Call Toll-free to Donate

The American Red Cross is sending money, supplies and staff to Haiti to support relief efforts there after yesterday’s earthquake, which caused catastrophic damage and loss of life.

According to reports, as many as three million people may have been affected by the quake, which collapsed government buildings and caused major damage to hospitals in the area.

The Red Cross is contributing an initial $1 million from the International Response Fund to support the relief operation, and has opened its warehouse in Panama to provide tarps, mosquito nets and cooking sets for approximately 5,000 families.

In addition to Red Cross staff already in Haiti, six disaster management specialists are being deployed to the disaster zone to help coordinate relief efforts. At this time, the American Red Cross is only deploying volunteers specially trained to manage international emergency operations.

There has been an outpouring of support from the public. To help, people can make an unrestricted donation to the International Response Fund at www.redcross.org or by calling 1-800-REDCROSS (1-800-733-2767). The public can also help by texting “Haiti” to 90999 to send a $10 donation to the Red Cross, through an effort backed by the U.S. State Department. Funds will go to support American Red Cross relief efforts in Haiti.

Debris and collapsed bridges are making access to many areas extremely difficult. Telephone service and electricity are out in many places. Haitian Red Cross staff worked throughout the night to rescue people still trapped in their homes and provide first aid. The priority remains to provide food, water, temporary shelter, medical services and emotional support.

The American Red Cross already had fifteen staff in Haiti providing ongoing HIV/AIDS prevention and disaster preparedness programs. All are reported to be safe and responding to the disaster.

To date, there have been no requests for blood products from the government of Haiti. However, some patients at an affected facility in Haiti have been moved to a Guantanamo Bay hospital, and the Armed Services Blood Program has asked both the Red Cross and Florida Blood Services for support for those patients. In addition, the American Red Cross will be sending a shipment of blood products to the United Nations Mission in Haiti.

While communication with those in Haiti is still difficult, people should contact the U.S. Department of State, Office of Overseas Citizens Services at 1-888-407-4747 if trying to reach a U.S. citizen living or traveling in Haiti. If trying to reach a Haitian citizen, callers should continue to call or contact other family members who live nearby.

While donations are coming in for Haiti relief, the initial American Red Cross response is made possible in part by contributions from members of the Red Cross Annual Disaster Giving Program (ADGP). The following partners designate a portion of their ADGP commitment to the International Response Fund: American Express, John Deere Foundation, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Morgan Stanley and State Street Foundation.

How to Help

• We are not accepting volunteers to travel to Haiti. If you would like to volunteer for the American Red Cross, please contact your local chapter.
• For inquiries about relatives living and who have citizenship in Haiti, please be patient and call repeatedly until the lines clear or contact other family members who live nearby. Telephone, Internet and other communication lines are often disrupted in times of disaster.
• People trying to locate U.S. citizens living or traveling in Haiti should contact the U.S. Department of State, Office of Overseas Citizens Services, at 1-888-407-4747 or (202) 647-5225.

Photo: Matthew Marek, American Red Cross

About the American Red Cross:
The American Red Cross shelters, feeds and provides emotional support to victims of disasters; supplies nearly half of the nation’s blood; teaches lifesaving skills; provides international humanitarian aid; and supports military members and their families. The Red Cross is a charitable organization — not a government agency — and depends on volunteers and the generosity of the American public to perform its mission. For more information, please visit www.redcross.org or join our blog at http://blog.redcross.org.

From John writes to let us know Teresa Dixon Murray from The Plain Dealer in Cleveland, who broke the story about Verizon’s mysterious $1.99 data usage charge is back again with an update.

In a column last summer, I chronicled my battle with Verizon after I discovered Verizon had been concocting $1.99 monthly charges for supposed Web use by my family plan numbers. Verizon’s ruse ended the month that my son’s phone was dead and locked away for weeks.

Verizon responded directly to me in a meeting with several top executives, and they promised to investigate the problems suffered by thousands of customers nationwide. The company in August also promised to change its policy of charging customers if they accidentally hit their phone’s “mobile Web” button. The new policy: To get charged, customers now supposedly have to type in a Web address.

