release should drop shortly confirming whether this is still the case. There was also consideration of a new system whereby users who received more than four DMCA letters in a twelve month period potentially faced account suspension. That's a risky move I would imagine won't make the final cut.

"The intent appears to be to go after the people who consistently download far more than the typical user without hurting those who may have a really big month infrequently," says an insider familiar with the project, who prefers to remain anonymous. "As far as I am aware, uploads are not affected, at least not initially." According to this source, the new system should only impact some 14,000 customers out of Comcast's 14.1 million users (i.e. the top 0.1%).

The move comes in response to the FCC's ruling that Comcast's "network management" techniques were very, very uncool.

What do you think? This "invisible cap" has already been around for awhile, is admitting to it a step in the right direction for Comcast? Or not?

Comcast 250GB Cap Goes Live October 1 [Broadband Reports]

AT&T said his address doesn't exist. But when he went through the process to sign up for bundled service, more expensive, with landline phone service, magically, it could find his address.

This is odd when you consider a customer service rep later said both options draw from the same database. It's not odd when you consider that AT&T only made naked DSL available because the FCC made them in exchange for letting them do some fancy business transactions, and then initially made it very confusing for people to try to sign up.

So here's the secret process Mike figured out:

1. Head to http://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=11523

2. Check Availability. If it gives you trouble (as if you don’t know where you live),

3. Check DSL availability via their main website as if you’re looking to purchase a bundle package. It checks a separate database. If it says you’re eligible:

a. Call 1-800-288-2020. Ask about “High Speed Internet Direct”, “dry loop” or “stand alone” DSL at your address. If you have equipment, ask them to waive the option to get a modem/router.

b. If they resist, call back until you get a CSR that’ll work with you.

Part of the problem is that some of the call center reps don't know what they're talking about and try to insist you need a landline or cellphone service with AT&T to get DSL. This is not true. Keep calling back until you find one that does, making sure you use the magic words “High Speed Internet Direct”, “dry loop” or “stand alone DSL."

...the five FCC Commissioners and other Commission staff will fan out to [selected] markets to raise awareness and educate consumers.

Dear FCC, please please please let these commissioners show up with cheezy t-shirts pulled on over their normal button-and-collar shirts. In fact, t-shirts for everyone! This is America, after all.

The FCC says they'll visit every market "in which more than 100,000 households, or at least 15 percent of the households, rely solely on over-the-air signals for television."

At each stop, there will be a public event, such as a town hall meeting, workshop, or roundtable, with an FCC Commissioner to highlight the digital transition, and be available to local press. In coordination with these visits, the FCC will work with local broadcasters and radio stations to increase the broadcasts of radio and TV DTV PSAs. All combined, this outreach is designed to educate consumers in these DMAs and especially those groups that are most vulnerable in the transition: Seniors, People Living in Tribal and Rural Areas, People with Disabilities, Individuals with Low-Incomes, Minorities and Non-English Speakers

It may sound like overkill, but then again the people most likely to be confused about it are probably the ones least likely to be online hitting sites like Consumerist and Gizmodo.

When will a commissioner be coming to your town? The FTC site doesn't have info up yet, but you can probably check back at http://www.dtv.gov/ for more information.

To Enlighten All Regarding The Digital TV Transition" [SatNews]

The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”

“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”

McDowell's scare tactics aren't new. Conservative bloggers have tried to sabotage the net neutrality debate by making a false connection to the long-dead fairness doctrine, which required regulated media outlets to give equal time to opposing views. If the government penalizes Comcast for crippling the internet, the argument goes, well then that friends is regulation; and if the government can regulate Comcast, it must, obviously, regulate the rest of the internet immediately. This kindles the fear of god in conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, who would rather stay silent than let Al Franken take up his airtime calling him a big fat idiot.

In the spirit of fairness, Commissioner McDowell is more than welcome to respond, provided he respects our own regulations.

McDowell: Fairness Doctrine, Net Neutrality Linked [Broadcasting & Cable]
FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content [Business & Media Institute]
(Photo: Getty)

"Sprint Loses Early Termination Fee Case, May Pay $73 Million" [CNN Money]
(Photo: Maulleigh)

Or something like that.

The Commission approved the controversial merger last night on a 3-2 party-line vote. The nation's only two satellite radio operators have agreed to abide by several voluntarily conditions:

• Consumers will be able to purchase small a la carte packages.
• Third parties will be allowed to design and sell their own receivers.
• Sirius-XM will soon rollout an interoperable receiver that can receive signals from both companies.
• 4% of the new conglomerate's channels will be reserved for public interest programming.
• No price hikes for three years.

