Consumerist: Telecoms

Charter Publishes Unlisted Numbers In The Phone Book

Carey — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:30:24 EDT

Tim enjoyed his unlisted phone number for over thirty years until Charter published it in the local phone book. Now he has two options: ditch his long-time number, or lose his cherished anonymity. Inside, Charter's apology letter.

Tim writes:

I thought you might find the attached (redacted) letter of interest. I’ve had an unlisted phone number for over 30 years, but no more. Moreover, although I use a PO box for billing and everything else, this letter was sent to my street address, so that is probably the address that was sold and will be associated with my phone number. The worst of both worlds.

You can't un-ring a bell, but at last Charter seems slightly sorry for the surprise outing. Other than not publishing Tim's number in the first place, how else, if at all, do you think Charter should respond?

(Photo: Getty)

Cellphone Companies To Promote Unpopular Social Networking Services

Carey — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:00:12 EDT

Verizon and AT&T have jumped head-first into the shallow end of the social networking pool. The companies will charge consumers up to $35 per year to access unpopular social networking sites, a feature they're respectively billing as "SocialLife" and "My Communities." Not part of your social life or your community: Facebook.

Verizon will charge $17.88 per year for their service, a bargain compared to AT&T's $35.88 fee.

Rob Hyatt, executive director of premium content for AT&T's wireless division, said a service like "My Communities" would be helpful for novice users who are not as familiar navigating the mobile world as they are online. The new services also give much needed exposure to sites that might otherwise be overlooked, he added.

Translation: We're going to overcharge ignorant people to access unpopular social networking services.

To us, it's just another sad example of cellphone companies trying to beat cash out of consumers in exchange for half-baked features that kinda resembles what they want, but still manage to entirely miss the mark.

We're not sure why anyone would pay to access services like AsiaAve, BlackPlanet and MiGente, Faithbase, or GLEE, when they could access more popular services through their web-enabled phones.

Be social and tell us what you think in the comments.

AT&T and Verizon Wireless Offer New Services for Friends [Bits]
(Photo: Getty)

California Declares Free Market Broken, Recommends Price Controls For Phone Services

Carey — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:00:01 EDT

Verizon, AT&T, and their regulated cohorts love to blab how the "free market" and "competition" will keep prices low for consumers. According to California, it's a big fat expensive lie. The cost of basic phone service has soared since the Public Utilities Commission lifted price controls in 2006, leading the agency to conclude:

"There is no indication of any change in the near future regarding the current state of competition. Market forces have not yet met the challenge of controlling price increases."

Here are just a few of the ways competition has benefited consumers:

AT&T no longer lets you make five free 411 calls per month. Now it costs $1.50 for local numbers and $1.99 for all others.
Verizon won't let you make four free 411 inquiries anymore. Now they charge $0.95 for local listings and $1.50 for all others.
AT&T boosted the price of daytime calls by 34%, evening calls by 93%, and nights and weekend calls by 233%
Call waiting is now 86% more expensive.
Keeping your name out of the phonebook now costs 346% more.

AT&T defended their thievery by cryptically uttering: "The marketplace changes and you have to change your offerings." Ohhhh, sure, we see. These "marketplace changes" must really be hurting the poor telecoms.

In a recent briefing for investors, AT&T boasted that its average monthly revenue per primary household line "ramped steadily over the past several quarters," to $60.16 in the first quarter of 2008 from $57.08 a year earlier.

So much for all that competition between Verizon, AT&T, Frontier, SureWest, Vonage, Skype, and others.

The telecoms have repeatedly proven that their version of the "free market" is a scam that harms consumers and enriches shareholders. California's Public Utilities Commission has recommended the only reasonable measure: reinstating price controls.

Getting the 411 on phone charges [The Los Angeles Times]
(Photo: Getty)

AT&T Fails To Provide Service, Holds $750 Deposit Hostage For Two Months

Carey — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:59:42 EDT

AT&T demanded a $750 deposit from Richard before selling him an iPhone, but couldn't provide service because they improperly entered his address. Richard spent hours at the AT&T store trying to fix the mistake before deciding to cut his losses and recover the deposit. AT&T promised to refund his money in 7-10 days. That was two months ago. Why the hold-up? AT&T can't issue the refund because they don't have Richard's proper address.

Richard writes:

I went and purchased me an iPhone, then went home to activate my service. I was then advised that I needed to go to one of the retail locations to pay a deposit. So I drive 15 miles to the nearest retail store to have my services activated. I was told that I had to pay a $750.00 deposit....wow did not know that deposits could be that high. Anyway I paid it because I wanted the service. I took the activation receipt back home and attempted to activate the service. The registry kept rejecting me stating the my information was wrong and the address did not match. I contacted ATT customer service and spoke with Tasha who told me that the representative at the ATT store ran my credit in the wrong market because the address was not matching the activation code that was given after the deposit was made.

