Big business really wants to shove the $700 billion bailout down America's throat. AT&T and others want to scare us into supporting the bailout.

Related articles

Businesses Pressure Congress on Bailout Plan from the Wall Street Journal

AT&T feeling credit crunch strain from cnn.com

Power Net Global (PNG) customers have reported to UCAN that their local AT&T phone bills show they've been switched to a new long distance carrier called Williams Communications.  Although PNG insisted customers received notice of this change, not one customer reported ever seeing any notice.  PNG told UCAN it had an agreement with AT&T not to charge UCAN customers.  AT&T said it had no information about any agreement and by law, had to charge. 

PNG told UCAN that as a reseller of phone service, it uses the phone lines of other companies.  Prior to switching its agreement to Williams Communications, it used Quest's lines.  PNG alleged it switched to Williams because Quest's prices were too high.  UCAN does not endorse PNG.  In about 2002, PNG promised to provide great customer service to UCAN members and there were no added fees.  Now that PNG does charge fees and because it did not take care of its customers as promised, UCAN no longer believes it is the best long distance choice for customers.  

If you are a victim of a long distance "switch" charge, immediately call PNG at 1-877-441-6096 to request a credit for the charge.  Please also feel free to call UCAN at 619-696-6966 or write sue [at] ucan [dot] org to learn about better long distance options.  

UCAN is distressed at calls from relatives of AT&T customers trying to cancel service for deceased parents.  And when we say "trying", that's exactly what is meant both literally and figuratively.  Without the account passwords, cancellation of service for deceased persons is almost impossible.  A FierceTelecom article written by Doug Mohney summed up the problem and provided two examples showing consumers in two states are not happy with these AT&T billing and cancellation practices that can be read by clicking on the link above. 

Sons and daughters of AT&T customers have called UCAN to state that death certificates faxed to the company are not enough.  In addition, callers are promised return calls that never happen.  When relatives call the company again to see what else is needed to cancel an account and get credits, they are asked for passwords that no one knows.  In some cases, relatives reported to UCAN that their parent(s) never had passwords and therefore, it would be impossible to provide them.  FierceTelecom jokingly suggests putting all passwords into wills so accounts can be closed.  It turns out that it can be a very frustrating hurdle that no one needs while dealing with grief and burial plans.  

The only preventative measure UCAN can suggest is to make sure you are added to parents' accounts if they are ill or when you come to the realization that they may not be able to handle these account affairs on their own.  Because my mom is now almost 87 and although still very aware and bright, her vision and hearing are both impaired.  It was time to put myself on her accounts to protect her interests. 

The 442 area code is coming to North (San Diego) County. Will it be an overlay or split?

If you live in North County and want to keep your current phone number with the 760 area code, then e-mail the PUC urging adoption of the overlay. The Chambers of Commerce of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, San Marcos, Oceanside and Vista favor the overlay as well. They requested modification of the PUC's earlier decision favoring a split.

An overlay means all current 760 area code customers keep 760 and new phone numbers are assigned area code 442.

A split means the current 760 area code is split into 442 and 760. North County customers would be assigned to the new 442 area code.

After a well-attended Carlsbad public participation hearing overwhelmingly favoring the overlay, PUC Administrative Law Judge Maribeth Bushey wrote in her September 16 proposed decision, "We have considered the volume and substance of these comments and have determined that we should ... adopt a geographic overlay. This will allow all customers to retain their existing telephone numbers, which we understand to be the highest priority for customers."

The PUC is expected to issue a final decision on October 16.  For more information on this issue, use the excellent web site set up by activist Scott Chatfield who has done yeoman's work in not letting the initial overlay option die. (http://keep760.org/)

 Just a quick e-mail to the PUC at public.advisor [at] cpuc [dot] ca [dot] gov helps make sure the PUC implements the overlay.

Related sites, articles and blogs

Area Code protests result in tentative victory

Keep760.org

PUC - 760 Area Code site 

UCAN agrees with other consumer groups that the lengthy AT&T contract received by most residential customers was a silent alarm announcing price increases were coming and that we should be prepared for a raise in basic local telephone service. Well, Thursday on 9/18/08, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved price hikes of up to $3.25 per month on land line phones for the upcoming year through 2010. 