The two Democratic Commissioners were receptive to a merger, but voted against the deal after the companies refused to offer strong consumer protections.

"I was hoping to forge a bipartisan solution that would offer consumers more diversity in programming, better price protection, greater choices among innovative devices and real competition with digital radio," Adelstein declared. "Instead, it appears they're going to get a monopoly with window dressing. We missed a great opportunity to reach a bipartisan agreement that would have benefited the American people."

Last week, Adelstein told reporters that he'd back the proposed union if the two parties honored a six-year price cap, include digital radio in all tuners, and "make one-quarter of their satellite capacity available for public interest and minority programming."

Both Sirius and XM received their satellite radio licenses from the FCC in 1997 under the condition that they never merge.

Satellite Radio Merger Approved [Washington Post]
Report: FCC set to approve XM Radio-Sirius merger (updated) [Ars Technica]
PREVIOUSLY: XM-Sirius Merger Will Double Monthly Prices?

"When AT&T provides broadband service by speed, it will do so in discrete, non-overlapping tiers," Quinn said in written testimony. "We will strive to provide service within the speed tier purchased by the customer and, if we find that we are not providing service within the ordered speed tier, AT&T will take action either to bring the customer's service within the ordered tier or give the customer an option to move to a different tier."

There's actually no word on pricing yet, but we're going to make a bold, brave prediction that you'll pay more than your current package for the better tiers.

"AT&T To Create Tiered Internet Access For Subscribers" [CNN Money]
(Photo: Getty)

"The commission has adopted a set of principles that protects consumers access to the Internet," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told The Associated Press late Thursday. "We found that Comcast's actions in this instance violated our principles."

The AP says that Martin will recommend "enforcement action" against Comcast and that the FCC commissioners will vote on the issue on August 1.

FCC chief says Comcast violated Internet rules [AP] (Thanks, Everyone!)
(AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)

The article says,

Among examples cited by critics are episodes of the family-oriented show "7th Heaven," which included plot lines revolving around Oreo cookies. Other examples include "The Office" in which characters work at a Staples office supply store; a "CSI" show in which characters promote features of a General Motors vehicle; and a "Smallville" episode in which the dialogue included the line "Acuvue to the rescue," a reference to the contact lens maker.

7th Heaven provides a sparkling example of embedded advertising. Below, the characters are so busy choking down Oreos that they can barely spit out their dialogue.

In another scene, we hear the dialogue, "How about some cookies and milk? Oreos? It's my favorite. Hey, mine too!" It seems that Nabisco is so vain that they even have to change the time-honored phrase "milk and cookies" to "cookies and milk."

The AP says,

Writers, who have to incorporate products into scripts, and actors, who shill for products without getting paid for it, are especially unhappy.

The Writers Guild of America West, a union that represents Hollywood television and film screenwriters, wants "real time" disclosure at the time the product is mentioned, like a text "crawl" at the bottom of the screen.

"Since DVRs and other such devices allow viewers to skip or fast forward through opening and closing credits, requiring disclosure at some other moment in the programming will simply not offer adequate protection," wrote Patric Verrone, president of the organization, in a letter to Martin.

Jeffrey Perlman with the American Advertising Federation said running a crawl is an "absolutely terrible idea" and that it would be "terribly disruptive" for television viewers.

We suppose some additional disclosure is a decent idea but we're not exactly sure who the FCC is trying to protect. Does the FCC think that there are people out there (besides children) that believe that these TV characters are real people who are actually enjoying these products? Who exactly would benefit from additional disclosure? Naturally, Consumerists are much too savvy to become unwitting victims of embedded advertising. In fact, we're so savvy that we don't even feel like grabbing a gallon of cold milk and devouring a sleeve of creamy, crunchy, delicious Oreo cookies.

FCC may put stealthy advertising on audience radar [AP] (Thanks to Dan!)

The article says,

"Today we carry out Congress's unambiguous mandate to protect consumer privacy," said Robert M. McDowell, a Republican commissioner. Two Democratic and two Republican commissioners voted against Chairman Kevin J. Martin, a Republican. The chairman had pushed for the agency to rule that Verizon's use of phone numbers to contact its departing customers was legal, despite complaints from cable service operators.

Commissioner Michael J. Copps, a Democrat, criticized Verizon, saying the company offers its best deals to customers only when desperate to retain them. They should be offering customers lower prices and deals throughout their contracts, he said.