I returned to the store that same day and spent 2 hours while the two representatives were trying to figure out the problem. I felt like I worked there after being there for so long. The store closed and I was still trying to get the problem resolved. After 3 days of problem solving, phone call to customer service and making the same 15 mile drive back and forth to the ATT store and the problem not being resolved, I lost interest in having the service.

I asked the store for a refund of my 750.00. I was told that the money they demanded on the same day that I was supposed to get service, I was going to have to wait 7-10 business days to get in the mail. This was on February 12, here it is March 5 and I still have not received any refund. I was then told by store managers Karen and Joe that the check was in the mail and the hold up was address information, which was how all this started because someone was not doing there job and making sure information was entered in correctly. I was not even notified that there was an address error. I gave them a contact number for that reason. I called again today March 5 and was told the check was in the mail and I should receive it in 7 days. Are you serious! Why should I be required to wait for something that was taken, yes taken and nothing was bought. As far as I'm concerned that's stealing. So now I don't have a iPhone because I could not get service and I don't have my 750.00.

We asked Richard if the high deposit struck him as odd and made him reconsider. He responded:

Yes, I know. Trust me thats the same thing that I said. I know my credit is not great. I believe it is somewhere around 560 - 580. My thing was that as all this was going on I could not even get an explanation as to why the deposit was so high. Most are 500.00 tops. But I just want people to know that this kind of service should not go on. I have reported them to the BBB and the Attorney Generals Office as well.

After another 2-3 weeks I received my monies back but no compensation for time off work and inconveince that all that has caused me. ATT stated that they have no control over the deposit and cant offer me any service because I dont have an account with them. Well thats obvious, the reason that I dont have an account is because they were screwing things up when I gave them the money to set it up.

It's a shame the Death Star didn't try to keep you as a customer. You could've told them that they don't have the best track record, and that you'd need a small deposit before accepting their business.

PREVIOUSLY: Contact AT&T CEO, Randall Stephenson
Reach AT&T Wireless Executive Customer Service
(Photo: afagen)

Tired Of Your Entrenched Service Provider? Consider A Local Alternative

Carey — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:26:01 EST

Few consumers realize they can ditch their monopolistic service providers in favor of local, independent telecoms that often offer similar services at competitive rates. These smaller outfits depend on service, not size, as reader Sharpstick recently discovered:

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. : )

Local providers aren't always able to provide the same bundles as entrenched providers, but what they lack in services, they make up for in excellent customer service.

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)

Verizon To Go GSM

Carey — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:51:26 EST

Verizon's next generation of devices will run on the GSM network that will be used by AT&T and T-Mobile, meaning that in a few years, customers with unlocked phones will be able to move between the three providers without purchasing new equipment. Verizon currently uses a CDMA network along with Sprint, but last week announced that it would use the GSM-protocol LTE (Long Term Evolution) for their fourth-generation data services. Note, Verizon's LTE phones will not be backwards-compatible with the current GSM networks run by AT&T and T-Mobile. Both are expected to support LTE. And don't expect to see the new phones anytime soon...

LTE is what you expect from a next generation of communications protocols: it can fit more information into less bandwidth than its predecessors. It is meant to reduce the complexity of wireless communication by converting both voice and data communications into packets using Internet Protocol. Loosely speaking, it competes with the WiMax standard being promoted by Sprint and Clearwire, a startup founded by Craig O. McCaw, the cellphone entrepreneur.
They key fact isn't anything technical here. LTE is the format that has been endorsed by the GSM Association, which coordinates the wireless standard used in most countries. And it has been endorsed by AT&T. What it means is that in a few years, you will be able to buy phones and switch them between the two largest wireless networks in the United States—Verizon and AT&T—as well as carriers in most of the world.

The announcement also means that for the first time, Verizon will share a platform with its corporate parent, European-telecom Vodafone. Vodafone is expected to be testing LTE well into 2009. The 4G phones should be available by 2010.

It could just be us, but Verizon seems a little less evil lately. The decision to open their network coupled with the move to GSM will undeniably benefit consumers - unless, of course, Verizon lets their usual profit motive mangle their seemingly good intentions.

Verizon's Real Move to Openness [NYT]
PREVIOUSLY: Verizon To Open Its Network To Any Compatible Device
(Photo: Maulleigh)

Shareholders To Decide If Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg Deserves $21 Million

Carey — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:29:24 EDT

Verizon will deign to consider an advisory vote on executive compensation from shareholders starting in 2009. Shareholders demanded the right to vote on executive pay at last year's annual meeting. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg's salary increased 11% last year to $21,309,264. Seidenberg's salary has risen consistently, unlike Verizon's profits.

"C. William Jones, executive director of the BellTel Retirees, said he was delighted with the board's decision. "I'm somewhat puzzled as to why they are delaying it till the 2009 meeting, but it certainly is a step in the right direction," Mr. Jones said."

