In the Charleston SC area we are fortunate to have local a internet / phone / cable provider called Knology that has made customer service an art form.

Over the last few weeks I have been reconfiguring my home network and have contacted their customer support several times to change my settings, each time I was greeted by a competent employee who handled my request with ease. I finally settled on using an Apple AirPort Extreme and placed one final call to set it all up.

Now, because I am a lifelong Mac user I expected to hear "What is a Mac?" or "We don't support Apple products." Instead the customer service rep said it wasn't a problem and even shared some geeked out fact about the router that I didn't know. He made the changes needed to the account, I didn't even have to touch my keyboard or mouse. At the end of the call he offered to have a technician follow up with a call in an hour to make sure it was working. One hour later the technician called while I was happily surfing the web over my new wireless connection.

An amusing postscript to this story. Right after I had finished setting up the connection, an AT&T salesman comes to my door and I was able to give him an ear full of what I thought of his illegal wiretapping company. It was like icing on the cake. : )

In New York, customers tired of Time Warner, Verizon, and Cablevision can look to independent DSL providers like Bway.net. Frustrated residents of other cities can use DSLReports.com to track down their own local alternatives.

Local (Mom & Pop) ISPs [Broadband Reports]
(Photo: dailyinvention)

His editorial is a laundry list of problems readers here are too familiar with. Verizon blocking politically charged text messages; AT&T slipping "we'll terminate your account for speaking badly of us" language into its terms; carriers pushing for a tiered network so they can charge different amounts for different types of data; or, carriers being hostile to consumer-friendly peer-to-peer and file sharing technology because it can't be controlled by the entertainment industry; the fact that the baby bells and their siblings are gradually reassembling like the Blob. He even drops in the fact that the U.S. lags behind far too many regulated countries in broadband capabilities, despite carrier claims that a hands-off approach will make us superior.

He closes with, "The hands-off approach hasn't served consumers well. And the Web is far too important to entrust the free flow of information to the shifting whims of a few big companies. Government must step in and tell them to leave our content alone." It's like a giant momma bird ate up all the complaints and documented misbehavior posted in The Consumerist over the past 12 months and spat it into the mouths of Business Week's print edition readers. Hooray.

"Get Your Hands Off the Web" [Business Week]
(Photo: Getty)

Despite what Apple's telling us, the International Herald Tribune quotes a spokeswoman for the French telecom company Orange:

Orange plans to sell both a version of the iPhone locked to its network in France for €399, or $560, and an unlocked version, which will cost more, an Orange spokeswoman, Béatrice Mandrine, said.

"Apple chooses Orange as iPhone operator in France" [International Herald Tribune]
"Rumor Smashed: French iPhone's Unlock Status Still Unknown" [Gizmodo]
(Photo: Getty)

The committee chairman, Rep. Ed Markey, said this about requiring the FCC to collect data more accurately:

The state of knowledge around the status of broadband services in the United States also affects the ability of policymakers to make sound decisions. The federal government can do a much better job in reforming multibillion-dollar grant and subsidy programs—whether at the Rural Utilities Service or the universal service program at the FCC.

Since the bill was introduced earlier this year, Markey has compromised with Republicans by no longer redefining broadband as speeds of at least 2M bps. Republicans also rejected Markey's idea that broadband providers give the government information on prices and speed.

In June, the state appeals court said T-Mobile's contractual prohibition of class-action lawsuits was "unconscionable," which "rendered the arbitration provision unenforceable."

If the plaintiffs win, "the outcome could require cell phone carriers, at least in California, to unlock cell phones upon a customer's request." It could also have an impact on two class-action lawsuits that were filed last week in California against Apple and AT&T over their practice of locking the iPhone to a single network, and of possibly bricking rogue phones deliberately.

"Court Clears Way for Mobile-Phone-Unlocking Lawsuit Against T-Mobile" [Wired]
(Photo: Getty)

The particular issue is the nefarious 1.1.1 upgrade, which the lawsuit claims was designed solely to disable hacks and SIM cards that had been unlocked, and to damage phones with unapproved software installed, rather than to fix or improve any flaws in the device.

This is the second class-action lawsuit against Apple over the iPhone. The other one, which was also filed last Friday, claims that unlocking mobile phones is entirely legal based on existing law, and asks for an injunction against Apple to prevent any software locks on future iPhone sales.