"After today's ruling, Verizon will have additional incentive to focus on making sure that all its customers are happy with their service, rather than reserving the red-carpet treatment for those who have already decided to leave but whose transfer has not yet been technically implemented," Copps said in a statement.

Companies need to maintain their customers by offering superior service, not by bribery. The FCC's decision gives us the warm and fuzzies and makes us think the government is looking out for consumers after all. Hopefully, it will set a precedent which will dissuade companies from using underhanded tactics to maintain their customer base.

Former Customers Off Limits To Verizon [Washington Post]

• ETFs should be relative to the phone's cost; a $5 phone should have a lower fee than a $50
• ETFs should go down month by month
• Contract lengths should be "reasonable" (whatever that means)
• Extended a contract shouldn't refresh the ETF (no shit, they've already recouped the cost of the cellphone)
• People should be able to get their first bill and look it over before the ETF goes into effect

FCC chief lays out plan for cell phone fees [Washington Post]

The starting point for comparison is 1996, when Congress deregulated the telecom industry, ostensibly to spur competition. Startups and cable companies quickly trammelled the telecoms' ability to dictate prices, but nobody emerged to take on cable.

Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the F.C.C., said in an interview that since 1996, when Congress increased competition in telecommunications, prices have dropped for many other services.

“We’ve seen the opposite occur in the cable industry,” he said. “The dramatic increases in pricing we’ve seen are one of the most troubling issues from a consumer point of view.”

In 2007, average monthly revenue for each Cablevision subscriber was $75, up from $65 in 2005, according to SNL Kagan, a research company. At Time Warner it was $64, up from $54.50.

The industry isn't changing its prices or practices because consumers aren't changing their habits.

“I work eight hours a day facing a computer. When I come home, the last thing I want to do is mess with another computer,” said Eric Yu, 24, a college student in San Francisco who pays around $80 a month for cable.

Mr. Yu said he watches only a handful of channels, including some in high definition like National Geographic. But to get them, he has to pay for a premium package. “I just pay the bill and try to forget about it,” he said. “It lessens the pain.”

Well, some are...

Evelyn Tan, 22, a friend of Mr. Yu, takes a different approach. She pays Comcast $33 a month for Internet access and does not get cable television — but she does watch TV programming.

In fact, she watches ABC shows like “Desperate Housewives” and “Gray’s Anatomy,” which are free on the Web. When she wants to watch shows or movies that are not readily available online, she says she easily pirates them. “I would not pay for cable TV at all,” she said.

A la carte programming isn't coming anytime soon, but the monopolistic anti-consumer juggernaut Verizon might provide some relief as it elbows its way into the television business. While Verizon is no better than its cable competitors, its arrival opens a brief window for competition by allowing consumers play one giant against the other to eek out slight savings on cable programming.

Of course, those slight savings might only bring your rates closer to what you were paying two or three years ago. Neither the Times nor the FCC think cable is worth the cost. What do you think?

Cable Prices Keep Rising; Customers Keep Paying [NYT]
(Photo: Getty)

In exchange for amnesty from a series of potentially billions of dollars in class action lawsuits over early termination fees (ETFs), the cellphone companies have proposed some namby-pamby ETF reforms to the FCC. Their ideas:

• Pro-rating early termination fees, so the cancellation fee goes down every month
• Customers can cancel without ETF up to 30 days after singing contract, or 10 days after receiving their first bill
• The overall fee would be slightly reduced

Cellphone companies main justification for early termination fees is that they have to recover the costs of selling cellphones at a discounted rate. True, but why then do I get charged an ETF if even if my cellphone was bought off eBay?

A cellphone manufacturer may charge the cellphone company $500+ per phone, but does it have to? Has anyone looked at whether the price reflects the real production cost? I'm not just making an argument here, I really am curious. Whether this model came about by malicious design or fortuity, the result is legal way to prevent consumers from exercising consumer choice and punishing companies for poor service. Early termination fees are the only reason why the entire cellphone service industry gets away with having below average customer satisfaction scores.

Proposal may ease cancellation fees for cell phone users [AP] (Thanks to Tom!)

(Photo: R80o (Mark Strozier))

Best Buy, Circuit City, and Sears are all contesting the FCC's recent fines against them for not properly following analog transition rules in their stores, reports Ars Technica. Last week, Best Buy submitted a 41-page response (PDF) that claimed among other things that the FCC has no authority to fine them.