"James F. Reda, an independent executive pay consultant in New York City, said most United States and foreign investors he talks to favor say on pay proposals. "I don't really see any investors who don't like them," he said. "But most directors hate say on pay because it undermines them."

The shareholder vote is only advisory, meaning that it can be easily ignored by compensation-happy company directors.

Verizon to Put Executive Pay to Shareholder Vote [NYT]
PREVIOUSLY: CEO Pay Up 298%, Average Worker's? 4.3% (1995-2005)

Biz Columnist Changes His Mind, Now Says "Carriers Need Regulation"

Chris Walters — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:25:16 EDT

You know telecoms are behaving badly when a business columnist who just a year ago argued for a hands-off government approach has reversed his opinion. "I've changed my mind," he writes. "The behavior of the top telecommunications companies, especially Verizon Communications and AT&T, has convinced me that more government involvement is needed to keep communications free of corporate interference."

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)

Wired is assembling a list of where each ...

Chris Walters — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:17:19 EDT

Wired is assembling a list of where each senator stands on the issue of granting immunity to phone companies who participated in wiretapping—which could be decided as early as today. The list includes phone numbers so you can call if you don't see a response for your senator. [Wired ]

(Photo: Getty)

Senate On Verge Of Agreeing To Immunity For Wiretapping Phone Companies

Chris Walters — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:30:59 EDT

Yesterday, the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee "reached a tentative agreement... with the Bush administration that would give telephone carriers legal immunity for any role they played in the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program." The senators who have been reviewing classified documents related to the phone companies' participation in the program are now saying that they believe the companies "acted in good faith" and "that they should not be punished through civil litigation for their roles."

The committee is reviewing the proposed legislation in a closed session today.

"Senate Deal on Immunity for Phone Companies" [New York Times]
(Photo: Getty)

Congress Asks FCC To Accurately Count U.S. Broadband Homes

Chris Walters — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:08:39 EDT

Congress has added its voice to the growing number of critics who have noted that the FCC is misreporting broadband penetration in the U.S. According to eWeek, last Wednesday a House subcommittee "approved legislation to change the Federal Communications Commission's methodology for determining deployment." The FCC currently counts a single home in a zip code as representative of the full zip code—so one home having broadband access is considered the same as every home in that area having broadband access. By doing this, they inflate the number of homes with broadband access and present a picture of increased "natural" competition in the market, which is then used by telecoms and lobbyists to argue against policy decisions that don't favor existing corporations.

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.

To get the legislation moving, Markey had to compromise on a couple of key data points that would have been useful:

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.

"Lawmakers Approve Broadband Mapping Plan" [eWeek via Techdirt]
(Photo: Getty)

Verizon may have admitted it gives out customer ...

Chris Walters — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:20:00 EDT

Verizon may have admitted it gives out customer info without warrants, but AT&T and Qwest both refused to give Congress any information on their participation in the government's wire-tapping activities, saying they needed permission from Bush administration first. [Reuters]

(Photo: Getty)

Congress Asks AT&T, Verizon, And Qwest About Warrantless Wiretapping

Chris Walters — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:14:44 EDT

Qwest, Verizon, and AT&T have until October 12th to provide information on how the government went about asking for private customer records, and how the three companies provided the information. The Committee on Energy and Commerce opened an official investigation Tuesday. "If reports about the government surveillance program are accurate, Congress has a duty to inquire about whether such a program violates the Constitution, as well as consumer protection and privacy laws," said committee chairman Rep. John Dingell.

The committee also sent letters to the EFF and other privacy advocacy groups, soliciting their opinions on the matter. In the official announcement, committee member Rep. Ed Markey is quoted,

"As reports about government intelligence agencies running roughshod over telecommunications privacy laws continue to surface, I have grown more and more concerned that the rights of consumers are being lost in the shuffle. Protecting the homeland is vital, but such efforts should not undermine the essential privacy rights of American citizens. Since the Bush Administration has been unwilling to discuss adequately this situation, I hope these telecommunications companies will be more forthcoming about the circumstances in which they have disclosed consumer information."

The three companies have also been requested to provide information on whether or not the government attempted to install any equipment to intercept data, or whether any subpoenas were presented authorizing such equipment.

"AT&T and others asked about government access" [Reuters]

Do You Shun Friends With Other Cellphone Carriers?

Carey — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:26:05 EDT

The Times brings us the sad story of Brandy McDowell and Kezia Chandler, two longtime friends whose relationship was shattered when they signed up with rival cellphone companies. The prospect of free mobile-to-mobile minutes has baited many friends groups to sign up or stick with the same carrier, ruining some friendships in the process. The Times article is rife with accounts of people who lost contact with friends banished to wilderness of nights and weekends. Are you loyal to your friends or your wallet? Tell us in our poll, after the jump.

