Recently I had to "choose" a broadband Internet provider. After having my "choices" narrowed down for me by a serious lack of competition ( I hear U-Verse is on its way some day), I went with my first, last, and only choice, Time Warner. Despite feeling trapped, the Time Warner customer service rep wooed me with promises of a new broadband paradigm, Roadrunner "turbo." For some reason this "15 Mbps down, 2 Mbps" up Internet was cheaper than the default 8 Mbps/ 1 Mbps option of yesteryear, so I pounced on the deal like a caged tiger given extra scraps of meat at dinner.

All seemed fair. I signed away my first born and promised to tattoo the Time Warner logo on my body, and Time Warner promised to possibly show up in a 4 hour window. After installation, the problems began. I noticed slower loading times than I had previously with Roadrunner.

So I ran a series of speed tests at speakeasy.net. The results showed all servers on Speakeasy returning almost exactly 1500 Kbps, that's 1.5Mbps, Time Warner's basic rate. Not 15 Mbps, 1.5 Mbps. I called Time Warner to chat about the issues with my service, and to see when the "turbo" would take effect.

This is where things get interesting. Apparently, had I never called, I would have simply been provided the basic bandwidth, while paying the "turbo" price. The technical department said that what can happen is that the turbo signal does not "attach" to a particular line that the cable modem is on. The explanation was vague, but the lesson is clear, check the bandwidth you're getting from your broadband Internet provider by using a tool like speakeasy.net, and don't take it for granted that the install was done properly.

This seems to be especially true these days with Time Warner's Roadrunner "turbo" Internet.

Share your story on your broadband Internet provider with everyone below!

Power Net Global (PNG) has changed. UCAN is no longer including the option of using Power Net Global (PNG).  In 2002, UCAN did a consumer guide and a newsletter showing PNG as a great option for long distance phone service because not only did UCAN members get installation fees waived, but there were NO monthly fees for customers using this service.  The company now charges minimum monthly usage fees and added a .99 cent monthly fee.  To top things off, PNG recently started rounding up each call to the nearest minute instead of the six-second increcements it use to use.  The bottom line is that there are better deals out there for consumers! 

So, now PNG has instituted the following charges to consumers using its service:  1) .99 cent monthly fee; 2) Minimum Monthly Usage Fee; and 3) Each call rounded up to the nearest minute even though the web site of the company still advertises billing in 6-second increments. 

Another problem with PNG is that customers who sign up, get bills & pay them electronically, had no notice of the rounding up to the nearest minute change that allegedly changed from 6-second billing increments prior to April 2008.

Whenever you are choosing phone service, go to on-line comparisons that present the facts as they are and follow up your comparison by calling a potential phone company with the comparisons in front of you to make sure you have all the facts about every statement made.  When you call a company, repeat what you have been told after asking the CS rep for his/her ID #.  It also wouldn't hurt to ask the rep if what you were promised could be sent to you in a confirmation email or fax. 

Telecom political action groups gave twice as much money to Democrats who switched from opposing to supporting legal amnesty to Telecoms that aided the government's warrantless wiretapping program.

Last week Wired reported that Maplight.org had analyzed campaign donations and found that 94 of 220 Democrats who had previously voted against Telecom amnesty had switched their vote to support a bill that expands the government's ability to conduct wiretaps inside American Telecom facilities.

Media General News Service reported that AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and others sought immunity from prosecution for cooperation with the government's anti-terrorism wiretapping program. Click here to read the entire article.

The center for independent media, The Washington Independent, weighed in with their article, "FISA vote tied to telecom donation." Much is summed up with a quote from Mary Boyle, a spokeswoman with Common Cause: "We certainly know that contributions go a long way to gaining access and influence," she said. "The appearance is that money buys votes." Click here to read the entire aritcle.

Hey - Maybe it is time to lower the "talking-while driving" age!

Using a cell phone without hands-free equipment while driving is now unlawful. Yet according to the LA Times talking to a fellow passenger while driving is as bad or worse than driving drunk.

What is it that makes a phone so dangerous? Why isn't listening to the radio or talking to a passenger equally deadly?

Is it possible that driving and phoning skills are a function of age?

If you are over the age of 35, you probably learned to relate to the phone differently than younger generations. Young people are far more familiar with multi-tasking, but for the middle-aged, we grew up relating to a phone that had a cord attached to the wall.

When middle-aged people talk on the phone, we tend to mentally revert to the "phone attached to the wall" mode. We get engaged in the conversation and start driving like old people ... really old people.