Dixon Murray

But Murray considers Verizon’s response more clever than truthful.  And the charges just keep on coming.  So are the comments piling up below Murray’s article on The Plain Dealer website reporting more mysterious charges.

Verizon’s response to the Federal Communications Commission claimed Verizon doesn’t charge customers who accidentally hit the mobile web button on their phones, because Verizon exempts the home page those phones first reach.  Murray points out Verizon forgot to tell the Commission that’s the policy now, after the bad press, but wasn’t the policy earlier when thousands of others were being billed as well.

But no matter, because Murray suggests Verizon has found all-new ways to sock those $1.99 fees on unsuspecting consumers.

Take my case. I got a new phone the first week of November and within 24 hours after I activated it, Verizon said I had incurred a $1.99 data usage charge. Never mind that I hadn’t actually used the phone yet.

Verizon said it accidentally eliminated the mobile Web blocks I had when it activated the new phone. Puh-leez.

So Verizon re-blocked my phone lines. Yet, the company says it recorded online access on Nov. 8, Nov. 14 and Nov. 21. Chris, a supervisor from Pittsburgh, is dumbfounded. He confirmed my phones are blocked. He doesn’t know how this is happening. He’s supposed to get back to me.

While I’m waiting, I’m making a few notes, actually a lot of notes, to give to the FCC.

Amazing that these billing errors always seem to work out in Verizon’s favor.  Maybe the cat has been using the phone to browse when you weren’t looking.  Maybe Verizon can continue to reap the rewards of collecting $1.99 from subscribers who feel it’s not worth the time and effort to protest the charges with a customer service representative.

This is ripe for one of those class action lawsuits where the lawyers make the big money and you get a coupon for a free cell phone case with your next purchase at a Verizon store.  Before that happens, Murray suggests you file a complaint with the FCC yourself.  Also, please do take the time to make the call to Verizon Wireless and demand credit if you’ve been hit with this charge.  It will cost them more than $1.99 just to handle your call, and you’ll probably get something more tangible than the outcome of a class action lawsuit.  It never hurts to ask them for additional discounts or free features to keep you a satisfied customer.

File A Complaint With the Federal Communications Commission

Redefining their “new position” to basically mean their “old position”

AT&T’s all-new position on Net Neutrality suspiciously sounds like its old position on Net Neutrality.

In a three-page letter addressed to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, James W. Cicconi, AT&T’s senior vice president for external and legislative affairs wrote in glowing terms about the Obama Administration’s efforts to expand broadband service and preserving the “open Internet.”  Those goals are shared by AT&T, according to Cicconi.  But are they?

AT&T has spent millions fighting Net Neutrality policies, calling them unnecessary and harmful to broadband innovation and investment.  Ed Whitacre, Jr., AT&T’s former chairman and CEO infamously kicked off a contentious debate when he declared content producers shouldn’t be allowed to use AT&T’s “pipes for free.”

Little has changed.

Yesterday’s letter to Genachowski brings nothing new to the table from AT&T.  In short, they still feel broad-based Net Neutrality regulations will be harmful to investment.  AT&T wants the FCC’s definition of Net Neutrality to be “flexible enough to accommodate the types of voluntary business agreements that have been permitted for 75 years.”  Flexible, in this instance, means gutting the clear, unambiguous prohibition against fiddling with Internet traffic and inserting loopholes that gut the policy’s effectiveness.  AT&T’s “voluntary agreements” never include consumers.

AT&T wants to provide “value-added” services to content producers who agree to pay more to obtain them.  That typically means additional speed or a guarantee of prioritized service.  Unfortunately, on a finite broadband network, those getting preferential treatment can reduce the quality of service for those who don’t pay.  By trying to refocus the FCC’s attention on obsessing over subjective interpretations of “unreasonable and anti-competitive” content discrimination, AT&T gets a free pass to configure a broadband protection racket and rake in money from content producers afraid to be stuck in the slow lane.