What's Good for a Business Can Be Hard on Friends [NYT]
(Photo: sirmikester)

FCC Chairman Orders Telecoms To Restore Access To Free Iowa-Based Conference Call Providers

Carey — Sat, 05 May 2007 18:33:55 EDT

The Chairman of the FCC, Kevin Martin, has issued a stern rebuke to the telecoms that blocked their subscribers from accessing free Iowa-based conference call providers. Quoth the Chairman:

We actually contacted the companies that were listed in the press [reports] and said our rules prohibit you from blocking consumers' access to any of the service providers... One had stopped blocking, but we heard complaints the next week that they were restricting access, sort of narrowing the pipe. We called them back and said, no, no, you can't artificially degrade [service] either.

We think you should celebrate this reversal with your friends on a free Iowa-based conference call. If the service is blocked, or in any way degraded, don't hesitate to fill out the FTC's consumer complaint form. — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER

FCC Chairman Martin to Telcos: No Blocking Iowa Calls [GigaOM via Boing Boing]
Consumer Complaint Form [FTC]
PREVIOUSLY: Cingular, Sprint, And Qwest Block Access To Free Conference Call Services
(Photo: Jiri Kopsa)

Cingular, Sprint, And Qwest Block Access To Free Conference Call Services

Carey — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:15:44 EDT

Cingular blocked access to free conference call providers; Sprint and Qwest found Cingular's chutzpah inspiring, and followed suit. At issue is a charge Iowa-based companies pass along to national carriers.

The 712 area code used by these services allow the local carriers to charge a number of subsidies to those carrying the incoming calls due to the location of the tiny, rural exchange. These fees are split between the local exchange and the "free" conference call company, which allows them to make a pretty penny. The fees for these calls made into 712 are higher than those charged by other exchanges, and AT&T/Cingular has in fact filed a lawsuit against these Iowa-based telcos for what Cingular claims are violation of a number of laws and FCC decisions.

Reader Mike asked Cingular to explain their action. Their response, inside...

Cingular explained their actions to Mike.

Subject: Re: Cingular Wireless Customer Email - West - [CUST] (x)
Dear,

Thank you for taking the time to e-mail Cingular Wireless regarding your conference calling feature. I am happy to help you with your inquiry and I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Cingular Wireless has restricted various numbers from being dialed from the wireless handset. This was done because of billing issues regarding charges associated with calling certain chat and conference lines, or because of the potential for fraud posed by certain 900 and 976 numbers.

The information in the contract states, Cingular may choose not to provide service to certain classes of numbers. Examples include 976 and 900 numbers, and certain chat and conferencing services that result in the end user and/or Cingular being charged excessive rates.

We have identified a billing issue with these numbers that does not allow allow us to bill them correctly. You can still access these numbers from a landline phone.

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to serve you. Please let us know if we can assist in any other way, and thank you for choosing Cingular Wireless!

Sincerely,

Amanda Tabb
Cingular is now the new AT&T
Online Customer Care Professional

The 'billing issue' Cingular refers to is an FCC regulation that allows rural telecoms to charge extra for connecting calls made to their network. To add insult to injury, you cannot "still access these numbers from a landline phone" if your landline provider is Qwest.

Free conference call providers are not staying silent. One, FreeConference, has characterized the move as "a coordinated effort to force you to use the paid services [telecoms] provide." As a temporary measure, they are evading the restrictions by offering free conference calls using numbers in the 641 area code. — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER

AT&T/Cingular blocks cellular customers from free conference call services [Ars Technica]
(Photo: MrVJTod)

Ma Bell in Canada Scams for Internet

consumerist.com — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:30:19 EDT

What the hell is going on up in Canada with Bell?

David G. wrote us with a weird little attempted scam he found himself embroiled in with an anonymous Bell Canada sales rep. Apparently, he was called by the rep and congratulated for his years of prompt bill paying: as a reward, they'd just love to give him one year's free Internet service. "I just need your authorization to send it out!"

The only problem? David hasn't been a Bell Canada customer for five years. It was a transparent attempt to get him to "authorize" a contract to sign up for their Internet service. David smartly demanded to talk to the supervisor, but the sales rep proceeded to argue with him for twenty minutes that this was impossible.

You know the maxim: nothing in life is free. David's dialogue with Bell Canada, after the jump.

I'm not sure if this quite falls within the realm of your interest, but I thought this scam by Bell Canada was funny and could catch a lot of unwary people.
At about 11:00 am this morning I got a call on my cell phone from Bell Canada. Now I haven't had a Bell home phone for years and my cell is with Rogers, my internet is Rogers and TV hookup is Rogers. I haven't sent Bell a dime in at least 5 years. And the conversation goes like this:

Bell: Mr. *****? This is Bell Canada calling. From what I can see from your phone bill records, you've been doing an excellent job of paying your bills on time, and we'd like to thank you by giving you one months free internet service. If you can confirm your address I'll send out the Internet Setup Kit today.