Best Buy's boldest claim is that the FCC "has not claimed any express authorization from Congress to enact the Labeling Rule, and none exist." In other words, they claim the FCC doesn't have the authority to force retailers to label all analog TVs with warnings that they will need a digital converter after to receive over-the-air broadcasts after February 17th, 2009.

Additionally, the company claims that its violations were accidents and not "willful" as described by the FCC, and that the FCC's report contained errors, such as listing a model that doesn't exist.

"Best Buy: FCC has no power to fine us over analog TVs" [Ars Technica] (Thanks to forgottenpassword!)

RELATED
"Sears, Best Buy, Wal-Mart And Others Fined For Not Warning Consumers About Analog Obsolescence"
Best Buy's Response [Ars Technica]
(Photo: Getty Images)

A few months ago Azureus petitioned the FCC, which led to a FCC hearing in February. One of the complaints from the commission was that there is little data available on the scope of BitTorrent throttling, a gap Azureus now tries to fill by collecting data on the prevalence of TCP-resets among ISPs worldwide.

Last month Azureus published a plugin through which users can help distinguishing the good from the bad ISPs, and today we have a preview of some early findings. A massive 1,000,000 hours of data from over 8000 users has been collected over the past few weeks. The preliminary results again confirm that Comcast continues to use TCP-resets to manage BitTorrent traffic on their network, but they are not alone.

BitTorrent Throttling ISPs Exposed by Azureus [TorrentFreak via Digg]

Cablevision writes:

"There is no direct connection between the digital transition of broadcast television stations that will occur across the nation in early 2009 and Cablevision's decision to transition away from the duplicate analog feeds of a certain number of channels that we already carry in digital format.

Unfortunately, Cablevision goes on to say:

Neither our customer service training, nor our customer communications, link the two in any way."

As for Cablevision's training, we spoke with four customer service representatives and each one said the same thing. These weren't rogue agents conjuring up their own unsupportable explanations. Two CSRS put us on hold to consult their materials, came back, and repeated their assertions.

When we asked the agents to tell us who instructed them to mention the FCC, they expressly stated that they were following Cablevision's training. We strongly suspect that if we (or you) called back, we would again receive the exact same answer. Could all the agents have made the same mistake, and lied about their training? Absolutely, but Occam's Razor seems to shred any suggestion of a coincidence.

Cablevision admits that their agents repeatedly provided incorrect information. Two questions remain: Are they now lying about their training; and, how will the FCC admonish Cablevision for their deceptive and predatory behavior?

PREVIOUSLY: Cablevision Blatantly Lies To Subscribers As The FCC Twiddles Its Thumbs
Cablevision Uses Digital TV Transition To Upsell Basic Cable

Cablevision is lying to customers by claiming that the FCC will require all subscribers to upgrade to digital cable boxes in 2009. Digital cable boxes cost $6.50 per month, plus an extra $10.95 for digital service. Cablevision recently sent a letter to all boxless subscribers threatening to cut several channels unless they forked out a bundle of extra cash for digital service. When one of our family member called for an explanation, Cablevision shirked responsibility and placed the blame squarely on some crazy new FCC mandate. We called shenanigans and decided to call back and record our chats with several customer service representatives. Inside, the recordings of Cablevision lies and the FCC's flaccid response.

Before we get to the recordings, let's look at Cablevision's fairly innocuous letter:

40 million American families don't use a digital cable box. Assuming all cable companies use Cablevision's rates, operators stand to pick up an extra $698,000,000 per month by convincing all 40 million families to shell out an extra $17.45 for digital service. That small piece of change is worth more than the yearly GDP of several small nations.

Cablevision is well within its bounds to charge whatever it wants for service. They can tell us we need a cable box, and that service will now cost $300 per month. That's a freedom afforded by the market. What they can't do is cowardly hide behind the FCC and blame their money-grubbing on the government. Let's listen as they try to do just that:

We spoke with four representatives, each of whom blamed the FCC for forcing us to upgrade to digital cable. We asked one representative how this information was conveyed to the CSRs, and she explained that Cablevision had specifically trained them to point to the FCC.

Let's be perfectly clear: the FCC decision has absolutely nothing to do with the channels Cablevision is taking away, nor does it require anyone to upgrade to a digital cable box.

Don't believe us? Let's see if we can find someone to refute Cablevision.... Maybe Cablevision is up to the task?