Cicconi

AT&T also continues to complain that such regulations would prevent the company from offering consumers “value-added” broadband services.  As long as those services do not discriminate, providers can freely provide network enhancements like faster speed tiers, “Powerboost” technology which temporarily speeds up connections, and even network management which keeps viruses, malware, and other junk traffic away from subscribers.

Ben Scott at Free Press, a consumer advocacy group, read between AT&T’s latest lines and saw a naked effort to gut Net Neutrality before being enacted:

“After leading a rabid anti-net neutrality lobbying campaign for years, AT&T now submits a letter to the Federal Communications Commission purporting to offer common ground,” Scott said. “What they are proposing would allow them to violate the core principle of Net Neutrality — letting them control the Internet by picking winners and losers in a pay-for-play scheme. That would destroy the free and open Internet, and the FCC should reject this false compromise out of hand.”

“Make no mistake, AT&T opposes Net Neutrality. Their proposed solution is a bait and switch. As bait, they ask to return to a standard of nondiscrimination that was long applied to the telephone network. But they fail to mention that this standard was part of a system of pro-competitive common carriage rules that they have railed against applying to broadband networks for years. They haven’t changed their mind about common carriage. They are simply cherry-picking one piece of the old rules and calling it a compromise. The entire Net Neutrality debate is about the creation of a new system of nondiscrimination that fits broadband networks, not telephone networks –a debate the telephone companies forced by stripping away consumer protection rules from broadband under the Bush administration,” Scott added.

Public Knowledge also called out AT&T in a statement from Gigi Sohn.

AT&T has tried to draw what is an imaginary line among types of discrimination. The company advised the FCC that while ‘unreasonable’ discrimination can be banned, any discrimination caused by ‘voluntary commercial agreements’ is just fine because the parties involved agreed to it. That is nonsense.

As we have said consistently, the Internet has functioned as well as it has because control of the crucial roles at each end of the network. Side deals made by a carrier like AT&T and a content provider or other company take that control out of the hands of the consumer.

Similarly, it is unfortunate that AT&T has resorted to the old tactic of threatening not to invest in its network if the company does not get what it wants in a rulemaking. The growth of the Internet will be driven by consumer demand, not by gimmicks. If the company is truly interested in consumers, it will allow consumers to remain in control.

Professor Rodney Tiffen

The Sydney Morning Herald ran a piece Friday morning that had absolutely nothing nice to say about the former leadership of Telstra, Australia’s “Private Telecom Monopoly.”

Sol Trujillo was the George W. Bush of telecommunications. For both, the American way was the only way. Being the biggest meant you did not have to do diplomacy, and both were better at starting wars than finishing them. Both used patronage and punishment to ensure a like-minded leadership group that made worse decisions more harmoniously.

Australians remain unimpressed with the tumbleweeds that routinely blow across the Land Down Under’s broadband superhighway — the result of a combination of failed government leadership, special-interest dominated public policies which put the interests of private companies ahead of their own citizens, and the predictable emergence of greedy telecommunications providers delivering the least possible service at the highest possible price for millions of Australians.

Rodney Tiffen, professor of government at the University of Sydney, calls out a succession of Australian governments which have repeatedly dropped the broadband ball, and have left the country with comparatively overpriced service with ludicrous Internet Overcharging schemes that punish citizens with usage caps, outrageous reductions in their broadband speeds or, worse, overlimit fees and penalties:

Australian consumers suffered particularly from the stringent caps placed on downloads and the high expense of exceeding the cap. While in nine of the countries no explicit caps were placed on broadband subscriptions, Australia was one of only four countries (with New Zealand, Canada and Belgium) where all survey offers included caps, and among these four was by far the most expensive when the caps were exceeded – an average of 11 cents per megabyte compared with 1 cent for the others.

Tiffen rejects the argument that Australians have to pay more because Australia has low population density.

“It should also be remembered Australia has a higher percentage of people living in large cities (defined as those with more than three-quarters of a million people) than any of the other countries (measured by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development),” Tiffen writes.

The key policy issue Tiffen identifies is: what is a natural monopoly and when does competition produce more dynamism and responsiveness to consumers? Since telecommunications reform came on to the public agenda about two decades ago, there had been a bipartisan failure to address this central question.