Me: Really? Can you just confirm what my (umm hmm) Bell billing address is?

Bell: Yes, it's *** *** ***. So I'd like to send out the kit today. I just need your authorization.

Me: And my Bell phone number is *** *** ****?

Bell: Yes it is. So I'd like to send out the kit today. I just need your authorization

Me: And this is all because I've been paying my Bell phone bills on time? Can you tell me the amount of my last phone bill?

Bell: Well, I don't have that information, so I'd like to send out the kit today. I just need your authorization.

Me: Whoa. You just said "you see from my phone records I've been paying on time", can't you see what I've been paying?

Bell: No, I don't have that information. So, what I'd like to do is send out the startup kit today.

Me: Ok, buddy, I'd like to talk to your supervisor please.

Bell: I can do that, but I'm just doing my job, so I'd like to send out the kit today. I just need your authorization.

Me: Well, I'd like to speak with your supervisor.

Bell: Why?

Me: Because you're fraudulently trying to sell services to me. The premise that I'm getting this great deal based on my bill payment history is false. I'd like to speak to your supervisor now.

Bell: But you have an excellent payment history, that's why we're extending this offer to you. So I'd like to send out the kit today. I just need your authorization.

Me: I'd like to speak with your supervisor please.

Bell: My supervisor is very busy and won't have time to talk with you

Me: Fine, I'd like to talk to a Level 3 supervisor.

Bell: Sir, I'm just doing my job, now if I can send out that kit to you today..

Me: Tell you what, how about you send me that startup kit, and I'd like every service you've got, internet, digital cable, send me one of those PVR boxes and hell, I could use a new cell phone with the best plan you've got. Is that ok? And you can bill it all to my "Bell" phone number, right?

Bell: No, I can't bill to your Bell number, it has to be a separate account. So I'd like to send out the startup kit...

And on, and on for about another 20 minutes until he hung up in frustration. Every attempt to speak with a supervisor was denied, he refused to identify himself in any manner (name, employee number or any kind of identification) and over and over he kept telling me this is based on my payment history with Bell, when I haven't sent them a dime in years! Bloody fraudulent! Now I'm wondering if the CRTC (Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission) would be interested in ma Bell's scam.

Thanks!

Fido: The New Four Letter F-Word

consumerist.com — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 06:45:35 EDT

Sometimes, a complaint can make up for the fact that we have no idea what the hell the complainant is talking about through pure, foul-mouthed energy. Congratulations, Tommy T! You sent us just such a complaint.

The complaint is against Fido, a company we'd never heard of, being in Canada and all. Reading into Tommy's email, it becomes clear that Fido has sold him some a contract in which he'd have unlimited calls for the first six months.

Then Fido started sending Tommy bills for thousands of dollars, with no explanation given. Our favorite part of Tommy's email is when they suggest that his thousand dollar bill is a result of calling 411, which is not covered under the unlimited offer. Tommy Tourette's retort?

"YES. YESSS. YOU SMALL PRICKED ASSHOLE I CALL 411 HUNDREDS OF TIMES A WEEK. SOMETIMES JUST TO SAY HI. YOU CAUGHT ME. "

Ah, poor Tommy. Read his highly entertaining email lambasting Fido after the jump. "I will die before I pay that bill... the billing department can call me from HELL!"

I "technically" owe Fido close to a grand, and they ethically owe me 4 months of my life back.
I signed up during a special promotion, (special=fake), where EVERYTHING was to be unlimited for the first 6 months of my contract (phone calls and texts).
I'm no math whiz, but if everything is unfuckinglimited, how the hell did I wind up with a a bill of $300.00 during the first month?
(Sadly, now I look back to the days of the bill only being $300.00 fondly.)

I fought them, called them, went to the place where I signed up, (eaton centre), I was continuously told that everything would be fixed, but nothing ever was.
Finally, in the end I decided to just terminate my little contract. What would an extra $200 termination fee mean on top of a bill I have no intention of paying anyway?

Just a couple of highlights from my time with those motherfuckers->

-they cut my service off for lack of payment, (extortion was more like it), recognized that was their mistake, then BILLED me for starting my service up again

-they continuously promised that the bill would be fixed but it never was
-OH! except that ONE time when it was fixed, and everything was better, my bill was $30, the sun was shining, birds were singing, until the following week when it miraculously jumped to $400 again.

-they charged me a fee to send me my "current" invoice so I could take it to a lawyer, only to really send me a copy of my original contract because they couldn't find my invoice in the system, (HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE???)