We spoke with two representative at the FCC who claim that several cable companies have engaged in similar deceitful and fraudulent actions. According to the representatives, the Commission is powerless to take action. One even defended the cable companies, saying:

"Most of [the cable companies] are blaming it on the FCC. It's easier for us to take it. We have broad shoulders, you know? We're the ones who have to explain it to all the consumers anyway when they find the 800 number and then they start calling and asking us: "why is my cable company doing this to me? I want to file a complaint."

Unfortunately, there are no mandates for good customer service. I wish there was! I would really like there for to be a mandate that says: "I'm sorry, but people on the phone at my cable company have to be nice to me and they have to tell me the truth." I wish there was, but there's not.

A mandate for good customer service couldn't be enforced by the 82nd-airborne, but lying? Regulated companies should not be allowed to lie to their customers.

Thankfully, the bespectacled bossman helming the FCC takes a different view. Chairman Kevin Martin recently slammed retailers for lying about the digital transition, dishing out several million dollars worth of fines to Sears, Best Buy and Walmart. Why can cable companies lie, but not retailers?

We know that Chairman Martin is a good guy who likes consumers. Let's go back and listen to the sweet consumer-protecting swan song he sung so graciously in our defense last year:

If the cable companies had their way, you, your mother and father, or your next door neighbor could go to sleep one night after watching their favorite channel and wake up the next morning to a dark fuzzy screen. This is because the cable operators believe that it is appropriate for them to choose which stations analog cable customers should be able watch. It is not acceptable as a policy matter or as a legal matter.

Kevvy was announcing that cable companies would be required to carry broadcast channels (CBS, NBC, ABC, etc...) until 2012, and not Travel Planet or RAI, which Cablevision is preparing to yank. The Chairman did, however, explicitly endorse our right to enjoy cable service without a box, and Cablevision's right to require us to rent one:

...the Commission is not forcing consumers to purchase or lease a set top box to continue watching their favorite channels. This decision lies in the hands of the cable company. They can avoid the need for new boxes bychoosing to downconvert the digital signal into analog at their headend. This downconversion would permit analog cable subscribers to continue watching broadcast television just as they do today without disruption.

This isn't the first time Cablevision has used the DTV transition to beat customers like cash-spewing pinatas. The cable giant was previously caught sending letters to prospective customers telling them that TV would disappear in 2009 unless they started paying $240 per year, despite the availability of $20 converter boxes that will keep the Price Is Right up and running.

Cablevision is clearly engaged in a pattern of deception and fraud. The FCC has a responsibility to investigate and admonish Cablevision for their abusive conduct. Predatory upseling simply cannot be tolerated in a responsibly regulated marketplace.

PREVIOUSLY: Cablevision Uses Digital TV Transition To Upsell Basic Cable
Sears, Best Buy, Wal-Mart And Others Fined For Not Warning Consumers About Analog Obsolescence
FCC Takes Action To Prevent Cable Companies From Dropping Digital Broadcast Networks From Analog Cable

Jessica: By hand, going through chats that took place on the last 2 fridays around 517pm (like the screen cap showed.)
benpopken: How was the matter addressed internally? Was there an announcement?
Jessica: It wasn't necessary, once a single person knew it spread like crazy to all the departments. But the general concensus around the office was "oh my god, what were they thinking??" There's a zero tolerance policy for anything like that. So basically the person was just walked out the next day. no one would have known who it was, but he gave some people a carpool ride, so process of elimination...
Jessica: I don't know if sprint corporate has even commented on it to inq yet, if so, they didn't tell us. but apparently he was fired before sprint said anything or saw it on your site.
benpopken: Is that common, razzing customers?
Jessica: Not at all. We deal with some of the angriest and craziest sprint customers, too, and we have like zero access to anything. So we're sitting there trying to help them, but we cant see their account or change anything, etc. All we really have is sprint.com to help us, which isn't much.
benpopken: That must make it difficult at times
Jessica: It is, but there's no excuse for what that kid pulled. None of us ever do anything like that, and we try our best to assist people when we can. I'm a sprint customer, too, so i know it can be like the worst thing in the world sometimes, but that guy was waaay out of line saying that, and on a whole, I think that doesn't reflect our service. Thanks for the tip, again, the timely notice of that might have saved all our jobs. Again, my name is Jessica. Thank you for visiting Sprint.com today!

PREVIOUSLY: Sprint To Customer: "Are You Nucking Futs?"

UPDATE: Sprint's "Nucking Futs" "Jessica" Fired

Pam writes:

I've been a Sprint customer for two and a half years. The contracts on two of my three lines are up, and the third will be up in a few months. I've seriously thought of switching to another carrier, but now that Sprint is offering the unlimited plan and saying that customer service will be improving I've considered staying with them and giving up my landline altogether. Money talks, and Sprint IS less expensive overall.