Tiffen wants Australia to recognize the mistakes America made dealing with its cable television industry — “replete with cases where a company controlling the delivery platform has favoured its own company’s channels over its competitors.”

“Indeed a private monopoly at a key gate-keeping point often leads to less competition in services than there would be with a publicly owned or regulated infrastructure,” Tiffen argues.

It’s bad enough when service providers overcharge us for service we use, but it’s even worse when they bill you for services you don’t.

Verizon Wireless may be looking at millions of dollars in refunds for customers who got dinged $1.99 monthly fees on their Verizon Wireless bills labeled mysteriously as “Usage Charges, Data.”

Two dollars on a phone bill that typically exceeds $50 or more is likely to be missed by a lot of consumers skimming the fees, surcharges, taxes and other impenetrable charges that get tacked on to your monthly service.  Even worse, since Verizon charges a fee for a printed bill, most customers never even bother to look at the electronic online bill beyond the general e-mail notification received each month letting you know it has arrived.  But some Cleveland-area residents did bother to take a look, and they didn’t like what they saw:

The Money Matters column chronicled the writer’s six-month ordeal with $1.99-per-month data charges and the possible causes given by Verizon’s customer service workers. All, it turned out, were wrong or only partly true.

More than 400 Plain Dealer readers responded to the newspaper with complaints similar to the ones in the column. The readers collectively pay for more than 1,000 phone lines. In addition, calls to customer service and visits to Verizon stores increased noticeably after the column.

Take a look at your billWhere to look for the data usage charge: The first page of your bill should have a section labeled “Quick Bill Summary.” Look under the summary for “Usage Charges, Data.”

What to do if you spot an error
Call Verizon customer service (800-922-0204) or visit a full-service store to investigate the charges and ask for a credit.

If Internet usage is the issue, ask technical support to track down the Web sites visited, and dates and times.

If premium text messages are the issue, determine whether you have applications that are downloading information automatically. Go to your “menu,” then click “media center.” You may need Verizon’s help determining what applications cost money.

You can block features you don’t use and don’t want to be charged for by accident, such as Internet access or the weather forecast. Access your account online, call customer service or visit a store.

At a minimum, thousands of customers apparently have been charged $1.99 per month for Internet “data usage” even though they had not tried to go online. In some cases, customers were charged when their phones were off, the batteries were dead, the phone’s Internet access was blocked or even when the phones didn’t have the software to go online.

One clue might be customers who inadvertently accessed the Internet browser just for a few seconds by mistakenly pressing the wrong keys on the phone.  Even a momentary activation of a Mobile Web service could generate the access fee, even if you hit the “end” key on the phone within seconds.

Frustrated customers catching the charge on their bills each month then have to pursue the ordeal of contacting customer service to have the charge removed, and frequently run into misinformed customer service representatives who argue the fees are valid for services customers don’t even have, or are offered free of charge by Verizon Wireless.

Some readers say they’ve been battling the charges for more than a year. Most said they’re tired of calling Verizon month after month. Some were irate because they’d punished their children because they wrongly believed the kids had gone on the Internet. One reader said his mom’s phone was charged for Internet access – weeks after the mother had died and her phone sat idle in her empty home.

Karen Fullerman of Twinsburg is typical of customers who complained to The Plain Dealer last week.

Fullerman has three phone lines; two are for her 23-year-old twin daughters. Fullerman has been charged $1.99 on one or two phones every month. And sometimes there’s an extra $9.99 download fee. Fullerman, who recently lost her job, said every dollar counts these days.

She insists that none of the three has gone on the Internet. And she said Verizon has told her repeatedly that the company has blocked the phones’ ability to go on the Internet – yet the Internet charges continue.

The same is true for James Grega of Brunswick, whose four phone lines with Verizon have been getting charged sporadically for about four months.

“The phones are still being charged after I had them blocked,” Grega said. “Their assurance that the $1.99 charges would stop has been a joke.”