-some lil fucker PROMISED me on the phone that my service, which had been turned off would be turned back on in x amount of minutes and he would call me to prove it to me. When he didn't call, I figured he was busy, so I waited an extra hour before calling him and asking for him by his number, only to be told that he had REQUESTED TO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH ME ANYMORE because I was "short" with him

-a CSR told me to go downtown to the Fidofuckers head office, and when I got there they wouldn't let me in because they don't deal with the public

-a Fido rep agreed to meet with me at the place where I purchased their service to go over my contract, and then not only didn't show up, but called in LATE saying he couldn't make it

-once when arguing that my bill was insanely high even though everything was unlimited so there was no way it could be my fault that it was hundreds of dollars the CSR said; "well... do you call 411? Because that is not included in the unlimited contract..?" YES. YESSS. YOU SMALL PRICKED ASSHOLE I CALL 411 HUNDREDS OF TIMES A WEEK. SOMETIMES JUST TO SAY HI. YOU CAUGHT ME.

There is not another business on Earth where you cannot under any circumstance get in touch with a supervisor. They promised me every week that a supervisor would call me, and I was with them for four months, do you think anyone except the billings department called? NO.

They are such an unbearably unethical company that I actually take their actions personally. Not against me per se, but against humans in general. No one, NO ONE deserves the type of treatment these bastards dish out.
If I wanted to be in an abusive relationship I would go out and find one. At least then I'd probably be getting sex too. Fido will fuck you, but not in a good way.

I'm now with Telus, (fuck the dog, and go to the frog), and my bill is exactly what they said it would be every single month, (knock on wood-don't want to curse myself...)

There should be a recovery program for people who have suffered through the Fido experience, half of Canada would be there, it could be a great way to meet new people.

(ps-> I will die before I pay that bill.... the billings department can call me from Hell)

Verizon Virally Debates Net Neutrality Over Blogosphere

consumerist.com — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:13:11 EDT

The Borderline Blog has a great expose on Verizon's attempt to virally influence debate about subjects like Net Neutrality through the Channel Changer blog... which (surprise!) has become password protected since the shit hit the fan.

Why would a 20 year old college student — only take time out of his lazy days pursuing his English major and dreamily strumming on his guitar — spend ten months writing an extremely focused blog about arcane debates involving cable television and the future of Internet access?

Correct answers include: schizophrenia, or he's a paid PR flackey of Verizon. Guess which is the correct answer?

Lies, cable TV, and Patrick Hynes [Borderline] (Thanks, John!)

Update: Cingular Prez Calls Beckie About EON

consumerist.com — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 04:42:47 EDT

Late last week, we sent Beckie an email, seeing if she'd gotten anywhere with Cingular and their crazy Team EON. As it turned out, she has.

Hey. Guess what? Less than a day after our post detailing Beckie's abrupt cancellation for roaming too much, the President of Cingular tried to call her. Can anyone say 'Damage Control'? This is the same President who actually instituted the EON policy, as we discovered on Friday. Unfortunately, Beckie wasn't around, but she's skeptical she'd be swayed back to Cingular no matter what he says: "I don't really want their service back, but I do want others to know how this company had dubbed me."

This is a growing trend Ben and I are becoming aware of: many times when we post reader emails complaining about big companies, these companies are quickly writing us, trying to get in contact with the aggrieved party. Last week, Coinstar gave one of our readers her $2.74 back and a PR flackey at T-Mobile contacted us, looking for David. So take heart, guys. You're not just preaching to the choir.

Beckie's email to us, in which she calls for a class-action lawsuit, after the jump.

I have seen the site and am very excited. I feel a little better now. I have also sent a letter to the editor of our local newspaper, The Cullman Times.
On Thursday, 9/21/06, Teresa in the Office of the President at Cingular, left a message on my answering machine for me to call them. However, by the time I returned home from work, they were gone home also. The person who answered the phone tryed very hard to locate her, but could not. I told him they could call back if they wished to talk to me. I have heard nothing else as of yet. I have also filled out a survey for a class action suit against them, that I also hope will be productive. I don't really want
their service back, but I do want others to know how this company had dubbed me. I called one friend of mine, who is a lawyer and learned a woman who works his office had the same thing happen to her, also a couple of other people I know.

Let me know if I can offer anything more.

Our phone also read Cingular on them until the last few weeks of service, they would read Off Network. I didn't thing a lot about it because I had the no roaming plan anyway. Then when I started calling Cingular to complain they put me through to the Off Network Department Yes they have a special department with special people to talk to. But they all said, the months they had pulled to look at was all they could do, the decision had already been made.

It still makes me mad! You have my permission to contact Cingular. I am also going to contact our public service commission and anyone else I can think of.

Beckie in Alabama

UPDATE: We Talk To Cingular About Their One-Way Contract

consumerist.com — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:36:21 EDT

Since Beckie's story about Cingular unceremoniously canceling her account proved so popular amongst the Fark crowd, I decided to give Cingular a call this afternoon. I'm not Ben, so I didn't bother recording it: I just wanted some answers as to how this all worked from an actual human being.