I went to Sprint's website to get more information about the unlimited plan. I've also heard that in some areas a landline number can be ported to a mobile provider, so I wanted to look in to that as well. How convenient that a chat box popped up almost immediately and a representative offered to help me! I don't do online chats like that much, but on a whim I typed in my question.

If you were wondering how dedicated Sprint really is to improving customer service, take a look at the most impressive, helpful and friendly response I got back from the chat representative. I took a screenshot (which is attached) just because it was SO awesome and I knew that other people would want to know about the NEW and IMPROVED Sprint! Thanks Jessica, your answer told me everything I ever needed to know about Sprint's new dedication to pleasing customers.

Thanks Sprint!

Best Buy told the Chicago Tribune that they were "extremely disappointed" by the fine because they'd made a good faith effort to pull all analog-only tuners off the sales floor last October. As for some of the other companies, "Wal-Mart did not immediately comment, while a message to Sears was not returned." That's probably because Sears' phone has been disconnected for failure to pay its bill.

"Sears, Wal-Mart, others fined for analog TV labeling" [Chicago Tribune] (Thanks to Tim!)
(Photo: Getty)

Ever-crafty Google, which campaigned heavily for "open network" regulations on the spectrum (and won that battle), seems to have gotten its way without spending any money.

Verizon, not Google is big winner in spectrum auction [Bizjournals]
(Photo:*nomad*)

Hello Consumerist! I'm writing in because I just had an experience with something called "cramming" and I thought your readers should be informed. I handle my parents telephone bills because of all of the shady stuff these telephone companies do. While reading this months bill I notice an extra charge placed by a company called Enhanced Services Billing Inc. (I'll call them ESBI for short) for 13.27. I've had lots of trouble with telephone support in the past and I really didn't want to call up the customer service number just yet so I started searching on the net for anything regarding this company and it's services.

What I found disgusts me. First I stumbled across this blog "http://sharingthesecretoflife.blogspot.com/2005/11/enhanced-services-billing-inc.html". That blog post was very informative and introduced me to the term "Cramming". The FCC has a good description of what cramming is at this web page "http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cramming.html"

"Cramming" is the practice of placing unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive charges on your telephone bill. Crammers rely on confusing telephone bills in an attempt to trick consumers into paying for services they did not authorize or receive, or that cost more than the consumer was led to believe.

ESBI was the one pushing charges onto my account for another company called Total Enhanced Services Billing Inc. Confused? Let me try and explain. ESBI is a middleman, they have contact with your local phone service provider (in our case it would be AT&T). In my case, Total Enhanced Services Billing Inc got a purchase request for whatever its service is (I think this is their service http://www.mytppv.com/) they forwarded that request to ESBI which forwarded the request to AT&T and charged it to our bill.

Cramming happens without consent from you, if your phone company gets a request to add charges to your bill from a company like "Enhanced Services Billing Inc." then they will add the charges no problem. With such shady tactics I thought that getting the charges off of the bill might be a real hassle, but I called the number on my bill and was transfered a few times to a representative from ESBI. The woman asked for my phone number and the exact date the charges were placed on the bill, I tell her and she informs me that she is going to transfer me to the company that actually placed the charge, Total Enhanced Services. I'm transfered over and tell her about the situation, she gives me a name that the order was placed under, "Chris". I deny that we ever ordered such a service and that I do not know anybody named Chris, she quickly offers to remove the service, credit our bill, and gives me a confirmation number.

Why would they be so quick to resolve the issue? If they resolve the issue quickly there is less of a chance that you, the consumer, would complain or write to the FCC or whoever else. Bad publicity means more people checking their bills for these phony charges which means less revenue for them. I advise everyone to check your bill and make sure everything is in order, we can't let these sneaky snakes get away with stuff like this.

Hmm. [Ars Technica]

The three main points of Comcast's argument, which Ars Technica covers in greater detail, are:

1. "Congress has not given the FCC authority to act on this matter"

2. "The FCC's Internet Policy Statement does not give the agency the authority to deal with the issue"

3. "Regulating Comcast's ISP policies may violate the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)"

The article concludes that this may just be "legal saber rattling" on Comcast's part—but that it might also be "a warning to the FCC to expect a lawsuit following any action against ISP P2P blocking. FCC Chair Martin says he hopes to finish his investigation of Comcast by late June. "

"Comcast: FCC lacks any authority to act on P2P blocking" [Ars Technica]
(Photo: Monty Python)

Other interesting findings from the study:

• Complaints rose by 40% from 2003 to 2006
• "Telemarketers generated the most, 178,079 out of 454,373 complaints.
• Billing rates for both wireline and wireless telephone providers were second, accounting for 117,875 complaints.