Now, some customers who have repeatedly been credited for erroneous charges are being denied for future requests, and that is partly what prompted The Plain Dealer to get involved.

Verizon Wireless claims to be investigating the problem and promises customers full credit, assuming they specifically request it.  Therein lies a major problem for consumers, one that benefits providers with billing problems.  Consumers frustrated by long hold times or the aggravation of requesting credits may forego doing so, providing a windfall for the service provider based on a billing error.

Roger Tang, a regional vice president for Verizon, told The Plain Dealer it would resolve accidental web browser access when consumers hit the wrong buttons on their phones.  The default home page for most Verizon phones is Verizon’s own web page.  The company will make visits to that page exempt from Internet time charges “as soon as possible.”

A federal appeals court in Washington has struck down, for a second time, a rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission to limit the size of the nation’s largest cable operators to 30% of the nation’s pay television marketplace, calling the rule “arbitrary and capricious.”

Judge Douglas Howard Ginsburg

The 30% rule, designed to keep no single company from controlling more than 30% of the nation’s pay-TV subscribers, was originally written in 1993 by the FCC because the agency feared a concentrated cable television marketplace would stifle innovation, lock out potential new independent programmers, and discourage new forms of competition.  The cable industry immediately called the cap an overreach, and in 2001, found a friendly reception in court, with a ruling demanding the FCC reconsider the rule in light of competition from satellite television.

The FCC determined satellite competition was inadequate alone to justify reversing the 30% ownership limit, and essentially kept the limit in place, mostly at the urging of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, who regularly tangled with the cable industry during the Bush Administration.

The decision striking down the 30% rule came in a harshly worded ruling from Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg.

“In light of the changed marketplace, the government’s justification for the 30 percent cap is even weaker now than in 2001 when we held the 30 percent cap unconstitutional,” Judge Ginsburg wrote for a three-member panel of the court.

Ginsburg wrote the FCC was egregiously derelict in its revised rulemaking because it failed to heed the court’s direction, requiring the court to vacate the rule.

The ruling is a “significant gain for cable and apparent big victory for Comcast,” said Andrew Lipman, a Washington- based partner in the media, telecommunications and technology practice at Bingham McCutchen LLP.

The Philadelphia Inquirer noted some Wall Street analysts were pleased with the court’s decision:

Wall Street analyst Craig Moffett called the decision a “moral” victory for Comcast, which contended that the market-cap rule was politically motivated by the Federal Communications Commission and wouldn’t overcome a court challenge. The rule was passed under former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.

Speculation about what companies Comcast could likely snap up began immediately, ranging from a conceptual merger with Time Warner Cable, the nation’s second largest cable company, to quick buyouts of smaller players like Cablevision or now-bankrupt Charter Cable.

Consumer groups were alarmed by the court ruling.

“This is not the end of the fight,” Andrew Jay Schwartzmann, president and chief executive officer of the Media Access Project, a nonprofit policy advocacy group, said in a statement. “Big cable’s anti-competitive ownership structure has increased prices and limited choices for the American public. Therefore, we will consult with the FCC on whether Supreme Court review is feasible. If not, we’ll be asking Congress to pass new legislation to ensure more choice and lower prices for cable TV service.”

Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, noted that the intent of the original 1992 Cable Act was to promote competition and consumer choice.  Yet in most cities, consumers face a cable cartel.

“Today consumers experience perpetual price hikes by large operators that already have market dominating purchasing power to decide the fate of new channels. The promises of lower prices through competition from satellite and telecom companies in the video business have never been realized. We encourage the FCC not only to revisit cable ownership limits, but to examine a variety of policy proposals to achieve Congress’s goal to bring consumers more competition and more choice in the cable industry.”

ABC News reported that while Comcast won this legal battle, it has a way to go in the court of public opinion.

Cable providers Comcast, Time Warner and Charter draw low marks on the American Customer Satisfaction Index, tracked by the University of Michigan. On a scale of 0 to 100, Comcast and Time Warner each scored 59 this year. The satellite provider DirectTV ranked first at 71, with Cox Communications cable at 66 and DISH Network at 64.