I spoke to Therese in the Excessive Off-Network Roaming Department. Yes, they have a department. Therese spent about thirty minutes on the phone with me, trying to explain the system to me.

Hit the jump for an explanation of EON!

Apparently, excessive off-network roaming (EON) is a huge problem for Cingular, so much so that the president of Cingular commanded from the top that as of March, 2006, customers that excessively roamed needed to be canceled from the service.

The qualifying criteria for being canceled from Cingular for EON is that you need to be flagged as excessively roaming off-network for three months straight. Excessive off-network roaming is defined as anything more than 750 minutes or 40% of your AnyTime minutes.

What's the problem from Cingular's perspective? The issue is that Cingular has signed agreements with roaming partners and excessive roaming actually violates these agreements. The example Therese used was that if an AllTell tower could support on eleven callers, and six of those callers were from Cingular, AllTel's customers would likely get dropped.

I asked Therese why Beckie had been given the option to cancel if it was already foregone that she'd be dumped. Therese said that she thinks this was a misunderstanding: Beckie was not being given an option to remain with Cingular as a customer. What she was being asked to do was to arrange to switch to another carrier. In these instances, Cingular will then cancel her account (waiving the fee) and, if she'd like to keep her number, unlock her sim card to be used on another number.

Essentially, once Beckie was flagged, she was going to be canceled no matter what. She was basically being asked for her last words.

To be honest, stepping through Therese's logic, I could see Cingular's side in this: if someone is going to spend the majority of their time on another network, isn't it best for everyone just to join them? I can also see Beckie's complete frustration, because the guidelines Cingular has put on their EON cancellation policy do not take any account to specific circumstances, and there is no arbiter.

Of course, Cingular's arbitrariness and Beckie's distress have their upsides for the rest of us: you can always use EON cancellation to your advantage to cancel your contract without a termination fee.

What do you guys think? Does this shed any light on the policy? Is Cingular still as big of a bad guy as they were before? Let us know in the comments.

Verizon & BellSouth Back Away Nervously From Mystery DSL Fee

consumerist.com — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 06:30:06 EDT

Last year, the federal government finally eliminated a charge to DSL consumers that subsidized phone service in underdeveloped rural areas. Good. It was a silly, antiquated fee that has long since been irrelevant.

But Verizon and BellSouth raised a lot of ire when they immediately replaced the nixed fee with one of their own, for $1.20 to $2.70 a month... the exact same price as the old, government-mandated feed. They described it as a "regulatory cost recovery fee..." whatever the hell that is.

The FCC was not amused, lambasting Verizon and BellSouth for not complying with the "Truth-In-Billing" requirements and gouging customers with a phony fee that they hoped they could just slip by us.

The good news is that Verizon and BellSouth have canceled the fee. Their response is priceless, though: "We have listened to our customers." Sure you did, champ. Or, more likely, you ignored them and only listened to the massive government agency about to prosecute your sleazy asses.

Verizon Jouns BellSouth in Retreat From Unexplained New DSL Fee [Consumer Affairs]

Consumers Get Refund For Moribund Telephone Tax

Ben Popken — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:28:06 EDT

Next April, you can get $30-$60 in drinking money and whoop it up on Uncle Sam. The IRS announced a new deduction for consumers following the May repeal of a moribund long-distance telephone tax.

The standard deduction starts at $30 and increases by $10 for every dependent claimed.

If you think you were hit harder than $30, you can add up the federal excise tax on your old telephone bills from March 2003 to July 2006 and apply for a refund.

The assessment originated in 1898 as a luxury tax to help fund the Spanish-American war.

Cingular Database Has Convenient Billing Glitch

consumerist.com — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 06:21:29 EDT

Gee, I wonder why Cingular's profits are up 267%. See anything wrong with this breakdown of reader D.B.'s Cingular bill for last month?

We'll give you a hint. Actually, an answer: his pool of 'Anytime' and Rollover minutes overfloweth, while all of his daytime and nighttime minutes were drained.

D.B. (but his friends call him 'Dog') writes, "As yet another Cingular CSR said today: "I'm seeing this a lot". I'll bet Cingular is booking significant ill-gotten revenue against the current quarter. Too bad they will have to give it all back, but by then, the accounting sleight of hand will have done it's work."

D.B.'s email after the jump.

To be clear, I'm not a former AT&T customer - I switched to Cingular in 2003.
My old account, upgraded to "family plan" was made ineligible for anytime minutes from the new plan, but apparently is still associated with my "new" phone. When I use my new phone in my upgraded account, it accrues daytime minutes against the old user device - or a "ghost" user.

It's only a theory, but look at the enclosed billing detail. Seems that it'd be a simple thing to fix in the fancy database they've got - what with it being capable of determining who is worth keeping and all, I figure it can be used to actually resolve customer problems, right? I guess their IT resources are concentrating on which users are worth retaining.