Just imagine for a moment, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Chelsea Clinton in a NASCAR style road race where each of them had to drive and answer tricky policy questions on a cell phone. Who do you think would win? I'm betting that Obama and McCain would come in dead last, with an emphasis on dead.

This is one area where young adults (not teenagers) have superior skills, because they have grown up learning how to multi-task. Perhaps younger people who have learned this skill should be exempted from laws that limit driving while talking. We don't allow people over the age of 40 to enlist in the military because of their advanced age, so why should they be allowed to use a phone while driving?

Just a thought.

With age comes wisdom, but youth could well come with the ability to talk on the phone while driving safely.

On July 1st, 2008 California Vehicle Codes 23123 and 23124 take effect, prohibiting the use of handheld cellular phones while driving. There is no grace period and officers will be able to issue citations starting July 1st. The law, spawned by safety concerns about cell phone usage while driving, severely restricts handheld cellular phone usage.

Drivers 18 and older can use cell phones only with a hands-free device, such as Blue Tooth, while talking, but both ears cannot be covered. In addition, dialing while driving is discouraged, although it is not prohibited, so long as a hands-free device is used while speaking. Using a handheld telephone’s speaker function is also allowed while driving.

A first violation is punishable by a $20 fine and subsequent violations are $50. However, if a driver is cited for other violations, a first offense is $76 and a second offense is $190, according to the Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule.

Citations for cell phone violations while driving are reportable and WILL appear on your driving record. However, a citation for using a cell phone while driving will NOT result in a violation point.

Although text messaging is not specifically prohibited, an officer may pull drivers over for unsafe driving. Some argue that text messaging is, in fact, more dangerous than using a cell phone while driving, and criticize the law for omitting any specific reference to text messaging.

For minors, the law is even more stringent, completely banning any use of cell phones, pagers, laptops or any other electronics, including hands-free devices, to communicate while driving. According to the California Highway Patrol, this is because statistics show teen drivers are “more likely than older drivers to be involved in crashes because they lack driving experience and tend to take greater risks.”

Officers can pull over drivers under the age of 18 for driving while using a handheld cell phone. An officer may not, however, pull over a minor for using a hands-free device because this is a secondary, rather than a primary violation.

In any event, a handheld cellular phone can be used during an emergency to call the police, fire department or other emergency services. In addition, the law does not apply to passengers.

Suggestions

• Before running out to purchase a hands-free device, check to see if your cell phone originally came with one.
• If not, most electronic stores sell hands-free devices, with the simplest around $5, to the more expensive BlueTooth option.
• Remember, most cell phones include a loudspeaker option, which you can use to communicate, hands-free, while driving.
• There may also be bargains online, such as here and here.  You may even want to search eBay.
• It may also be wise to simply consider not using your cell phone while driving!

Hands off the cell phone or pay the fine is expressed in a San Diego Union Tribune article written by staff writer Pauline Repard. She presents the difference in rules for teens and adults and points out how ironic it is that legally adult drivers are not barred from sending text messages even though they are barred from talking on the phone while driving. Californians can kiss $97 per offense good-bye if they get caught not following the rules.  It does seem odd that one can drive while eating a double-decker cheeseburger, drinking a milkshake, putting on make-up, shaving, disciplining kids in the back seat, and letting the dog sit in your lap.  As long as you're obeying the rest of the rules of the road, you aren't stopped.  It seems odd that this single aspect was chosen to enforce when the rationale was supposed to be paying total attention to the road.  

Oh well, I guess I'm not privy to the logic of the state or federal government.  But, I'm going to follow the law and not give another $97 to the state or to the local municipality. 

And you?   

An interesting article in Sunday's New York Times sheds light on a recent strategy that Internet service providers have been putting into motion.

The article isn't news to UCAN. We've been receiving calls from people that have paid for unlimited data service from their providers but have noticed that the definition of unlimited seems to be evolving.

Let us know by leaving your comments below if you have been caught up in the "platform agnostics," or in plain english, the slow down of internet connection speed, or other caps that your service provider is unfolding.

Click here to read the entire New York Times article.

Who won the war of Tariff Rule 12?
By Jonny Iosim

On April 24th, the California Public Utilities Commission, made a ruling on AT&T Tariff Rule 12 that will have a significant impact on AT&T marketing abilities. The ruling gave validity to Advice Letters 28800 and 28982 written in 2006 by AT&T.  Advice letters in the context here are proposals by AT&T to the CPUC in order to change policies that are currently under the control of the commission. The decision this past April further called for the incorporation of basic rate provisions to be clearly established in customer phone calls as well as on the AT&T website. Eliminated from Tariff Rule 12 are summary and bridging requirements (these were mandatory guidelines for AT&T to incorporate in their phone calls as a way of simplifying the calls due to complaints of purposely misleading customers) for customer service phone calls and an obligation to seek permission before marketing. The age-old war between consumer and corporation has effectively ended on the issue of Tariff 12, but who is the winner?