"Class-action charges Apple, AT&T with unlawful business practices" [AppleInsider]
(Photos: moria and moria)

The Cell Phone Empowerment Act of 2007 would improve the lives of cellphone users by attacking a smorgasbord of the industry's most eggregious practices:

• Early Termination Fees: FCC regulations would require companies to prorate ETFs, with the penalty for escaping a 2-year contract cut in half at the end of the first year.
• Service Maps: Cellphone companies would be required to provide detailed maps showing call quality down to the street level. The maps would be augmented by data on dropped calls and coverage gaps collected and publicized by the FCC.
• Fee Disclosure: Overage charges would be displayed separately from taxes, and companies would be prohibited from levying any fees, apart from the basic service charge, not expressly authorized by federal, state, or local regulation.
• Contract Disclosure: Depriving us of a source of many posts, companies would be prohibited from extending contracts without "point-of-sale notification," and customers would have 30 days to cancel any contract, new or extended. Any contract changes would need to be sent to consumers in writing, and could not take affect for 30 days.
• Unlocked Phones: The bill would give the FCC a homework assignment: a single-spaced report to Congress on the harmful and anti-competitive practice of locking handsets.
• Military Exemptions: Companies would be required to release military members awaiting deployment from their contracts.
• This bill is amazing. Seriously, we like this bill so much, were it not for those pesky Capitol police irradiating everything, we would send the Senators a fruit basket.

  Both Senators are members of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee. They have asked Chairman Inouye (D-HI) to schedule a hearing on the bill, which he should do without delay.

  Klobuchar and Rockefeller Announce Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007 (Press Release) [Senator Amy Klobuchar]
  Write Your Senator
  Write Your Representative
  (AP Photo/Ann Heisenfelt)
  

"[The muting was] a major mistake by a webcast vendor and completely contrary to our policy. We are working closely with the vendor and the band to post the song in its entirety on this site and ensure that this does not happen again."

Pearl Jam, known for taking strong public stands on political and market issues, published the following on their website and are using the incident as an example of why we need net neutrality:

"This troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media. AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media."

Resources: www.pearljam.com

AT&T Silences Pearl Jam; Gives 'Net Neutrality' Proponents Ammunition [Forbes]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Update
Several readers have correctly pointed out that net neutrality is not about either free speech or corporate censorship. Net neutrality specifically refers to the concept of an open network, one free of restrictions on the type of equipment used on it or the mode of communication. In practical terms, net neutrality is concerned with protecting the "last mile" of residential broadband networks so that individual ISPs can't block services or technology wholesale, without allowing for competition.

Instances such as the Pearl Jam censorship, even if they are accidental as AT&T says, serve as easy ammunition for net neutrality proponents because they remind consumers of how corporations and free speech don't always mix. AT&T is not obligated to give Pearl Jam an open platform to speak politically; the fear, however, is that if companies like AT&T controlled the last mile, they could effectively stamp out any competition—and then they could control what the customer watches, hears, or reads. The Pearl Jam incident is a weak argument since AT&T was the commercial sponsor of the webcast, but because censorship is such an emotional topic, we're not surprised it's being used. (And because it's being used, weak or not, the tag "net neutrality" remains valid.)

We're sure some readers have far more knowledge about this topic than we do, and we invite them to elaborate on the topic or politely correct us in the comments below.

Resources:
Wikipedia entry on network neutrality
ACLU page that explains some net neutrality issues in plain English
Public Knowledge Net Neutrality White Paper
3-minute video explaining net neutrality

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Photo: Getty)

Why? Poor policy decisions at the Federal level, leading to lack of competition in the marketplace. (This is why Net Neutrality could be a good thing.) In most markets, there's only a couple of choices for broadband access. In the European and Asian countries that score higher, there may be up to a few dozen competitors sharing the same platform.

Regardless of how funny the term "broadband penetration" may be (and we know it's making us smirk), that's pretty disappointing news. US customers live and compete in an increasingly interconnected world, but—as in the mobile sector—have to deal with the underdeveloped technologies of an anti-competitive market.

Read the report, or at least the announcement about it, and see for yourself, so that the next time your favorite political representative regurgitates official corporate PR spin, you'll be able to write a nice, polite letter of correction.

Shooting the Messenger [Free Press]

(Photo: Adam Caudill)

What did Zeldman do? After not being able to figure out how to report his business line being on the brink, he walked downstairs to the payphone, called the service number, and six minutes later had a 'commitment to restoring' the on-the-blink business line.

Amazing how you have to trick companies to actually provide service to you, isn't it?

Silent Phone, Secret Phone [Zeldman]

comment on this post

Thanks to hetereoerotic Valleywag soulmate Nick for pointing out this ridiculous ad, in which AT&T proudly proclaims that they will compensate your business fifty whole dollars if an internal flub on their part results in thousands or millions of dollars worth of lost revenue for your business.

Or as Nick put it: "The bad news is we lost $4k in business today thanks to the network crash. The good news is, yay! Fifty bucks!" AT&T's all heart.

Is it true? We don't know. But the EFF have filed three papers from an AT&T technician of 22 years which allege that AT&T have built secret rooms in their call centers around the country, funneling internet communications and telephone calls into a data mining system designed by Narus which processes them for unspecified red flags.