Note that in the accompanying spreadsheet excerpt (right off my billing detail page), no anytime or rollover minutes have been used to date, but overage has accrued to the tune of over $100.00 this month.

As yet another Cingular CSR said today: "I'm seeing this a lot". I'll bet Cingular is booking significant ill-gotten revenue against the current quarter. Too bad they will have to give it all back, but by then, the accounting sleight of hand will have done it's work.

What a mess. Looks like AT&T's attempt at re-animation has succeeded, with the accompanying loss of competence and service. Too bad - I actually liked Cingular for the first two-and-a-half years I used them. Hello, Verizon!

Spanish-American War Telephone Tax Revoked

consumerist.com — Thu, 25 May 2006 15:54:37 EDT

You'll never ever ever get that cool G refund from the telephone company, but here's one refund you can count on: an obsolete long-distance tax that telephone customers have been paying for 108 years has finally been revoked by the US Treasury.

The tax came about after Teddy Roosevelt nuked Mexico in the Spanish American war as a luxury tax on the rich to help pay for high military spending. Since then, the Treasury has been making a windfall on it, generating $5.9 billion in 2005 alone. The tax is a pretty significant 3% of your telephone bill and you will be able to claim it since 2003 on your 2006 tax forms.

Treasury: Telephone tax refund for everyone [CNN Money]

Telecoms Cram Customers

consumerist.com — Wed, 17 May 2006 05:38:03 EDT

Consumer Affairs has an article up called "Florida Opens Cramming Probe." They've got that the order jumbled up. Let me give you the advice my father gave me: "Son, first you probe, then you cram."

Now that that's out of the way, the article itself alleges that five telephone companies — BellSouth, Sprint, Verizon, AT&T and SBC Communications — have been billing customers $12.95 a month for a service called the Email Discount Network, which supposedly gives a discount on products bought through their website. Charging people money for supposed discounts is pretty shady no matter how you look at it — nevertheless, it's all made worse by the fact that none of the customers actually asked to be signed up for this service. In industry speak, this is called cramming and it's illegal.

But check this out, an anecdote about a similar cramming from a different service called Axcess through Bell South. Trust us: take the jump. It's a hell of a quote.

When he asked the Axcess customer service rep to play back the recording of the authorization, he listened in amazement as he heard his boss answer affirmatively, authorizing the service. Hertz told his boss, who had no idea what he was talking about, until he put two and two together.
"A couple of months ago a guy came to our office, saying he was our new Bell South rep, and that as part of a promotion, we qualified for one additional phone line for free. Then, on a Friday after hours a guy called our office and was automatically transferred to my boss," Hertz said.

"He said he was with the phone company, and was ready to install the free line. My boss said he'd have to do it when the office was open, so the caller transferred him to the scheduling department."

Hertz says his boss was asked a number of questions that required him to say "yes" a lot. He said the questions were about the installation and not about any services. Yet when Hertz listened to the authorization recording, all the questions were about the service and none concerned any phone line installation.

So someone's lying here. And we're betting it's Bell South.

One last note: notice one company that's not on that list of telecoms? Qwest. Where we also got the graphic for this post. Jeez, those guys are looking like saints of the industry these days, aren't they?

Florida Opens "Cramming" Probe [Consumer Affairs]

Ma Bell To Shut Down New Orleans WiFi

consumerist.com — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 05:07:36 EST

One of the surprising acts of compassion and competency that came out of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was that the city began providing a free WiFi service to business owners and residents whose phone service had been wiped out. The 512 kbps service allowed many business owners to begin struggling back to their feet and corporate sponsors like Yahoo and Google were in discussion to expand the service in the coming months.

Well, no longer. Telecommunication lobbyists from Bell South have put the lean on New Orleans, demanding that the free service be outlawed. Apparently, it violates a law that prevents the public sector from competing with the telecommunication sector. By law, then, cities can provide no more than a 128 kbps service to citizens.

The vendors, the BellSouths of this world, are not only going to force us back, making our existing Wi-Fi illegal, but also they want to close a loophole for emergencies so that we would not do this again, says Greg Meffert, New Orleans' chief information officer. But Greg's no lily-livered pansy. If I have to go to jail, I guess I will, he said. If they really want to play that game, I guess they are right. But we simply cannot turn off these few lifelines we have to our city and businesses. "

No, they aren't right. Compassion. Extenuating circumstances. The lives, businesses, health and well-being of hundreds of thousands of New Orleans citizens. These are all things that trump bullshit laws and selfish, self-serving corporations. Bell South is right when they decide to replace the system on their own dime out of the goodness of their vile black hearts. But... of course... they won't do that, because where's the profit margin?

Wi-Fi Fight Brews in Big Easy [Red Herring]