The battle of the eliminated provisions

According to the April decision, advice letters 28800 and 28982 are now in effect. These letters eliminated certain provisions from Decision 01-09-058 (the 2001 decision in which UCAN won suit over AT&T and consequently mandated many marketing restrictions on AT&T that were incorporated in Tariff 12). These provisions were generally directed towards the conduct of customer service representatives and preventing them from aggressively pursing a sale. AT&T had a notorious history of heinously pursuing a sale on every phone call pursuant to an internal policy called "offer on every call". With the elimination of certain provisions in tariff 12, AT&T may very well return to this practice.

As of now, AT&T does need to clearly structure their customer service phone calls, identifying when the the service part has concluded and the marketing portion has begun.  They no longer need to provide a summary of the phone call, and perhaps most importantly, they do not need to seek permission in order to market new services and products. AT&T claims that since the notorious 2001 loss in D. 01-09-058, they have incorporated many new policies to change their customer service images. HOMERUN for example has become the internal model to follow for customer service. HOMERUN consists of

"Have Enthusiasm to answer the call...",

"Obtain first Call Resolution...",

"Make use of your Sales Tools to provide the right the right offer to the customer...",

"Explain the AT&T Advantages...",

"Really make a Quality Offer...",

"Upbeat and Skillful Close...".

"Need to Follow the Contact Guide...".

Despite their new catchy acronym, it is still too early to say whether or not HOMERUN is a hit let alone a "home run" . What is evidently clear is that the elimination of these guidelines from Tariff Rule 12 will ease up restrictions on AT&T's aggressiveness in pursuing a sale on a customer service call. The commission defends their decision by stating that they will keep an eye out for reports and abuses of AT&T's newly found free reign and will not hesitate to reinstate restrictions if need be. The bottom line remains that AT&T has a history of abuse, and without sufficient evidence (and not acronyms) showing that they have changed their ways, removal of these restrictions seems premature and consumers remain at risk. This aspect of the April 24th decision is another homerun for AT&T, who will now be less restricted while making their own sales pitches.

Scorecard AT&T: 1 - Consumer: 0

The battle of the mandated inclusions

The April 24th decision requires that new customers be provided with the basic flat rate for the AT&T service before "bundles" and "deals" are to be suggested. Additionally pursuant to TURN's (The Utility Reform Network) and the DRA' (Disability Rights Advocates) requests, AT&T is now also required to put these basic rates on their website under Tariff Rule 12. It would seem on the surface that this is win-win for the consumer, but is it really?

For starters, the requirement to provide the basic flat rate first, before any bundles, is arguably already incorporated in California Law. While not explicitly stated in 2896, the decision that the commission issued in April stated the following:

"AT&T's marketing script disclosures regarding its stand-alone basic services and its flat and measured basic services rates do not demonstrate that it provides consumers with sufficient information on which to make informed choices as required by Pub. Util. Code §2896.

California Public Utility Code 2896 already requires utility companies to give sufficient information to make informed choices as well as reasonable statewide standards in terms of customer service. In the days of "offer on every call", AT&T would purposely make their phone calls more confusing to consumers who often bought bundles they did not need and sometimes could not afford. When AT&T was failing to give basic rates or purposely drive up sales by advising consumers to purchase unnecessary services, we were not receiving sufficient information and ATT was  violating 2896. Consumers should already be protected from such abuse from utility companies. In the 2001 Rule 12 decision, AT&T was penalized $25.55 million for their marketing abuses. So what does this inclusion of the basic rate provision in Tariff 12 do? It pretty requires AT&T to put portions of California law in Tariff 12....so in essence...not a whole lot.

The next inclusion that the April 24th decision called for AT&T to make their basic rates available online in the tariff section. AT&T does indeed provide the basic rate on their webpage. Hooray! By the way, have any of you tried to find the tariff section? How many customers will really be benefited by the inclusion of a basic rate in Rule 12 on the AT&T regulatory page? Simply put, the people who needed to be protected by AT&T's marketing abuse are not the same ones who are going to be looking up tariffs online. Additionally, the regulatory page is not easily navigable and finding the basic rate or even the tariff page may take more than an Internet Explorer. Also, let us also not forget about 2896. Technically, this provision is hardly necessary since AT&T should be following the law(2896) and providing sufficient information to begin with. This provision, while possibly helpful at times of research, does very little in consumer protection or in curtailing AT&T's notorious marketing abuse history. It seems as though this provision was added to appease TURN and DRA. TURN and the DRA did propose other modification to rule 12, but the commission denied these requests. These requests included a 30-day grace period to cancel without penalty, affirming the rights of the commission to actually monitor customer service representatives, requiring AT&T to provide the total estimated bill amount to customers wishing to purchasing services, and a few other provisions that actually had a purpose for  us, consumers, and was not a rehash of the law. While it is better that these provisions be in Tariff 12 than not, their effects are speculative and their necessity is minimal. This is not a score for AT&T, but sadly not for we, the consumer, either.