"Report Faults FCC on Complaint Tracking" [Associated Press]
(Photo: Getty)

The complaint states that in violation of FCC rules, Verizon used its knowledge of switching customers — through requests to have their phone numbers moved or "ported" to the new provider — to ply them with "price incentives and gift cards" to stay with Verizon.

"While some customers rebuffed Verizon's inducements to stay while the port requests were pending, thousands of customers accepted Verizon's offers, after which Verizon cancelled their orders for [cable VoIP]," the MSOs' complaint states.

"This filing should be seen for what it is — another cable company effort to block consumer choice as competition heats up," said Verizon spokesman David Fish. "Verizon's retention marketing is lawful, does not interfere with number porting and, most important, it allows consumers to choose a better alternative. It's hard to believe that cable would attempt to block consumers from receiving information about additional services and lower prices."

Operators File FCC Complaint Against Verizon Over VoIP [Multichannel]

And don't just print out our certificate. We earned that through hard work. Brush up on your DTV transition facts and win the respect of friends and neighbors alike with a certificate of your own.

DTV Deputy Quiz [dtv.gov]

From Forbes:

"Verizon wants more spectrum to close the gap between it and AT&T," said Stifel Nicolaus analyst Rebecca Arbogast. Verizon owns 49 megahertz of spectrum compared to AT&T's 75 megahertz. "I'm reasonably confident that Google does not have the spectrum now," she added.

Also, it's thought that Verizon is trying to take control of the block by bidding up the smaller regional pieces of spectrum in order to take advantage of an FCC rule that says if "regional bids top the bids for the C block, that block must be split up and apportioned to the highest bidder or bidders."

Google could then bow out gracefully and everyone is happy.

What do you think? Did Google accomplish its mission by lobbying the FCC for an open network? Or will you be disappointed if C-block goes to Verizon?

Google Likely Out, And Happy [Forbes]

All we know is that someone bid $4,713,823,000 and won. may have won.

Says the New York Times:

One thing is certain: because the C Block hit the $4.6 billion reserve price set by the Federal Communications Commission, certain rules will apply that will require the winning company to open its network to devices from competing companies.

Cool.

UPDATE: The NYT says it was wrong about there being a winner. Other companies can technically still bid, yadda, yadda. Oh well, we're still happy about the reserve price being met. We're all winners. The Times says:

This post was wrong in saying that rules prohibit anyone from bidding higher than $4.7 billion for the C block. There are some rather complex ways that another company could in fact raise the bid in coming days. I'll write a post explaining this later.

What is the Digital TV Conversion?

Free over-the-air broadcasting will switch to a digital format on Feb 17, 2009. If you have an older (analog) television, and use an antenna, you may need to purchase a converter box in order to continue watching All My Children. Coupons for converter boxes are available from the FCC's digital conversion website.

Consumer Reports says that this imfornation is proving incredibly difficult to convey:

Even among those who are aware of the switch to digital broadcasts, there is rampant confusion about what it will require of consumers. Among those consumers who are aware of the transition, over half (58%) believe all TVs will need a digital converter box to function, 48 percent believe that only digital televisions will work after 2009 and nearly one quarter (24%) believe they will need to throw away all of their analog television sets; none of which is true.

• One-third (33%) of consumers completely unaffected by the transition also plan to buy a converter box and 31 percent plan to purchase a new digital television set with a built in digital tuner.
• Although purchasing a converter box is by far the most popular action planned by those aware of the transition, a staggering 73 percent are unaware of the government coupon created to offset the cost of purchasing one of these boxes.

How to survive the digital TV transition [Consumer Reports]

Bidding for the national franchise in the C block started at $1.037 billion in the morning and was raised to $1.245 billion in the afternoon. The reserve price for the national C block is $4.6 billion. (Google has said it will bid at least $4.6 billion for this block, but there is no requirement that it place a bid in that amount at first.)

There will be three rounds of bidding on Friday, but none over the weekend. Mr. Levin said that by mid-February it would become clear whether the bids for the national blocks will exceed their reserve prices.