The only good part of the entire deregulation mess is that the CPUC kept a cap on local land line rates for 2+ years.  The major 4 phone companies were sure they would be granted total deregulation just like they've received everything requested over the past few years.  Consumer groups like UCAN aren't happy because they've constantly opposed every rate increase.  The dregulation of price is being sought in many other states as well. Just like when AT&T went to each state and the FCC to get support for recreating the Baby Bell monopoly, it is working just as hard to undo any price controls to charge you as much as it wants without any regulation.  We all have seen how that's worked for Wall Street!!!

After January 2011, Verizon, AT&T and the smller phone companies in California will be allowed to charge whatever they want for basic local service in most parts of the state, according to the CPUC.  

Several UCAN members have contacted us about AT&T's new 16-page Residential Service Agreement which is accompanied by a notice that begins, "Enclosed is the new AT&T Residential Service Agreement for residential services provided by AT&T. Please read it carefully."

The service agreement refers the customer to AT&T's Guidebook 28 times.

“Guidebook or Guidebooks” are those documents that contain the standard descriptions, pricing, and other terms and conditions for Services. In some jurisdictions, the Guidebook(s) may be called “Catalogs” or “Service Descriptions and Price Lists.” You can find AT&T’s Guidebooks at att.com/servicepublications. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may call your AT&T customer care center for assistance in obtaining a Guidebook, as follows: If you receive Services in AR, CA, CT, IL, IN, KS, MI, MO, NV, OH, OK, TX, or WI, call 1.800.288.2020. If you receive Services in AL, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, or TN, call 1.888.757.6500. AT&T reserves the right to modify the Guidebook(s) as described elsewhere in this Agreement; you should regularly review the Guidebook(s) for the Services to which you subscribe to ensure you are familiar with the current controlling terms and conditions.

The Los Angeles Times discussed the Guidebook in its September 14, 2008 article AT & T buries customer rights in 2,500-page 'guidebook'. When we contacted AT&T customer service to request the complete AT&T California Guidebook, the customer service representative (CSR) directed us to Guidebook - DRAFT, a collection of 20 parts, broken into multiple sections, many listed as "VACANT", each linked to a different pdf file. We asked how consumers, seemingly bound by the guidebook (and AT&T's future changes to its guidebook), without internet access can read the guidebook. The CSR suggested a trip to the library because the guidebook is only available on the internet.

We encourage you to send your comments objecting to the AT&T service agreement by e-mail to the PUC at public.advisor [at] cpuc [dot] ca [dot] gov

The word of the day is "irony." AT&T has sued Cox Communications for anti-competitive behavior at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  Specifically, AT&T wants access to Cox's Cable channel 4, a regional cable station in San Diego created by Cox over 12 years ago that shows upwards of 150 San Diego Padres baseball games.

The issue is likely to be hard fought, and is in many ways a unique question the FCC has not fully addressed.  On the one hand, Cox will argue that Channel 4 is not the type of "satellite-delivered" content the FCC compels cable companies to share with competitors.  Cox will argue that Channel 4 is  "terestrially" delivered station specifically exempted from forced sharing with competitors.

That said, the FCC has previously identified local sports programming as "must-have" type of programming, and could justifiably compel licensing of the Padres games to avoid giving Cox an unfair competitive advantage.  It is interesting to note that Cox licenses the channel 4 content and baseball games to Time Warner, which simply exists in other areas of San Diego County than Cox, as opposed to being a direct competitor. AT&T U-Verse competes with both Time Warner and Cox directly, and in its suits identifies the lack of Padres games as a documented reason for customers leaving U-Verse or being slow to adopt the new fiber-optic offering.

The irony of the suit by America's classic anti-competitive company is not lost on Cox.  Cox's position in various media reports is that Channel 4 is similar to AT&T's monopoly over the Iphone, and DirecTV's monopoly over NFL Sunday Ticket.  The problem is these analogies really don't work that well.  While its true the Iphone is limited to AT&T's network (unless you engage in various widely publicized hacks that void your warranty), consumers can still go out and get voice and data service, and even have some competing touch screen phones available on other carriers.  As to NFL Sunday Ticket, unlike channel 4, this service is all about out-of-market games, not so much local sports.  Indeed, you can use a $7 rabbit ears antenna and watch most of the chargers games (perhaps not those on ESPN), whereas if you don't get Time Warner or Cox, you simply don't get the Padres.  Believe it or not, the Padres are irreplaceable when you look at it that way.