AT&T: 1 - Consumer: 0

The commissions April 24th decision is one that will allow AT&T to return to most of the marketing practices prior to 2001. The main exception is that AT&T is still required to resolve problems that initiated a consumer phone call before they can market new products. However, this aspect was never in dispute through the recent Tariff 12 legal battles. In fact, just the thought that AT&T could eliminate that provision would bring some serious speculation as to whether or not California is taking one huge step backwards in protecting consumers from big utility companies and their egregious marketing practices. Perhaps this is the next step for AT&T? Maybe they can write a new advice letter? The last advice letter seemed to work out for their benefit even though they didn't follow the correct procedure in attempting to change Tariff 12. An advice letter inconsistent with legal procedure coupled with new internal policy acronyms won the commission over once. Whose to say it wont happen again? May I suggest SCORE?

Sale,

Coerce,

On every call,

Retry to sell, and

End call with a sale.

And with that the final scorecard of the AT&T is the only winner here

FINAL SCORECARD

AT&T 1- CONSUMER 0 

On the more optimistic side, perhaps AT&T has actually altered their internal policies and is genuinely concerned with providing outstanding customer service and does not wish to confuse customers into spending more money on services they don't need. Time will tell, rather than AT&T or the commission. It should be noted that this decision puts AT&T's conduct in their own hands rather than the commissions. This on face seems fair and logical, but there was a reason why it was taken from them once and without noticeable changes and improvements, the premature April 24th decisions runs the risk of taking Californians backwards rather than forward.  The legislature should expand Public Utility Code §2896 to consolidate these types of marketing problems that AT&T and other utility companies use as part of their marketing strategy.

The fifth largest wireless phone company in the country,
Alltel, is being bought by Verizon Wireless. The deal, if approved by
regulators, would easily make Verizon the largest wireless company in the
country. There is little doubt that the deal will be approved. Verizon might
have to sell off or give back some of the wireless spectrum that it will
acquire that overlaps with areas it already operates within, but given the
recent history of wireless mergers (Cingular-AT&T Wireless; Sprint-Nextel)
and the approved acquisitions of other small wireless carriers (Dobson
Communications, SunCom, Edge Wireless, and Rural Cellular) the deal will likely
go through.

The question remains whether this transaction is really good
for consumers. Verizon's network will expand a little, but Alltel has always
seemed to be a bit of thorn in Verizon's side. Verizon even went so far as to
sue Alltel over one of its commercials earlier this year. In addition, in some
areas Verizon and Alltel were in direct competition with each other which will
now be lost. Over 13 million people had reason to choose Alltel as their
wireless carrier and now they lose that choice they made and become part of the
Verizon network.

There is also some question as to what will happen to the
CDMA network in this country. The three largest CDMA carriers are Verizon,
Sprint, and Alltel respectively. By 2010, Verizon intends to use LTE (Long Term
Evolution) technology on its 4G network. LTE is GSM based and the change will
leave Sprint has the only major carrier on the CDMA network and Sprint's
current future is open in the air with the rumors of potential mergers abound.

The Verizon-Alltel merger for some has been considered
inevitable given Verizon's past attempts to acquire the company and the
technology compatibility. The problem is where will this trend take us, there
appears to be no room for a fifth major competitor in the wireless phone
industry and considering the rumors of a T-Mobile-Sprint merger, how long before
the market is only big enough for 3 major carriers in this US.

Today the Associated Press reports that AT&T has settled a nationwide class action suit over 3rd party cell phone charges. Excerpts to the story are below:

The settlement shows the company "really does want to fix this problem and not benefit from any of the unscrupulous third-party instances out there," Jay Edelson, lead counsel for the plaintiffs said.

The company now requires customers who sign up for third-party services with recurring fees to confirm by replying to a text message. It also requires the content providers to send monthly reminders with instructions on how to unsubscribe from such services. Full story.

To read more about Tracie McFerren v. AT&T Mobility LLC or to file a claim click here.