Now AT&T is arguing that the release of these papers will jeopardize their business, giving hackers information on the network that will allow them to disrupt the network. They aren't arguing the veracity of the contents. They just want the documents sealed and returned to AT&T.

Sorry, AT&T — that's not a luxury you should have. If you want to stomp down on evidence that indicates you are violating the constitutional rights of millions of Americans, you'd better damn well pony up evidence that you haven't done any such thing, not simply try to quash the evidence that you have.

AT&T Seeks to Hide Spy Docs [Wired]

The FCC describes the tax: "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress recognize that telephone service provides a vital link to emergency services, government services, and surrounding communities. To help promote telecommunications service nationwide, the FCC, as directed by Congress, developed the Federal Universal Service Fund." What does that all mean? Fischer has written a highly entertaining dissection of the tax:

There are four components to the Federal Universal Service Fund. They are:

* Low-Income. This program provides telephone service discounts to consumers with qualifying low-incomes.

Translation: we charge you more and selected poor people less, but don't call us socialists.

* High-Cost. This program provides financial support to companies that provide telecommunications services in areas of America where the cost of providing service is high.

Translation: We subsidize businesses where phone service isn't profitable, but don't accuse us of "state capitalism."

* Schools and Libraries. This program helps to ensure that the nation's classrooms and libraries receive access to the vast array of educational resources that are accessible through the telecommunications network.

Translation: We use your money to fund services that we, in our infinite wisdom, deem fit for our youth propaganda camps, but don't ask where in the Constitution it says the government is permitted to do this.

Universal Service Fraud [LewRockwell.com]

Consider this email we got from John, who was charged an $175 premature cancellation fee by Verizon for breaking his cell phone contract. John believed his contract had already run out, having not been fully told by Verizon when he switched minutes plans that he was essentially renewing his existing contract. What frustrates us (and frustrates John even more so) is just how easy it would have been for Verizon to say, "Well, we can see how you might have been confused. Tell you what, let's just call it even." If Verizon had done that, John might have one day decided to return to Verizon as a customer, or at least not be compelled to write us and share his gripes with 10,000 other consumerists. But instead, Verizon decided to gouge a leaving customer one last time.

It'll cost them — bad word of mouth spreads faster than avian bird flu. John's email is after the jump.

I'm a frequent visitor to The Consumerist and have enjoyed the informative and helpful nature of this site to the disaffected consumer numb with corporate idiocy and dubious business practices. This email entails the latter, but to start off, I would have never thought that I would be submitting a complaint to The Consumerist until I had a dubious run-in with Verizon Wireless customer service, the carrier we all love to hate. So here goes:

I signed up for a two year contract with Verizon back in January of 2004. At the time, I was going crazy with Sprint's spotty network, and dropped calls. To Verizon's credit, they had a very good coverage area and I experienced little to no issues with connections and calls. Now fast forward to January of 2006. I was solicited by a Verizon Wireless rep to renew my contract agreement. I ultimately decided not to renew my contract with them because of their high equipment costs and relatively expensive calling plans. Another reason was that I had changed jobs and was no longer able to expense my cell phone bill with my new company. In late February, I decided to make the final jump and switch carriers. I ported my number and switched to T-mobile. I'm sure to get some sneers for that move, but I was smitten with the Samsung t809 and I was able to get the kiosk vendor to match a Firefly promotion to get the phone for $200. Anyhow, earlier this week, I received my final statement from Verizon and lo and behold, a $175 early termination fee was assessed. I immediately called customer service and inquired about the charge. To my shock, the customer service rep told me that my contract term actually ended on March 16, 2006. I asked them to give me an explanation for this, to which they cited a calling plan change that I made to increase my minutes. I vaguely remember upgrading my calling plan over the phone because I was being charged with overages with my initial calling plan. Apparently, Verizon treats this as a "new contract" and pushed my contract term to a later date. So far, I have never heard of this being done by Verizon or other carriers. To rub the salt on the wound, Verizon failed to make this apparent to me over the course of my
contract while in the mean time they got rich off my overages, higher calling plan fees, and last but not least, the early termination fee. Having already gone through Verizon's "Fee grinder" of sorts, they had no qualms about standing firm on their technicality to assess the termination fee. I then asked to speak with a supervisor to which I was put on hold for over ten minutes. I then spoke with a lady who parroted the same response and when I tried to explain my frustration, she suggested that the next step for me would be to bring this up with their contract lawyers for mediation. At that point, I decided it wasn't worth my time and effort to be put on Verizon's customer service conveyor belt and expressed my disappointment at Verizon's dubious business practices and lack of transparency with their contract terms. I mentioned that I would be sharing my Verizon experience with sites such as Consumerist to expose the contract pitfalls that Verizon lays to rip off
unsuspecting consumers.

Sincerely,
John

Been porked by a CSR? Tell us about it at tips@consumerist.com