Spectrum Auction Day 1: $2.779 Billion in Bids [NYT]
Auction 73 700 MHz Band [FCC]

You're probably convinced that there's a huge conspiracy going on to get you to pay for a bunch of crap you don't want.

You might be right. According to the American Cable Association (an organization that is obviously quite biased toward the cable industry) it's not your cable company's idea to force "Lifetime Movies" on you, it's the big media companies themselves that dictate cable line-ups through a technique called "tying and bundling."

According to the ACA, big media companies "tie" certain less desirable channels to the "must have" channels. For example, if you're a cable company and you want to offer ESPN, Disney says that you have to also offer a whole menu of other channels in order to get ESPN for a reasonable price. Big media companies will also mandate that these other channels be placed on the "basic" tier, regardless of how many cable subscribers are actually interested in the channel.

ACA says that in order to get the 13 most "desirable" channels, cable companies are obligated to distribute over 60 other channels. They say that this is preventing or limiting the cable company from offering more customizable options to the consumer. For example, if a cable company wanted to offer an expanded tier of kids programming, it might be prevented from moving certain stations away from the "basic" tier, because they had been bundled with a popular channel like Nickelodeon or The Disney Channel. The smaller the cable company, the harder it is to stand up to big media.

Here's a few examples of bundled channels from the ACA's FCC filing:

If you want: Disney Channel
You get: ABC Family, SoapNet, Toon Disney, ESPN Channels

If you want: USA
You get: MSNBC, CNBC, Sci Fi, Comedy Central, Bravo, Olympics surcharge

If you want: ESPN
You get:ESPN2, ESPN News, ESPN Classic, ESPN 360 (Internet), ESPNU

If you want: USA HD
You get: Chiller, Sleuth

If you want: Disney Channel HD
You get: ABC Family HD, Toon Disney HD, ESPN News HD

If you want: Fox Sports
You get: National Geographic, Fox Soccer, Fox Business, Fox Sports College, Fox Reality, Fuel, Big 10 Network, Fox Movie Channel

If you want: Food Network
You get: HGTV, DIY, Fine Living

If you want: CNN
You get: Headline News, TBS, TNT, WTBS

If you want: MTV
You get: TV Land, CMT, VH1, Nickelodeon, Noggin, VH1 Soul, CMT Pure Country, MTV Jam

If you want: Discovery Channel
You get: FitTV, Animal Planet, TLC, Travel, BBC America, Discovery Kids, Science Channel, Discovery Channel, Discovery Health, Discovery Home

The ACA argues that they'd be able to offer more cost-effective and consumer friendly cable packages if big media was forced to offer reasonably priced single channels and was prevented from dictating which channels they had to place on which tier.

What do you consumers think? Would you like to see more themed tiers? Do you trust the cable industry to provide more consumer friendly packages? Do you think things are fine the way they are?

Public Comments on the Review of the Commission's Program Access Rules and Examination of Programming Tying Arrangements (PDF) [FCC]

After Bono expressed his opinion that winning a Golden Globe was "really, really fucking brilliant," the FCC tried to amend the obscenity rules to include "fleeting references," such as Bono's. The rule was tossed out by a court.

Last year's court decision that threw out the FCC's policy on "fleeting references" complicates any action the commission might want to take against the stations or the network, chairman Kevin Martin told reporters.

When asked whether the FCC would take action, Martin appeared flummoxed by the court's decision and the most recent incident of celebrity potty mouth.

"Obviously the commission's pending litigation has impacted a whole host of issues, but I don't know enough about the details of this to see how it would be impacted," he said.

Diane Keaton swears on TV, FCC stammers [a wire service]
( AP Photo/Stuart Ramson)

Consumers can request the $40 coupons now, but they expire after 90 days even though converter boxes are still not widely available. Mouse Print broke down all the known caveats:

1. You cannot combine the coupons toward the purchase of a single box (each will cost between $50 and $70 approximately).

2. The coupons expire 90 days from their mailing to you, and expired coupons will not be replaced.

3. There are only 22.5 million coupons unless Congress authorizes 11.25 million more.

4. While some boxes have already been approved, more are expected.

5. Many if not most retailers do not have the boxes in stock yet.

Mouseprint rightly argues that the coupons should not expire. The federal government shouldn't worry that throngs of coupon-wielding seniors will bankrupt the treasury by simultaneously redeeming their DTV coupons. This is the sort of problem the government might be able to tackle if a single official was overseeing the DTV transition.

DTV Coupons: The Consumer Catch-22 [Mouse Print]
(Photo: anomalous4)