The decision is likely to be quite interesting, and could increase competition regionally by making satellite and fiber optic options more competitive in offering access to the Padres games.

Of course if you're tech savvy enough, the day seems to be coming where you can largely dump your cable, satellite, or fiber optic programming and use the web entirely as your entertainment, news, and multimedia outlet.

For some, a laptop, proper tv connector cable, and hulu.com, youtube.com, and other video service websites are already an adequate replacement. With higher bandwidths and wider HD video offerings on the web arriving, the Internet itself can be traditional cable & satellite television's biggest competitor in the years to come.

You can read more about the FCC complaint here, or watch my interview with NBC here.

"Walkout against Student Protests" provided under a Creative Commons license by "uberculture."

If you have questions about using Creative Commons licensed content, or using a Creative Commons license on your own blogs, podcasts, photos, or other content, contact our affiliate New Media Rights at http://www.NewMediaRights.org for free legal advice and information.

In this morning's keynote from the "CTIA Wireless & Entertainment 2008" expo, show, extravaganza, cabal, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon agreed to speak in vague generalities and put no meat on the open access or open networks bones.  Each carrier talks about major caveats to its "open" policies, and each carrier has significant differences in how they define "open."  So for now, think of "open" as the new marketing buzzword, the new "green" if you will.  Look for the use of "open" to increase in use as a feel good marketing tool, and its meaning and substance to be inversely proportional.

Here's an article on the keynotes from FierceWireless, CTIA: Carriers talk "open" network but no clear definition

"During this morning's keynote session at the CTIA Wireless I.T. & Entertainment show in San Francisco, three of the top four U.S. wireless company CEOs attempted to explain their interpretation of "open" access and "open" wireless networks. However, it quickly became clear that "open" still means different things to different operators and some have a clearer vision than others."

Read it here then share your thoughts on open access and open wireless networks below.  What devices and services do you want to be able to use on your wireless network?

Until open access comes around for your own devices and services, you could always learn how to hack your cell phone at our affiliate New Media Rights.

A Sprint PCS customer in Connecticut wrote UCAN the following question and explained her personal story: How does joining an international calling plan for about a one-month trip to Israel end up costing double the entire cost of the trip?  The customer stated she couldn't find out how this amount was derived because her bill had no itemized call breakdowns to show how the billing total was determined. The customer called to dispute the bill and requested itemization of her bill.  The response was a demand for payment or service termination within ten days of the date of the notice.  The notice was recieved on or about August 18, 2008 and was dated August 10, 2008.

Background:  In preparing for the trip to Israel, the customer shopped for phone service that had the best international plan for incoming and outgoing calls in Israel. The customer's first choice was to remain with Sprint and therefore, was given Sprint's international plan costing $4 to initiate the plan based on the same conditions as the current calling plan and nothing extra beyond the $4 per month.  The customer's current plan was for 300 minutes per month for outgoing calls & unlimited incoming calls. Sprint had also added bonus minutes due to complaints about constant dropped calls in the middle of business conversations. On or about July 14, 2007, the customer's husband phoned Sprint for reassurance of the costs of calling home andthe costs of incoming calls from the family.  He was told outgoing calls were $1.49 per minute and incoming calls were $.07 cents per minute with $.69 cents per minute roaming charges. It couldn't get much better than this and so they had no worries about limiting the number of calls.

Boom:  Here comes the bill on or about August 14, 2008 after being put on hold repeatedly for 15-20 minutes each time. Sprint informed the customer a mistake was made on the rates quoted, but would honor the roaming charge of $.69 cents instead of the $2.49 per minute charged on the bill. This adjustment would have subtracted about $904 from the existing giant bill.

Lesson Learned:  If you don't see it in writing, don't count on it. If a company's web site didn't back the low rates quoted, you know there's a problem.  

Any international roaming nightmare stories to match this one?  Share them with the community below.

Fierce Wireless, one of the industry's leading electronic news monitoring sources, stated today in an article by Sue Marek, that Apple's IPhone didn't measure up to what it advertised and represented to consumers.  The main issues in the lawsuit included the fact that the connectivity speed for data, Internet & like functions were allegedly much slower than advertised and that there was erratic connection in general.  Read More.

Please post your experiences with the Apple IPhone 3G.